Wikipedia and Dark Side Editing

Cynical tactics encouraged by Wikipedia’s abdication of thought known as ‘No Original Research’ and ‘Reliable Sources’
Wikipedia, anime, NGE
2009-05-242013-02-16 finished certainty: highly likely importance: 4

One of the most dis­taste­ful as­pects of Wikipedia edit­ing these days (>2009) is that the guide­li­nes, as prac­ticed, en­cour­age edit­ing in bad faith.


Con­sider the case of fran­chise. Gainax was founded by a group of to cre­ate anime for of other otaku. Neon Gen­e­sis Evan­ge­lion (Eva for short) is in that same vein. It was cre­ated by otaku, for otaku, and fun­da­men­tally is about otaku1. Eva is re­plete with al­lu­sions2, bor­row­ings, and par­o­dies of pre­vi­ous Gainax works3, , and SF in gen­er­al. The an­cil­lary ma­te­r­ial of the fran­chise ex­plains much about Eva. But the over­whelm­ing ma­jor­ity of Eva ma­te­ri­al—in­ter­views, ar­ti­cles, and books, to say noth­ing of the usual mer­chan­dis­e—will never ap­pear in Eng­lish.

Do you see the prob­lem here, fans? The po­ten­tial for con­flict with WP:RS & WP:V? Are you aware that as pop cul­ture, Eva-re­lated ar­ti­cles are born with death-marks?

But, you say, as an artis­tic land­mark, as a crit­i­cally praised se­ries that earned bil­lion­s—then surely the mass me­dia has cov­ered it ad­e­quate­ly? If it is such a densely lay­ered work of art, then surely it is cat­nip to acad­e­mia? One smugly con­cludes that if Eva ar­ti­cles la­bor un­der death-war­rants, then fans have only them­selves to blame; if they were less lazy and would put in some el­bow-grease, they’d have all the sources they could need for a good solid En­cy­clo­pe­dic ar­ti­cle!

The sources

Alas ed­i­tors, this is a fond dream. The main­stream me­dia treat­ment has been shal­low, sen­sa­tion­al­is­tic, and slightly mock­ing (and is surely no use­ful source). The schol­arly treat­ment in the An­glo­phone world has been scanty, and the most promi­nent ex­am­ples—there is no other way to say this—in­com­pe­tent. And this is when they are even will­ing to pub­lish any­thing at all, some­thing which is ever more doubt­ful as pub­lish­ers aban­don en­tire ar­eas (like anime and manga non­fic­tion4) to aca­d­e­mic pub­lish­ers (who them­selves will pub­lish lit­tle and have idio­syn­cratic stan­dards of val­ue).


What is a hap­less fel­low to do? There is tremen­dous knowl­edge in the fan com­mu­ni­ty: dozens of trans­la­tions of cru­cial state­ments and doc­u­ments. Salted away in places like the Eva ML are fas­ci­nat­ing in­sights like how the char­ac­ter of was orig­i­nally a cat5 Do we qui­etly use them as ref­er­ences? Then we will ever trem­ble that a less fair-minded or prag­matic ed­i­tor will come along and re­move them in one fell swoop.


Or one could opt out of Wikipedia. This is a painful op­tion; the nu­clear op­tion. It in­volves many costs, and will often not work. Some Eva fans have cho­sen this path, and have started an Evan­ge­lion wiki. They may suc­ceed; they may not. (I wish them well, but Wikipedia is the poorer for it.)


The fi­nal op­tion is the eas­i­est, most effec­tive, and the most cor­ro­sive of one’s (edit­ing) soul. One falls to the .

The dark side of edit­ing is to cease to edit in good faith. It is to re­gard edit­ing Wikipedia as a game of , the guide­lines as texts to be cyn­i­cally ad­hered to and worked around, their spirit ut­terly dis­re­gard­ed. It is to see ‘re­li­able sources’ as palimpsests to be se­lec­tively quoted and in­ter­preted as nec­es­sary to ‘cite’ some­thing one knows to be true.


This may sound too ab­stract. Is­n’t all re­search se­lec­tive? Is­n’t all quot­ing par­tial and mis­lead­ing? So I shall give 2 ex­am­ples.

A man of no ac­count by the name of F—- pub­lished a book on Eva. His analy­ses & in­ter­pre­ta­tions are mis­er­able; his spec­u­la­tion im­prob­a­ble & un­sup­port­ed, and his fac­tual ac­counts lim­it­ed. Were I edit­ing in good faith, I would make use of some of his dates or fig­ures or chronolo­gies—and aught else. (And I would seek in­de­pen­dent sources for even those.)

Selective citing

In acad­e­mia, there is a Pro­fes­sor of Eng­lish, Mrs. N—–, who has writ­ten about Eva. In­ter­est­ing­ly, an­other Wikipedia ed­i­tor ob­jected to my use of her pa­per. The col­lo­quy ex­plains why she is such a poor source, and gives mul­ti­ple ex­am­ples of what I mean by dark side edit­ing.

“I have read the full ar­ti­cle in . And I can say with con­vic­tion that it is ut­ter rub­bish. Not to say sim­ply that I dis­agree with the points she makes (which I do) but it’s re­ally just a thin on­ce-over of the se­ries that ac­tu­ally pro­vides none of the in­-depth psy­cho­log­i­cal analy­sis you were look­ing for; it’s re­ally a de­scrip­tion of the se­ries which frankly the cur­rent wik­i-ar­ti­cle for Neon Gen­e­sis Evan­ge­lion out­per­forms. It’s sim­ply a ba­sic de­scrip­tion of the se­ries. It’s a very weak ar­ti­cle…in the sense that it has noth­ing to do with the short story”When the Ma­chine Stops" but she tries to shoe­horn it in with that. The first 5 pages are just…fluff. Com­pli­cated fluff. But don’t take my word for it.
Um…in terms of “use­ful quotes”…not much. She does a ba­sic job of not­ing the and the cult.
but much is just ba­sic de­scrip­tion:

“Con­struct­ing a mythic uni­verse that is al­most both in its com­plex mythic vi­sion and in its dizzy­ing ar­ray of Chris­t­ian and Ju­daic re­li­gious sym­bols, the se­ries ques­tions the con­struc­tion of hu­man iden­ti­ty, not only in re­la­tion to the tech­nol­ogy that the se­ries’ plot and im­agery in­sis­tently priv­i­lege, but also in re­la­tion to the na­ture of re­al­ity it­self. Pro­vid­ing more rid­dles than so­lu­tions, the se­ries takes the viewer on a jour­ney into both in­ner and outer re­al­ity be­fore ul­ti­mately leav­ing both its char­ac­ters and its au­di­ence float­ing in a sea of ex­is­ten­tial un­cer­tainty” (page 424)

“the other strand of the nar­ra­tive is far more com­plex and provoca­tive, as it be­comes in­creas­ingly con­cerned with the prob­lem­atic men­tal and emo­tional states of the main char­ac­ters, all of whom carry deep psy­chic wounds and whose psy­chic tur­moil is rep­re­sented against an in­creas­ingly fren­zied apoc­a­lyp­tic back­ground in which it be­comes clear that the threat from the An­gels is matched by the machi­na­tions of var­i­ous hu­mans con­nected with Nerv” (page 435)

N—— barely un­der­stands the se­ries and while she does seem to have watched the whole thing, she’s try­ing to shoe­horn it into her own pa­per on ex­is­ten­tial­ism. My point be­ing, she fo­cuses on all of the Chris­t­ian and Gnos­tic sym­bol­ism, which Anno and other Gainax peo­ple have openly stated was just fluff they put in to look cool and not ac­tu­ally rel­e­vant to the plot. She point-blank says “they never re­veal what the An­gels are” (we here know the ul­ti­mately said they’re from Adam as hu­mans are from Lilith, etc.)
She did­n’t un­der­stand that Rei is Lilith’s soul, so she mis­in­ter­prets Rei’s in­ter­view in episodes 25 and 26 as be­ing on a lit­eral lev­el.
She seems to think episodes 25 and 26 were se­ri­ously meant t be the ACTUAL fi­nale, when they were not (though her analy­sis of them is­n’t re­ally affected by this).
Most of the time she’s just stat­ing the ob­vi­ous and things we knew al­ready.
Worst of al­l….mid-para­graph she jumps from the Al­ter­nate Re­al­ity to the end. That is, she goes right from “he’s in this high school sex com­edy happy ver­sion of his nor­mally dis­turb­ing re­al­ity” to “I am me, I want to live in this world!”….ig­nor­ing that Shinji re­jected the Al­ter­nate Re­al­ity even within episodes 25 and 26 it­self. He goes through sev­eral men­tal shifts be­tween the AR se­quence and the fi­nal scene: she’s just con­flat­ing all of this to­geth­er.
She men­tions in lit­er­ally one sen­tence, in or­der to in­stantly dis­re­gard it as “just An­no’s re­venge on the fans who did­n’t like the TV end­ing and more of a par­ody of what they were ex­pect­ing; us­ing over the top vi­o­lence” etc. She ut­terly dis­re­garded End of Eva; we now know that End of Eva was more or less the orig­i­nally in­tended end­ing (cell an­i­ma­tion and scripts ob­vi­ously in ex­is­tence long be­fore, Evan­ge­lion Pro­pos­al’s end­ing while differ­ent from EoE is more like it than the TV end­ing, etc.)6
In short, she sim­ply proved my long held the­o­ry: The Evan­ge­lion TV end­ing was high­-grade pornog­ra­phy for phi­los­o­phy ma­jors, who then took it and cham­pi­oned it as the “real end­ing” and dis­missed End of Eva as trash. In re­al­i­ty, Evan­ge­lion is a psy­chodrama (she does ad­mit that it has very well de­vel­oped psy­cho­analy­sis) and End of Evan­ge­lion faith­fully de­liv­ers the full mes­sage….the TV end­ing is ba­si­cally “we don’t have enough money to make the movie….let’s take the Third Im­pact scenes and show them out of con­text as TV episodes
She does­n’t seem to grasp that “the world of Edenic bliss” offered by In­stru­men­tal­ity is ex­plic­itly pre­sented as a BAD thing; there’s no pain but also no joy, and ul­ti­mately Shinji chooses to live in a world of flawed hu­man be­ings be­cause of their in­her­ent “re­al­ness”, which is su­pe­rior to any fan­ta­sy-world he can come up with, no mat­ter how nice.
I think these are the words of a woman so shocked by the vi­o­lence in End of Eva that she wrote it off in­stantly as “a par­ody” (LITERALLY one sen­tence) and ut­terly dis­re­garded it. (for that mat­ter, her works cited says she was us­ing ADV’s “Per­fect” col­lec­tion DVDs and thus she never saw the Di­rec­tor’s Cut episodes.
13 years on, peo­ple have to let go of the “the TV end­ing is the only end­ing! And End of Eva was an in­sult! “ ide­ol­o­gy, and em­brace that End of Eva was in­deed the orig­i­nally in­tend­ed, “real end­ing”, and the TV end­ing is an ‘’essen­tial sup­ple­ment’’ to End of Eva, es­sen­tially an ex­tended ver­sion of the Third Im­pact scenes.
She fo­cuses so much on “wow, there’s a mil­lion pos­si­ble re­al­i­ties to choose from!”….ig­nor­ing the se­ries’ ul­ti­mate mes­sage that ba­si­cally yeah, Shinji can choose a mil­lion differ­ent au­dio tracks to play on his player and then crawl in­side that world, just as otaku crawl into ani­me. But it’s all fake; there are mil­lions of fan­tasy worlds, yes…but only one real world.
In con­clu­sion, N—–’s ar­ti­cle says noth­ing par­tic­u­larly new or orig­i­nal about the se­ries or in­-depth. She ig­nores End of Eva, lit­er­ally men­tion­ing it in once sen­tence, in or­der to dis­re­gard it. Now, even if you are an ar­dent sup­porter of the TV end­ing and hate the movie end­ing…..she does­n’t even grasp the TV end­ing that well. She ran­domly skips from the “Al­ter­nate Re­al­ity” scene to Shinji say­ing “I de­serve to be here!” etc., mix­ing up events even from within the fi­nal episodes them­selves. That said, she misses the en­tire point of Evan­ge­lion (which was made more clear in End of Eva) : yes, there are a mil­lion pos­si­ble fan­ta­sy-world re­al­i­ties, but they’re not “real” at all; they’re just fan­ta­sy. What made the “Real World” have value was its re­al-ness. Just as Neo in pre­ferred the harsh re­al­ity of the Real World (and Cypher could­n’t han­dle it), Shinji re­al­izes that the flawed real world is more valu­able than any fan­tasy world, sim­ply be­cause of its “re­al­ness”. (This would seem to be a re­jec­tion of ex­is­ten­tial­ism, ac­tu­al­ly). That’s why he re­jects In­stru­men­tal­ity at the end. The Point is that I doubt that any of the N—– ar­ti­cle is us­able as a source for any­thing Vi Veri Veniver­sum Vivus Vici (talk) 07:33, 2009-01-22 (UTC)

This is a good analy­sis Veni. Way back when, I was only us­ing her ar­ti­cle for refs, but this sounds about right.
But I think you’re miss­ing the point. Ref­er­ence-nazism is ul­ti­mately a very cyn­i­cal, in­sult­ing, rules-lawyer­ing point of view. You and I know EoE is not re­venge on fans, we know the RCB and Se­cret Files con­tra­dict many pop­u­lar views, etc. etc. But a ref­er­ence-nazi cares only if the let­ter of the law is fol­lowed; they could­n’t care less about whether some­thing is true or com­mon knowl­edge or any­thing—just whether it has a ref meet­ing RS.
The proper re­sponse to such mind­less skep­ti­cism is an equally cyn­i­cal em­ploy­ment of ref­er­ences as need­ed. If I were writ­ing an es­say on Eva, I cer­tainly would­n’t use N—— be­cause her level of un­der­stand­ing is far be­low even the av­er­age poster on eva-mon­keys, say. But if I were writ­ing a WP ar­ti­cle, I cer­tainly would. A pub­lished aca­d­e­mic work, prob­a­bly re­pub­lished in one of her books… it meets the let­ter (but not the spir­it).
N—— does some ba­sic sum­ma­ry? Very good, then she pro­vides a non-episode ref for some in­-u­ni­verse (oh noes!) plot sum­ma­ry.
She dis­misses EoE as a par­o­dy? Very good, then we can in­tro­duce that as a crit­i­cism of EoE with­out fear of that snide {{who}} tem­plate.
She dis­cusses imag­i­nary worlds? Very good, then we can now add the most ba­sic in­ter­pre­ta­tion of those episodes with­out be­ing tagged for OR.
She cov­ers Judeochris­t­ian im­agery in too much de­tail, track­ing down al­lu­sions? Very good, then now we can cite her when she’s right and qui­etly ig­nore her when she’s wrong.
She speaks in vague re­view gen­er­al­i­ties about how Eva “takes the viewer on a jour­ney into both in­ner and outer re­al­ity be­fore ul­ti­mately leav­ing both its char­ac­ters and its au­di­ence float­ing in a sea of ex­is­ten­tial un­cer­tainty”? Very good, we can quote her on this and per­haps read­ers will take away some un­der­stand­ing of the mind­fuck-qual­i­ties of Eva.
So you see, V, N—— is just fine for us. From a cer­tain point of view. Gw­ern (con­tribs) 20:05 2009-01-23 (GMT)

So in short what you’re say­ing is, un­fil­tered, that N—— wrote a re­ally bad ar­ti­cle about Evan­ge­lion that ob­vi­ously does not grasp the se­ries at all and makes sev­eral ma­jor er­rors, but nonethe­less that she at least touches upon sev­eral top­ics means we can quote seg­ments of her writ­ing out of con­text in or­der to make im­prove­ments to var­i­ous ar­ti­cles, thus beat­ing the “ref­er­ence-nazis” at their own game?…­Cool. But re­ally I don’t think any of it is in­cor­po­rat­able, be­yond say, that quote I pro­vide above where she’s giv­ing the most ba­sic de­scrip­tions, like “it’s al­most Blakean” etc. Yes, that’s a great idea: chop it up for out of con­text quotes to sup­port stuff while not ac­knowl­edg­ing that she barely even touched on the se­ries (se­ri­ous­ly, Eva has noth­ing to do with the “When the Ma­chines Stop” short story she cites at the be­gin­ning, and she spent the whole thing try­ing to fit a round peg into a square hole. Yeah use the quotes if you want, though I re­ally can’t think of any way to sal­vage in­for­ma­tion from it. Thank you. Fur­ther­more (this is not di­rected at you but my gen­eral feel­ings) : THE SPIRIT OF THE LAW ALWAYS SUPERSEDES THE LETTER OF THE LAW –Vi Veri Veniver­sum Vivus Vici (talk) 23:11, 2009-01-26 (UTC)

Yes, that’s ba­si­cally what I’m say­ing. I agree it’s a bad idea, and min­ing it for quotes is about all that can be done with it. I hope I demon­strated just based on your par­tic­u­lar points that the quotes would do yeo­man’s ser­vice in mul­ti­ple ar­ti­cles.
And I do wish the old spirit of Wikipedia was still around. There was no need for this cyn­i­cal ap­proach back in late ’03 when I first started edit­ing anony­mous­ly. –G­w­ern (con­tribs) 02:11 2009-01-27 (GMT)"

Forbidding useful sources

From Wikipedia talk:­Cen­tral­ized dis­cus­sion/Tele­vi­sion episodes#Is there any ac­tual con­sen­sus for this guide­line at all?:

Big­nole, fan­sites can ab­solutely be re­li­able sources. To take a fa­vorite sub­ject of mine: the Neon Gen­e­sis Evan­ge­lion ar­ti­cles. This anime fran­chise has made lit­er­ally bil­lions of dol­lars, has dozens of me­dia prop­er­ties (a TV se­ries, ~6 fea­ture length movies, a manga se­ries that has been run­ning for more than a decade, etc. etc.), in­flu­enced every mecha anime (and not a few non-mecha), made Gainax the ma­jor stu­dio it is and so on; all of this has lead to quite a few aca­d­e­mic men­tions of it.

And these “re­li­able sources” you vaunt so high­ly, that you con­sider the be-all and end-all of edit­ing—they are crap. They are pedi­greed, peer-re­viewed, pub­lished, “re­li­able” & “ver­i­fi­able” crap. They are fac­tu­ally in­ac­cu­rate, navel-gaz­ing; they are ig­no­rant of even the most ba­sic sec­ondary lit­er­a­ture and Eva para­pher­na­lia, much less the later an­cil­lary ma­te­ri­al—and that’s when they are not qui­etly crib­bing bizarre and fan­ci­ful in­ter­pre­ta­tions from equally clue­less sources like the Amer­i­can DVD com­men­taries. The most ig­no­rant poster at a fan­site like Eva­mon­key.­com knows more about what Eva ac­tu­ally means, about what Anno (the di­rec­tor) has ac­tu­ally said and writ­ten about, about its de­vel­op­ment and role in anime his­to­ry, than any re­li­able source I have yet found.7

Want some Anno in­ter­views trans­lated into Eng­lish? I’m afraid you’ll have to quote a fanzine like , which got the ar­ti­cle from, yes, a fan. Want a solid trans­la­tion of the Red Cross Book? Sup­plied by an pseu­do­ny­mous fan on a fan­site. In­ter­ested in the early con­cep­tions of the plot and char­ac­ters? Dit­to. Did you find some use­ful sources and in­for­ma­tion in the back of the Eng­lish manga edi­tions? Oh, too bad—that au­thor, he’s that ever so de­spised word, a fan, an am­a­teur. To write good ar­ti­cles on Eva prac­ti­cally de­mands that one ig­nore the strict let­ter of the guide­lines and poli­cies which are oh so per­fect.

You and your ilk fetishize no­ta­bil­i­ty, you fetishize printed sources. You raise up a god of process and bow down to it, burn­ing use­ful good stuff as a holo­caust with pleas­ing smell to it. You dare talk about qual­i­ty? You guys don’t have the slight­est clue what qual­ity is. All you can per­ceive are the trap­pings that some­times go with it. –G­w­ern (con­tribs) 04:16 2007-12-21 (GMT)


I feel I should em­pha­size that dark side edit­ing is not the same thing as just bad edit­ing, or trolling, or van­dal­iz­ing. The ar­ti­cles are bet­ter off for hav­ing im­por­tant in­for­ma­tion in them at all, even if the ref­er­ence is shod­dy. There is a ref­er­ence for them—no one is mak­ing them up. It is­n’t the same as if we took this poem by and ac­tu­ally edited his ar­ti­cle to say he’s only 40 and was born in what­ever year; as ob­vi­ously the ar­ti­cle would be worse off for it8.

It’s pos­si­ble that us­ing bad ref­er­ences could in­spire other peo­ple to use them, and thereby make the ar­ti­cle worse, but this is­n’t much of a con­cern: it’s very rare for ed­i­tors to track down ref­er­ences and reuse them fur­ther—it’s rare enough for them to just check ex­ist­ing ref­er­ences. (The edit­ing cul­ture is trust­ing that way.) And be­sides, while I no longer edit as much as I used to, I still re­view my watch­list and can catch the odd edit by that un­usual class of ed­i­tor which is dili­gent enough to be mis­led by dark ed­its but not knowl­edge­able enough to know the true facts.

It’s more that we know bet­ter, but we act dumb to cope with an even dumber cul­ture & set of guide­lines. It is the pre­tense that wea­ries.

The cost

As in Star Wars, the dark side al­ways offers power quick and easy. The cost is one’s self­-re­spect. I sigh every time I make a dark side ed­it, I wish I could just edit the way we used to. But I see no way to write good Eva ar­ti­cles, which are in ac­cord with guide­li­nes, and to do so in good faith. The Wikipedia cul­ture has shifted and forced this trilemma on us. And how I hate it!

  1. One of the stan­dard in­ter­pre­ta­tions, sup­ported by state­ments from the di­rec­tor Hideaki Anno and oth­ers who worked on Eva, is that Eva di­ag­noses otaku­dom as patho­log­i­cal, and at­tempts to cure its char­ac­ters. A full treat­ment of Eva’s mean­ing is be­yond a mere foot­note’s scope, but this quote from episode 16 will have to suffice:

    “We can­not weave our lives only out of things we like…”

  2. See for ex­am­ple EvaGeek­s’s in­com­plete list.↩︎

  3. The pro­tag­o­nist char­ac­ter de­sign is based di­rectly on a pre­vi­ous fe­male Gainax char­ac­ter; an ob­ser­va­tion amus­ing to those fa­mil­iar with both char­ac­ters.↩︎

  4. Brian Ruh, au­thor of the only good book in Eng­lish on anime au­teur , writes in one re­view about pub­lish­ing trends in anime crit­i­cism:

    "I’m go­ing to be ex­am­in­ing a non­fic­tion book about Japan­ese ghosts – Patrick Drazen’s A Gath­er­ing of Spir­its: Japan’s Ghost Story Tra­di­tion: From Folk­lore and Kabuki to Anime and Manga, which was re­cently self­-pub­lished through the iU­ni­verse ser­vice. This is Drazen’s sec­ond book; the first one, Anime Ex­plo­sion! The What? Why? & Wow! of Japan­ese An­i­ma­tion, came out in 2002 from Stone Bridge Press and was an in­tro­duc­tion to many of the gen­res and themes that can be found in ani­me.

    I think the switch from a com­mer­cial press to self­-pub­li­ca­tion may in­di­cate the di­rec­tion Eng­lish-lan­guage anime and manga schol­ar­ship may be head­ing in. A few years ago, when Japan­ese pop­u­lar cul­ture seemed like the Next Big Thing, there were more pub­lish­ers that seemed like they were will­ing to take a chance on books about anime and man­ga.

    Un­for­tu­nate­ly, as I know first­hand (and as I’ve heard from other au­thors, con­firm­ing that it’s not just me) these books did­n’t sell nearly as well as any­one was hop­ing, which in turn meant that these pub­lish­ers did­n’t want to take risks with ad­di­tional books along these lines. After all, all pub­lish­ers need to make money in one way or an­other to stay afloat. In the last few years, the ma­jor­ity of books on anime and manga have been pub­lished by uni­ver­sity press­es, per­haps most no­tably the Uni­ver­sity of Min­nesota Press.

    …How­ev­er, this puts books like Drazen’s in an odd predica­ment. It’s not re­ally an aca­d­e­mic book, since it lacks the ref­er­ences and the­o­ries some­thing like that would en­tail, which means it’s not a good can­di­date for a uni­ver­sity press. How­ev­er, since few pop­u­lar presses have seen their books on anime and manga re­flect pos­i­tively on their bot­tom lines, there aren’t many other op­tions these days other than self­-pub­lish­ing. Of course, these days pub­lish­ing a book on your own does­n’t have nearly the same con­no­ta­tions it did decades ago, when van­ity presses were the do­main of those with more money (and ego) than sense. These days you can self­-pub­lish a qual­ity pro­duct, get it up on Ama­zon for all to see, and (if you’re savvy about these things) per­haps even make a tidy profit."

  5. Note the prove­nance of this trans­la­tion. This is an archived backup of an email sent to the list, con­tain­ing a for­warded mes­sage from an anony­mous per­son, who trans­lated an ob­scure Eva book. There may be fur­ther links in the chain. None of these peo­ple are cre­den­tialed in any way. Yet now we know why Ka­woru smiles and has eyes like a cat.↩︎

  6. The old idea that End of Evan­ge­lion is a re­venge by Anno on un­grate­ful fans was largely in­spired by an in­com­plete un­der­stand­ing of the movie. The movie had sev­eral pho­to-mon­tages (not an­i­ma­tion) con­sist­ing of let­ters sent to Gainax. Two or three of them are in­ter­pretable as death threats, but most are pos­i­tive. See the Evageeks trans­la­tion page.↩︎

  7. As of Feb­ru­ary 2013, I should amend this: there are 2 peer-re­viewed works which add gen­uine in­sight to Evan­ge­lion:

    1. , Heike Hoffer 2012 (mas­ter’s the­sis; my sum­ma­ry/re­view). Hoffer thor­oughly an­a­lyzes Sag­isu’s mu­sic com­po­si­tions and in­sight­fully ex­plains the use of mo­tifs.
    2. “Break­ing Bi­na­ries: Trans­gress­ing Sex­u­al­i­ties in Japan­ese An­i­ma­tion”, Gibbs 2012 (PhD the­sis; my sum­ma­ry/re­view). One of the most rea­son­able dis­cus­sions of the var­i­ous char­ac­ters, even if I dis­agree with her Freudian frame­work.
  8. Though it would be a rather amus­ing point to make about WP:V and WP:RS.↩︎