Talk:Neon Genesis Evangelion

This article is nominated for Anime and Manga Collaboration of the Week. Please review this page's entry and voice your support.

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

NPOV right out of the window

The whole Evangelion section on Wikipedia suffers from this problem. Editors aren't just talking about what happens on screen, they are presenting their opinions on the implications of what happens on screen. Since the implications of anything in this anime are hard to assess, at best, that makes such judgements opinion. Since there's more than one possible conclusion to be drawn from so many things about this anime, the fact that editors frequently draw unwarranted conclusions displays bias. Since I happen to disagree with some of the conclusions drawn, I'd rather not see them in Wikipedia. I don't want to see my own preferred conclusion in Wikipedia either, what I'd like to see is an acknowledgement of plurality. In short, a Neutral Point of View. I've no intentions of getting into the middle of this myself, because I don't have a better version of the text in question to present, but I do ask you to consider whether you are drawing conclusions, rather than stating facts.

Besides, I've been scared off. I posted some changes once, to find them almost instantly reverted, as though they represented vandalism. Whether that was a justified revert or not, I'm not inclined to get involved in Wikipedia again, just yet. Soluzar 06:03, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, my primary complain in the peer review was that the articles lacked references. Without references, everything is assumption and/or original research. In this article's case, I believe you can add a {{fact}} template after every sentence you think is original research, or directly add the {{unreferenced}} and {{Original research}} at the top of the article. Please do give Wikipedia a second chance by editing again. Remember to always assume good faith when others do something you don't agree. If your edit is reverted, talk in the article's talk page about why you think your version should not be reverted. If nobody complains after a couple of days, go ahead and do it again. Remember that nobody owns articles, so they can't just keep reverting you without explaining why. If you have any doubts, just drop a line at my talk page. -- ReyBrujo 06:22, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

While I agree that there is a lot of opinionated content in the NGE articles, having tons of fact and citation tags throughout each article will make them hard to read and look really bad. Something that might not be a bad idea is to put disclaimers in each section that contains a lot of obviously POV and/or opinionated content and limit the fact and citation templates to the info that screams out for the appropriate tag until such time as that material can be removed or edited. Just a thought. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 02:54, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I usually find the intrusive citation tags to work better than the article or sections tag. Users are more likely to try to get the citations required by the citation tags than the ones at the top of the article. In example, if you add something, and there is already a [[tl|unreferenced}} tag at the top of the article, nothing happens. However, if someone adds a sentence, and immediately after someone else adds a citation tag for that statement, either the user references his addition, or the addition is removed after a week or so. -- ReyBrujo 03:03, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

GA Failing

• No fair use rationales
• No references
• Wild links (these -> [1])
• Some possible problems with tenses

The content looks good, but it needs to be referenced. Highway ^{Return to Oz...} 16:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

What is needing a fair use rationale? I checked the images, and aside from the note about resizing the pic of the characters, all of the images have fair use templates associated with them. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 22:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

No image has a fair use rationale. -- ReyBrujo 22:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Figured out what is being asked for...if no one else gets to this and I have time, I'll see what I can do about it. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 05:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm trying to work on the tense issues but it's tough enough to navigate tenses in Evangelion to begin with and the article isn't any better nor is it easy ot make it any better. Thygard - Talk - Contribs - Email ---- 06:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Original research

As far as I can tell, the first four paragraphs of the "Influences" section are blatant violations of WP:NOR. Has anyone of notability ever suggested the ideas they discuss? If not, they need to be removed. -- Schaefer (Talk) 06:23, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Contradictions

The intro says "Neon Genesis Evangelion (新世紀エヴァンゲリオン, Shin Seiki Evangerion?) is a controversial and highly popular Japanese animated television series," however there is no controvery section and any reference to why it was controversial is shallow at best so either that wording should be changed or good info should be added about it, same with it being popular and this has to be real sourced info not opinion. Thygard - Talk - Contribs - Email ---- 06:39, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. At least it requieres a reference. Or a section that says why its controversial. I can see why it can be controversial, but I haven't read anywhere about that being an issue in NGE. --Guille2015 06:51, 30 July 2006 (UTC)