Talk:Shinji and Asuka's Relationship

Dubious?

So UrsusArctos insists this page is dubious...?

I don't see it at all, tbh. This page has been 90% the same since 2008, but has been updated by countless users over the years. It's not the work of any one person, but it has stood her for longer than I'd assume the majority of the users have. It does assert some conclusions that some users might disagree with (as would any "Theory and Analysis" article, really), but nothing that's not substantially backed-up with logical evidence from the show. --Kasunex 1:24, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I see it everywhere. And "90% the same since 2008" is as blatantly dubious as any of V's statements. Take a look at how much editing one person (Felipe) has done over the past three years. The article's edit history is available to everyone. --UrsusArctos (talk) 03:54, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

It might help if you gave some examples here of what you're considering dubious. Also why you slapped the article with those other tags.

It's true that Felipe has edited a lot of late - which, barring other reasons we should be thanking him for, of course. But the core argument and structure of the article has remained largely unchanged since 2008. Heck, I remember it being largely the same when I first watched the show back in 2014. Really the biggest change since then is that it no longer outright says Shinji and Asuka are supposed to be a couple.

Of course, I may be wrong, but it's up to you to provide your reasoning.--Kasunex 11:27, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

You have provided zero reasoning and blatant bullshit, so I have no reason to give you any "reason". --UrsusArctos (talk) 13:54, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure what's dubious about how much has changed when it is easily available as was just mentioned. See the page as it was before my first edit, and the diff compared to now. I (and 4 other users) added not much text to the body of the article (proportionately to what was already there) instead mostly images, official sources, and some sections which were unbalanced were adjusted - note the one which blatantly said "yes, they're a couple". This was brought up in mid 2019 and discussed with a bunch of users before I took the initiative to change it into a more neutral version, you can also find the discussion on the Discord. It was never a problem until apparently this random mega ADV fan brought it up.
In addition the body by thewayneiac and adjustments by NemZ, it's actually got a lot of minor contributions by a number of people, more than the average page on this wiki. We all know some people dislike what they see on the wiki even if it's backed up by mountain of official evidence. This page has enough consensus behind it to be well read and well respected, I've seen repeated praise aimed at it over the the years. It was even translated elsewhere.
Again, I'll leave it be for now.FelipeFritschF (talk) 13:01, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Indeed. As Felipe said, none of the content of this article has been drastically changed. Not since I first found it in 2014, not since Felipe started contributing, apparently not since it was first created in 2008. If you disagree, you may want to provide some examples of what you're referring to to help us to understand your concern. -- Kasunex(talk) 13:20, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I have no reason to provide either of you with anything, since you've made your standpoints clear enough - you are not arguing on the basis of any substance but rather because both of you are obsessive Asuka-Shinji shippers. This article will be locked from editing until I and the other senior staff (Blockio, Zusuchan, Bhorium) can figure out how to clean it up and put it to a standard that makes it presentable. Any further trouble from either of you will result in this article being deleted until we figure out how to clean it up. End of discussion. --UrsusArctos (talk) 13:54, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

So, let me get this straight. You assert this page, which has remained largely unchanged since 2008 when you apparently assisted in writing it, is dubious and poorly written. You then refuse to give any evidence of this claim when asked, preventing anyone else from potentially understanding your point of view, and senselessly insist anyone who disagrees with the evidence you refuse to provide is a fanatical shipper. What is one even to say to that? You're acting completely irrational and making no attempt to improve the article or state your case, instead resorting to baseless and speculative ad hominem attacks. And frankly, given that your userpage says 'no shipping, please' it'd be fair to assume that you yourself are biased in the other direction - not that I'd accuse someone of that for no reason, since it's not important. Bias is irrelevant - everyone is biased in one way or another - but argument matters. You've refused to provide yours, presumably because your decision was arbitrary and reactionary but you don't want to admit that. Your behavior is incredibly strange to say the least, and frankly if this wiki's admins are worth their salt, they'd probably consider you to be on a power-trip. Especially since you've now also deleted my user page for quite literally no reason except that I disagree with your decision that you've, again, refused to explain. You're also threatening to delete a 13 year old page for no reason other than to threaten people for disagreeing with you.-- Kasunex(talk) 14:20, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Let me get this straight with YOU, Kasunex. You blatantly lie about the state of this page, as is evident from the page history. You attempt at gaslighting, mansplaining and generally making entirely dubious statements, and think the onus of responsibility lies on me to explain what is self-evident? What I make are statements of absolute fact, not ad-hominem attacks - I attack your behavior, not you. You have nevertheless demonstrated nothing but bad faith. You accuse me of baseless and speculative ad hominem attacks and then ask if the "Wiki's admins are worth their salt" because we do not support writing articles from a shipping perspective? Kasunex, are you a wiki user worth your salt? Clearly, no. You don't deserve the userpage that I gave you in error. You ought to explain to me why you deserve to be on this wiki at all instead of being permanently banned, since you made a handful of edits over a few days in 2015 before coming here to make an entirely pointless fuss about an article, that is from any objective point of view, poorly written and biased. Far too many items on this Asuka-Shinji page are written from a blatant "AsuShin is canon" point of view rather than being an objective look at a complex, flawed relationship between two very flawed characters, and you have made it clear from your words and actions that shipping is all you care about, so you might as well leave. --UrsusArctos (talk) 03:53, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree with URsus here. From the cursory glance that I have given the edits, this article has indeed become more and more driven towards "AsuShin is canon" with thinly veiled "but we don't know for sure" half sentences at the end of whole praragraphs that are blatant shipperspeak. Especially the section for Ep 22 might as well be razed to the ground and written from scratch. "Forced to come to terms with her feelings for him", "that he didn't even at least give her affection through sex", my fucking ass. If you want to be taken seriously, provide actual proof of your claims instead of making wild adhom accusations. Blockio (talk) 15:22, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

You can look at what the sources say and what was commonly accepted for 10+ years. For instance, saying EoE was an open ending and not "everyone is dead and Shinji hates Asuka" was considered "shipping" for some people yet that's exactly what the sources and interviews (most of what I actually added) say. Just like the sexual double entendre is well known and was mentioned elsewhere on the wiki forever. I understand your doubts, but this was never a problem before and you can see extensive past discussion. Ask Bhorium too, or thewayneiac if he's available, as they're both major contributors here. FelipeFritschF (talk) 15:56, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Relax, guys. Ursus, ask Bhorium, then. He's been active on the wiki for longer than me and was also involved in this page, which you can clearly see in the logs. I guarantee there are no problems to worry about and this is something that was discussed years ago. You ask people in general and this page is a model for sourcing and throughouness. FelipeFritschF (talk) 14:37, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Besides what I mentioned with the edit history and diffs, which seems to not have been noticed, I'd also refer to the past discussion on the Discord. Besides that this article was mostly written by NemZ and thewayneiac - please stop mentioning V, in fact it was thewayneiac who cleaned up his stuff in the other pages a decade ago - in fact, almost everything that was deleted was written by them, not me. The fact that suddenly this is being questioned because some rando bitched on the forums is puzzling when all of this page was decided on a consensus years ago, multiple times is puzzling. There is no need to worry about V's ghost when he didn't even touch the page. Ever. See here, for instance, when I took the task of making the intro more neutral and this was agreed by a bunch of people, most don't even ship anything. I've noticed a thread was created on the forums by Kasunex. You can, again, clearly look at past discussion, and at all the page actually made by me (and other users) since 2019. I hope you understand you shouldn't listen to everyone that complains when they have stated interests. Blockio knows who I mean. FelipeFritschF (talk) 15:29, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Another comment by Reichu which I did incorporate here, and was questioned on a edit summary IIRC. This page already went over a renewal in 2019. I changed "yes, they are a couple", to "the show's primary relationship", something which was fine with everyone else involved. This getting changed now with no discussion because of someone that didn't even touch the page is puzzling to me. Are we not supposed to simply state things as they are, or at least 90% agreed to be. Even a lot of stuff removed here was and still is considered headcanon by some people, and I pointed out what was said in the official sources - Chronicle, Filmboks, Cardass, a number of interviews, some of which I had organised for the past months, some known for over a decade - again, these constitute the majority of my actual alterations. An obvious example is the ambiguous/ambivalent reading of OMF. Ask some people, including probably the rando that started this fuss, and they'll swear it's completely dark and depressing and how much Shinji hates Asuka (and maybe how much he loves someone else and only them). But the sources make it clear as day, and they perfectly match what we agreed to previously. I do hope you can reach thewayneiac and Bhorium, as they were also involved up until now, to a higher degree than me. Of course, I understand the sentiment but I'm sure you'll see what I mean. Thank you. FelipeFritschF (talk) 02:54, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

In love with each other

"In other words, they were in love with eachother, but never hit it off. "
I don't think this is true. --Ornette 10:54, 20 February 2008 (PST)

I wasn't responsible for that, the only thing I did was make a few rough notes in the form of the 1st paragraph....Did V add some stuff or something?? WTF. Anyway, they Asuka & Shinji were interested in each other for sure, but their relationship is...complicated. --Sailor Star Dust 12:40, 13 March 2008 (PDT)

What V said...it was Sachi's addition. I'll remove it, since it makes things look way too simple.--UrsusArctos 17:51, 13 March 2008 (PDT)

NemZ Updates

Sorry for the delay in finishing this... I decided to watch the series over again from ep8 onward to refresh my memory before getting down to the real meat of the article. This is a huge topic with a lot of nuance to cover, so please bear with me.--NemZ 20:03, 21 April 2009 (PDT)

You're a real trooper for working on this monster. One thing it could possibly benefit from is in-text citations of dialogue. (Or, perhaps in less critical cases, footnotes using the ref format.) In my experience, Eva fans are more easily persuaded when both dialogue and screenshots are right there accompanying one's arguments. (In a lot of cases, this is the ONLY way to persuade them.) --Reichu 09:46, 10 May 2009 (PDT)

I just want to get my thoughts all down on 'paper' first, but that sort of evidence would be a good addition, sure. I think the footnotes plan might be better, seeing as how the main body of this article is going to be pretty long-winded as it is.--NemZ 11:01, 13 July 2009 (PDT)

I don't think I can write anything here anymore that won't just cause a massive argument. My ideas about these two have obviously shifted outside the generally accepted and I no longer can see the DC episodes as anything but a retcon which changes the relationship significantly dependng on which version of the story is being discussed.--NemZ 12:37, 14 November 2009 (PST)

O.K., I'll try to finish it myself with a more mainstream EvaGeeks P.O.V. I disagree about the Retcon.-- thewayneiac 8:00 P.M. EST. Nov. 16, 2009

Cleanup

I've marked this with the "cleanup" template. Does it really need to be in this "he said, she said" format, with every incident described twice? It's making it seem really long and draggy. I propose making it more linear, with each incident described once, along with discussion of the characters' motivations. (I'll also try to do something about the overall tone.) thewayneiac 9:49 AM EDT. July 5, 2009.

I asked about the format before I started, and explained the pros and cons of split vs. unified. I got no feedback, so I went with my gut. I still feel that running them as two separate lines will ultimately lead to a clearer understanding of how the situation developed as it did through miscommunication than having to cover both sides at once. I'll be getting back to this very soon. --NemZ 20:56, 12 July 2009 (PDT)

O.K., I won't fiddle with the format until I see the finished product. But I think it might be easier to follow if you were to organize each of the two main headings into subheadings, as I did with the Episode 15 subsection I added to the Asuka section. Do you have any thoughts on what I added? I actually did it as part of my episode guide cleanup. The shadowed-eyes business was way too detailed for the Ep. 15 page and needed to be moved here. --thewayneiac 10:48 EDT. July 13, 2009.

I've been sorta doing that by using the multi-picture inserts for each major shift, but I see what you mean. Episode-by-episode is probably too much, but more broad thematic lines of the relationship (introduction, growing closeness, confrontation, and collapse) might work. The final scene of EoE I think needs to be it's own section entirely though because it's just so damned vague and there's no good way to solidly look at it from either character's perspective with any kind of authority. I'm also not sure the whole shadowed eyes thing fits here either, honestly... maybe a theory page just on interpreting visual expression cues? It's a rather important subject, especially with all the "Rei has no emotions lol" types still floating about.--NemZ 10:58, 13 July 2009 (PDT)

The eye shadow business needs to be there because it tells us what she thinks of Shinji's lack of response without reference to the material added to Episode 22. --thewayneiac 21:42 EDT. July 13, 2009.

Is this article eventually going to be written as a more neutral point of view instead of supposedly from Asuka and Shinji's POV? It works, but it's impossible for it to be completely from the character's point of view when we don't always know what they're thinking. In general I thought it's best for T&A pages (and the site as a whole) to be from something of a neutral stand-point anyway... I'll try to add some things in terms of dialouge/images when I find the time. --Sailor Star Dust 18:50, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

The whole "he said she said" structure was Nemz's idea. I never cared for it myself, and I intend to merge the halves and correct the POV soon. (When I get a break from working on the commentary.) Besides, he has some pretty screwy ideas here. --thewayneiac 10:35 PM EDT. April 17, 2010