View source for Theory and Analysis Talk:Angels' Origins

Is this page all right or does it need more editing?--[[User:UrsusArctos|UrsusArctos]] 19:04, 21 June 2008 (PDT)
:IMO, the article's real focus should be on how the Angels came to be, not how they ended up in Tokyo-3. The matter of the Angels' origins has come up on ANF/EMF/EGF multiple times over, and the ideas really need to be gathered together and systematically presented. --[[User:Reichu|Reichu]] 12:02, 22 June 2008 (PDT)
::Very well...so that's a major change in interior decoration we're talking about. I can cut this thing down to size now by removing the list of Angel appearances (mostly useless), but having to dig through all those old threads over again...my, my.--[[User:UrsusArctos|UrsusArctos]] 17:23, 22 June 2008 (PDT)

Shouldn't this stuff also go back to the Angel main page, just like the "Angel Psychology" page?  '''Edit:  Oh wait, I see, you meant that each Angel should have a psych section on his own page as neccessary.  That makes more sense.'''  Anyway, my main point stands; does Origin of Angels really rate its own page rather than a subsection of the Angel page?  --[[User:The Wayneiac|thewayneiac]]  15:07 EDT.  April 15, 2009

:Sure it does -- it just doesn't have anything really worthwhile at the moment. You've never seen how convoluted those threads about the Angels' genesis can get? Once all the relevant discussion on "how the Angels came to be" (as opposed to "how they ended up in Tokyo-3 or wherever") is laid out, it amounts to quite a lot. I started drafting something at one point months back -- never finished, so nobody ever heard of it -- and whatever outline I barfed out then occupies some three pages of legal pad paper. And I write in this small, crowded chicken-scratch. (I can provide more cerebral forms of persuasion later.) --[[User:Reichu|Reichu]] 19:31, 15 April 2009 (PDT)

==Old Shit==

"Where do Angels come from?" -- is that kind of like, "Where do babies come from?" "Origin of Angels" or something sounds more... "encyclopedic".

We never had a group discussion (or the next best thing, anyway) on "T&A" articles. 'Jimbo is aching to write these sorts of articles, as well, so let's go to the forum and have at it. --[[User:Reichu|Reichu]] 17:09, 1 August 2007 (EDT)
:I was getting the ball rolling.  I've been lollygagging for too long; need to step up the timetable.  Need EvaWiki Unit 01 finished by Sunday.  Failure not an option.  --[[User:V|V]] 17:56, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

::We at least need to determine things like "naming guidelines" (because moving articles and fixing links is a pain in the patella) and whether or not, say, T&A articles deserve their own namespace. --[[User:Reichu|Reichu]] 20:12, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

===Points===

* "''Misato Katsuragi states that Angels are "humans that have rejected human form". This could be again taken in the sense that Angels derive from Adam, humans from Lilith, and thus there is a link between the two but they branched off.''": Eh, what? Misato says that they are human, in the sense of being their own human race (''jinrui''). Feasibly, they would all be Adam-like entities if they didn't "abandon" the form encoded in their genes and transform into various other bizarre things. IMO, this bit is incredibly straightforward. 
* "''How Seele acquired Kaworu is unknown. It has even been theorized that Kaworu was created by Seele (by inserting Adam's soul) and thus the last "naturally occurring" Angel was Armisael (this is of course unconfirmed).''": This makes things out to be considerably more vague than they actually are. Also, Kaworu wasn't created "by inserting Adam's soul" -- see the Contact Experiment. Adam's soul was salvaged into the Kaworu meatsack AFTER the fact.
* I've never heard of "Angel seeds" before.
* "''Bardiel first appeared as a strange cloud''": I'm not sure if Bardiel actually WAS the cloud...
* "''The appearance of Sandalphon in a pupal state inside a volcano is the only major clue given, and this would seem to support the (shaky) theory''": "Shaky"...? According to whom? The "eggs scattered at 2I" theory is pretty well-accepted in this group, as far as I recall. 
* "''What evidence there is seems to point to that Adam and Adam alone produced the other Angels, asexually, at least by the time of Second Impact.''": Wait. ''What'' evidence? ::p
--[[User:Reichu|Reichu]] 07:59, 11 August 2007 (EDT)

:Please explain the first bit I didn't think it was straightfoward.  Second point converges more into the "nature of Kaworu" discussion.  Seeds/embryoes/whatever.  I just used "shaky" because no one held up a sign.  What evidence isn't there?--[[User:V|V]] 10:22, 13 August 2007 (EDT)

::"''Please explain the first bit I didn't think it was straightfoward.''" If Adam's offspring are "humans [i.e., a race of humans] who abandoned human form", that means that ''they themselves'' are human. (Which makes sense, considering Gendo calls their mommy a "human".) Not some kind of "branch": they are by definition entities that fall within NGE's redefinition of the term "human". ("Abandoning human form" would just refer to those bizarre transformations they do before hatching.) Ye ken?

::''"I just used "shaky" because no one held up a sign."'' Huhhhh... I don't suppose you were ever exposed to the full specifics of it? The idea is supposed to be a sort of "Gestalt theory" (is that right?); it's based on a lot more than just Sandalphon.

::''"What evidence isn't there?"'': Now I think I'm getting confused. --[[User:Reichu|Reichu]] 10:44, 13 August 2007 (EDT)

:::Okay I think I messed this up; the Angels weren't just people walking in the street that suddenly mutated into Angels, right?  Er, please change the stuff in the article you disagree with so I can see what you mean in practice.  --[[User:V|V]] 10:52, 13 August 2007 (EDT)

::::Aw, shee-yat, at this rate I'll have to barf out an "Angel-Human Semantics" article, too. I'll see what I can do... --[[User:Reichu|Reichu]] 11:02, 13 August 2007 (EDT)

:::::Er, I don't meant to heap a lot onto your plate Reichu; you see things on here aren't a matter of "I wrote it that way because I think its correct that way" (unless I've specifically said otherwise on another topic) so much as "like the child helping his working mom build a treehouse who does his best with a hammer and nails while is mom isn't home, V is trying to fill in the guide as best he can, and Reichu (who actually knows ''everything'') needs to fact check everything when she gets time" ^_^ --[[User:V|V]] 11:30, 13 August 2007 (EDT)

::::I'm totally down and diggin' it. Talk sessions can be useful for clearing things up, though. 

::::"''Reichu (who actually knows ''everything'')''": Oh, if only... --[[User:Reichu|Reichu]] 11:42, 13 August 2007 (EDT)