Talk:List of characters in Neon Genesis Evangelion/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Child vs. Children

While I realize that "Children" is occasionally used where the singular should be in the anime (as when Kaworu is speaking), I also note that the only correct English means of speaking the titles is ''Child'' as in ''First Child''. Considering the recent edit from Child to Children, I'd like to see a strong justification for it. At the moment, I'm quite tempted to just go back to 'Child' as it has been for some time now. --Obsidian-fox 01:24, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

In the original japanese, it is Children....what translators do should not be considered canon IMO. --NorkNork 19:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

The use of "Children" in the Japanese canon could just as easily be a translation error on the author's part. Do you have evidence that it wasn't accidental Engrish? Intention requires that it be purposeful, and to be purposeful it must have a purpose; unless Gainax has noted that one exists, there isn't much reason to accept it as anything but an error. Anyhow, the translators that brought the show to English were kind enough to ask about Tenshi (using Angel instead of Messenger); it's perfectly reasonable that they translate Engrish into English, too. --Obsidian-fox 23:54, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

As it says below, no, we have no evidence either way. So we're just saying "It is so" and not saying why (intentional or not). -HKMarks 23:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... according to the text we already have, Gainax did it intentionally... but we also have a statement: The latter of the two variants will be used in Evangelion and Evangelion-related articles in the English Wikipedia. We should change it back from Children to Child. --Obsidian-fox 00:14, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Children is used instead of Child by Gainax intentionaly because Rei (the First Children) is, in fact, a lot of clones, that is why they use the plural. Children is used in the other children too, otherwise they would know about Rei being diferent from them. That is Gainax purpous for using the world Children. --Punkekito 12:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

"Children is used instead of Child by Gainax intentionaly" : Source ?

In japanese, there is no strict "plural" form, like in english bike/bikes, child/children, etc. So in numerous anime series you'll see english words used in the singular even if they characterize several people (for example, in Saint Seiya, the characters are named "Saint" (Seinto), while they should be "Saints" (Seintuzu)).

So really, unless "children" has a deep phylosophical meaning (which I seriously doubt), it's only "engrish". Folken de Fanel 19:41, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Source: Translator's commentary on English-language DVD release of Death and Rebirth and End of Evangelion. I wouldn't be surprised if it was just done for the sound of it, however. -HKMarks 19:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

It's common knowledge that Amanda Lee's commentary on the Eva movies is absolute BS. [1]. It's known as the "Commentary of Evil" among the Eva fandom.

Unless you have another source (a true source, which took part to the making of the show), this "children" will definitely be identified as engrish... Folken de Fanel 01:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough re: commentary... but do you have any source that says it was definitely a mistake? If not, just say it was "originally 'children' but changed to 'child'" without any commentary on why it was 'children.' (It seems like a pretty silly thing to do on purpose, but way too glaring to be an unintentional mistake.) 'Engrish' is a loaded term. -HKMarks 01:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Moreover, according to the Neon Genesis Evangelion glossary article, the commentary didn't mention that "Gainax intentionaly used Children instead of Child", but that the translators intentionaly changed Children to Child.

Do we really need a source before saying anything is a mistake ? Yes, maybe labelling Shinji as the "1st Children" in Rebirth was intentional, after all, how can we know ?...Folken de Fanel 01:45, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

It seems like a rather glaring mistake for no one on the entire staff to catch it. Perhaps they thought that using the plural would make the kids more "special"? Japanese doesn't use plurals the same way English does but anyone with a year or two of English education would catch that--though they wouldn't be able to tell necessarily how weird it sounds to an English-speaker's ear. (Also, sorry, it's been a while since I've seen the commentary...) -HKMarks 01:55, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

As I said, you can find the same mistake in numerous series...Like in Saint Seiya, the Saints are "Saint" (seinto) instead of "Saints" (seintuzu). And even if that wouldn't happen with someone with a year or two of english education,even if it seems also like a rather glaring mistake for no one on the entire staff to catch it, it's still a mistake. The japanese really aren't gifted for foreign languages, that's a fact...Folken de Fanel 02:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

That's no more of a mistake than using "ninjas" instead of "ninja" to refer to more than one ninja. In Japanese words are usually left singular unless it's absolutely necessary to say that there are many, and then there are ways to do it within Japanese grammar (such as "watashi" [I] --> "watashitachi" [we], or specifying a number). In any case, it's a moot argument. If there's no source there's no source. -HKMarks 02:14, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know, do have sources that say "ninjas" wasn't intentional ? Seriously we don't need sources for everything, "children" is just a mistake. It's when you say that it's intentional that you should need sources, because in that case you give more meaning to the word than it had previously. We don't need sources to take the word as it is.

Also it won't change the face of Evangelion if it has no meaning, so no need to worry about that. That was just a mistake, like Shinji as the 1st...Folken de Fanel 08:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

The reason we need sources is because we're arguing about it. Some people think it's intentional, some people think it's a mistake, so unless there's a definitive source that can back it up, putting either theory in is POV and unverifiable. I don't personally care which it is, it's just against policy. -HKMarks 14:07, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Rei's birthday

The CD "The Birthday of Rei Ayanami" was released on March 30, 2001, which corresonds to her actual birthday. As you may know, most of the Evangelion character's birthdays had the same dates as their Seiyuu's, and Megumi Hayashibara (Seiyuu of Ayanami)'s birthday was also on March 30.

So, do we have a consensus to put Rei Ayanami's birthday as March 30, 2001?

No. Rei's birthday has never been stated in any official document (and she wasn't born until 2004). Folken de Fanel 19:48, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Naoko Akagi

The notion that her soul lives on inside EVA-00, however popular, is based on purely superficial evidence and fails upon closer scrutiny.

How so? At the moment, there isn't strong evidence for any particular soul in Eva-00. Some people say Rei I's soul is somehow in Unit 00, but if Rei I and Rei II have Lillith's soul, how would that be possible?

I can answer that.

Take note of Kyoko's contact experiment. When she tried to pilot Unit02, she didn't get sucked in as Yui did. Instead, 'part' of her soul was transfered. Most say it was the mother portion because she couldn't recognize her daughter. Also, take note that Lilith is the 'Mother' for all lilim. One would think her soul would have different properites.

EDIT: As far as I can see, it seems that the 'evidence' that Dr Akagi (Senior) went mad (As did Kyoko in the test with Unit 2), strangled Rei I and killed herself. If someone resembling a very young version of the dead wife of your boss - the man you'd been having an affair with - showed up, slagged you off to your face and told you that he did the same all the time and was just using you... Would you just stand there and say 'Um, ok...'? I doubt it. It doesn't say anything about unit 0 as far as I recall Sailor Mondas 20:07, 14 April 2007 (UTC) Sailor Mondas

Did SEELE actually lie to Kaworu?

I just picked up the new Eva box set, and while I was flipping through the episodes, I noticed that in the DC of 24, when Kaworu is meeting with SEELE in the middle of the lake, they actually mention that the remains of Adam's body have been embedded in Gendo's hand while they're telling Kaworu that he has Adam's soul, and then after SEELE "leaves," Kaworu goes on to say something about "Everything is proceding as the Lilim wish." I don't know about anyone else, but I have to wonder, just who is the unreliable one here? On the one hand, it makes it less likely that SEELE lied to Kaworu about Rei having Lilith's soul, but on the other hand, if Kaworu had this information, why did he go to Terminal Dogma anyway, and why the !@#$ was he surprised to run into Lilith instead of Adam?! --Anon 10:56, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I was wondering that myself. I also recall that incident; I don't think they said it was in his /hand/, but rather in his body... but I can't recall the exact quote. Obsidian-fox 23:14, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

An interesting conundrum. You have to assume though that in Central Dogma was either Lilith's body or Adam's body, and that Kaworu could not have thought it could have been a third alternative. I can't think of what that third thing could have been though. --maru (talk) contribs 02:08, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Ritsuko and Kaji

I don't think Ritsuko and Kaji were ever involved in a non-platonic relationship; Kaji just enjoys flirting with her. (from 10:41, 7 January 2006 71.198.9.76 - this info. added by Cupcakeforyou)

I agree. I already edited Ritsuko's section to reflect that their flirting is probably misinterpreted. Cupcakeforyou 08:26, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Keel Lorenz

I removed info about Keel being Longinus. It seems who ever wrote the info mixed up Longinus with the Wandering Jew stated earlier in the paragraph. Loginus was converted after stabbing Jesus, not condemned in a similar manner to the Jew story. I also made it clear that the show difinitively has evidences opposing the jew theory - which is an ugly fan concoction. -- Mark 2000 03:58, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Y'know, I've heard that Lorenz is not supposed to be Ahaseureus several times, but I've never actually heard the justifications for that belief. Why are you so sure Lorenz is not the Immortal Jew? --maru (talk) contribs 05:09, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Episode 21. Watch the flash backs. There is a monochrome photo of Keel from 20 years prior to the the current story in which he is much younger with dark hair and no wrinkles. Would a 3000 year old man grey in 20 years? Let it rest here an now, please. --Mark 2000 04:04, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Ahh. Y'know, I never noticed that before. Thanks. --maru (talk) contribs 04:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Its mentioned in the article. Any other people who want to perpetuate this theory take a look at this photo that the script ids as keel: http://www.evacommentary.org/episode-21/21_C107_b_big.jpg --Mark 2000 04:25, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I added a citation needed tag at the end of the sentence that sates his name came from Lonrad Lorenz as I think it may have came from Edward Lorenz, the "creator" of the butter fly effect. --Black death 03:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Kozo Fuyutsuki

Doesn't Gendo mention that cloning Yui to create Rei was Fuyutsuki's idea? Something about Rei being the product of Fuyutsuki's despair, and now Gendo's hope (or something along those lines.

I forget exactly where this was said, but it makes sense given Fuyutsuki's heightened importance later in the series. JONJONAUG 18:46, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

In the Director's Cut version of Rei III, Fuyutsuki says something about Rei being born from his desesperation, fueling Gendo's hope. -- ReyBrujo 18:53, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

It's a metaphor, there's absolutely nothing to indicate it was Kozo's idea. Nightmare X 17:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Leo Tadoshima?

In what version of the story does this guy exist? Or is his inclusion an error?68.236.159.105 19:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

He doesn't exist, except perhaps in someone's fanfiction. I've never heard of him, at any rate. :P Kyou 23:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

It's a cool story though. That IP was certainly a creative one^^ --NorkNork ^Questions? _fnord? 15:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Huh?

Does this sentence make sense to anyone?

"Misato dies just after she sends Shinji away, and was cognizant of that."

Who was cognizant, and cognizant of what? If the implication is that Misato knew she was going to die, there are much better ways of saying that...

Just making sure I'm not missing something before making an edit. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.13.40.101 (talk • contribs) .

I agree with your point. She knew she was doing, and made him a proposal/promise she knew she was not going to fulfill. -- ReyBrujo 03:14, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

The title of "Head Commander"

If it's clear that Gendo is the Commander of Nerv and since he's addressed as such, why not have his title as just "Commander"? "Head Commander" sounds extraeneous, awkward, and I have not seen such a term used in all the reading I've done on subjects of a military nature. --BrokenSphere 18:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Asuka's fate in the end

It says in the Character information that asuka is presumed dead, however in the final episodes that I saw, Shinji goes through a serious head trip in which he and Rei discuss serious psychological issues, and then in the last few scenes, Shinji is back, alive, and Asuka is lying next to him, beaten, but alive. So, how come it says that she died? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BSOM180 (talk • contribs) 01:43, 12 February 2007 (UTC).

Asuka's death is never shown in EoE, but the NERV personnel in Central Dogma say that she is dead after the MP Evas make a pincushion out of Unit 02. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 06:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Toji's Left Arm

I have altered the discription to recognize the fact that the amputation of his left arm is still up for debate, and can be argued from both sides. Unless someone can cite either way, it should be left as an unknown. --Tarage 12:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

There is no "teach the controversy" situation; he lost his left arm. --Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici 14:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC)