This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Angels in Neon Genesis Evangelion article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | Angels in Neon Genesis Evangelion has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
![]() | This article contains a translation of Angeli (Neon Genesis Evangelion) from it.wikipedia. |
Several times in this document, passages like the following are present: "The thirteenth Angel, Bardiel, named after Barachiel," ... "Bardiel literally means "Humiliated Son of God,"". Can someone enlarge on these descriptions or provide some cites?
I would appreciate this, as the current wording seems to be contradictory. Either Bardiel is named after Barachiel, whose name is translated from Hebrew as "the Blessings of God" by Wikipedia ( in which case the claim of a literal translation is incorrect ), or the name is entirely independent, not connected to Barachiel except by virtue of also being a Biblical theophoric name ( in which case the claim that the angel is named after Barachiel is spurious ). - 219.194.176.65 13:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
In the section for Ramiel, the shield used against him (it?) is from a SSTO spacecraft; however, the article for Rei I says the shield is from a Space Shuttle (I hypothesize Endeavour or Discovery, since they are last to retire; however, none of the then-4 Shuttles ( Atlantis, Columbia, Discovery, Endeavour) would have survived Second Impact (I include Columbia because 2I was in 2000 and Columbia disintegrated in 2003). User:Missingno000 Saturday, 29 April 2007 : 1808 UTC
In vol. 9 of the manga, when Armisael begins to infect the saw that Kaworu is using, he refers to the Angel as an "encroachment type". Has this particular designation been used anywhere else in NGE-related materials? Willbyr ( talk | contribs) 01:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
OUT OF INTEREST
Ramiel actually has 5 different cores, you can see them all when it attacked EVA 01 when the protective shild was raised to protect the him, it transforms into a cross with 4 cours on each tip of the cross with one in the centre. It happens at around 1:01:00 into the movie. Thas why it didnt die when the first shot hit the first core, but in the end all the remaining 4 cores were lined up to produce that massive beam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.239.94.164 ( talk) 06:49, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
With regards to one of the edits located in the Tabris section, there was a mention about the AT Field of equal strength belonging to Rei. Since the AT Field is regarded as the 'light of the soul' wouldn't the AT Fields of these two actually be part of the souls existing within them and thus belong to Adam and Lilith respectively? (I was just going to put a shorter version this in the edit history, but I changed my mind and accidentally hit Enter so ignore that meaningless edit)
As the templates at the top of the page point out, this article doesn't cite (very many) sources. I was wondering: why don't we do what the articles on Bleach do, and just start citing individual episodes and, where appropriate, the individual chapters of the manga? (Note that Bleach does this, and is not labeled as lacking sources.) I think this is an excellent idea, and would help us toward getting the NGE article to featured status. Radioactive afikomen 15:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
The name issue may prevent this article from getting Grade-A status, but that is beside the point. Mostly, I was thinking of citations for the descriptions of the Angels and the battles with them. (And as long as we're on the subject, there should be a paragraph somewhere in the article noting the difficulty of sourcing the Angel's names.) Radioactive afikomen 18:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Personally, I don't understand why this sentence is in the article anyway (WP:Trivia), but regardless of that fact, kami (god) and kami (paper/hair) are pronounced differently in Japanese. "God" has the accent on the first syllable, while "paper" has the accent on the second syllable. While it might still seem like a good connection to make, as a native Japanese speaker, that's not a connection that I myself would ever have made, and without a (Japanese) source to back that up, I'd be hesistant about including it in the article. -- Egocentrism04 18:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Although I'm saving them for last, eventually I'll get around to doing a complete rewrite of the Adam and Lilith articles, on par with what I've done to the other Angel articles so far. (Currently, these articles look like... well, like fifty different people have been picking at them.) I'm asking for your help because they are the most difficult Angels to write about (they were never featured like the other Angels were, so I don't think my standard formula for writing Angel articles will work). I also don't want to cause any edit wars by removing some prized bit of speculation. Suggestions? Radioactive afikomen 16:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't think Lilith is an angel. It was never even really "implied" in the series that it is (let alone being the Second Angel). It says that all Angels descend from Adam, which, I guess, makes it the First Angel. But it was also said in the series that Adam comes from Lilith. So, is Lilith like, the origin? Kazenokazuki ( talk) 05:33, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
The origin of Adam and Lilith is explained, and the section on Adam states that the rest of the angels were descendant from Adam. But after the 2nd impact, Adam was reduced to an embryo form, and afterwards in SEELE's control and encased in bakelite (and then given to Gendo). Where were all of these descendants for the fifteen years between the 2nd Impact and Sachiel's attack on Tokyo-3?
Or, if that's never explained, at least, do we know when the Angels were separated from Adam? That is, did the 2nd Impact somehow create them all, or did they already exist before that?
The first paragraph of the article states that the Angels have 99.89% of the same DNA as humans. But, from what I recall during episode 3 (when Ritsuko is researching the remains of Shamhsel), she does not mention anything about DNA. (She does say something in science-babble, like "composed of both particulate and wave-form matter" and then says something about "99.89% similarity" to humans.) And what she displays on the computer screen is not DNA (which is typically displayed like a barcode) but something that resembles a mass spectrometer analysis.
This is a long and windy way of asking whether anyone can cite exactly what Ritsuko says about the "99.89% similarity" thing? (I do own the DVDs, but am unable to pull them out and check right now.) Radioactive afikomen 15:40, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
I have checked with my DVDs. Ritsuko's exact quote is "composed of a type of matter characterized by both particulate and wave properties, like light." (I'm quoting the official subtitling to the original Japanese dub. I am also at a loss as to why I'm even quoting this.) Ritsuko then shows the "Angel's inherent wave pattern" (crappy screenshot of this to the right) and states "Although they are composed of a different form of matter, their actual composition, in terms of the arrangement and spacing of the pattern, falls within a 99.89% match of human genes."
In spite of the screenshot, which distinctly shows a DNA/"GATTACA" pattern, Ritsuko explicitly states that the Angels are composed of a different type of matter altogether--so much so that the computer can't even analyze it--which rules out DNA by definition; it clearly cannot be deoxyribonucleic acid. Radioactive afikomen 04:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
DNA is DNA, whether it be human, animal, or angel. Most of you, if not all, are assuming the term DNA is in direct reference to humans, however, this is a misinterpretation. The image to the right presents the genetic sequence of an angel: C- Cytosine, G- Guanine (with every C complimented by G); A- Adenine, T- Thymine (with every A complimented by T).
Genes and DNA are somewhat the same thing, biologists don't really like saying that but its generally true (DNA codes for genes which code and produce proteins) If you save genes it will still be a reference to DNA. If angels have genes they have "DNA" so to speak, although it would be more appropriate to classify is as just genetic material if composed of a different matter. The image shown here, however, shows a computer analyzation of what I assume is the angel's genetic material. The fact that it shows the nucleotides (the building blocks of DNA) means it is Angel DNA. I'll go through the series to clarify on this. The angels are a separate evolution humankind could have gone stated by Misato and the fact that humankind and the angels seemingly have a common source (not the Black and White Eggs but the ancestral beings they came from) some sort of genetic material must also be shared. Fox816
I tend to hear that arguement a lot, no offense, and it is true, however even though it is an anime many of the real life rules and restrictions are still applied and many of the assumptions and conclusions that are made are based on the anime following real life science or atleast some or most of it. I agree on that based on the angel's composition DNA should be ruled out and that the term genetic material is more appropriate. However, the term genes must also be ruled out as well but for the sake of being simple the term genes and DNA can be used unless GAINAX has given a term for the angel's genetic material. You can't really use the terms genes without DNA as well. It just doesn't fit. Fox816
The note mentioning how Kaworu appears earlier in the manga is unnecessary. First off, the current synopsis of Tabris does not state at what point he arrived, it is general enough to apply to both the anime and the manga. Secondly, it belongs in the Kaworu Nagisa article, as it deals with Kaworu, not Tabris. (Strictly speaking, "Tabris" did not appear until he hijacked Unit-02. Anything prior to that describes Kaworu.) Radioactive afikomen 04:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Can someone eliminate the redundant references? I tried to, doing that thing that lets you cite the same source multiple times, and what kept happenning was a bunch of code appeared in the References section, with either part of the Adam article disappearing or part of the Lilim article, depending on how I tried to tweak things.
By the way, how do you all like my rewrite of the main section? (I'm so shameless, I know. ^_^) Radioactive afikomen 05:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm a bit confused about Adam in the series itself. In the article it says "Ryoji Kaji delivered the embryonic Adam, encased in dura-bakelite, to Commander Gendo Ikari." First of all, in the subtitled version that I have Gendo says "This is the first human being. . ." I'd be willing to bet this is wrong, but my confusion doesn't end there.
In episode 15, when Misato catches Kaji snooping around, Kaji shows her Adam, which is by no means embryonic, and pinned to the wall. If Adam wasn't planted into Gendo's hand, I would assume that Adam was somehow developed into the state he is shown in this episode.
I actually don't remember Gendo planting Adam in his hand, but I may just not have gotten that far yet (this time through). Maybe this is contributing to my confusion. Can anyone clarify this for me?
Chronic Addict 23:56, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
As for the first point. I assume you mean the bit from the end of episode eight?
Human is defined rather loosely in Evangelion, it includes the Angels Evangelions Lilim and the enigmatic entities known as the First Ancestral Race, which is only referred to in the show as "someone, who was not us." -- Tyrfing 01:58, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Aside from the unending job of reverting poorly conceived/executed edits, minor polishing, and long-term "eventuallies" (eventually, someone will fix the redundant references; eventually, someone will provide a source for the Angels' names, etc.), is this article finally finished? Radioactive afikomen 06:07, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Regarding this topic: One of the volumes of the NGE manga has Angel Kiss in the back. Is this just the 3- or 4-panel strip, or is there more to it? If there's more, is there a website somewhere that depicts it that can be linked? I ask because what's depicted in the manga is nowhere close to erotic, despite what the note in the article says. Willbyr ( talk | contribs) 04:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Got a new referece site, added in ref, learnt how to use ref name :) MythSearcher talk 11:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't care to start a debate as to whether Lilim is an Angel, but this article contradicts itself.
The article defines Angels as having specific properties:
But then explicitly states that mankind is an Angel:
Unless I'm mistaken, humans do not have blood type blue or S² engines. So... something is wrong. ~ Booya Bazooka 18:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, Humanity evolved from the 18th angel with is either lilith or Adam. So in a sense, humanity is, but not really. I agree totally that Evangelion does not fit together perfectly. However, it is a good series. 70.177.115.38 ( talk) 20:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
It's called "metaphor", people. Humans and Angels are the same basic beings with different parents. -- 71.82.222.44 ( talk) 08:32, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
In the End of Evangelion, NERV detects "Pattern Blue", and while Misato asked if its an angel, the response was "human". Kaworu has mentioned in episode 24 that human's AT Field is like the "wall of soul". So it can be viewed that AT Field is what separates one person from another person. It can be view that Rei, the offspring of Lilith, is Lilim, and she's one of the factor for the project. And since it's said that rest of the Angels come from Adam, who comes from Lilith, doesn't that make Lilim, who comes from Lilith, an angel too?
I've removed the "too many non-free images" template, as the vast majority of images have been replaced by refs to sites w/images and information about the Angels. As far as the remaining images go, I wouldn't mind seeing them stay, at least until they can be treated the same as the other pics. Willbyr ( talk | contribs) 04:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
*drums fingers* I'll leave the Sandalphon pic for now, as I'm assuming there was a good reason for putting in back in the article, but I'm culling any more that are put in. Willbyr ( talk | contribs) 03:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Is there any reason to keep image of ships in Gaghiel's section? L-Zwei 04:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
The article needs atleast a few images, to show it's subject! Doktor Wilhelm 15:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
And now we have a boring imageless article, courtesy of our deletionist friends.-- Gonzalo84 ( talk) 04:56, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Ramiel actually has 5 different cores, you can see them all when it attacked EVA 01 when the protective shild was raised to protect the him, it transforms into a cross with 4 cours on each tip of the cross with one in the centre. It happens at around 1:01:00 into the movie. Thas why it didnt die when the first shot hit the first core, but in the end all the remaining 4 cores were lined up to produce that massive beam. —Preceding
Can we say with certainty that Adam would have the same (non-mechanical) abilities as the Evangelions?
unsigned comment added by 220.239.94.164 ( talk) 06:48, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
No. That's speculation enough; Adam is more powerful than any Evangelion or Angel. Doubtless this includes Eva's power, but there's no need to mention that. -- Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici ( talk) 23:08, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
I have noticed that you have started to address some of the issues to attain B-Class: May I suggest a few pointers:
Regards, G.A.S 06:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
We should be more concerned with "conveying information" and the article simply does not conform to idealized standards, and indeed cannot: it is not a "list of Angels" but an article on "Angels" followed by a listing of individual ones; we would have made individual articles on each Angel but they got merged back into this one due to Notability rules; and cutting down the "Lead" would *gut the article*. Arguably what you consider "the lead" *is* the article, and we cannot possibly cut it down to 3 paragraphs without hacking it to pieces......thus I see no reason to do so. -- Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici ( talk) 05:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Are the "x no Tenshi" names really necessary? The only point I can see is as a pointless (and technically wrong, given that NGE uses 使途 not 天使 for angel) extra translation of the English translation of the Hebrew, and seeing as they're not used in the series I'm not sure it's relevant. 78.151.189.91 ( talk) 05:31, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I have removed this line, since this notion was actually due to a mistranslation in end of evangelion:
On the other hand, it has been revealed in both the series and the movies that Adam actually comes from Lilith, making her the "Mother of Angels". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ratstail91 ( talk • contribs) 10:22, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
the name should be different. Like "List of Angels in Neon Genesis Evangelion" anyone here like the idea? we seen examples like this, like List of Soul Reapers in Bleach or List of Hollows in Bleach. Please give me answer ASAP Bread Ninja( talk) 16:54, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
So removing rebuilding Evangelion section is agreed also? i also thought about it but wanted to set the mood until people were willing to listen. Bread Ninja ( talk) 17:24, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
ok, then. may i ask a reason for the disagreement?ok, maybe removing it completely wasnt the best idea, but rewriting it a more summary style would be better? Bread Ninja ( talk) 23:00, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
umm....we can just find notable sources, i havent tried looking for some in this page, but if i cannnot find any info that's reliable we could just change the name to "angels in Neon genesis evangelion" reverting it back to angels (neon genesis evangelion) seems off. Bread Ninja ( talk) 23:11, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
when you expect a title to hold (_) within the title you would expect, to Anime, manga, series, film, and so on to be between the perentesis, it's not really meant to actaully put in the title. And no, i do not understand why we should keep revivals angel. It's basically information we can move in each separate angel in the list. malkinann you arent really being clear on this. Bread Ninja ( talk) 03:52, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
sorry, i came back to edit my last comment. titles usually work like this "title name" then whatever is between the parenthesis would say (series, anime, manga, film, novel, etc.) like if there were two titles with the same name they would add a secondary title to differentiate the two.
another example. Bleach and Bleach (manga), one is about a product while the other is about the manga. Anyways...what i'm saying is we shouldn't keep it as Angels (neon genesis evangelion) because it's not really meant for that. Angels isn't really a true title if it's about angels in a series. that's why i proposed the name change. I don't understand malkinann though, i don't understand what she is trying to prove. Bread Ninja ( talk) 17:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
I was honest. i didnt lie to anyone. so what do any of you propose on the rebuild of evangelion. some of the description is too detail on some things that can fit in there own seperate sectiosn within the angels. this also doesnt explain what angels are. in the series they arent really confirmed angels, just beings that came from god which were given the name angels. Bread Ninja ( talk) 23:17, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
like i said, i don't change or remove anything without a discussion unless it's pretty obvious the article needs to be changed. for the evangelion articles it's a bit difficult to do that though. I thought you were talking about the title instead of the section Bread Ninja ( talk) 15:37, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
As it stands, the Rebuild of Evangelion Angel section could honestly make an article all to itself, discussing first and foremost the properties of each Angel and noting any differences from the television series, plus notes on the remaining Angels. If a split is felt to be unwarranted, I still feel that the article might be improved by incorporating the Rebuild elements into the actual list of Angels or by being made into a seperate list. Legendary ( talk) 17:46, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
separation of something that's practically the same? no. i honestly don't think Rebuild of Eevangelion should have it's own section within the article. the areas can easily fit inside each specific angels description. There is already a rebuild of evangelion article, so really splitting would be unnecessary. Bread Ninja ( talk) 19:16, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Separation might not be the best way, but it certainly needs some sort of revision. The Rebuild section, especially when it references 2.0, is not appropriately written for this page. For instance,
The 10th Angel, Zeruel, has also undergone massive changes and plays a vastly different role to its original counterpart. The Angel has more tendril-like appendages than the TV version and unravels itself like a mummy before attacking. Upon entering the Geofront the Angel first battles Mari Illustrious Makinami in the hijacked Unit 02. Despite Mari's best actions the Angel's strong offensive A.T. Field prevents her from laying a hand on it. Even after reverting to the inhuman "Beast Mode" the Angel is untouched. After defeating Unit 02, Rei in Unit 00 (piloting with Shinji's headset and tape player by her side, instead of Gendo's glasses) attacks with an N2 Missile but is able to halt the attack through the use of its A.T. Field. Unit 02 reappears and uses its teeth to physically chew through the A.T. Field allowing Rei to launch the missile at the core only to have a pair of teeth protect the core at the last second. The N2 Missile does little damage to the Angel who proceeds to eat Rei and Unit 00 which kickstarts a metamorphosis wherein the Angel from the shoulders down grows a translucent naked female body similar to Rei's. [...]
This paragraph and the entire next paragraph are little more than summaries of the plot. They should be removed or substantially revised. Trdaisuke ( talk) 00:42, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Most of the info in this article can be found in Gainax's commentaries. I've done the commentaries accompanying ADV's first Platinum volume, so hopefully someone could do the others?
-- Gwern (contribs) 02:11 1 March 2010 (GMT)
Is evamonkey even a reliable source? i felt like i asked this once, but dont remember exactly how the argument ended. Bread Ninja ( talk) 17:00, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
This site appears a bit....fanish...all you gave me was a directory. where do they get there information? i think wherever they get it is a better source than from using that site. Unless of course, they are gainax or something. Bread Ninja ( talk) 19:02, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
that's not what i meant. why dont we just say they got it from DVD box, then the site evamonkey? Bread Ninja ( talk) 21:20, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
i just removed some trivia and original research, it's mainly information saying stuff like "we don't know this", "it was never revealed" or "Although it is unclear" etc. I also removed some description that was unnecessary but maybe it was just badly worded so it might go back in. There is still some original research in the description, specifically on the translation of the name. such as saying something is appropriate due to angels once being messengers. it could be worded better. I will fix the angels and summarize the rebuild of evangelion section as well, or merge them together to the angel's section. Bread Ninja ( talk) 15:59, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Another thing that mainly fills trivia is plot description, not just for the angels, but for the characters, Evangelion (mecha) and glossary. I was wondering if i should remove most of the plot description. If it does pass, most of the information on the glossary and on the angel section will be summarized, i think the evangelion (mecha) was summarized enough though. Bread Ninja ( talk) 16:10, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
The various angelic names should not redirect to this page. Evangelion did not invent Armisael, for example, and the lack of a proper article on it does not make this it by default. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.96.197.210 ( talk) 23:31, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on List of Angels in Neon Genesis Evangelion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:05, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 8 external links on List of Angels in Neon Genesis Evangelion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:22, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
This article says that Bardiel is the "Angel of Haze" (霞の天使), while the Japanese Wikipedia counterpart says that it's the "Angel of Hail" (「霰」を司る天使). Which one is it? MarqFJA87 ( talk) 02:00, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
A template has recently been added that reports the article as excessively long and detailed. I ping the user in question; @ JoelleJay. Thank you, in first place~ Hope you don't perceive this as an attack. I respectfully disagree; while it is true that normally an article over 9,000 words would have to be cut, here we are not talking about a long article for plot reasons - it isn't really even a plot - and exceptions are guaranteed, especially considering the fact that we are talking about an article about characters - even if not human - with many reliable sources and many parts about conception, reception, and so on. TeenAngels1234 ( talk) 10:25, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
the great majority of any article must be drawn from independent sources. There should therefore be far less detail cited to these sources. JoelleJay ( talk) 03:26, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
An ongoing discussion at WT:GAN (link here) questions whether this article is overreliant on primary/non-independent sources, leading to issues with WP:OR, WP:WEIGHT, and WP:BALASP, all part of the GA criteria.
Pinging discussion participants @ JoelleJay, Hawkeye7, Asilvering, Trainsandotherthings, Thebiguglyalien, Chipmunkdavis, TompaDompa, and David Fuchs: the GA nominator/reviewer will be notified on their talk pages. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 13:13, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
particular minor details are important enough for inclusionis an editorial decision, not one we have firm policy about including or excluding. For a GA, we need to show that the article is sufficiently broad and that it does not go into excessive detail, but this is a quality of the writing and not related to whether sources are independent or not. We also need to ensure that the sources are reliable and the content is verifiable. If we have evidence that any of these sources are not reliable, we should not be using them, but not being fully independent doesn't mean they aren't reliable. -- asilvering ( talk) 16:34, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject.Primary and/or non-independent sources can be used for WP:Verification, but they do not establish WP:Weight of viewpoints or aspects—just as they do not establish WP:Notability of topics. TompaDompa ( talk) 17:22, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources.JoelleJay ( talk) 21:57, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
It is very unusual for academic and critical sources to write out the entire plot.I have written several articles on works of fiction where I have been able to source the entire plot synopsis to independent secondary sources. But even if we grant that, it is still not a particularly good example as plot summaries are basically a carve-out from the general rule that independent secondary sources are preferred. At any rate, we do indeed need to follow the weight of independent secondary (and perhaps tertiary) sources when writing articles; if primary and/or non-independent sources give much more weight to aspect A than aspect B whereas independent secondary sources give much more weight to aspect B than aspect A, we go by the latter in assessing WP:Due weight. These need not necessarily be the sources that are cited—hypothetically, one could cite non-ideal but reliable sources in the article in a way that perfectly reflects the overall literature—but when challenged, one must nevertheless be able to demonstrate that the article's contents accurately and representatively reflect the overall literature on the topic. Which I suppose is kind of the same thing as saying that it's not a problem unless it causes a problem, but in this case the adherence to WP:PROPORTION (among others) has been challenged and it really is up to the ones advocating for keeping this listed as a WP:Good article to show that it reflects the appropriate literature where the article does not cite it. TompaDompa ( talk) 22:48, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
I support delisting due to the excessive citation to non-independent and primary sources for the bulk of the background on individual angels. The amount of detail on each angel is simply not BALASP if it hasn't been discussed by secondary sources independent of NGE.and
We need commentary by people completely uninvolved in NGE in any way to demonstrate that particular minor details are important enough for inclusion.constitutes a proper challenge to WP:BALASP, but I suppose we could agree to disagree there. The same point was raised months ago on the talk page:
Material that has only been discussed by people close to the topic does not reflect the material's real-world importance to the topic as reported in independent publications. It presents an issue with NPOV as it leads to us emphasizing certain aspects of the topic solely because media exists by the creators of those aspects (who are of course going to promote them and provide lots of details) rather than because those aspects have been highlighted as significant by independent publications.The solution, if one believes that this does in fact reflect the weight in the appropriate literature accurately, is straightforward: point to that literature and demonstrate how this is true. If it is indeed the case that this reflects the weight in the appropriate literature accurately, a lot of time and effort could have been saved by simply citing that literature in the first place. As we do not solely use sources for WP:Verification but also for establishing WP:Weight, I would suggest that our best practices include citing sources that demonstrate weight even if they are not necessary for verification (typically because verification is covered by other sources). That's what I do in cases like this—or rather, I do it the other way around: I supplement the sources that establish weight with the ones that provide additional verification. TompaDompa ( talk) 08:46, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
Articles may make an analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claim only if it has been published by a reliable secondary source. JoelleJay ( talk) 01:13, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
Angels are organic beings whose atomic structure has both particle and wave nature, and therefore characterized by the wave-particle duality of light.(not sourced) and
The Angels' genetic makeup has a 99.89% affinity with that of humans.(not sourced in this section; it is sourced in another section where the claim is limited to one angel
The arrangement and coordinates of the fourth Angel signals correspond 99.89% to those in the human gene pool.and is attributed to Ritsuko Akagi, a fictional character) and
Their names and attacks have been prophesied in the Dead Sea Scrolls, ancient documents in the possession of a secret organization called Seelein wikivoice. These are unattributed, likely UNDUE details that egregiously mischaracterize real things. How much of the rest of this 150kb article contains similarly inappropriate and misleading material? JoelleJay ( talk) 16:40, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
maintained using an inverted AT Field, within which extends a number-imaginary space,[284] a parallel dimension named Dirac Sea. Not least because it legitimizes an amateurish misrepresentation of the Dirac sea (since when is this purely theoretical model a "parallel dimension"?). JoelleJay ( talk) 17:16, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
According to the Old Testament book of Genesis, God created Adam, the first human being, in His image. On the etymological origin of the name Adam (Hebrew: אָדָם, Modern: 'Adam, Tiberian: ʾĀḏām) have been formulated several theories, for which it would mean "earth", "red" or "created".[45][87] God then creates Eve, the first woman, from Adam. In the twenty-first episode of Neon Genesis Evangelion, it is revealed the Evangelions were similarly created from biological material from Adam.[88][89] In the Jewish Kabbalah, Adam is described as a kind of deity, a being that is capable of giving life and as an entity to which all things are destined to return at the end of time. According to writers Kazuhisa Fujie and Martin Foster, in the series Kaworu Nagisa states those who come from Adam must return to Adam referring to this tradition.[90]
According to a guide on the series contained in a manual for the card game Neon Genesis Evangelion RPG (新世紀エヴァンゲリオンRPG, Shinseiki Evangerion RPG), there is a connection between the Angels; each Angel seems to be an evolutionary outgrowth of the previous one, and the fact they attack one at a time suggests they are aware of the status of each of the other specimens and react accordingly.), are presented in-universe (the Dead Sea Scrolls issue, for example), or are just nonsensical (
To verify the nature of an Angel, Nerv analyzes a wave diagram of unidentified objects, which is indicated by the expression "Blood Type: Blue".). Not every detail mentioned in passing by even secondary independent sources needs to be reflected in the article. JoelleJay ( talk) 01:46, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
I asked for a third opinion especially after the sudden inactivity from this reassessment. Tintor2 ( talk) 22:41, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
Dani Cavallaro's publications have been designated as generally unreliable sources in this discussion at the reliable sources noticeboard. Citations to her work can be replaced with more high-quality ones or removed, and the tag can be taken off once complete. — TechnoSquirrel69 ( sigh) 20:02, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Angels in Neon Genesis Evangelion article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | Angels in Neon Genesis Evangelion has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
![]() | This article contains a translation of Angeli (Neon Genesis Evangelion) from it.wikipedia. |
Several times in this document, passages like the following are present: "The thirteenth Angel, Bardiel, named after Barachiel," ... "Bardiel literally means "Humiliated Son of God,"". Can someone enlarge on these descriptions or provide some cites?
I would appreciate this, as the current wording seems to be contradictory. Either Bardiel is named after Barachiel, whose name is translated from Hebrew as "the Blessings of God" by Wikipedia ( in which case the claim of a literal translation is incorrect ), or the name is entirely independent, not connected to Barachiel except by virtue of also being a Biblical theophoric name ( in which case the claim that the angel is named after Barachiel is spurious ). - 219.194.176.65 13:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
In the section for Ramiel, the shield used against him (it?) is from a SSTO spacecraft; however, the article for Rei I says the shield is from a Space Shuttle (I hypothesize Endeavour or Discovery, since they are last to retire; however, none of the then-4 Shuttles ( Atlantis, Columbia, Discovery, Endeavour) would have survived Second Impact (I include Columbia because 2I was in 2000 and Columbia disintegrated in 2003). User:Missingno000 Saturday, 29 April 2007 : 1808 UTC
In vol. 9 of the manga, when Armisael begins to infect the saw that Kaworu is using, he refers to the Angel as an "encroachment type". Has this particular designation been used anywhere else in NGE-related materials? Willbyr ( talk | contribs) 01:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
OUT OF INTEREST
Ramiel actually has 5 different cores, you can see them all when it attacked EVA 01 when the protective shild was raised to protect the him, it transforms into a cross with 4 cours on each tip of the cross with one in the centre. It happens at around 1:01:00 into the movie. Thas why it didnt die when the first shot hit the first core, but in the end all the remaining 4 cores were lined up to produce that massive beam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.239.94.164 ( talk) 06:49, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
With regards to one of the edits located in the Tabris section, there was a mention about the AT Field of equal strength belonging to Rei. Since the AT Field is regarded as the 'light of the soul' wouldn't the AT Fields of these two actually be part of the souls existing within them and thus belong to Adam and Lilith respectively? (I was just going to put a shorter version this in the edit history, but I changed my mind and accidentally hit Enter so ignore that meaningless edit)
As the templates at the top of the page point out, this article doesn't cite (very many) sources. I was wondering: why don't we do what the articles on Bleach do, and just start citing individual episodes and, where appropriate, the individual chapters of the manga? (Note that Bleach does this, and is not labeled as lacking sources.) I think this is an excellent idea, and would help us toward getting the NGE article to featured status. Radioactive afikomen 15:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
The name issue may prevent this article from getting Grade-A status, but that is beside the point. Mostly, I was thinking of citations for the descriptions of the Angels and the battles with them. (And as long as we're on the subject, there should be a paragraph somewhere in the article noting the difficulty of sourcing the Angel's names.) Radioactive afikomen 18:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Personally, I don't understand why this sentence is in the article anyway (WP:Trivia), but regardless of that fact, kami (god) and kami (paper/hair) are pronounced differently in Japanese. "God" has the accent on the first syllable, while "paper" has the accent on the second syllable. While it might still seem like a good connection to make, as a native Japanese speaker, that's not a connection that I myself would ever have made, and without a (Japanese) source to back that up, I'd be hesistant about including it in the article. -- Egocentrism04 18:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Although I'm saving them for last, eventually I'll get around to doing a complete rewrite of the Adam and Lilith articles, on par with what I've done to the other Angel articles so far. (Currently, these articles look like... well, like fifty different people have been picking at them.) I'm asking for your help because they are the most difficult Angels to write about (they were never featured like the other Angels were, so I don't think my standard formula for writing Angel articles will work). I also don't want to cause any edit wars by removing some prized bit of speculation. Suggestions? Radioactive afikomen 16:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't think Lilith is an angel. It was never even really "implied" in the series that it is (let alone being the Second Angel). It says that all Angels descend from Adam, which, I guess, makes it the First Angel. But it was also said in the series that Adam comes from Lilith. So, is Lilith like, the origin? Kazenokazuki ( talk) 05:33, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
The origin of Adam and Lilith is explained, and the section on Adam states that the rest of the angels were descendant from Adam. But after the 2nd impact, Adam was reduced to an embryo form, and afterwards in SEELE's control and encased in bakelite (and then given to Gendo). Where were all of these descendants for the fifteen years between the 2nd Impact and Sachiel's attack on Tokyo-3?
Or, if that's never explained, at least, do we know when the Angels were separated from Adam? That is, did the 2nd Impact somehow create them all, or did they already exist before that?
The first paragraph of the article states that the Angels have 99.89% of the same DNA as humans. But, from what I recall during episode 3 (when Ritsuko is researching the remains of Shamhsel), she does not mention anything about DNA. (She does say something in science-babble, like "composed of both particulate and wave-form matter" and then says something about "99.89% similarity" to humans.) And what she displays on the computer screen is not DNA (which is typically displayed like a barcode) but something that resembles a mass spectrometer analysis.
This is a long and windy way of asking whether anyone can cite exactly what Ritsuko says about the "99.89% similarity" thing? (I do own the DVDs, but am unable to pull them out and check right now.) Radioactive afikomen 15:40, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
I have checked with my DVDs. Ritsuko's exact quote is "composed of a type of matter characterized by both particulate and wave properties, like light." (I'm quoting the official subtitling to the original Japanese dub. I am also at a loss as to why I'm even quoting this.) Ritsuko then shows the "Angel's inherent wave pattern" (crappy screenshot of this to the right) and states "Although they are composed of a different form of matter, their actual composition, in terms of the arrangement and spacing of the pattern, falls within a 99.89% match of human genes."
In spite of the screenshot, which distinctly shows a DNA/"GATTACA" pattern, Ritsuko explicitly states that the Angels are composed of a different type of matter altogether--so much so that the computer can't even analyze it--which rules out DNA by definition; it clearly cannot be deoxyribonucleic acid. Radioactive afikomen 04:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
DNA is DNA, whether it be human, animal, or angel. Most of you, if not all, are assuming the term DNA is in direct reference to humans, however, this is a misinterpretation. The image to the right presents the genetic sequence of an angel: C- Cytosine, G- Guanine (with every C complimented by G); A- Adenine, T- Thymine (with every A complimented by T).
Genes and DNA are somewhat the same thing, biologists don't really like saying that but its generally true (DNA codes for genes which code and produce proteins) If you save genes it will still be a reference to DNA. If angels have genes they have "DNA" so to speak, although it would be more appropriate to classify is as just genetic material if composed of a different matter. The image shown here, however, shows a computer analyzation of what I assume is the angel's genetic material. The fact that it shows the nucleotides (the building blocks of DNA) means it is Angel DNA. I'll go through the series to clarify on this. The angels are a separate evolution humankind could have gone stated by Misato and the fact that humankind and the angels seemingly have a common source (not the Black and White Eggs but the ancestral beings they came from) some sort of genetic material must also be shared. Fox816
I tend to hear that arguement a lot, no offense, and it is true, however even though it is an anime many of the real life rules and restrictions are still applied and many of the assumptions and conclusions that are made are based on the anime following real life science or atleast some or most of it. I agree on that based on the angel's composition DNA should be ruled out and that the term genetic material is more appropriate. However, the term genes must also be ruled out as well but for the sake of being simple the term genes and DNA can be used unless GAINAX has given a term for the angel's genetic material. You can't really use the terms genes without DNA as well. It just doesn't fit. Fox816
The note mentioning how Kaworu appears earlier in the manga is unnecessary. First off, the current synopsis of Tabris does not state at what point he arrived, it is general enough to apply to both the anime and the manga. Secondly, it belongs in the Kaworu Nagisa article, as it deals with Kaworu, not Tabris. (Strictly speaking, "Tabris" did not appear until he hijacked Unit-02. Anything prior to that describes Kaworu.) Radioactive afikomen 04:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Can someone eliminate the redundant references? I tried to, doing that thing that lets you cite the same source multiple times, and what kept happenning was a bunch of code appeared in the References section, with either part of the Adam article disappearing or part of the Lilim article, depending on how I tried to tweak things.
By the way, how do you all like my rewrite of the main section? (I'm so shameless, I know. ^_^) Radioactive afikomen 05:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm a bit confused about Adam in the series itself. In the article it says "Ryoji Kaji delivered the embryonic Adam, encased in dura-bakelite, to Commander Gendo Ikari." First of all, in the subtitled version that I have Gendo says "This is the first human being. . ." I'd be willing to bet this is wrong, but my confusion doesn't end there.
In episode 15, when Misato catches Kaji snooping around, Kaji shows her Adam, which is by no means embryonic, and pinned to the wall. If Adam wasn't planted into Gendo's hand, I would assume that Adam was somehow developed into the state he is shown in this episode.
I actually don't remember Gendo planting Adam in his hand, but I may just not have gotten that far yet (this time through). Maybe this is contributing to my confusion. Can anyone clarify this for me?
Chronic Addict 23:56, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
As for the first point. I assume you mean the bit from the end of episode eight?
Human is defined rather loosely in Evangelion, it includes the Angels Evangelions Lilim and the enigmatic entities known as the First Ancestral Race, which is only referred to in the show as "someone, who was not us." -- Tyrfing 01:58, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Aside from the unending job of reverting poorly conceived/executed edits, minor polishing, and long-term "eventuallies" (eventually, someone will fix the redundant references; eventually, someone will provide a source for the Angels' names, etc.), is this article finally finished? Radioactive afikomen 06:07, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Regarding this topic: One of the volumes of the NGE manga has Angel Kiss in the back. Is this just the 3- or 4-panel strip, or is there more to it? If there's more, is there a website somewhere that depicts it that can be linked? I ask because what's depicted in the manga is nowhere close to erotic, despite what the note in the article says. Willbyr ( talk | contribs) 04:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Got a new referece site, added in ref, learnt how to use ref name :) MythSearcher talk 11:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't care to start a debate as to whether Lilim is an Angel, but this article contradicts itself.
The article defines Angels as having specific properties:
But then explicitly states that mankind is an Angel:
Unless I'm mistaken, humans do not have blood type blue or S² engines. So... something is wrong. ~ Booya Bazooka 18:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, Humanity evolved from the 18th angel with is either lilith or Adam. So in a sense, humanity is, but not really. I agree totally that Evangelion does not fit together perfectly. However, it is a good series. 70.177.115.38 ( talk) 20:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
It's called "metaphor", people. Humans and Angels are the same basic beings with different parents. -- 71.82.222.44 ( talk) 08:32, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
In the End of Evangelion, NERV detects "Pattern Blue", and while Misato asked if its an angel, the response was "human". Kaworu has mentioned in episode 24 that human's AT Field is like the "wall of soul". So it can be viewed that AT Field is what separates one person from another person. It can be view that Rei, the offspring of Lilith, is Lilim, and she's one of the factor for the project. And since it's said that rest of the Angels come from Adam, who comes from Lilith, doesn't that make Lilim, who comes from Lilith, an angel too?
I've removed the "too many non-free images" template, as the vast majority of images have been replaced by refs to sites w/images and information about the Angels. As far as the remaining images go, I wouldn't mind seeing them stay, at least until they can be treated the same as the other pics. Willbyr ( talk | contribs) 04:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
*drums fingers* I'll leave the Sandalphon pic for now, as I'm assuming there was a good reason for putting in back in the article, but I'm culling any more that are put in. Willbyr ( talk | contribs) 03:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Is there any reason to keep image of ships in Gaghiel's section? L-Zwei 04:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
The article needs atleast a few images, to show it's subject! Doktor Wilhelm 15:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
And now we have a boring imageless article, courtesy of our deletionist friends.-- Gonzalo84 ( talk) 04:56, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Ramiel actually has 5 different cores, you can see them all when it attacked EVA 01 when the protective shild was raised to protect the him, it transforms into a cross with 4 cours on each tip of the cross with one in the centre. It happens at around 1:01:00 into the movie. Thas why it didnt die when the first shot hit the first core, but in the end all the remaining 4 cores were lined up to produce that massive beam. —Preceding
Can we say with certainty that Adam would have the same (non-mechanical) abilities as the Evangelions?
unsigned comment added by 220.239.94.164 ( talk) 06:48, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
No. That's speculation enough; Adam is more powerful than any Evangelion or Angel. Doubtless this includes Eva's power, but there's no need to mention that. -- Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici ( talk) 23:08, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
I have noticed that you have started to address some of the issues to attain B-Class: May I suggest a few pointers:
Regards, G.A.S 06:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
We should be more concerned with "conveying information" and the article simply does not conform to idealized standards, and indeed cannot: it is not a "list of Angels" but an article on "Angels" followed by a listing of individual ones; we would have made individual articles on each Angel but they got merged back into this one due to Notability rules; and cutting down the "Lead" would *gut the article*. Arguably what you consider "the lead" *is* the article, and we cannot possibly cut it down to 3 paragraphs without hacking it to pieces......thus I see no reason to do so. -- Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici ( talk) 05:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Are the "x no Tenshi" names really necessary? The only point I can see is as a pointless (and technically wrong, given that NGE uses 使途 not 天使 for angel) extra translation of the English translation of the Hebrew, and seeing as they're not used in the series I'm not sure it's relevant. 78.151.189.91 ( talk) 05:31, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I have removed this line, since this notion was actually due to a mistranslation in end of evangelion:
On the other hand, it has been revealed in both the series and the movies that Adam actually comes from Lilith, making her the "Mother of Angels". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ratstail91 ( talk • contribs) 10:22, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
the name should be different. Like "List of Angels in Neon Genesis Evangelion" anyone here like the idea? we seen examples like this, like List of Soul Reapers in Bleach or List of Hollows in Bleach. Please give me answer ASAP Bread Ninja( talk) 16:54, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
So removing rebuilding Evangelion section is agreed also? i also thought about it but wanted to set the mood until people were willing to listen. Bread Ninja ( talk) 17:24, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
ok, then. may i ask a reason for the disagreement?ok, maybe removing it completely wasnt the best idea, but rewriting it a more summary style would be better? Bread Ninja ( talk) 23:00, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
umm....we can just find notable sources, i havent tried looking for some in this page, but if i cannnot find any info that's reliable we could just change the name to "angels in Neon genesis evangelion" reverting it back to angels (neon genesis evangelion) seems off. Bread Ninja ( talk) 23:11, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
when you expect a title to hold (_) within the title you would expect, to Anime, manga, series, film, and so on to be between the perentesis, it's not really meant to actaully put in the title. And no, i do not understand why we should keep revivals angel. It's basically information we can move in each separate angel in the list. malkinann you arent really being clear on this. Bread Ninja ( talk) 03:52, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
sorry, i came back to edit my last comment. titles usually work like this "title name" then whatever is between the parenthesis would say (series, anime, manga, film, novel, etc.) like if there were two titles with the same name they would add a secondary title to differentiate the two.
another example. Bleach and Bleach (manga), one is about a product while the other is about the manga. Anyways...what i'm saying is we shouldn't keep it as Angels (neon genesis evangelion) because it's not really meant for that. Angels isn't really a true title if it's about angels in a series. that's why i proposed the name change. I don't understand malkinann though, i don't understand what she is trying to prove. Bread Ninja ( talk) 17:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
I was honest. i didnt lie to anyone. so what do any of you propose on the rebuild of evangelion. some of the description is too detail on some things that can fit in there own seperate sectiosn within the angels. this also doesnt explain what angels are. in the series they arent really confirmed angels, just beings that came from god which were given the name angels. Bread Ninja ( talk) 23:17, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
like i said, i don't change or remove anything without a discussion unless it's pretty obvious the article needs to be changed. for the evangelion articles it's a bit difficult to do that though. I thought you were talking about the title instead of the section Bread Ninja ( talk) 15:37, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
As it stands, the Rebuild of Evangelion Angel section could honestly make an article all to itself, discussing first and foremost the properties of each Angel and noting any differences from the television series, plus notes on the remaining Angels. If a split is felt to be unwarranted, I still feel that the article might be improved by incorporating the Rebuild elements into the actual list of Angels or by being made into a seperate list. Legendary ( talk) 17:46, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
separation of something that's practically the same? no. i honestly don't think Rebuild of Eevangelion should have it's own section within the article. the areas can easily fit inside each specific angels description. There is already a rebuild of evangelion article, so really splitting would be unnecessary. Bread Ninja ( talk) 19:16, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Separation might not be the best way, but it certainly needs some sort of revision. The Rebuild section, especially when it references 2.0, is not appropriately written for this page. For instance,
The 10th Angel, Zeruel, has also undergone massive changes and plays a vastly different role to its original counterpart. The Angel has more tendril-like appendages than the TV version and unravels itself like a mummy before attacking. Upon entering the Geofront the Angel first battles Mari Illustrious Makinami in the hijacked Unit 02. Despite Mari's best actions the Angel's strong offensive A.T. Field prevents her from laying a hand on it. Even after reverting to the inhuman "Beast Mode" the Angel is untouched. After defeating Unit 02, Rei in Unit 00 (piloting with Shinji's headset and tape player by her side, instead of Gendo's glasses) attacks with an N2 Missile but is able to halt the attack through the use of its A.T. Field. Unit 02 reappears and uses its teeth to physically chew through the A.T. Field allowing Rei to launch the missile at the core only to have a pair of teeth protect the core at the last second. The N2 Missile does little damage to the Angel who proceeds to eat Rei and Unit 00 which kickstarts a metamorphosis wherein the Angel from the shoulders down grows a translucent naked female body similar to Rei's. [...]
This paragraph and the entire next paragraph are little more than summaries of the plot. They should be removed or substantially revised. Trdaisuke ( talk) 00:42, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Most of the info in this article can be found in Gainax's commentaries. I've done the commentaries accompanying ADV's first Platinum volume, so hopefully someone could do the others?
-- Gwern (contribs) 02:11 1 March 2010 (GMT)
Is evamonkey even a reliable source? i felt like i asked this once, but dont remember exactly how the argument ended. Bread Ninja ( talk) 17:00, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
This site appears a bit....fanish...all you gave me was a directory. where do they get there information? i think wherever they get it is a better source than from using that site. Unless of course, they are gainax or something. Bread Ninja ( talk) 19:02, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
that's not what i meant. why dont we just say they got it from DVD box, then the site evamonkey? Bread Ninja ( talk) 21:20, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
i just removed some trivia and original research, it's mainly information saying stuff like "we don't know this", "it was never revealed" or "Although it is unclear" etc. I also removed some description that was unnecessary but maybe it was just badly worded so it might go back in. There is still some original research in the description, specifically on the translation of the name. such as saying something is appropriate due to angels once being messengers. it could be worded better. I will fix the angels and summarize the rebuild of evangelion section as well, or merge them together to the angel's section. Bread Ninja ( talk) 15:59, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Another thing that mainly fills trivia is plot description, not just for the angels, but for the characters, Evangelion (mecha) and glossary. I was wondering if i should remove most of the plot description. If it does pass, most of the information on the glossary and on the angel section will be summarized, i think the evangelion (mecha) was summarized enough though. Bread Ninja ( talk) 16:10, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
The various angelic names should not redirect to this page. Evangelion did not invent Armisael, for example, and the lack of a proper article on it does not make this it by default. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.96.197.210 ( talk) 23:31, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on List of Angels in Neon Genesis Evangelion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:05, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 8 external links on List of Angels in Neon Genesis Evangelion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:22, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
This article says that Bardiel is the "Angel of Haze" (霞の天使), while the Japanese Wikipedia counterpart says that it's the "Angel of Hail" (「霰」を司る天使). Which one is it? MarqFJA87 ( talk) 02:00, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
A template has recently been added that reports the article as excessively long and detailed. I ping the user in question; @ JoelleJay. Thank you, in first place~ Hope you don't perceive this as an attack. I respectfully disagree; while it is true that normally an article over 9,000 words would have to be cut, here we are not talking about a long article for plot reasons - it isn't really even a plot - and exceptions are guaranteed, especially considering the fact that we are talking about an article about characters - even if not human - with many reliable sources and many parts about conception, reception, and so on. TeenAngels1234 ( talk) 10:25, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
the great majority of any article must be drawn from independent sources. There should therefore be far less detail cited to these sources. JoelleJay ( talk) 03:26, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
An ongoing discussion at WT:GAN (link here) questions whether this article is overreliant on primary/non-independent sources, leading to issues with WP:OR, WP:WEIGHT, and WP:BALASP, all part of the GA criteria.
Pinging discussion participants @ JoelleJay, Hawkeye7, Asilvering, Trainsandotherthings, Thebiguglyalien, Chipmunkdavis, TompaDompa, and David Fuchs: the GA nominator/reviewer will be notified on their talk pages. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 13:13, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
particular minor details are important enough for inclusionis an editorial decision, not one we have firm policy about including or excluding. For a GA, we need to show that the article is sufficiently broad and that it does not go into excessive detail, but this is a quality of the writing and not related to whether sources are independent or not. We also need to ensure that the sources are reliable and the content is verifiable. If we have evidence that any of these sources are not reliable, we should not be using them, but not being fully independent doesn't mean they aren't reliable. -- asilvering ( talk) 16:34, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject.Primary and/or non-independent sources can be used for WP:Verification, but they do not establish WP:Weight of viewpoints or aspects—just as they do not establish WP:Notability of topics. TompaDompa ( talk) 17:22, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources.JoelleJay ( talk) 21:57, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
It is very unusual for academic and critical sources to write out the entire plot.I have written several articles on works of fiction where I have been able to source the entire plot synopsis to independent secondary sources. But even if we grant that, it is still not a particularly good example as plot summaries are basically a carve-out from the general rule that independent secondary sources are preferred. At any rate, we do indeed need to follow the weight of independent secondary (and perhaps tertiary) sources when writing articles; if primary and/or non-independent sources give much more weight to aspect A than aspect B whereas independent secondary sources give much more weight to aspect B than aspect A, we go by the latter in assessing WP:Due weight. These need not necessarily be the sources that are cited—hypothetically, one could cite non-ideal but reliable sources in the article in a way that perfectly reflects the overall literature—but when challenged, one must nevertheless be able to demonstrate that the article's contents accurately and representatively reflect the overall literature on the topic. Which I suppose is kind of the same thing as saying that it's not a problem unless it causes a problem, but in this case the adherence to WP:PROPORTION (among others) has been challenged and it really is up to the ones advocating for keeping this listed as a WP:Good article to show that it reflects the appropriate literature where the article does not cite it. TompaDompa ( talk) 22:48, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
I support delisting due to the excessive citation to non-independent and primary sources for the bulk of the background on individual angels. The amount of detail on each angel is simply not BALASP if it hasn't been discussed by secondary sources independent of NGE.and
We need commentary by people completely uninvolved in NGE in any way to demonstrate that particular minor details are important enough for inclusion.constitutes a proper challenge to WP:BALASP, but I suppose we could agree to disagree there. The same point was raised months ago on the talk page:
Material that has only been discussed by people close to the topic does not reflect the material's real-world importance to the topic as reported in independent publications. It presents an issue with NPOV as it leads to us emphasizing certain aspects of the topic solely because media exists by the creators of those aspects (who are of course going to promote them and provide lots of details) rather than because those aspects have been highlighted as significant by independent publications.The solution, if one believes that this does in fact reflect the weight in the appropriate literature accurately, is straightforward: point to that literature and demonstrate how this is true. If it is indeed the case that this reflects the weight in the appropriate literature accurately, a lot of time and effort could have been saved by simply citing that literature in the first place. As we do not solely use sources for WP:Verification but also for establishing WP:Weight, I would suggest that our best practices include citing sources that demonstrate weight even if they are not necessary for verification (typically because verification is covered by other sources). That's what I do in cases like this—or rather, I do it the other way around: I supplement the sources that establish weight with the ones that provide additional verification. TompaDompa ( talk) 08:46, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
Articles may make an analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claim only if it has been published by a reliable secondary source. JoelleJay ( talk) 01:13, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
Angels are organic beings whose atomic structure has both particle and wave nature, and therefore characterized by the wave-particle duality of light.(not sourced) and
The Angels' genetic makeup has a 99.89% affinity with that of humans.(not sourced in this section; it is sourced in another section where the claim is limited to one angel
The arrangement and coordinates of the fourth Angel signals correspond 99.89% to those in the human gene pool.and is attributed to Ritsuko Akagi, a fictional character) and
Their names and attacks have been prophesied in the Dead Sea Scrolls, ancient documents in the possession of a secret organization called Seelein wikivoice. These are unattributed, likely UNDUE details that egregiously mischaracterize real things. How much of the rest of this 150kb article contains similarly inappropriate and misleading material? JoelleJay ( talk) 16:40, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
maintained using an inverted AT Field, within which extends a number-imaginary space,[284] a parallel dimension named Dirac Sea. Not least because it legitimizes an amateurish misrepresentation of the Dirac sea (since when is this purely theoretical model a "parallel dimension"?). JoelleJay ( talk) 17:16, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
According to the Old Testament book of Genesis, God created Adam, the first human being, in His image. On the etymological origin of the name Adam (Hebrew: אָדָם, Modern: 'Adam, Tiberian: ʾĀḏām) have been formulated several theories, for which it would mean "earth", "red" or "created".[45][87] God then creates Eve, the first woman, from Adam. In the twenty-first episode of Neon Genesis Evangelion, it is revealed the Evangelions were similarly created from biological material from Adam.[88][89] In the Jewish Kabbalah, Adam is described as a kind of deity, a being that is capable of giving life and as an entity to which all things are destined to return at the end of time. According to writers Kazuhisa Fujie and Martin Foster, in the series Kaworu Nagisa states those who come from Adam must return to Adam referring to this tradition.[90]
According to a guide on the series contained in a manual for the card game Neon Genesis Evangelion RPG (新世紀エヴァンゲリオンRPG, Shinseiki Evangerion RPG), there is a connection between the Angels; each Angel seems to be an evolutionary outgrowth of the previous one, and the fact they attack one at a time suggests they are aware of the status of each of the other specimens and react accordingly.), are presented in-universe (the Dead Sea Scrolls issue, for example), or are just nonsensical (
To verify the nature of an Angel, Nerv analyzes a wave diagram of unidentified objects, which is indicated by the expression "Blood Type: Blue".). Not every detail mentioned in passing by even secondary independent sources needs to be reflected in the article. JoelleJay ( talk) 01:46, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
I asked for a third opinion especially after the sudden inactivity from this reassessment. Tintor2 ( talk) 22:41, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
Dani Cavallaro's publications have been designated as generally unreliable sources in this discussion at the reliable sources noticeboard. Citations to her work can be replaced with more high-quality ones or removed, and the tag can be taken off once complete. — TechnoSquirrel69 ( sigh) 20:02, 6 June 2024 (UTC)