Talk:Asuka Langley Soryu/Archive 1

My psychological profile

Personal view: I agree that Asuka is a proud, strong individual. Her goal is to succeed. As the story goes she graduated from college/university at an early age and was excited to join the EVA project. She has tried to mature very fast, although at the age of 14 this is surely a huge strain. Her brave efforts to succeed are constantly grounded by Shinji Ikari, who unwittingly has a 'natural talent' for piloting EVA 01. However hard Asuka tries, Shinji always seems to be better then her. Eventually this drives Asuka into making a foolish attack on the fifteenth Angel Arael which in turn mentally rapes her, leaving Asuka almost comatose. Prior to this Asuka is a strong, sociable, likeable character and as with many characters in the story, you find your self saddened by the terrible events that unfold around such promising ability. --Markavian 10:33, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Suggestion

I think we need a picture for this article. I imagine we can simply grab one online- fair use would definitely cover it. --Maru (talk) Contribs 23:28, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Never mind. Did it myself. --Maru (talk) Contribs 00:49, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Shinji's interaction with Misato

I'm not entirely sure where that "later rejection of contact with Misato" bit comes from. If whoever wrote that was talking about the kiss in EoE, (1) the most common interpretation seems to be that Misato didn't actually mean it because she knew she was going to die--she just wanted to galvanize Shinji into doing something instead of withdrawing into himself and just sitting there while the world ended--especially since it's Kaji's name she mentions as she's bleeding on the floor (if I remember correctly), and (2), in the elevator right afterwards, Shinji touches his lips, realizes that she bled on him, and starts to cry, none of which indicates rejection (of a promise that he probably realized to be false too) in my book. --Anon 02:45, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

The rejection of contact with Misato is when she comes into his room and touches his hand and he draws back violently; it is also exhibited when she is crying over Kaji's death and in obvious need of human contact, in response to which he merely plugs in his earphone and tries to ignore her by putting his pillow over his head. He's dead scared of her and the womanhood she represents. --Aquilla

His reaction to Misato crying wasn't one of rejection. He was simply too withdrawn to comfort her and felt guity hearing her cry, so he covered his head to block sound. He isn't scared, but too confused to deal comfort for Misato. Ikari90 05:23, 22 December 2006 (UTC)Patrick.

This is almost exactly how I interpret his actions. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 05:58, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Original Research

It seems that this article contains quite a bit of original research. "If Misato Katsuragi represents grown womanhood and all its difficulties and Rei Ayanami represents his relationship with his long-dead mother" Well, do they? It never seemed to me that the characters were that cookie-cutter. Also, I didn't realize "instances of sexual tension" were transferable. Hackwrench 23:55, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Evangelion articles do have a good amount of original research. I suggest adding {{unreferenced|date=August 2006}} to the top, or just {{citation needed}} in every sentence you think it is needed. There are no external links nor references, which makes a lot of what has been said there possible OR. -- ReyBrujo 00:11, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Director's cut of Ep. 22

Under the miscellaneous items, the section referring to the possibility of a repressed attraction between Shinji and Asuka could be bolstered by a note about the Director's Cut of episode 22, specifically the line "You won't even hold me!" (subtitle of the Japanese) when Asuka sees images of Shinji, particularly their kiss, during Arael's probing of her mind. It's still highly open to interpretation, but I think it bears mention. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 04:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Pronunciation

"Although her name would seem to be pronounced AH-soo-kuh, in the series and everything else it is pronounced AH-skuh because of the Japanese language."

As I understood it, the 'u' sound in various Japanese words is optionally silent such as "desu" and "itadakimasu." Is this sentence true when it says that the 'u' is always silent? Ziiv 06:31, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

From how I understand it, the "u" noise is, at least when said "properly", is subdued rather than silenced, though shorthand probably gets rid of it. I'd say find a video of some IRL person saying her name, and watch to see if their mouth makes even a slight "u"-noise shape.68.1.123.175 05:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The last line in EoE

Rather than bouncing back and forth between the two translations of Asuka's last words in EoE, IMO it would be better to state the line in Japanese and make a parenthetical note about the difference between the dubbed line and the subtitled translation. Thoughts? Willbyr (talk | contribs) 18:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Go for it. (The subs and dubs don't change between the various English releases, do they?) -- Gwern (contribs) 19:31, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the last edit: I would swear that my copy of EoE has Asuka saying "How disgusting" in the subtitled version (I haven't watched the dub version yet). Was it switched for the combined D&R/EoE release that came out a coupla years ago? Willbyr (talk | contribs) 14:08, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

any guess on what that last liner means? was it because she saw him masturbates to the sight of her exposed breasts? >:P or just morning sickness :-\ Akinkhoo 12:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

No one knows for sure, and I bet a definitive explanation won't be coming for a long time. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 13:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

It's almost certainly not morning sickness. I think the references in the EoE article address this, but what I remember is that Anno supposedly asked the seiyuu what her reaction would be to someone doing as Shinji did and sneaking into her room, and that last line was what she said. --Gwern (contribs) 00:49 5 September 2007 (GMT)

Asuka/Shinji interaction quote

There's a quote that I can't find a source for in the Asuka/Shinji interaction; it seems to have a source, but if you check the bottom of the screen I don't know what the heck its referring to and seems to just refer to itself. Probably should be deleted unless this is from something... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.64.137.66 (talk • contribs).

Could you be more specific? The indented quote "The thing I would like..." is sourced - I know, as I added and sourced it myself - and the two other quotes are either obvious (the EoE one, which anyone who has seen EoE is familiar with) or plausible in my recollection (the one beginning ""I want to stay with you, Asuka...") of the episodes, although I could go through the relevant episode if you suspect something is amiss. --Gwern (contribs) 04:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Specifically source 3, "A Place For Asuka In The Heart". I have no idea to what this is referring, and it doesn't link anywhere. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.64.137.66 (talk • contribs).

Ah. That's implicitly referring to the entry right above, which gives where one can find a translation of "A Place For Asuka In The Heart"; I didn't want to clutter up both references with the bibliographical information - they might drift out of sync as well. --Gwern (contribs) 20:41, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

New pics of Asuka

The new pic of Asuka is better than the old one, but I don't know so much about the "ID card." Also, these pics stand to be deleted by bots unless they're properly tagged. Can someone verify whether or not these are screen caps from the series or original works? I can't right now. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 20:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The infobox one is definitely taken from episode 08, Asuka Strikes!. The ID card one I don't know about. The towel on her head looks like the one she uses in later episodes, but I can't recall a specific scene, and it looks to be of pretty good resolution if it really was displayed, screencapped and then cropped, so I suspect its origin is independent of the TV series. (No way it could be public domain though!) --Gwern (contribs) 03:53 17 March 2007 (GMT)

The pic at the top of the page wasn't showing up, so I added a link to the pic available on the 'list of characters' page.Gwern, the pic that you chose (assuka13.jpg) can't be seen in neither IE7 nor Firefox. Offtopic, but in the caption under 'relations' it states that her step-mother is 'Mama'. I've never seen anything to believe that this is the case, and Asuka only refers to Kyoko as her 'mama' in the series, not her step-mother. Little or nothing is mentioned about her living arrangements or guardians after Kyoko is absorbed into Unit 02. Should we be changing this? --Lftwgr 04:53, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure? I see both images fine, and had no problem downloading them, down-rezzing them, reuploading them, and viewing them again. --Gwern (contribs) 05:22 6 May 2007 (GMT)

I don't know I only see it a dead link (placeholder). Maybe someone else can attest to this.--Lftwgr 05:26, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Almost certainly a problem on your end; I asked some editors in #wikipedia and they said the images shewed fine for them. --Gwern (contribs) 05:33 6 May 2007 (GMT)

Anyways back to the caption - I don't think Asuka ever refers to her stepmother as 'mama' --Lftwgr 05:42, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

In the wake of the mass image removals, several NGE images are going to eventually be tagged for deletion for being orphaned. I was thinking about taking out the solo image in this article, leaving only the image in the infobox, but I'm torn on whether to use the one that's currently in the infobox or switch it out for the image of Asuka in her plugsuit. Thoughts, anyone? Willbyr (talk | contribs) 04:41, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Asuka Hybrid Theory

I removed the paragraph mentioning Asuka in EoE as a possible Asuka/Misato/Rei hybrid. As this theory has never amounted to more than internet speculation and is original research, it does not belong in the article. --Sandoz

I put it back. The speculation is so widespread that there needs to be a paragraph dispelling it, and it's actually cited that cel animation reveals this is just an artwork thing from ambient light, etc. --Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici 04:26, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I didn't see this in time to revert it, but I support V5 here. Those articles which remove the Asuka hybrid theory are doomed to rewrite it badly... --Gwern (contribs) 06:03 29 April 2007 (GMT)

Exactly; it will just keep popping back up, so we have to shoot it down quickly with this sourced thing. Of course I'll say right now that I've got a pretty cavalier attitude in regards to accusations of "weasel words" and "original research" and stuff; I've seen people use that to basically gut articles of real content. Regardless. (Btw Gwern, I'm really just "V"; turns out you can't take a one-letter name like that though, hence VVVVV) --Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici 08:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Besides, it's fairly important to establish that it's Asuka specifically who survives 3I and not some crazy other possibility. --Gwern (contribs) 18:31 29 April 2007 (GMT)

Asuka/Shinji section

How does the rewrite look? I did some work on the same section in Shinji's article also. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 05:15, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Asuka's names

Per the last edit: Has it been established anywhere that Langley was one of her last names and not a middle name? Willbyr (talk | contribs) 19:35, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Child Prodigy?

Yes, in episode 10 she says she is a college graduate, but is there any other evidence that supports her claim? Thermal expansion isn't a difficult concept to understand, I for one first learned about it in the 8th grade. After watching the series a few times, her nature has become a little clearer to me and I just think that it's possible she was deceiving Shinji. (I'm not implying that Asuka is a master of the art of deception, but rather, I believe she might say such a thing to make Shinji think she is far more knowledgeable than he is.)--Surfaced 09:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I may be mistaken, but doesn't Misato or Ritsuko or someone also refer to Asuka as a prodigy? There's no real evidence she isn't a college graduate, IMO. --Gwern (contribs) 12:25 18 September 2007 (GMT)

You may not be mistaken, I'm just wondering if there's just that kind of thing that is said throughout the series. If someone could drop an episode number on this, we can close this up.--Surfaced 00:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The word "college" doesn't mean "university" in a lot of countries, but rather high school. Of course, finishing high school at 14 would still be very impressive. I don't know if the Japanese use "college" and "university" as synonyms, but it's odd how many Evangelion sites don't seem to be be aware there's an ambiguity. The episode where she discusses her education, btw, is episode 10; "Magma Diver". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.211.35.170 (talk) 12:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Er, no your wrong the episode and scripts as well as supplements rather unambiguously state that Asuka is a child prodigy that graduated college early, not high school or finishing school. Oh we could debate the semantics of "College" vs "University", but I take them as the same thing. --Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici (talk) 15:05, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

The mention of Fanfiction

A part of the article states

In Evangelion fanfiction, Asuka and Shinji are often paired as a couple, despite the conflicts their personality disorders cause.

I don't think it is relevant at all to mention Fanfiction. I mean, what if I were to write a fanfiction that says Asuka is a space Alien sent back in time by wizard cavemen from the planet Crapola which is made entirely out of marshmallows. Would that be of any relevance? Please just stick to the officially released materials.--Little Jimmy 03:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Would you prefer something along the lines that Asuka is often paired with Shinji in official Gainax merchandise (wallpapers, games, etc.)? (True enough, as true as the fanfiction point.) --Gwern (contribs) 04:24 31 October 2007 (GMT)

Gwern's suggestion is a good compromise. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 12:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Would I prefer something along the lines that Asuka is often paired with Shinji in official Gainax merchandise? Yes. Even though it may not be canon either, it is an actual verifiable source and is not just people making stuff up.--Little Jimmy 00:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Asuka's Father and Step-mother

"Asuka's German father remarried a doctor named Langley"

Where did this info come from? I was under the impression that Asuka's Father was the American. --68.7.201.42 06:07, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Anybody? I'll give it a few more weeks and remove it if nobody responds. --68.7.201.42 (talk) 01:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Greater Eva geeks than I believe the father to be American. Might as well change it. --Gwern (contribs) 02:35 21 November 2007 (GMT)

Alright, I went ahead and changed it. Probably not the best wording, so if anyone thinks they can improve on it, go ahead. 68.7.201.42 (talk) 02:44, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

"Her German surname comes from the American aircraft carrier Langley..."

This paragraph should be revised. Langley does not even remotely sound like a German name.

Maybe not, but her ethnicity is established as German, so that's what we have to go with. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 22:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Asuka's mother Kyoko is half-Japanese, half-German. Her father, "Langley", is simply listed as "American"....even though "American" is a nationality and not an ethnicity. Yes, this is a goof up on the production team's part. She's apparently three-fourths caucasian. Either way, Asuka considers *herself* to be German, having been raised in Germany her entire life, speaking German as her native language, etc. --Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici (talk) 20:26, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Asuka's ethnicity

Again a silly, pointless and never-ending debate just because VVVVV doesn't like his edits to disappear.

So here we go again:

"A fairly common mistake among fans": this is THE example of non-wikipedian formulation. We don't write about fan reactions as they are stricly impossible to quatify or to source. There can be exception of particularly notable fan reactions that got mentionned in news reports or whatever, but this is not the case (instead you're talking about a few forum posts that cannot qualify as notable or representative of anything).

"is that Asuka is half-Japanese and half-German, or three quarters German and one quarter Japanese.": As before, where have you heard of that ? This is all unsubstanciated and no section of WP could be based on a "correction" of something that is unquantifiable. We don't "correct" (as we don't possess absolute knowledge), we inform, and in any case we're not going to dedicate a whole section to answer a few forum posts.

"In truth, the explanation of Asuka's ethnicity is that her mother Kyoko was half Japanese and half German, while her father is descried simply as "American"": Several things here: look at the character overview in the article, all this is already covered (and the strict answer about her nationality, as it was mentionned in the RCB, is mentionned in the intro). Why this redundancy ? Why this need to go back to this for a third time ? That's what you fail to explain, VVVVV.
Besides, have Kyoko or "papa" already been described in any source as respectively german/japanese and american ? I admit these are fairly logical deductions but as this is something that was never explicitely stated (particularly about "papa") we should proceed with care and only mention Asuka's origins and not precisely from whom they may come, as it's never clearly said anywhere.

"However, this is a nationality, not an ethnicity": who are you to say anything about that ? We have no details about her father, so we don't discuss what is his nationality and what is his ethnicity. We just know Asuka has the american nationality, period. Going further than that is already writing OR. We just can't write an essay about Asuka's origin, we can only report what little info is given to us through the show or official documents.

"and it is not really clear what her father's exact ethnicity is": if it's not clear, then we shouldn't discuss it.

"though from his brief appearances in the anime and manga, he would appear to be Caucasian as well": according to what I remember, there's nothing in the show allowing us to claim he's either caucasian or asian. Unless we have official docs stating this, we don't start pointless speculations.

"making Asuka of 3/4 European descent, 1/4 Japanese": again, ORish considerations. We don't write an essay about her origins, we write about a show, and above all we don't extend the lives of characters beyond the frame of the show. What's the point of dedicating such time to a matter that has never been discussed anywhere in the show ? We don't know Asuka, she is not a real person, thus we don't go further than what the show states and we don't "analyse" anything. She's 1 quarter German, 1 quarter Japanese, has the American nationality, period.

"Because her father is a US citizen": again, from where do you know that ?

"Asuka technically holds dual-citizenship in the United States": again, from where do you know that ? And moreover, what is the point in mentionning that ? Not only you're making things up, but this is utterly irrelevant to the character or the show.

"but this is never significantly mentioned in the series": why would we bother to make predictions about that, then ?

"Regardless of the several complexities in Asuka's background, having spent her entire life in Germany and speaking German as her primary language, Asuka simply considers herself "German"." 1) could you please explain to me what would be missing about that in this sentence (from character overview) : "Asuka is a native of Germany, having been raised there, though her nationality is technically American. Asuka's native language is German, and in both the series and the manga she tends to curse in German. "
2) While we notice what I've just quoted appears perfectly factual, we also see that what you want to impose contain opinions about a character (or the assumed opinion of a fictional character). We can't know if she "feels" German. But we know she was raised there and often speaks german. Going further than that is ORish, and worst, it means adopting an in-universe point of view (ie relying on what we think a fictional character feels instead of relying on what is shown to the viewer).

So I have explained, step by step, why this whole section was unneeded. It was redundant and contained a lot of pointless speculations. That's why I decided to remove it entirely and to sum up the official answer about Asuka's origins in the introduction. Then, the "character overview" section contains enough explanations about her her actions in show related to her backstory.
I'll also add that "information" means something that we know for a fact, because it was shown in the series or explained in a official document. Speculations and guesswork are not "information". Considering I have placed elsewhere what little info was contained in the section I removed, and that the said section was primarily dedicated to guesswork (as I have proved it step by step), the accusation that I would be "cutting info" by removing this section is completely unsubstanciated. And in any case, it cannot be accepted as a reason to revert my edit.
As for "actual work", yes, correcting other wikipedians' mistakes, or modifying questionable edits, is an integral part of the work that has to be done here.

So no, VVVVV, you won't prevent me to edit article just on the basis that you don't like anyone to remove your edits, or that you just think your edits are perfect. If you want to keep going that way, then before reverting anything you will have to prove the validity of what you're saying. Just writing "you cut info" and "I want my edits to stay" are not valid reasons to revert others' edits. Next time you do that (ie reverting my edits for no apparent reason), then I will have to report you to the admin board, because I cannot let you disturb the WP as you do.Folken de Fanel (talk) 17:30, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

VVVVV has reverted again the article without even contributing to this talk page (how surprising !). Yet he's the one who, only weeks ago, accused me to "push people around" and "not actually trying to discuss things". And now he's just blindly reverting, just because he wants to have in own way on articles, not accepting that anyone could remove his holy contributions, all that without even bothering to justify his actions. If that's not "pushing people around"...

Now let's see what are his excuses, this time...

• "this isn't original research nor is it clearly explained in the article": 1) Yes, it is original research. OR is defined as "unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, or arguments". That's clear enough. Considering what consitutes the concerned section (guessworks about the father's nationality/ethnicity/appearance, Asuka's "dual citizenship", going into the mind of a fictional character, etc), yes, it is full of original research and there's no reason whatsoever it could stay. What is not in the show and never stated in any official document is guesswork. That VVVVV doesn't like his edits to disappear is not a valid justification. And that VVVVV claims it would not be OR is not enough; he has to prove it, because what he says is not the word of God.

2) Could you explain how the article "doesn't clearly explain" the situation . From character overview) : "Asuka is a native of Germany, having been raised there, though her nationality is technically American. Asuka's native language is German, and in both the series and the manga she tends to curse in German. "
How does it not explain Asuka's situation ? Asuka has mixed origins, she is an American citizen, yet she was raised in Germany, speaks German, and thus she's contrasting in the japanese context of the show. That's all there is to it (at least, that all we see in the show, VVVVV's fanfiction is a whole different topic), and I can't see what could be added, or even why more would be added.

• "She's one quarter German and Japanese, but she has the American nationality" is not proper English, and does not specify which quarter she is. Run this through a translation program if you want it.

1) Ok, now that he can't find anything against the content itself, he tries to attack the messenger directly, implying that I wouldn't write "proper english" while I can't find what would be the problem with that. If you really consider it is not "proper english", then rewrite it in what you think is proper english instead of trying to remove it. If you just want to remove it without finding anything to correct, then it means there is nothing to correct, that it is already proper english, and that you're just looking for lame pretexts to remove it.

2) "does not specify which quarter she is" ? Ok, what I wrote comes straight from the "End of Evangelion" Theatrical Program -what is also known in the fandom as the Red Cross Book (RCB)- in Auska's character bio (p. 19 if you don't count the cover). It states in japanese:

独国人と日本人のクォーターだが、国籍は米国

...which literally means "But German and Japanese quarters, the nationality being American". We go back to what I said yesterday, that is, we stick to what is written in reliable sources and we don't add our own deductions to it. The official sources don't state from who Asuka go which nationality. While these are easy guesses, let's just proceed with care and stick to what is officially said.

By the way, english fantranslations, such as Botchan_Bird's, render it as "She is one quarter German and Japanese, but her nationality is American" or "Nationality is USA, despite being one fourth Japanese and one fourth German".

If you have problems with the formulation, then reformulate instead of reverting. Last warning, if you revert again without consensus and without even taking part to the discussion, you're in for the admin board.Folken de Fanel (talk) 11:49, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Asuka Langley Soryu/Asuka's ethnicity (archive): as this was getting off-topic, ownership debate was archived. Now let's focus on article content.Folken de Fanel (talk) 13:47, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Nausicaa manga volume?

what volume of the Nausicaa manga is the strangling scene with Asuka's mother supposed to be based on? any more specifics on that scene?--Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici (talk) 15:46, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Start Class?

Oh dear... Asuka's been dropped down to a 'start class' article? We really need to do something to change this... I'm going to try and find some reliable secondary sources tomorrow that we could use, and I think that we should try and include more "real world" information, for instance expanding sections about her creation as a character. If someone could get some more quotes from Sadamoto and Anno regarding the character specifically, that would be great. Even more quotes from her seiyuu. Does anyone know of an anime character whose page is a featured article? We could use that as a possible guidline while re-structuring Asuka's page. Comics (talk) 12:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I hate it when they "review" an article without saying specifically what is wrong with it. *I* consider it at least "functional", and at a certain point you realize that you're not going to ever meet their exacting criteria: we should make sure nothing crazy is said and that everything is sourced, but....frankly there are some who want wikipedia to be nothing but a short collection of links and quotes. *I* don't consider it "start class", and you don't consider it "start class" comic master, so on the principle that by our consensus, reality has become commodity it isn't. (sigh) what I'm saying is; give the article a going over to meet what you personally feel may need to be fixed, but don't go jumping through hoops based on these drive-by reviews. We'll never meet Featured Article standards. ***idea; check an anime-character article page that DOES have A=status, and see what they did that this article does not? That might be a good starting point. --Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici (talk) 01:12, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Theres no need to specifically say whats wrong with it, the tags on the article should provide a pretty big clue. I don't know why you are concerning yourself with not meeting FA, many very good pages aren't FA ready, but that doesn't mean they are bad articles. However this article has several major issues (all of which are clearly tagged) and the only quality level that matters right now is fixing the problems stated in the tags. Get those fixed, and you've got a starting point for a good C class. Certainly don't look for an A rated character page, you need to build up gradually through to C first. Dandy Sephy (talk) 21:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah but if I single-handedly rewrite it up to standards, there will be the usual people complaining that I'm "trying to dominate it". The problem is that if I, or Willybr, or Gwern, etc. were to rewrite the entire thing from scratch, the usual whiners would be complaining that we were "dominating" it. My answer is to do nothing, and let it rot, until such time as the whiners realize "alright, people who are actually card-carrying members of the Eva WorkGroup probably take this seriously and know what they're talking about more than I do". So if anyone else thinks they can do a better job, this is their opportunity. --Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici (talk) 00:07, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, if you single-handedly made massive changes to the article to bring it up to C or B class you'd be doing everyone a favor. Don't worry about the complainers; if they had been interested in being part of the process, they would already be working on it. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 05:09, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree completely, I rewrote most of a larger article on my own because no one else was either bothered or capable (article had six or seven issues and was flagged for expert attention). Theres nothing inherently wrong with rewriting a page to bring it up to scratch, that's not ownership or "dominating" - that's improving a page. Most people simply don't care about page standards (or to be fair simply don't know or understand) so they are unlikely to be improving the page themselves. If people take issue with it direct them here or to Wp:Anime. Dandy Sephy (talk) 09:40, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Personnaly, I wouldn't complain if VVVVV single-handedly reworked the article and actually made it better. I would complain, however, and I would accuse him of "dominating it", if, as usual, he reworked the article only in order to put his own views and theories into the article or if he adopted a non-encyclopedical style, only to start yet another edit-war if anyone dared to touch his holy contributions. I would complain if VVVVV tried again to threaten me to force me out of Wikipedia for "standing in his way" (ie respecting the "No OR" policy), and indeed, if VVVVV were to do that, I would consider it downgrading the article, and article ownership. Single-handedly reworking an article is not ownership, however excluding all the others from the process of editing and automatically rejecting any criticism, and revert-warring each time anyone removes obvious violations of policy, is article ownership.
Because that is what VVVVV is doing here. So he can touch whatever article he wants, but any violations of the rules will be reverted, and I'm tired of seeing him throw tantrums everywhere about "people destroying his work", when he's obviously determined to have his own way on WP and to ignore every existing guideline and policy, and to attack everyone reminding him that articles about Evangelion don't belong to him.
So until he actually does what he claims he can do (ie improving (according to the WP standards) the article) I won't believe he actually cares about the articles, I'll only believe what my eyes saw, that he's only seeing Wikipedia as a medium for his own ideas.

Sorry, V, nothing personal, but I have to correct your lies.Folken de Fanel (talk) 14:10, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

While I can't comment on the actual allegations (Having not been there), your highlighting the correct process that should be followed. Namely improve, discuss and following proper procedure and quality policy (such as Wp:OR, while maintaining good faith and avoiding conflicting interests. Although I've no plans to overhaul the page myself (I've got enough on going projects to do myself), I'm going to be watching the page anyway for vandalism and messing about. I suggest people keep it civil and work towards the benefit of the page, franchise and wikipedia in general Dandy Sephy (talk) 15:07, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Folken you never worked on any Evangelion articles, then barged in, rewrote things without even trying to gauge consensus, then became utterly incensed when anyone tried to change any mistakes you made; you're not an Administrator and are in no position to start ordering everyone about as if we were. I and the other EvaWorkgroup people were trying to at least get a rought consensus on things. "force you off of Wikipedia"? I told you either seriously start making an effort to work with the rest of us on the Eva articles, otherwise, if "Wikipedia" is just a game where you log into your computer and get to order people around, I said to go and do that on the Dragonball articles or something. (sigh) This is what I have to deal with.....so no, we're going to wait it out because Folken here likes to have fun berating other people's work that he isn't willing to do himself. --Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici (talk) 15:43, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Consensus isn't require to write things, and things being changed is what wikipedia is about. If you can't handle people editing your contributions, you need to stop editing. Not even the Eva workgroup is above others on that. Both of you need to cut the shit and get on with that. If you can't do that, theres another good reason to save yourself the hassle of not editing at all. I'm not an admin at all either, but it's clear that there is some degree of animosity bewtween the two of you and talk pages for articles isn't the place to deal with it - stop it or take it somewhere else before you end up at the admin noticeboard. Rather then fighting between yourselves, some discussion of the page in question is what should be happening here. Dandy Sephy (talk) 16:06, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not a matter of people editing my contributions. It's a matter of that Folken here is reverting any changes made by anyone, even though he barely works on this. Long story short: Folken's some hothead who pops into Eva workgroup articles from time to time and likes to yell at us, hoping we'll assume he has the authority to push us around, and it hasn't been working. Well if Willybr's under time constraints, I'll see what can be done. --Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici (talk) 00:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

It is a matter of people editing your contributions. Otherwise, why would you edit-war in order to include content that violates the rules (more particularly about OR) and that happens to be written by you ? A lot of OR has already been removed many times from many articles by many editors, including me. However you created conflicts only when your contributions were concerned, because you just cannot accept the idea that your holy edits wouldn't stay on WP.

I'm not reverting "any change made by anyone", I am removing content that has nothing to do on Wikipedia, such as unsourced opinions and original research. Each time I'm removing something, it is always perfectly justified according to the WP policies and guidelines. However, each time you start an edit war, you're just unable to find anything to substanciate it, other than personal attacks. By the way, contributing to an article in any way, either by actually writing quality content (ie content that meet the requirements from various policies) or by removing the content that doesn't correspond to the WP standards, is work. So yes, I have worked on Eva articles.

So, you are the hothead who throws childish trantrums each time someone "dares" to touch your Holy Writings, and who yell at me instead of trying to discuss with civility and to actually try to justify your edits.

Concerning your nonesense about "authority", as Dandy Sephy reminded you, "consensus isn't require to write things, and things being changed is what wikipedia is about".

Moreover, there is no need of consensus to remove obvious policy violations either (such as original research, unsourced opinions, etc. That is, everything I have removed from your contribs).

On the contrary, as it is stated in WP:V, "Any material lacking a reliable source may be removed". I know very well what the next part of the sentence recommands, but it only highlights the fact that there is no need of discussion, only that the editor wanting to re-include the content has the duty to find a source, and not endlessly argue that editors should be allowed to write unsourced OR.

There is also the Jimmy Wales quote: "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced."

So if you're not ready to accept that anyone can remove your edits, you should not contribute.

What you're saying is indeed utter nonesense. Nowhere in WP is it stated that I would need your approval before removing your contribs (whether I'd just be wanting to replace them with something entirely different, or they'd be blatant policy violations), and indeed Wikipedia is not going to tolerate policy violations just so that some contributors could maintain their grasps on articles and their pride. When I remove content, it is always according to the most basic rules of WP so there's no discussing it. It is not authority, it is applying the rules of WP, and I can't see why they wouldn't apply to you.

By the way, you're reproaching me a so-called "authority", but it doesn't seem to bother you to reinsert your content back into the article without any discussion of without any justification concerning the various policies and guidelines. You should not give lessons about authority in these circumstances.

In conclusion, your multiple and failed attempts at article ownership have only slowed down improvements, as your silly argument is doing now. You'd better either start showing you can write the actual quality content that you're boasting about, or stop whining.Folken de Fanel (talk) 01:15, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

The time you spent writing a page-length mini-essay "defending your honor", could have been spent actually writing improvements to the article. Instead, I have had to make the recent set of major changes alone (Gwern says he'll be starting shortely). Folken, you are rapidly proving my point that you're not doing any actual work but just spend all your time berating other people. If you want to prove me wrong, do actual work on the article. --Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici (talk) 15:38, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

You should focus on actual improvement instead of trying to create rivalry between us (and you should wait a bit before claiming you've saved the article).

And yes, I maintain what I said earlier, removing poor content is the same as writing new content, so yes, I have done actual work on articles, and no, writing OR is not work but disrupting the Wiki. The changes I have initiated about Asuka's ethnicity (which was unsourced and needed to go) are already something that you won't have to do now, so I've saved you some troubles and yes, I have improved the article. Your rants won't change it and your "berating" thing is utter nonesense. It's not my fault if you couldn't stick to the rules in the past, and it is great if you've finally learned to do so. As I've said, I only remove policy violations, so work as you want within the frame of what WP allows, but don't complain all over the place about what had (or will have, but I hope it won't be the case) to be removed.

To conclude, if you claim you're here to improve the article, I advice you to do it instead of spending all your time insulting me (remember personal attacks are not tolerated).Folken de Fanel (talk) 20:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

It was aimed at both of you, i'm not interested in whos right or wrong, just the article quality Dandy Sephy (talk) 00:19, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

The only thing I know for certain on this is that I'm not going to have the time anytime soon to do major work on the article. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 17:06, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't suffer Willbyr's time limitations exactly, but for major edits I'm usually working from sources. I just don't really have any right now. There are a few good hits on Google Scholar, but those are mostly useful if we wanted to mention that among the much merchandising of Asuka, pocky is prominent (and stuff like that).

On the plus side, JSTOR now apparently has Napier's "When the Machines Stop", which might be let us source some of the psychology stuff. --Gwern (contribs) 01:43 19 January 2009 (GMT)

How is that relevant to this? --Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici (talk) 15:38, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't be so clueless V. Read the paper and find out. --Gwern (contribs) 14:32 20 January 2009 (GMT)

I haven't heard of that article before--Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici (talk) 05:19, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I have read the full article; I can thank you no end for pointing it out to me, thank you. I didn't realize that "Susan Napier" is the one who wrote "From Akira to Princess Mononoke", which is ironic given the number of times I've met this woman. The article itself is utter crap. Let us discuss it on the Talk page for WikiProject Eva...--69.124.1.35 (talk) 06:32, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

One of the things that the article needs to do is cite specific episodes and volumes of the manga in which events appear; this should go a ways toward fixing the "in-universe" tag. See Rei and Kaworu's articles for examples. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 03:56, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

...why would you be looking for things on Google Scholar? The problem is that we need to, as Willybr points out, properly cite what information comes from what episode specifically, using footnotes. We'll get to Secondary Sources later. --Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici (talk) 07:05, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Article improvement

(splitting this off) Okay, I've moved around the subheadings, but we need a lot of work on this: what exactly is wrong with this article? Which parts are TOO speculative and unsourced? --Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici (talk) 15:41, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

If I'm being honest, it's rather worrying that you really don't seem to understand just how much work this page requires. Really, the tags do say it all, but:

The ENTIRE article needs to be sourced and referenced. Theres 8 references for text which should have at least 20. Edward Elric has 46 references for a roughly similar amount of text. If something is being stated or claimed, it requires a reference. You simply won't get past a C class without doing so to every single claim. moving around headings and making inconsequential changes like you made recently isn't going to achieve anything. If something happens in the manga, reference it to the volume and page. If something happens in the anime, reference the episode. If something is unreferenced, consider it speculative and come back to it later or let someone else decide. You also need to try and find some reliable third party sources.

It needs rewriting because the tone is all wrong. However this should probably be done after references in this case as it will be easier to rephrase existing content rather then write it from scratch like I'm having to do elsewhere. It may be wise recruiting someone who is familiar with the series and has a history of writing or heavily contributing to quality articles.

I really do suggest comparing to Edward Elric as that is a B class article, and is being used by WP:Anime as a example of what a B class character article should be. That doesn't mean you should try to go straight from Start to B, it's not going to happen. However, theres no reason not to gradually build the page up to a similar standard over time. This isn't a five minute job, but needs to be done by someone who knows what they are doing or someone willing to put the time in and learn as they go.

First things first - reference, reference, reference. If necessary I can add hidden comments to the article about things that need improving, but I will want to see some improvement before doing so as it will be time consuming and most of the issues are fairly obvious. Dandy Sephy (talk) 05:22, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

An article has to be more than a series of footnotes slapped together. The Elric article handles this well; but I have seen many articles that take this to an extreme.--Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici (talk) 06:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

And an article has to be more than a series of opinions and speculations slapped together. The matter here is not to question Wikipedia principles, it is to apply them to make the article better according to WP standards.Folken de Fanel (talk) 11:41, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

In my experience it's pretty hard to go too far to the extreme on referencing. I wouldn't be wary of referencing become some pages reference almost every word. And please, stop taking shots at eachother... --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 12:23, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Name change in Rebuild of Evangelion

Word out on the street is that the new trailer for Rebuild of Eva 2 says that Asuka has been renamed to "Shikinami Asuka Langley". It's another vessel of the same destroyer class as the "Ayanami" that Rei was named after..."Soryu" of course being an aircraft carrier. We need to await further confirmation on this in the coming days....nonetheless, if it turns out to be true...I move that instead of creating two separate pages, we create a subsection (as on the other pages "Asuka in Rebuild" etc.) and make a Redirect page that links directly to that subsection. --Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici (talk) 07:04, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, if you know Japanese you can presumably verify it for yourself; the main English source seems to be a Sankaku blog posting, which includes an image of the official advertising containing the name change (Evageeks has a copy of the full poster).

And I agree that unless there are truly epic changes to Asuka - far beyond just a surname change - a subsection is the way to go.

But of course, it's still a bit premature. I doubt it's a mistake or experiment, but given the 'Wevangerion' thing I'd wait to see whether it's really a name change. --Gwern (contribs) 13:25 15 March 2009 (GMT)

The official website now runs an actual poster confirming that her name is now "Shikinami Asuka Langley" and not "Soryu Asuka Langley" and that she is a Captain. Should we consider this "officially sourced" now? I say: yes. --Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici (talk) 01:18, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I did initially struggle to see it on that poster on the official site (even when enlarged), but its certainly a good enough reference (much better then the previous one) Dandy Sephy (talk) 01:22, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Relationship Section

While I agree with Dandy Sephy that the old relationship section was defintely original research and not written to Wikipedia standards, I feel that this section could either help a great deal in illuminating Asuka's character (as she responds to Shinji, Mistao, Kaji, Hikari, and others). Should a new section with better research be used or potential content be integrated into the Personality section? Ode2joy (talk) 23:46, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's a good idea to actually separate it into a "relationship" section. the important thing is that we get her character and maybe put examples in that relate to relationships with other charactersBread Ninja (talk) 17:16, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Ethnicity

According to Matt Greenfield's statements in panel videos, Hideaki Anno said his first pick to play Asuka would be a 14 year old Emma Watson (she's already too old though). From this we can conclude that Anno intended Asuka to actually look "European" not "bi-racial." Asuka is not "half-Japanese", her mother was half-Japanese which makes her only a quarter asian; this is really just a common conceit in many anime series, making a character part-Japanese in order to give them a familiar Japanese name. Either way...that report is intriguing: what did the full article have to say about Asuka?--Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici (talk) 02:27, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Hm, I wonder how much credence to play in Greenfield's statement; I've never been sure how much to trust him. (Is Anno a Harry Potter film?)

But the study doesn't say too much about Asuka. She's used as a visual aid to show how the screenshots were turned into portraits devoid of background & as much extraneous lighting, clothing, doodads etc. which might signal what the artists intended. Reading between the lines, her particular character (the study used >300, IIRC) was classified as either Caucasian or Other (probably the former; the relevant footnote says that characters from Tokyo-2, Neo-Tokyo etc are classified as Other because future or fictional locales confer no set ethnicity...), but the detailed statistics aren't in the paper. Perhaps the thesis, when it's done?

If you're curious, I can send you my scan. It's 63M so I can only put it up temporarily; contact me via email. --Gwern (contribs) 05:14 16 November 2009 (GMT)

That comment seems rather astute there ^^ and I think it warrants a mention if we can verify that Anno said that Comics (talk) 06:16, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay; you know what my e-mail is from the mailing list. --Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici (talk) 02:30, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Strawberry Blond - Reddish Brown

I've noticed that the article holds some OR. specifically with the manga description saying that she has "Strawberry Blond" hair and the anime has "Reddish Brown". Strawberry blonde would basically look like red hair in cartoons because strawberry blonde is not a solid color and NGE isn't using different variations of color. Of course this is all original research, so I'll just remove that on both anime and manga, and simply say that she has red hair.Bread Ninja (talk) 17:21, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Isn't it kind of OR to say strawberry blonde would look like red? The anime has no problem showing Ritsuko as a bottle blonde, for example, nor Kensuke as brown-headed. --Gwern (contribs) 01:58 18 January 2010 (GMT)

Asuka's hair color is really all over the place. The anime, from what I remember, is fairly consistent with giving her red hair, but it's clearly a lighter shade of red in the cover for vol. 4 of the manga, and there's artwork in Der Mond aside from the one in the Character Notes section that gives her blond hair (one of which is on the back of vol. 5 of the manga). There should be a note in the Character notes section talking about this; other than that, I'm fine with removing references to hair color in the rest of the article. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 05:01, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

The anime is consitent, yeah ^^ I've got most of the episodes and I think I can safely say that it's consistent.

About Der Mond, well that is Der Mond. Which is from my understanding Sadamoto collecting some artwork. It may/may not be conisdered canonical in any canon. Just keeping that in mind. Comics (talk) 12:39, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

All the artwork in Der Mond is Sadamoto's art. It's still art of the NGE characters he's created for several different media (several of which have been used for cover art for the manga volumes), concept art, colorized bits from the manga, and a small section of non-NGE work that he's done, including the cover art of Eric Clapton's Pilgrim album. I'll put in a statement about this in the Character Notes section and stick in some refs tonight when I can get to my copy of Der Mond. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 15:24, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Die Sterne is probably also worth checking; I think they both had some commentary, ne? --Gwern (contribs) 16:05 19 January 2010 (GMT)

Again, this would be OR for us to determine if it's blonde or not by ourselves. considering that red hair, strawberry blonde and blonde have been common arguments over Wikipedia, we should simply stick to what color has been confirmed. in Neon Genesis Evangelion III it is also difficult to distinguish if she is a red head or blonde. There's also the argument of "lighting" that affects red hair to appear blonde.

I'll wait until refs come in, as for Die Sterne, the only Die Sterne i could think of is the band and i don't think they mentioned much about Asuka. either way, seems random to get there comments.Bread Ninja (talk) 17:01, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Die Sterne is, as Google could tell one in listing the Amazon page, another of Sadamoto's artbooks. Interviews with Sadamoto and other materials are often included; for example, this interview] from Der Monde. --Gwern (contribs) 17:22 19 January 2010 (GMT)

I don't have a copy of Die Sterne, unfortunately. As far as determining what a hair color "is" being OR...I can see your point to a degree, but my general opinion is that it's splitting hairs to a monomolecular level, especially when there are citeable (sp?) examples of work from Sadamoto where the hair color is quite inconsistent. If you do a "Der Mond Asuka" Google search, you can see some of the art from the book (mainly the picasaweb.google.com examples), and it's patently obvious in those that her hair color is much closer to blond than it is to the red used in the anime. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 17:51, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

That's what torrents are for. :) Translations may be more difficult to come by, but searches are always more effective when you know what you are looking for.

And yes, actual cites are proving frustrating. My custom search engine picks up a Gamekult entry, which site is used widely on WP, but this seems to be largely a rip of us; nor are we allowed to appeal to the Evageeks wiki or forums (and the Eva ML archives are not helpful). I thought for sure that Horn would mention somewhere in his manga extras, but either it's not in my partial collection of scans or I missed it while reading through. --Gwern (contribs) 18:15 19 January 2010 (GMT)

If the creator mentions something about the hair color changes, then by all means add it in. But then again, Asuka has had drastic hair color changes not just in Sadamoto's manga adaption. you can clearly see her hair color leaning towards Brunette in angelic Days cover 1 and suddenly bright red hair in another cover. I don't think it's fair simply to mention the hair color change between the manga and anime. Still i looked up "Der Mond Asuka" and saw a few images of her, her hair still appears to be reddish brown, i looked up "Der Mond Neon genesis evangelion" and found even fewer images of asuka. still not enough to say she is blonde IMO. to me blonde is yellow, and i don't see it.Bread Ninja (talk) 19:09, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, if you want to compare pics. http://safebooru.donmai.us/post?tags=sadamoto_yoshiyuki+souryuu_asuka_langley&commit=Search is a good collection of Sadamoto's art. Notice how her blonde appearances have her hair being very distinctly a different color from her plugsuit or her A-10 clips, whereas in other images her hair is darn near the exact same color. --Gwern (contribs) 19:20 19 January 2010 (GMT)

I saw them and only two images of asuka were close to being blonde but was able to see some red and brown in her hair.Also there are many more that were clearly red-head. I don't think this is notable enough to mention if blonde only appears as a minority within the gallery. We could mention that Asuka has been drawn with blonde hair, but i dont think it was really character concept in the manga or other versions. I say we simply mention that the hair color changes often when she is illustrated, but i don't tihnk we should mention the specific hair colors Bread Ninja (talk) 19:31, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

So for now let's just remove that info until more info is found upon it.Bread Ninja (talk) 15:29, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Question

Forgive me for my stupidity, but what does prototype mean in this instance? Does it mean the designs orignally contained in the Evangelion Proposal? Comics (talk) 05:57, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm guessing that it's asking for a concept sketch of Asuka...there are illustrations in Der Mond which could probably be brought into the article, or at least referenced if they're on the web somewhere. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 12:48, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Would something like this be what we're looking for:

[1]
Comics (talk) 00:29, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay... if nobody replies to this in a few days, I'm going to be bold and add the picture to the article...Comics (talk) 06:02, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

That's exactly what I was thinking. I'd say go ahead and add it; just make sure that there's some text in the article talking about what went into the character's design and give a proper non-free image rationale. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 12:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm thinking add it to Character Notes... nowhere else seems relevant. Comics (talk) 13:01, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I've gone and done it. I've added a very brief description to go with the picture... I'll try and find some more info over the next few days. If anyone wants to add to that very brief section, be bold. Comics (talk) 13:13, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Although the concept art would be nice, I do not seriously think the higher-ups on Wikipedia will let us keep it. What is "Fair Use" and what is not seems largely to be their interpretation.--Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici (talk) 15:04, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Edit request from 66.203.182.186, 5 April 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} I am requesting that this page be edited in the "Rebuild of Evangelion" section because it says (The inaccurate areas will be bolded): "Asuka makes her first appearance in the second film, Evangelion: 2.0 You Can (Not) Advance, of the Rebuild of Evangelion tetralogy. Several changes have been made to her character of which include her family name being changed from Sōryū (惣流) to Shikinami (式波), continuing the Japanese maritime vessel naming convention, and that she is now referred to as holding the rank of captain[5]" I find that it is inaccurate and because it has not yet been confirmed and should be labeled as so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.203.182.186 (talk • contribs) 01:30, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Evangelion 2.0 is already out. Asuka's last name has been changed. Refer to ANN if you still don't believe it to be true: http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/encyclopedia/anime.php?id=8421 Watch the movie if you must as well. Also, remember that this is a work of fiction, even if she is too young to hold the rank of Captain in real life she can still be made so if the writers want it that way. We have tried over and again to tell you these are accurate and issued warnings since your edits have been deemed disruptive. Removing cleanup tags is also not the best way to help your cause either. In the future, if there is conflict with an edit regarding content do your research first then try to consolidate the information with the other editors instead of being vehement in pushing the same thing over and again. Fox816 (talk) 02:24, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I've added the reference to the character page of the film's official website, which verifies the surname change. As for the rank, is she referred to as holding that rank in the film? —Farix (t | c) 02:38, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

She was given rank in the promotional materials for the second movie http://en.gigazine.net/index.php?/news/comments/20090314_eva/. As for in the movie itself I'll need to rewatch it. Fox816 (talk) 05:25, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe that the movie has come out in English dubbed yet and i cant speak Japanese. thanks for your efforts but still... its not yet confirmed. P.S. my user name is NOT for816... i have no user name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.203.182.186 (talk) 13:01, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the name change is confirmed based on the film's official website. Just because the source is not in English doesn't mean it is unconfirmed. —Farix (t | c) 14:45, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a creditable English sight that i could go to to have this confirmed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.203.182.186 (talk) 17:45, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Find someone who can read Japanese or use Google translator. Sources do not have to be in English, though English language sources are preferred when they are available. The line of "if it's not in English, then it is not confirmed" is going to eventually land you in a block. —Farix (t | c) 17:53, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I regard most of the edits with bemusement - who are we to say that militaries in the NGE universe cannot grant 14 year olds ranks like captain? - but I do find it odd that the information about birthday seems to have vanished. --Gwern (contribs) 18:00 5 April 2010 (GMT)

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Archive 44#Character Infobox Update. The date of birth was removed from the infobox because it is trivial information. —Farix (t | c) 18:24, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

It's fine to remove it from the infobox, but there's no call to remove it entirely. --Gwern (contribs) 19:06 5 April 2010 (GMT)

That doesn't answer my question but w/e. thanks for teh help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.203.182.186 (talk) 21:33, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Langely

is asuka really most known by her full name? Seem's a bit odd don't you think? i did a Google check and she is really more known for without the middle name. So you think we should move the article to a different name?Bread Ninja (talk) 16:56, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Is there some way to effectively gauge the significance of difference between which name is more well-known? I googled 'Asuka Soryu' and most of the queries turned up with her full name. If both names are pretty much on par in terms of being wide spread I would say to keep the page where it is for simplicity. Fox816 (talk) 07:06, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Asuka Soryu is most common also in the series itself from the few times they due refer to her by her last name. But i guess it could be kept like thisBread Ninja (talk) 15:21, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Soryu seems to be usually accompanied by the Langley, at least in translation:

[12:22 PM] 0Mb$ fgrep -R Sory * && fgrep -R Soh *
literal-translationp/16.txt:         IKARI Shinji in Soryuu Asuka's mind.
literal-translationp/25.txt:                        Soryuu Asuka Langley.
literal-translationp/25.txt:                        In the case of Soryuu Asuka Langley.
literal-translationp/09.txt:Student: I hear she's called Soryuu Asuka Langley.
literal-translationp/09.txt:Hikari: I'm going to inquire after Soryuu-san.
literal-translationp/24.txt:Staff:          You are Soryuu Asuka Langley?
literal-translationp/08.txt:        Unit Two, the Second Children, Soryu Asuka Langley.
adv-platinum/25_adv_platinum.txt:In the Case of Asuka Langley Sohryu
adv-platinum/25_adv_platinum.txt:In the Case of Asuka Langley Sohryu
adv-platinum/09_adv_platinum.txt:Her name's Asuka Langley Sohryu, did you know that?
adv-platinum/09_adv_platinum.txt:Asuka Langley Sohryu
adv-platinum/09_adv_platinum.txt:To Miss Sohryu
adv-platinum/09_adv_platinum.txt:I'm Asuka! Asuka Langley Sohryu. I'm the pilot of Eva Unit 02.
adv-platinum/09_adv_platinum.txt:To see how Miss Sohryu is doing. What about you two?
adv-platinum/08_adv_platinum.txt:the Second Child, Asuka Langley Sohryu.
adv-platinum/24_npc_adv_platinum.txt:Asuka Langley Sohryu, correct?
adv-platinum/14_adv_platinum.txt:Asuka Langley Sohryu
adv-platinum/14_adv_platinum.txt:Subject Asuka Langley Sohryu
adv-platinum/22_npc_adv_platinum.txt:I'm Asuka Langley Sohryu. Nice to meet you.
adv-platinum/22_npc_adv_platinum.txt:I'm Asuka Langley Sohryu. Nice to meet you.
adv-platinum/22_npc_adv_platinum.txt:I'm Asuka Langley Sohryu. Nice to meet you.
adv-platinum/22_npc_adv_platinum.txt:I'm Asuka Langley Sohryu. Nice to meet you.
adv-platinum/22_npc_adv_platinum.txt:I'm Asuka Langley Sohryu. Nice to meet you.
adv-platinum/16_adv_platinum.txt:the Shinji in Asuka Sohryu,
adv-platinum/10_adv_platinum.txt:Sohryu
adv-platinum/18_adv_platinum.txt:Seems Sohryu knows too.
adv-platinum/24_adv_platinum.txt:Asuka Langley Sohryu, correct?

--Gwern (contribs) 16:24 26 May 2010 (GMT)

well i already agreed not to change it since it doesnt seem so necessary.Bread Ninja (talk) 22:20, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Tidying up the article

I've just had a look at two other fictional articles and how they're constructed (Palpatine and Jabba the Hutt), and think that expansion of 'Character Creation' is necessary as well as 'Reception' and her appearances in other media. If at all possible, it might be good to try and just keep the three images we have currently (infobox, early concepts, and Manga Asuka). I'm also not sure if we should split 'In Other Media' into 'Manga' and 'Video Games', with discussion on Asuka's role in these and any comments on why she was given this role (by the creators of the manga or video game). Does anyone else have something they'd like to add, or probably correct me on? Comics (talk) 01:34, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the expansion of the Concept/creation and Reception sections are a priority. Regarding the Other media section, however, I think it is best to keep it rather short and concise, covering the main aspects but not delving into every specific detail. For example, another Featured Article, Jack Sparrow simply offers two paragraphs describing his other media appearances. The splitting of that section into two sub-sections describing her many roles in the Manga and Video games would add excessive bloat to the article that is not completely necessary. Additionally, the section requires references since there aren't any at the moment--GroovySandwich 01:43, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, the video game section of 'In Other Media' appears reasonable enough, but maybe a couple of more sentences for the manga discussing any character quirks unique to those spin-offs? I'll try and find any articles/interviews with the Japanese team for character creation, and maybe see if there's anything from Asuka's English voice actor that would be good to add in. Comics (talk) 06:44, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Describing her quirks within the manga doesn't seem particularly relevant; they tend to make things sound in-universe rather than presenting real-world perspective and such things generally come across as trivial. But if reliable sources could be found explaining why such changes were made to the character, then it could be beneficial to the article so long as it maintains an encyclopedic tone--GroovySandwich 06:58, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Finding every little change is also difficult as asuka doesn't change over the time she has been in other media. UNlike Rei where she has changed significantly.Bread Ninja (talk) 07:06, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd say then maybe editing out some of the video game trivia. I've found some interviews with Yuko Miyamura regarding Asuka in Rebuild, but I'm having some trouble finding something for the original series. Comics (talk) 07:17, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

That and they seem to put the title "1st-2nd-3rd-4th child" a lil too unanimously. It would be better to state that s/he is referred to as "XXth-child" by Nerv or such. Because it seems only nerv refers to them like thatBread Ninja (talk) 07:48, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, the intro for this article says 'She is designated as the Second Child ("Second Children" in the original Japanese versions) of the Evangelion Project and pilots the Evangelion Unit 02' which kinda covers that already. Comics (talk) 08:08, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah but I'm referring to the opening paragraph at the top were it just bluntly states she's the second child. in ther ebuild of eva, they renamed it too.Bread Ninja (talk) 08:15, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, you can be bold and edit it in there with relevant sources. Comics (talk) 08:29, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

It's the opening paragraph. it doesn't need sources. it's jsut to reflect what the article is about. And it's more of rewording to something less in-universe.Bread Ninja (talk) 13:20, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I've found some interviews with the likes of Yuko Miyamura and Yoshiyuki Sadamoto and started to put together bits and pieces for an expansion to the 'Character Creation' section. Comics (talk) 14:24, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

With regards to whether the changes made are important or not, I think that reliable sources should be found and consulted, without considerations as to "we should keep it small", rather it should be "we should see what's out there and then decide". For example, it is noted in this review that Asuka does not crush on Kaji any more, and it goes on to say that this is consistent with her more misanthropic portrayal in the reboot. As the reviewer has said this is important, we should (and do) mention that she does not have a crush on Kaji any more. This could help to expand the reception section also, as reviewers respond to Asuka's portrayals in various parts of the franchise.--Malkinann (talk) 23:42, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I do believe keeping things small is important, that is when it's not verify. I think cleaning comes first so it could be easier to put information that is verified. But since you did find something verifiable. We could add it in too. But its more of a review.Bread Ninja (talk) 01:46, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

How do you know it's not verifiable until you look for a source? The editing policy recommends many other options first before cleaning. --Malkinann (talk) 02:14, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it's usually an in-universe information. I think its worth mentioning now just for the fact that its being reviewed. It's not verifiable, just given importance.Bread Ninja (talk) 03:40, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Um, I'm not sure I'm following you? It is verifiable because I found a source which stated that Asuka no longer has a crush on Kaji. Development notes for the different series Asuka has appeared and reviews of those series could be used to say how Asuka has been envisioned and seen as being different in that version. --Malkinann (talk) 03:44, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

It's more than just verifiable, but relevant enough to post even if its just a mention. Since the reviewer gave it more relevance, than it can be mentioned in.Bread Ninja (talk) 04:23, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

What's wrong with 'Asuka Langley'?

She's always been Asuka Langley to me and always shall be. Are there other characters in 'Evangelion' who are intended to be Japanese; and are they given three names? Asuka's father's surname is Langley; Asuka was born in Germany, where the naming convention is for children to take their father's surname as their own. Her father is from the U.S., arguments to the contrary notwithstanding, which is another nation where children take the father's surname. All 'Shikinami versus Soryu' discussion is a tempest in a teapot. What's Ikari Shinji's third name? Are there ongoing arguments over that? MisterCat (talk) 20:07, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Article on 'Asuka Langley' lacks circumspection and is neither balanced nor fair in its descriptions of her personality

Asuka speaks truth to power, a trait admired in some cultures but not others. She's also averse to candy-coating her communications with colleagues, thus manifesting a characteristic of real people in real combat. Nearly everything written about Asuka in the over-arching Wikipedia article is either negative or else damns her with faint praise. There are plenty of quotes from supposedly-relevant people who don't like her personality, but where are the balancing supportive quotes? Cheap shots abound, quote-wise; and there's little if any circumspection to be found. That is why I always recommend 'EvaGeeks.org' to those seeking information about Asuka. MisterCat (talk) 20:34, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Nationality German-American?

In the Americanize version, does not asuka have Japanese ancestors? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.122.126.160 (talk) 06:38, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Asuka Langley Soryu/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Tintor2 (talk · contribs) 12:48, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

I'll be reviewing this article. It's kinda big so I'll see if we do it section per section like in Shinji or Rei.Tintor2 (talk) 12:48, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Let's gp through infobox and lead first

• In creator it says Gainax created her but the lead specifies it was Anno's. It's common for anime characters to have many creators but it seems like Haseo or Kite (.hack) who were also created with assistance from other staff members but it needs to be original one.

Yeah, the previous version linked to Hideaki Anno, but, since Sadamoto is also mentioned, I wanted to mention Gainax. I added a "collectively".

• The lead has the wikilink of Sadamoto twice. Done
• Since it's a Japanese term, Tsundere could have a little explanation about what it means kinda like shonen or shojo. Done

Conception

• Since this is the first time in the body you mention it, wikilink Neon Genesis Evangelion. Done
• Seems like the third paragraph could be cut in two due its length especially because of various themes discussed. Done

Voice

• I think this is the first time you link End of Evangelion. Maybe you could add the word movie or film Done

Appearances

• "Asuka Langley Sōryū" the macrons shouldn't be used if the article already uses the name Asuka Langley Soryu. Done
• Unless I'm missing something "This comes to a head when the Angel Arael attacks; Asuka, burdened by her continually worsening performance in tests, is infuriated at being ordered to serve as backup to Rei." this is the first time you mention Rei so a wikilink to her and minor description could help. Done

Deleted. Honestly, it was a little too in-universe for me.

• About Rebuild, since it is mentioned her relationship with Kaji here, should the tv series section also mention Asuka has a crush on him? Done

@TeenAngels1234: That's so far. Will follow next sections later. Good work with the article.Tintor2 (talk) 13:18, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

@Tintor2: Tried my best.--TeenAngels1234 (talk) 14:03, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Nice. Moving on:

Characterization and themes

• In general her inferiority complex is quite big. I think the manga even made her feel like that again when Kaworu was introduced so could be repeated less. Maybe moving it to her relationship with Shinji could be more helpful.

Cultural impact.

• "She did well in various polls on best anime pilots" seems a bit informal. Try "She appeared in popularity polls..." Done
• "she also ranked 16th among the characters Anime readers would "rather die than marry" This seems to lack the creator of the poll. Done

@TeenAngels1234: That's all. Nice work. Just revisit these parts and I will gladly pass it.Tintor2 (talk) 14:30, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

I tried my best with Characterization and themes, too.--TeenAngels1234 (talk) 15:29, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

official information. Japan and German mixed blood. The American blood is not mentioned.

http://www.gainax.co.jp/anime/eva/chara.html

Japanese 日本と独国の血が入ったクォーターであり、国籍はアメリカ。

I watched English language "EVA fan site". American father(Mr.Langley) is a fiction.211.122.236.204 (talk) 15:48, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Please Web search it in "ASUKA American father". At the place that the Japanese creator does not know, American blood mixes ASUKA(LOL.

http://wiki.evageeks.org/Asuka_Langley_Soryu (American father)

http://www.nervarchives.com/characters.asuka.php　(American father)

http://www.imdb.com/character/ch0018088/bio (American father)

”localize fan” likes modifying original setting. 221.184.38.3 (talk) 10:58, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Is racism raising its ugly head? What a calamity, that Asuka's father is from the U.S.! When people begin making trenchant remarks about someone's "blood" you're sure to find racism as a motivator. MisterCat (talk) 20:40, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

In an official site, it is insisted that she is Japan and German mixed blood. However, the nationality is the United States. If nationality is the United States, is father the United States?　American blood is not mentioned in an official site of Japan.

My friend is Korean. He acquired nationality of the United States of America and got the name of Richard. He is American nationality acquisitor without American blood. 211.122.145.83 (talk) 11:30, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

official source - her father's nationality is not mentioned.Brian.kemp33 (talk) 09:00, 21 October 2018 (UTC)