Talk:Angels in Neon Genesis Evangelion

"Literal" meanings

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)

I think it's that the name Bardiel is based off of the name Barachiel (which means "the Blessings of God) but it isn't exactly Barachiel (since it's Bardiel, which means "humiliated son of god")... However, I can completely see your point. Many of these Angels are named after actual angels, such as Sandalphon. However, wouldn't Bardiel then be named after the angel Bardiel? Where did "Barachiel" come from, anyway? I think it's exactly spuriousness that we're looking at here. Can anyone enlighten me as well? -JC 13:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Has Gainax ever released anything stating why those specific names were chosen? Willbyr (talk | contribs) 17:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi, this is the initial questioner ( at work though, sorry about the different I.P. ) - it would be remiss of me not to mention that there is an angel Bardiel, who appears in Ginzberg's "The Legends of the Jews", Volume 1, Book 3, subsection "The Translation of Enoch". Several copies of this document are available online. In this volume, Bardiel is attributed as the Angel of Hail. I think the obvious conclusion is that Bardiel is simply named after the Angel Bardiel. - 60.36.46.80 07:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Each angel in the anime is (with the exclusion of Tabris(Kaworu) which is a variation of Tabrias) named after a real angel from the bible. mabie not all from the bible, but you get the idea. --Ratstail91 (talk) 10:05, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

On a similar note, most of the "is named after" stuff is fallacious. For example, for Gagiel, the only non-Evangelion sources I can find for it are pretty sketchy angelology sites that call it the angel of fishermen, not fish, and Israfel's own page on wikipedia does not depict it as anything like a "twin angel of music, poetry, and dance". I think this page has some pretty heavy self-contamination as regards to mythic sourcing. They seem to all be reference this site, which returns a 404 error, and would necessarily not be useful for verifying the origins of the angels' names because it's a site based on the series. 192.249.47.181 (talk) 22:50, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

On further research, many appear to be bunk.

• Sachiel, the "Covering of God", is associated with Sagittarius, Thursday (or Monday or Friday), wealth, charity, and Jupiter, not "water".
• Shamsiel, the "sun of God", is associated with the sun (close enough).
• Ramiel, the "thunder of God", is the angel of hope (somewhat close).
• Gagiel, no good sources found.
• Israfel, "the burning one", is the angel of the trumpet, not a "twin angel of song, poetry, and dance".
• Sandalphon is "said to be instrumental in bringing about the differentiation of sex in the embryo" (close enough).
• Matarael, no sources found.
• Sahaquiel, the "ingenuity of god", no good sources found.
• Ireul, no sources found.
• Leliel, based on Lailah, accurate.
• Bardiel, no good sources found; one iffy sources indicates "Angel of Hail", not Haze.

I gotta leave my PC now, but the rest should be checked too. Really, the whole thing seems to use extremely poor citation.192.249.47.181 (talk) 23:12, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Ramiel

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

Some random person inserted that, I didn't; feel free to remove it. --Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici 18:26, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

The heat shield depicted is very different in shape from that of Space Shuttle. It reminds me of concept drawings of the X-30. The subtitles on my copy of the DVD describe it as having been built for a single-stage trans-orbital rocket. Hellbus 18:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

From the models produced by Bandai, on the instruction manuals, they all said S.S.T.O. HG EVA Unit Zero HG EVA Unit Zero KaiHG EVA Unit 2. I will have my hands on the official scripts by tomorrow, I will see if it says Space Shuttle there or not. Note to Missingno000, It might just be a new model not any of those you have listed. But I am pretty sure that all my sources should point to SSTO instead of Space Shuttle. MythSearcher^talk 19:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh okay, if they mention that in the stuff. --Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici 01:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

SSTO stands for Single Stage to Orbit, which just means a spacecraft that only uses one stage to reach earth orbit. Technically, no earth-launched SSTO has ever been built—the space shuttle uses auxiliary rockets for launch, so it is not actually a "single stage" vehicle. (There is a link for "SSTO" in the article, you know.)

On a different subject, never ever rely on toys or models for information. Toy makers are notorious for fudging things, like the Eva action figures that came with swords, despite the fact that swords never made an appearance anywhere in the show or movie. (An American example would be all those Batman action figures over the years that have no equivalent in any of the Batman comics, movies or shows.) Radioactive afikomen 15:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

It is a published source, thus satisfies WP:RS and WP:V. You do not understand the Japanese toy makers, Bandai IS a company that is well known for using official sources in making toys, models and such. and it is a Japanese culture to add as much official detail into the models as possible, because they can then publish official guide books on the subjects and earn more money from those. The EVA action figures came with swords, because from an official illustration in the Manga we can see Eva Unit 1 carrying one. MythSearcher^talk 15:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. I didn't know. Radioactive afikomen 17:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

You do not need to apologize, it is not something that everybody knows, I simply stated a fact that should be able to help in contributing to the article and clarified it. MythSearcher^talk 19:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

There is a Space Shuttle Enterprise that uses half-thickness tiles... 70.55.88.11 06:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

"Types" of Angels

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)

Might have just been descriptive. --Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici 07:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

It was never mentioned in the show, the number of uses of the word type can be counted on...three or four hands and I checked each one, I'm assuming it's just a way of describing it's behaviour--Tyrfing 01:47, 11 August 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)

Other minor comment

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)

I see what you’re saying, but it was Kaworu and Rei who used the fields and not the Angels so I think we should keep it as is.The Twilight Goddess 03:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Sources to cite

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)

In part it wasn't done before because the episode articles have only recently begun to exist. --Gwern (contribs) 15:51 14 May 2007 (GMT)

I will have everything interwikied within a matter of hours, just hang on. However, we've never been truly able to cite what they're named after; that is "Bardiel, Angel of Hail" or something; we're never concievably going to cite this, and it's keeping this article from getting a GA rating. --Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici 15:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

It's going to take interviews with the Angels' designer(s) to find out exactly what went into their names, unless there's some source out there that no one's found yet. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 16:05, 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)

"God" vs. "Paper" under Zeruel

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)

I agree that the sentence shouldn't be there in the first place—it is the sort of speculation that belongs on an in-depth fanpage, not on Wikipedia. Radioactive afikomen 21:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree it should not be there at all, I reverted it last time because it would make no sense to be there if only God was taken away. (why would it be there to tell others paper and hair are pronounced the same way?) That sentence is just a pure speculation and Original research, I am happy that people agreed on taking it away. MythSearcher^talk 03:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Thoughts on rewriting the Adam and Lilith articles?

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 agree the articals should be rewritten mainly because i think more info on adam and liliths origins should be explained better i personally found it irrating that the show never explained straight out where they came from but rather used religious metaphors. user:jobywonkanobi 4:45, 21 May 2007

Hey, just out of curiousity, where does it ever say that both Adam and Lilith each had a respective Lance? I never thought it was implied that there were any more than one original Lance (as they always refer to it both in singular and as the true or original). Did this come out from an official source, or is someone just reading into it and putting out opinion? --The Abbott —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.198.241.62 (talk) 21:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that's from the Classified Information in the PS2 game. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 06:17, 6 November 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)

As noted in the article, the line about Adam being born from Lilith is a mistranslation. Hellbus (talk) 10:52, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Where were Angels #3 and on?

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?

That's a major question that never got answered; at BEST, the running theory is that the "awakening" of Adam spread Angel-seeds about. But that's just conjecture. --Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici 05:26, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

DNA? What DNA?

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)

You mean something like this?(pic in pdf file after unzip) This is what DNA looks like in academic research using the spectral analysis process(and BTW, that happens to be my boss' research). I cannot cite what exactly Ritsuko says in the anime, but I am sure it exactly means The Angels' DNA is 99.89% similar to humans, I am looking at the chinese version of the manga and it says the same thing. MythSearcher^talk 16:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC)\

File:Angel spectrometer analysis (NGE).jpg

o_O Alright, so it is DNA.

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)

I'd say change the word DNA to genes. I was a little influenced by the title back then, the sentence states genes instead of DNA in the manga, it is just that the two words were used so much to mean a similar thing and I mistranslated the word up there. MythSearcher^talk 06:32, 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).

DNA means deoxyribonucleic acid, if it is not composed by deoxyribonucleic acid, it is not DNA. The word used here is genes. No body here is dumb enough to think that it is related to human only, especially when a link to a research paper is given. If you read the discussion, you can see that it is composed of a type of matter not deoxyribonucleic acid. BTW, human is a type of animal. MythSearcher^talk 03:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

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

Yes, they are essentially the same thing in real life, this is anime, and if it is specifically stated to be composed of a different matter, then it is not DNA so to speak. Also, the computer screen does not necessarily show the Angel's genes in a non-DNA structure, they are just a similar structure with a different composite, just like an iron case can look exactly like an aluminium case, but it is of a different composite. MythSearcher^talk 02:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

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

Yes, I hear that argument a lot, mostly on something that common sense would be perfect on those situations. Like It is not necessarily 1G in anime world kinda silly arguements. and I never thought I would use it since I am pretty into the science and technology in anime, like the Gundam technology and the relationship with real-life science and tech. However, here, it is different, it is specifically stated something different than real-life is used, yet its structure is similar to human genes. Are those genes? No one knows. Are those DNA? by definition it is not, st least in real-life. It might not fit in real life to talk about genes without using DNA, but it is exactly the case they are talking about in this particular anime. BTW, in the manga GS Mikami, they talk about something called a spiritual gene, which is the main composition of a soul, that is also not DNA, and is essentially the same situation we are facing here: Genes =/= DNA in some cases in fiction. MythSearcher^talk 17:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

My understanding of genetics was that strictly speaking the term genes doesn't actually refer to DNA at all, but merely the unit of heredity - for example, in humans genes would be alleles constructed of DNA, but for HIV, it might be alleles in RNA instead, or for programs it might be bytes, or bits, or functions or other things like that, so it'd be valid to speak of mental genes and so on. --Gwern (contribs) 21:15 7 June 2007 (GMT)

It's the scienctist in me that doesn't want to part the logic, but alas it must. What makes me gravitate most about Eva is the use of biology and such in their work. Gundam tech is very nice, but I'm more organic. DNA sequencing codes for the genes, the alleles, proteins, etc... Genes and DNA are somewhat interchangable but scientists don't really -want- to use necessarily say it in that manner on the basis that genes can come from other sources of genetic material, the other being RNA. Usually if you ask a biologist or someone of that area in molecular and genetics, their face will tighten up and they'll sway back and forth and feel irritated because in a sense it is yet it really isn't and they don't want to say it like that. Fox816 01:57, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

That is not a good sign, science is an objective thing, and it should have nothing to do with personal feelings. This is going off topic, I guess I should stop now. MythSearcher^talk 07:05, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Note on Tabris

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)

Help with citations

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)

Overall, I'd say you did a good job. I might have some quibbles with wording, but that'd be about it. If...and that's a big IF...I get time this weekend, I'll go through the article and work on the references; we've got company for the weekend so if no one else does it, it may be next week before I can get to it. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 12:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the 'citation needed' things need to go. A lot of them are asking for citation on things that some charactrs just say almost in passing in the show, and unless you get a voice clip, may be hard to cite while still being fact (or at least an extremely widely accepted belief).--Amantetosca 20:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Adam - Two Appearances in the anime?

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)

The thing on the wall is Lilith. --Gwern (contribs) 00:17 15 June 2007 (GMT)

Misato mistakes it for Adam. It's a big white creature (like Adam before he was shrunk) and I'm guessing she didn't get a good look at Adam during Second Impact before Dr. Katsuragi closed the door on the capsule she was in. Hellbus 01:10, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

As for the first point. I assume you mean the bit from the end of episode eight?

KAJI:

It's already restored itself this far. It's frozen inside dura-bakelite, but it's still alive. Without a doubt, this is the keystone of the Human Instrumentality Project, isn't it?

IKARI:

Correct. This is the first human being. Adam.

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)

Are we done yet?

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)

I guess at least we could remove the unref tag since there are plenty of reference in the article already, if anyone wants more ref, they should add them into the specific parts of the article. MythSearcher^talk 08:13, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Shamshel and Angel Kiss

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)

Same question here, I know which one you mean, it is the knitting a scafe for Sachiel one, right? MythSearcher^talk 08:45, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's the one. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 12:23, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Name origin

Got a new referece site, added in ref, learnt how to use ref name :) MythSearcher^talk 11:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Well that's good but I don't know how it not being in English will affect stuff. --Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici 13:24, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

huh? I don't exactly understand what you are trying to say here. A direct quote of Japanese official TV guide is not enough to affect what? The verifiable page requires non-English sources to be listed with the original language for others to verify the translation, it should be good enough for simple names that everyone can copy and paste it in an auto-translator. If you mean sources of what the name really means, I guess we could restructure the sentences to make it so that it is something like: XXiel, the Angel of YZ instead of the current name for Angel of YZ. MythSearcher^talk 16:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I JUST FOUND IT FINALLY: the name references (what they are the Angels of) are included in the info booklets that come with the Platinum Edition DVD's. That's our source. --Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici 21:07, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Should be the same as what I linked to yesterday. MythSearcher^talk 02:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Listing Lilim as an Angel

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:

All Angels produce AT-Fields of varying strengths, and all are identified as "blood type: blue". They all possess S² engines ...

But then explicitly states that mankind is an Angel:

The eighteenth Angel, Lilim, is mankind itself.

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)

Did you catch the last paragraph in the introductory section, and its corresponding reference? Willbyr (talk | contribs) 21:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I did. However, the contradiction stands. If we're set on the decision that Lilim counts as an Angel, then our definition of Angel is wrong. ~ Booya ^Bazooka 21:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps mankind as a whole does have an S2 engine? What way can we fix the contradiction? We know that even humans produce AT-Fields, and that human DNA is very similar to the Angel's "Blood Type" or something like that... perhaps we do have Blood Type: Blue? Then the only question is the S2 engine, but remember that Lilim is mankind as a whole, not each human individually, I don't think... Hard to say, hard to say. -JC 22:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I did a bit of rewriting on the section, hopefully this takes us a little ways toward getting this straightened out. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 23:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Booya, you're assuming that all the pieces of Eva work together. It's not surprising that since the storyline was constantly evolving (remember how all the Angels were originally going to descend from the Moon, and in the ending Shinji was going to have to kill Rei or something) there wind up being inconsistencies. In the TV line, I don't think there is an inconsistency. Man comes from Lilith, lacking the S2 engine (fruit of life) but having science/EVAs (fruit of knowledge); thus EVA-01's absorption of the S2 engine unites the two lineages and two fruits, undoing the metaphorical fall from Eden. It's only if you try to reconcile this with the Confidential Information or the movies' different setup where man is the 18th angel that the TV schema no longer makes sense. --Gwern (contribs) 02:02 2 August 2007 (GMT)

Yes... this is true. Eva is crazy. I guess we can't expect perfect coherency. Perhaps we could just change the overview paragraph, though, to note that the description excludes Lilim? Although I don't want to clutter the summary with my pedantry. ~ Booya ^Bazooka 02:30, 2 August 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?

Images

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)

I preferred it with the images in place, myself. Hellbus 17:41, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Look, you're up against obsessive-compulsive image counters that can barely pass a Turing test. The solution would be to get a few images that show many Angels. Also, not all of us have flash, so perhaps there's a more suitable site to use - perhaps Gainax. --129.241.151.140 22:15, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, I liked having the images. However, the Foundation's made it clear that such liberal use of non-free images isn't tolerated anymore. That includes trying to splice multiple images together. I used the ADV site link to replace the images because it's the best compromise between good pics and info about the Angels that I could find, not to mention that ADV is directly connected to the Evangelion franchise. If someone can find a site that doesn't use Flash and has equally good images of the Angels, by all means use it as the ref instead of the ADV site...although I have to admit that I'm puzzled that people wouldn't have Flash on their computers. *shrug* Willbyr (talk | contribs) 23:19, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Having two images per angel might have been a bit excessive, but having and image of each angel is within the policy - don't let anybody convince you otherwise. You're making an encyclopedia here, not a fan website. Please put back as many images as needed to identify the angels. --129.241.151.140 04:06, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

No, it's actually never been within policy, it's just that Wikipedia has not really sunk its collective teeth into enforcing the policy until recently. See User:Durin/Fair use overuse explanation for details, especially this section, which specifically addresses "list of.." articles, and by association any other article which could be considered a "list of..." article. This article and Evangelion (mecha) definitely qualify, in theme if not in name. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 05:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I have noticed that the link to the Evangelion website is no longer valid. It takes the user to a strange "under construction" website. I think it should be updated to the accurate website, so that the images of the angels can be viewed. Obliviblob 21:56, 13 September 2017 (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)

I haven't removed them yet because I wanted to leave a visual reference to the information about their designs until some kind of outside reference to them relating to the series is found, as was done with the images of the Angels themselves...unless someone gets snippy about the # of non-free images, in which case they may have to be removed anyway. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 05:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I just feel it weird that we keep two ships images while non for Angel itself. L-Zwei 05:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

It is a little strange, I agree. They won't be there forever, I just haven't had a chance to do any digging on that particular issue, as I've been concentrating on trying to find visual references for the items in the glossary article. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 12:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

They could be removed, provided that not-orphan tags are put on them. The picture of the ships on the map is text-linked from the articles on the two ships, and the picture of the ships in the water is text-linked from the talk page for USS Kentucky. I'll make the necessary adjustments. Hellbus 23:03, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Did we have to get rid of all of the images? Admittedly, many images aren't fundamental to the readers' understanding of the Angels appearance. Tabris already has his own picture in the Kaworu Nagisa article, Sandalphon is explicitly described as looking like Anomalocaris, Ramiel is just a big blue octahedron, Armisael is a double-helixed torus, and Lilim are just human beings. Iruel looks like a slime mold, so it isn't particularly photogenic anyways. Many others can be adequately described with words. But still, one or two pictures would be nice. Specifically, I'm thinking of Sachiel, whose is appearance is both iconic enough to the series and also undescribably bizarre that not having a picture of it would arguably deal a significant disservice to the readers. -- Radioactive afikomen 22:09, 28 October 2007

The article needs atleast a few images, to show it's subject!  Doktor  Wilhelm  15:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the article has survived without images for several months now. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 18:08, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

In addition, the beginning of each Angel's section links to an image. Hellbus (talk) 22:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't really see the point in having to click two things in order to see an image, just to know what the heck something is going on about (it not in the begining)! Plus it is a usual part of all Wikipedia articles; to have atleast one image to show/describe the content of the article (the same goes for all articles without images)!  Doktor  Wilhelm  22:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Any images would by definition be fair use images, since no free version exists or could conceivably be created. There were originally images in the article, which were removed per discussion above. Linking to images is the best compromise. Hellbus (talk) 03:32, 5 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

Adam vs Eva abilities

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)

Yes and no. There are several confounding factors for such a question: the Evangelions' descent from Lilith, the whole Tree of Life/S^2 Engine vs. Tree of Knowledge issue, and the Secret Files' Seed of Life comparison of Adam and Lilith. --Gwern (contribs) 00:58 6 June 2008 (GMT)

In short, any answer on the subject would be pure speculation. Radioactive afikomen 09:42, 12 July 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)

Lead

I have noticed that you have started to address some of the issues to attain B-Class: May I suggest a few pointers:

The lead should be about 3 paragraphs long, per WP:LEAD; for an example, refer to List of Naruto characters.

A more accurate article name might be List of Neon Genesis Evangelion angels (Not sure though, but the article seems to follow a list format. FL status is also much easier to attain than FA status.)

Please let me know if you have further questions.

Regards, G.A.S 06:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I had wondered yesterday if the article should be made into a list, as that's really what it is. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 11:18, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, this is a naming issue only. The formatting and content need not change. G.A.S 05:29, 13 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)

• Leaving "Description and information" as it is, is fine. I would however convert the subsequent sections up to, and including, Lilim to L3 headers (=== ===). Regarding the lead: The lead should be expanded a bit with information about the show itself, and the role angels plays in it; as this is not explained elsewhere in the article. G.A.S 05:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Made-up Japanese names

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)

At least it is in the Japanese official TV series site. MythSearcher^talk 16:06, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

origin of the angels

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) 

Article Naming

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)

Seems reasonable to me. There are a few sections which aren't actually part of the list ('Description and information', 'Rebuild of Evangelion', 'Angels in other titles and media'), but most of the article is a list.

I'll agree if the rename isn't later to be construed as a reason to delete those sections ('because those sorts of sections don't belong in a list ya know?'). --Gwern (contribs) 14:05 18 September 2009 (GMT)

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)

No, I disagree. --Malkinann (talk) 22:16, 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)

Lists may contain items which are not individually notable, for example, the Revival Angels. They are perfectly suited to a list of Angels. --Malkinann (talk) 23:04, 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)

So you wish to change the name of the article again? Why? Is it so that you can then remove the Revival Angels? --Malkinann (talk) 23:13, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I always took the 'Neon Genesis Evangelion' or '(Evangelion)' as referring to Angels in the entire Eva franchise; they can differ quite a bit. (All the original Angels in the games and mangas, or things named Angels in manga - aren't the Angels just people in one of them?) --Gwern (contribs) 15:20 19 September 2009 (GMT)

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)

BN, as before, I'm having real difficulty understanding what you are saying. ("it's not really meant to actaully put in the title." ??? or '(_)'? Are you using the underscore as a metasyntactic variable?). A little spellcheck, capitalization, and effort in fixing your grammar would go a long way.

Now, as far as Rebuild goes. If it were just a matter of deleting angels, or just a matter of adding angels, or just a matter of modifying the old angels, any one of those can be covered by notes in the relevant angel's section ("...this angel didn't appear in Rebuild'/was changed such-and-suchly/this section is about an angel that appeared only in Rebuild").

But we have all 3 simultaneously. It'd be a real mess to try to shoe-horn all that into the direct angel entries. It's much better to go an overview along the lines of 'now you know what the original line up of Angels was like, here's what Rebuild did: it deleted foo & bar, changed baz, and added quux'. --Gwern (contribs) 15:38 21 September 2009 (GMT)

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)

Basically, if you also had in mind a 'summarisation' of the article (or removal of information), you should have been honest with us and said so to begin with. --Malkinann (talk) 21:33, 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)

You did not mention at first that your intention was to remove information from the article, which strikes me as being the wrong way to do things. --Malkinann (talk) 11:00, 22 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)

split or change of formatting?

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)

Referencing

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?

• http://www.evamonkey.com/platinum_vol2_angel_profiles.htm
• http://www.evamonkey.com/platinum_vol3_angel_profiles.htm
• http://www.evamonkey.com/platinum_vol3_eva_profile.htm
• http://www.evamonkey.com/platinum_vol4_angel_profile.htm
• http://www.evamonkey.com/platinum_vol4_eva_profile.htm
• http://www.evamonkey.com/platinum_vol7_eva_profile.htm
• http://www.evamonkey.com/platinum_vol5_angel_profiles.htm
• http://www.evamonkey.com/platinum_vol6_angel_profiles.htm
• http://www.evamonkey.com/platinum_vol7_angel_profile.htm (just Kaworu)
• http://www.evamonkey.com/platinum_vol7_timeline.htm

--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)

See http://www.evamonkey.com/em_platinum_booklets.php --Gwern (contribs) 17:42 1 March 2010 (GMT)

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)

It would be helpful if you actually read the link I supplied. --Gwern (contribs) 20:43 1 March 2010 (GMT)

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 don't know. As they aren't used, how can you say that we say anything else? --Gwern (contribs) 07:55 14 July 2010 (GMT)

well if they aren't used then how can we know this is exactly what it says?Bread Ninja (talk) 23:12, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Removing trivia and Original Research

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)

Sloppy redirects

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)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070630193917/http://www.advfilms.com/titles/evangelion/ to http://www.advfilms.com/titles/evangelion/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070630193917/http://www.advfilms.com/titles/evangelion/ to http://www.advfilms.com/titles/evangelion/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090108164234/http://www.ocn.ne.jp/theater/flets/list/pickup/feat_eva/p04.html to http://www.ocn.ne.jp/theater/flets/list/pickup/feat_eva/p04.html

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).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:05, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070816223043/http://eva.yahoo.co.jp/kagi/machine/machine_11.html to http://eva.yahoo.co.jp/kagi/machine/machine_11.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070819121736/http://www.evacommentary.org/supplemental-images.html to http://www.evacommentary.org/supplemental-images.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070816223623/http://eva.yahoo.co.jp/kagi/machine/machine_08.html to http://eva.yahoo.co.jp/kagi/machine/machine_08.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070920235557/http://eva.yahoo.co.jp/kagi/machine/machine_07.html to http://eva.yahoo.co.jp/kagi/machine/machine_07.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150410045304/http://www.gainax.co.jp/goods/angel_xx/package.html to http://www.gainax.co.jp/goods/angel_xx/package.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150417022535/http://www.gainax.co.jp/goods/angel_xx/01.html to http://www.gainax.co.jp/goods/angel_xx/01.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150417022633/http://www.gainax.co.jp/goods/angel_xx/02.html to http://www.gainax.co.jp/goods/angel_xx/02.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150417024101/http://www.gainax.co.jp/goods/angel_xx/nano.html to http://www.gainax.co.jp/goods/angel_xx/nano.html

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).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:22, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Bardiel: Angel of "Haze", or Angel of "Hail"?

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)

Hey, nice to see you here!

I don't know why JP Wiki has that. "Haze". I've seen other sources claiming both and considering many such names have multiple meanings this is probably the case here too. Maybe change it to include both meanings? FelipeFritschF (talk) 06:09, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Template

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)

We have multiple paragraphs of highly detailed backstory for each character, sourced largely to non-independent or primary sources (Kadokawa Shoten/Fujimi Shobo, people who were part of the production like Cannarsi, Evangelion Chronicle (which was supervised directly by Gainax), etc.). That is way too much material that hasn't been filtered through independent secondary analysis for a broad summary encyclopedia. JoelleJay (talk) 03:56, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

@JoelleJay In the case of an anime these types of sources are not primary AFAIK; the primary source is the anime only, or maybe interviews from people involved into it. The various encyclopedias and collections dedicated to the series are often independent sources; they are secondary, or maybe in some cases even tertiary encyclopedias and other compendia that summarize, and often quote, primary and secondary sources. The perfect example is probably the most used source: Evangelion Chronicle.--TeenAngels1234 (talk) 07:10, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

BTW. Cannarsi was not involved in the production - he just supervised the translation of the first Italian edition. Chronicle was supervised and licensed by Gainax, but this doesn't mean that it's primary.--TeenAngels1234 (talk) 07:12, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

The primary sources would include the refs to the episodes themselves. But the main issue is the lack of independence. Cannarsi should be treated the same re: independence as any actor or writer involved in NGE, as he was paid to work on the Italian version and therefore does not represent independent attention from the world at large. Evangelion Chronicle, by having a financial, legal, and/or supervisory relationship with Gainax, is also not independent. NPOV asks that all articles be based on independent sources, and RS goes even further in saying 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)

IMHO context matters a lot. Here we are talking about a work of fiction and an article describing the characters that compose it: it is clear that most of the sources are the episodes, official guides, interviews with the staff. This has not been a problem in any way in all the years I have been on Wikipedia; Naruto Uzumaki, a FA, has at least half as many sources as this. Who else should talk about Sachiel's creation other than Asari himself?
I would also add that different parts of the article have many authoritative and completely independent sources (In other media, Cultural references and interpretations, Cultural impact).--TeenAngels1234 (talk) 07:25, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm not arguing that the article should be deleted, just that the extensive details should be cut down.
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. JoelleJay (talk) 20:18, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

The details provided seem more than pertinent and concise to me. Almost half the article, for example, talks about the creation of Angels, not Angels themselves, and obviously the sources must be primary: interviews with the creators and guides. Since many other sections and sources are clearly based on external and authoritative sources, the problem does not arise.--TeenAngels1234 (talk) 20:37, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

Angels in Neon Genesis Evangelion

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.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: No consensus. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:08, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

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)

• I haven't done more than a quick skim, but I have WP:OR concerns about some sections, particularly the parts talking about the meaning of the names of various angels. References should be checked to make sure they actually support conclusions about Evangelion and aren't WP:SYNTHy. Brief bits giving background would be fine (eg, "In the Catholic tradition, Gabriel is the angel who..."), but whole paragraphs appear to lean on sources that aren't about eva at all, which is an issue. -- asilvering (talk) 15:22, 16 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. The fact that a significant majority of the sources, especially the ones in the angels' sections, are offline and in Japanese is also a problem when there is no indication the reviewer actually spot-checked any of them. JoelleJay (talk) 02:45, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

I cannot understand the points of the previous users. @JoelleJay: Since the series is Japanese it's pretty obvious that some sources are in its "mothertongue". The sources are not unreliable or impossible to check: an user who knows Japanese can read them and find the original material. If a user does not know the language it's not a limit of the source. Non-English sources are allowed. Also, almost all the material mentioned in this article can be easily find in many scans and downloads online: e.g., the whole Evangelion Chronicle. I can link all of them, if you want. @Asilvering: What sources you are talking about? I know that there are many notes and it's impossible to list them all, but can you list some of them? Regarding the names of the Angels: yes, the sources are about Evangelion and its Angels. Like Evangelion Chronicle, the Red Cross Book, or the Evangelion Encyclopedia, for example. These are not sources that are discussing the religious angels alone. There's no OR in this: everything is sourced and the sources themselves discuss in detail about the symbolisms and connection behind the names.
I can give you evidence of this. There's no synthesis. The sources are clear and explicit, as per WP:SYNTH. These are just two examples I also mentioned on it.wiki: "なお、シャムシエルはユダヤ、キリスト教の神話や伝承における天使の名で、「神の力強き息子」と称される第4天の支配者。 エデンの園を守護する天使の王子でもあり、モーゼを連れて天国を案内したとされる。 「光輝の書」によれば365の軍団を率いるとされており、また、「エノク書」においては「昼」を司る天使とされ、堕天使のひとりにも数えられている ". "Incidentally, Shamsiel is the name of an angel from Judeo-Christian mythology, he's the head of the Fourth Sky and it's known as 'the powerful son of God'. He's also the prince of the angels who guard the Eden Garden, and a legend says that he guided Moses in the Sky. According to the Zohar, he guides 365 legions, and in the Book of Enoch he's the angel in charge of controlling the 'day' and it's listed among the fallen angels" (Evangelion Chronicle, vol. 10). Obviously I didn't mention all of this religious role: it would be too-long, too-detailed, and I briefly mentioned just the important part alone, like with other Angels. "かの天使の時間帯といえる日中に侵攻し、初号機を圧倒したものの、日没間近の夕暮れ刻に斌減されたのは皮肉といえるだろう". "Interestingly, Shamshel invasion happens during the day, which is the period of time of the angel [Note: of the original angel, obviously], fighting against Eva-01, but ends during sunset, at the dusk." (EC, vol. 7). Oguro on Style.fm - he personally knows Gainax members and was in charge of editing the Red Cross Book - says, after explicitly mentioning angel symbolism : "例えば、海中から登場したサキエルは「水」の天使と同じ名であるし、昼間に現れたシャムシェルは「昼」の天使と同じ名だ". "Sachiel, for example, appears from the sea and he has the name of the angel of water, while Samsiel, who appears during the day, has the name of the angel of the day". So, the first issue (WP:OR) can easily be dismissed.
Regarding WP:WEIGHT and WP:BALANCE, as IIRC other users agreed during the JoelleJay doubts mouths ago, we are talking about a character article, so it's pretty obvious and allowed to describe the characters also using sources like Evangelion Chronicle. Many other sources like Napier talk about the Angels, their battles and so on in detail, but we should mention the most reliable source: and Evangelion Chronicle or the official Death and Rebirth pamphlet it's more reliable than an academic. But many, and I mean many parts of the article are about their creation, the storyboards, the original scenario, academic analysis, reception, and so on. So I can not understand the point of this reassesment page. It's obviously wrong.--TeenAngels1234 (talk) 09:15, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

@TeenAngels1234, my read of JoelleJay's comment is not that it's a problem per se that there are offline, Japanese-language sources, but that there is no evidence in the initial GA review that the reviewer checked any of those sources. It would be really helpful (both to allay concerns, and for the sake of readers) if you could link those sources that can be found online. -- asilvering (talk) 15:17, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Okay, sure, I can give you everything! Just wait a few hours; the material is huge and I have to list all the links. TeenAngels1234 (talk) 15:39, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't doubt that these sources discuss the symbolism. However, at the very least anything produced by Gainax (like the Red Cross Book), Kadokawa, or their affiliates is neither secondary nor independent and so should not be a source for such wide swathes of the article. We need commentary by people completely uninvolved in NGE in any way to demonstrate that particular minor details are important enough for inclusion.

Looking at citations for the first few angels:
Adam: Source 43, 55, 59: Kadokawa N. 44, 51: Cannarsi N. 45: Porori ?. 46-48, 52: EC N? 49: NGE N. 50, 58: Horn N. 53: Poggio N. 36, 3: Gainax N. 54, 56: Fujie & Foster ?. 57: Marc MacWilliams' blog ?.
Lilith: 60, 64: Poggio N. 61-63, 73, 75: Kadokawa N. 65: Porori ?. 66, 68: Ogoru? N? 49: NGE N. 67: EC N? 36: Gainax N. 69: Yoshiyuki Sadamoto interview N. 70: Sanenari ?. 71: Dynit N. 72: Khara N. 74: Cinefacts Y.
Sachiel: 76, 77, 80, 82, 38, 84, 89, 95, 99, 102: EC N? 78, 79, 83, 86, 87, 91, 92, 32: Kadokawa N. 81: Porori ?. 85, 90, 93: Cannarsi N. 88: Platinum Booklet N. 94: Davidson (1967) N. 96, 97: Fujie ?. 98: Poggio N. 100: ? 101: Oguro? N. 103: Khara N.
Shamshel: 104, 106: Porori ?. 105, 109, 111, 114, 119, 124, 126: Kadokawa N. 107, 110, 115, 116, 120, 121: EC N? 108, 117: Poggio N. 3: Gainax N. 112, 118: Cannarsi N. 113: PB N. 122: Davidson (1967) N. 123: Oguro? N. 125: Khara N. 127, 128: Dynit N.

That is just way too much material cited to people/commercial products with a vested financial interest in promoting NGE. JoelleJay (talk) 22:00, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Do you know that they're used in basically plot and production sections as for AM guidelines, right? TeenAngels1234 (talk) 09:34, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

I will also point out that the notability guidelines do not affect article content (WP:NNC). We need to present content in a neutral way, and we need to ensure that we are not giving undue weight to a particular viewpoint or doing original research, but that does not preclude using non-neutral sources or making reference to minor details. In other words, whether or not particular minor details are important enough for inclusion is 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)

There is WP:PROPORTION: 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)

WP:PROPORTION says, as you quoted, "reliable, published material". It does not demand that this material is fully independent. We certainly don't want to base an entire article on primary sources, because that would be WP:OR. And of course we don't want to use biased sources without correcting for WP:NPOV. If there are WP:OR or WP:NPOV concerns, we should clear those up. Likewise, if it goes into excessive detail or fan pov that is not relevant for a general encyclopedia, we should trim those sections (and move any well-researched content to a fan wiki).

But it is not a problem as such that these sources aren't fully, unimpeachably independent, unless it is causing one of those problems. JoelleJay is absolutely right to raise the concern: there are many non-independent sources, therefore it is much more likely that there are OR/NPOV/UNDUE concerns than if the article was entirely based on secondary, academic/critic sources. But the fact that many sources are not fully independent is not in itself the problem. Saying that we must follow the weight of independent, secondary sources would result in worse and less informative articles in many cases. If you think, for example, of an article on a novel: if we followed only independent sources, it is highly unlikely that we would be able to write a full, even plot summary without error. It is very unusual for academic and critical sources to write out the entire plot. In particular, they often don't give the ending! A plot summary is one of the most useful things we can have in an article on a novel, and it would be silly to not have one, or to have one that is biased towards coverage trends in secondary sources. At the same time, I'm sure anyone who has spent any time looking at novel articles on wikipedia has seen one with a plot that is way, way too long, and gets far too into the details, or one that offers the editor's own opinion on the plot. That is the problem. -- asilvering (talk) 19:37, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree that for plot summaries it's fine to use primary and/or non-independent sources. However when it comes to any analysis of the plot, such as symbolism, we ought to be weighing the relative importance of particular information based on its coverage in secondary independent sources. This is reflected in NOT: To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources. JoelleJay (talk) 21:57, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

I also don't know that it is actually true that 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)

My point is that I don't think it has been properly challenged here. The possibility of a problem has been raised, but not the problem itself. The editor who brought the article to GA believes this is the appropriate weight and using the appropriate literature, and has said as much. There's nowhere for this discussion to go from here unless someone in favour of de-listing it can give that editor something to refine or dispute. -- asilvering (talk) 04:43, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

I would say that 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)

The main problem here is that the point seems to be missed. Secondary indipendent-sources are there. And dipendent sources are used in plot sections, like the description of the Angels and their role, and in production: explaining the meaning behing the name of the Angels and their inspiration is production, and it requires interviews from the staff and so on. I don't need Dani Cavallaro to say that Sachiel is named after the angel of the water but the original source - assuming the reliable original source is here, and fortunately that's the case. In Analyisis section, on the other hand, you can easily find how almost all the sources are indipendent: Azuma is indipendent, and so are Ortega, Napier, Cavallaro and so on. The literature is here. I can easily add a source for almost every statement about Angels role and their inspiration, but doing so is not required for GA articles, AM guidelies and common sense. We are still talking about plot and production, guys. It's the accuse that needs to explain where's the problem and show besides any reasonable doubt that this article is not worthy of the GA status - and in this case, we have to start reassessments for almost fictional character, from anime to videogames, from Tolkien to NGE itself. But that's not the case and is clearly a delusion. TeenAngels1234 (talk) 15:24, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

It is not necessary to cite interviews directly; it is, in principle, perfectly possible to cite some other source that says "in an interview, person X said Y". More generally, information from primary and/or non-independent sources (even if those might be the most authoritative ones on the facts) can be filtered through non-primary independent sources that exercise editorial judgment about the relative WP:Weight of different WP:Aspects—and in fact, this very article is an example thereof, being non-primary and independent (assuming of course that there is no conflict of interest) even if it is not a WP:Reliable source as WP:Wikipedia is not a reliable source. TompaDompa (talk) 16:00, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

What? It's obviously better to cite the original interview where a person said a thing than a secondary source saying it was said. It is not more helpful to our readers to cite a more distant source, not to mention that doing so runs the risk of ending up in a game of broken-telephone, which is already a significant problem both in academia and on wikipedia.

TeenAngels1234, it might help for you to add citations to the independent sources alongside the closer, non-independent sources you already have. It seems to me that that will satisfy the weighting concerns, and/or point out areas that are less often discussed and could stand to be removed. -- asilvering (talk) 20:28, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Whether or not it is more helpful to our readers to cite more distant sources in lieu of citing the material directly from the horse's mouth, so to speak, is orthogonal to the question at hand here: is including this material WP:DUE in the first place? That's what we need the non-primary and independent sources to ascertain. As I said above, we can cite both kinds of sources at the same time to satisfy WP:Verification concerns (by using the most authoritative sources on the facts of the matter) as well as WP:Weight concerns (by using the sources that best demonstrate the relative weight afforded to various aspects by the overall literature on the topic). In general, citing interviews directly is neither necessary (it is possible, even if perhaps not ideal, to cite more distant sources—and in some cases we have no other choice if the interviews are not available to us) nor sufficient (because the interviews do not in themselves establish weight). TompaDompa (talk) 21:00, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Okay, then! I'll mention them if it can help to resolve the doubs of the other side. I'm always willing to improve the NGE articles but, please, just wait few days. I will try to do so as soon as possible, but unfortunately I'm extremely busy in these days. TeenAngels1234 (talk) 09:01, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, there are some secondary independent sources. The problem is that they are not being used for large swathes of the article, and consequently those sections suffer a degree of indiscriminateness in their detail that needs to be reined in. Too much of the symbolism and interpretative background of the angels is cited to primary media directly from people involved in its production, and this falls afoul of policy: 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)

Are we sure that these are analyitic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claims? TeenAngels1234 (talk) 14:21, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

There is nothing analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic about "so-and-so said that the angels represented blah blah". This is a guideline about not doing original research and not inserting an editor's own opinion into the article. -- asilvering (talk) 05:27, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Well as one other example, we have a whole section written in-universe, sourced in large part to non-independent and/or primary sources or not at all, that makes patently absurd claims like 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 Seele in 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)

Just for clarify, just because the note is not immediately after the sentence it doesn't mean the sentence it's unsourced. If you read the sources mentioned in the paragraph, every single sentence is sourced. These are not controversial statements about the NGE lore - surprisingly, since in NGE almost everything is controversial - , but at least having the bare minimum knowledge of the sources and reading them before writing here would be helpful and appropriate. TeenAngels1234 (talk) 16:35, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

You should probably reacquaint yourself with WP:PSTS; authorized/official books and the like are primary sources, and a) don't count for notability, and b) aren't what the majority of any article text should be based on. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 13:35, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm perfectly aware of that guide, thanks. The article is not based on primary sources, altgough like in every GA of fictional characters I used them as for guidelines. PS are of course necessary, allowed and used with common sense. In no way we have to mention Mechademia while discussing Anno inspirations, but I mentioned Anno interviews on their creations instead. And, again, the fact is thar this article is not based on PS: Mechademia is mentioned various times, together with Cavallaro, Napier, CBR, Anime News Network, Cannarsi - no one of these people are involved in NGE production - and so on. Since more than a third of this article - a reasonable portion, like almost every GA about fictional character- is about their production, development, inspiration, it's perfectly fine and allowed. This is perfecrly in line with Anime and Manga guidelines.--TeenAngels1234 (talk) 15:19, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Cannarsi was directly involved in producing the Italian version of NGE, he is not independent. JoelleJay (talk) 19:25, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Being involved in the Italian dub doesn't mean being involved in the NGE production, but OK, that's not the point and Cannarsi is not the focus of this. TeenAngels1234 (talk) 09:33, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

In this case it appears that these authorized/official books are not all primary sources, but are secondary sources (just not independent ones). They don't count for notability, but they are the most authoritative source. -- asilvering (talk) 15:21, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

If we consider "indipendent" every source which is not directly made by NGE staff and people involved in its production or promotion, like A&M guidelines and If I can add common sense say, Oguro commentary is indipendent too. He edited the RCB, which can be listed as a dipendent source, but his commentary is something he wrote as a fan. Same for Poggio, Cannarsi and most importantly Evangelion Chronicle: they are edited and published by DeAgostini Japan and Sony Magazines, but not Gainax - they just allowed its publication. Porori is not a Gainax member and is not involved in NGE, so even the The Essential issues are indipendent. My suggestion is that the user who proposed this nomination is not so much into the sources and did not check them before starting this reassessment. This was also discussed with other users before, so it seems they didn't even read the TP. TeenAngels1234 (talk) 15:30, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Those (or at least most of those) are still "not independent" for the purposes of notability. But you don't need to worry about notability and I'm not sure why Fuchs brought it up. The topic is very evidently notable. -- asilvering (talk) 15:43, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Yup, I'm genuinely confused too. Thanks. BTW, regarding the secondary sources and materials used: I think almost everything can be found here. TeenAngels1234 (talk) 10:37, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

I think that the excessive number of images that are not directly related makes this article arguably fail criteria 6b. Do we really need an image of a double chromosome in this article? I doubt it. QuicoleJR (talk) 23:42, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

I always considered that image fitting because of its link to the sceen depicting Shamshiel analysis in the fifth episode, but if you think it's not relevant/pertinent we can easily remove it. Are there other images that you think are not relevant? TeenAngels1234 (talk) 08:48, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

These images are egregious. We do not need two Dirac-related images just because, according to non-independent non-physicist sources, one episode apparently attempts to explain a characteristic of one angel as being 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)

The Dirac sea of the series is a parrallel dimension, not Dirac theoretical original model. It's literally written in the article. TeenAngels1234 (talk) 16:36, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

 Done Okay, done, Quicole. I deleted basically all the images not directly depicting the Angels. Not sure about Sachiel's cosplay. They usually are not inserted in articles on en.wiki, but it can be helpful for a reader to actually see the Angel's design without a screenshot under copyright. But as you prefer. TeenAngels1234 (talk) 23:37, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

@JoelleJay, Asilvering, TompaDompa, David Fuchs, TeenAngels1234, and QuicoleJR: is there any consensus on whether this article meets the GA criteria? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 02:11, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm currently adding other indipendent sources. I've added more than 100 of them now, so now we have more than 200+ notes to indipendent sources, but it will took me at least other 2-3 days to cover the whole list of Angels. TeenAngels1234 (talk) 10:18, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

The image use is a lot better, and I believe that the article has been improved enough to meet that criteria. I don't know enough about the other issues brought up here to make a judgement about them, but if and when the consensus is that those are solved, then I support retaining. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:22, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

The article still has an over reliance on primary and non-independent sources, and still suffers from extreme bloat. To take a random example, we get a whole paragraph that's mostly describing who the Biblical Adam is and the etymology of the name:

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]

Versus something summarized, directly related to Neon Genesis, and focused. It's also full of weird nonsense like "According to the writers" as if they said something about the subject, but it's actually just quoting a character in the series, not the writers (and thus falsely implies a perspective of the character is fact or what the writers actually believe.) I don't think TeenAngels has understood the main thrust of the issues; simply dumping more citations in isn't solving the systemic problems with the article, which require a much more fundamental rewrite and reappraisal of what's being included. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 14:26, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

The etimology is related to NGE as the series speaks of the Red Earth Purification. It needs a rewriting process to make it more explicit/relevant and the article needs to be summarized at the end of the process, which did not end - so, TNX, but I think I got what other users said before. But, again, it will took me at least other 3 days, since I don't live for Wikipedia and nobody pays me for writing here. The page mentioned in the note, anyway, reads, after the Kaworu's quote et cetera: "In the Kabbalah, Adam is described as the beggining of all things, and the being to which all must revert. In other words, God". As I said before to another user, if you want to be helpful in this process, and most importantly if you want to your opinion to be considered valid, you have to read the article and the sources before writing here. TeenAngels1234 (talk) 20:08, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

The academic sourcing has improved some matters of DUE, though I agree with David that the article, which remains a staggering 150kb, still contains a lot of details that are justified only by primary/non-independent sources (like 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 agree, and as I said we need to do a relatively fast work of cutting. But I will do this at the end; since it's very easy to summarize or cut things, it's better to do the more complicated work before. I normally do these kind of things in one afternoon, but be patient. TeenAngels1234 (talk) 07:02, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

• @JoelleJay, Asilvering, TompaDompa, David Fuchs, and QuicoleJR: Just here to tell you that I'm mostly done. Something still need to be cut, but I think the article has taken on an almost definitive form.--TeenAngels1234 (talk) 18:16, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

  Is anyone still interested in this? TeenAngels1234 (talk) 15:15, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

  @GAR coordinators: I think this has stalled, please close. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:50, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

  Okay. I just ask to wait 1-2 days for some last-monents comments and then we can close this. @David Fuchs@JoelleJay I ping just you guys because Quicole and Asilvering sounds pro to keep this if the consensus is finally reached. What's your verdict? I showed evidence about the use of the sources and you said that the edits resolved some matters of DUE. Hs the article improved to be at least kept as a GA? TeenAngels1234 (talk) 20:07, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

  Your earlier ping didn't work for some reason. I'm really not seeing where you've removed the excessive details though? JoelleJay (talk) 04:07, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

  Dunno why. Anyway. I removed something like 10.000 bytes of article, plus 5000 bytes for notes etc. I removed various trivial information and descritpions. Cutting other things would make the article less informative. TeenAngels1234 (talk) 11:13, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

• As original reviewer I find this article improved by the amount of toning down but providing all the entire coverage the Angels have is almost impossible since Evangelion has dozens of manga with alternate depiction of Angels. There is a Campus manga where all the Angels take human forms but the anime treats them as episodic enemies (Kaworu included) with few exceptions. There is notable creation section and a far analysis of the Angel's impact in real world so I don't see any other problem.Tintor2 (talk) 16:53, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
• @JoelleJay:@David Fuchs: I also deleted almost 10.000 bytes of description today - totally, 20.000+ bytes of in-universe information is gone now - so now basically almost 2/3 of the sources are indipendent and almost 2/3 of the article covers out-universe informations. --TeenAngels1234 (talk) 19:28, 25 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)

The discussion above 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.

About the unreliable sources tag

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)

I strongly defend her, and I posted on the RS talk page a comment. TeenAngels1234 (talk) 20:57, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

I now honestly think that this article - or Wikipedia now - is cursed and reached a weird point. TeenAngels1234 (talk) 20:59, 7 June 2024 (UTC)