Theory and Analysis Talk:Eva-00's Soul: Difference between revisions
Shin-seiki (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
|||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
I'm not sure how best to deal with this; if I had written this analysis myself, I would have gone about it quite differently (i.e., my starting assumption would be that all the real evidence points to Rei 1, while the pro-Naoko "case" comes down to a faulty assumption (that Unit-00 may have been after Gendo and/or Rei, when, in fact, the actual target of its tantrums was Ritsuko, and Ritsuko alone). I don't know whether editing your analysis could salvage it to my satisfaction, or should I just write my own presentation on Unit-00's soul (would competing analyses of the same issue in the 'Theories and Analysis' section be an acceptable option?)--[[User:Shin-seiki|Shin-seiki]] 08:29, 6 October 2007 (PDT) | I'm not sure how best to deal with this; if I had written this analysis myself, I would have gone about it quite differently (i.e., my starting assumption would be that all the real evidence points to Rei 1, while the pro-Naoko "case" comes down to a faulty assumption (that Unit-00 may have been after Gendo and/or Rei, when, in fact, the actual target of its tantrums was Ritsuko, and Ritsuko alone). I don't know whether editing your analysis could salvage it to my satisfaction, or should I just write my own presentation on Unit-00's soul (would competing analyses of the same issue in the 'Theories and Analysis' section be an acceptable option?)--[[User:Shin-seiki|Shin-seiki]] 08:29, 6 October 2007 (PDT) | ||
:Can't say much about the "B" pro-Naoko stuff; it won't be removed. Just giving as thorough a run through of the pre-Naoko side as possible, before then deconstructing it thoroughly. Just explaining "this is what the Naoko theory says" does not mean "conceding" to it, if the "counterarguement" part then lists how most of these points are refuted. As for "A"; please, what are the "ommitted mentionings of the strongest evidence favoring Rei 1" that wasn't listed? I'd like to put it in there if there is something I missed. --[[User:V|V]] 17:47, 6 October 2007 (PDT) | |||
Revision as of 00:47, 7 October 2007
I'd prefer not having full Eva designations in page titles if possible. Partially because they include that awful "U" word, but mostly because writing all of that out gets awfully annoying. Here, something like, "The Soul of EVA-00" seems nice and succinct. (I like "of" better than "in".)
Also, should these sorts of pages have their own namespace? Part of me thinks it would be A Good Idea. --Reichu 18:19, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
- As it is, "The Soul in Evangelion Unit-00" falls under "T" for "The". This can't be right, so would "Evangelion Unit-00's Soul" (or something similar) be better? This isn't anything to worry about now with just a handful of articles, but it may be rather confusing when more are added. --Eva Yojimbo 10:36, 18 August 2007 (EDT)
moved from forum...
While it is gratifying to see that you have conceded that the evidence strongly favors Rei 1 over Naoko, I still have some serious reservations with how you have presented the pro and cons of this issue; namely that you a: have omitted mentioning some of the strongest evidence favoring Rei 1, and b: have conceded too much (even while admitting that it almost certainly wrong) to the Naoko heresy, which I contend is entirely bogus and baseless.
I'm not sure how best to deal with this; if I had written this analysis myself, I would have gone about it quite differently (i.e., my starting assumption would be that all the real evidence points to Rei 1, while the pro-Naoko "case" comes down to a faulty assumption (that Unit-00 may have been after Gendo and/or Rei, when, in fact, the actual target of its tantrums was Ritsuko, and Ritsuko alone). I don't know whether editing your analysis could salvage it to my satisfaction, or should I just write my own presentation on Unit-00's soul (would competing analyses of the same issue in the 'Theories and Analysis' section be an acceptable option?)--Shin-seiki 08:29, 6 October 2007 (PDT)
- Can't say much about the "B" pro-Naoko stuff; it won't be removed. Just giving as thorough a run through of the pre-Naoko side as possible, before then deconstructing it thoroughly. Just explaining "this is what the Naoko theory says" does not mean "conceding" to it, if the "counterarguement" part then lists how most of these points are refuted. As for "A"; please, what are the "ommitted mentionings of the strongest evidence favoring Rei 1" that wasn't listed? I'd like to put it in there if there is something I missed. --V 17:47, 6 October 2007 (PDT)
