Talk:Kaworu Nagisa/Archive 1

Archive 1

Kaworu's Gender

The article states "Kaworu is... an asexual androgyne". Because this information is not explicitly presented in ep. 24 of the series, I was wondering if there was any way of verifying the validity of this statement. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Capthauq (talk • contribs) .

You'd think that if he were androgynous it would have come out in the bathhouse wouldn't you? Why don't I just change None (appears male) to Male (?) ? 67.21.80.96 19:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I've a few more notes to add: Many believe that the being called "Adam" in Eva is female. This would make Kaworu a female soul in a male's body. This has particular impact on the scenes some interpret as homosexual, since Kaworu might just be acting as a mother figure to Shinji. I think this interpretation would fit with many other elements in the story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.4.212.70 (talk) 04:14, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

It is difficult nay impossible to draw parallels between the "gender" of a parthenogenically reproducing space-born demigodlike alien, and the relationship with Shinji Ikari. Kaworu-Adam is kind of an "alien" of sorts, and Adam is "female" yes but we use the term all too loosely (the Angels really have no gender).

Biologically, Kaworu is a male body, with the soul of the alien being Adam. As for "Gender"...."gender" in and of itself is a loaded term, with many interpretable meanings.--Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici (talk) 19:49, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Kaworu's Birthdate

Does anyone else find it interesting that Kaworu's human form should be born on the very day of the Second Impact?-R.G. 22:20, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Kaworu and Kaji?

Did anyone else think that it was extremely odd that Kaworu and Kaji had the same voice in the dubbed anime, as well as the same sort of mannerisms? Well, other than the blatant flirtation. I was originally lead to believe that Kaworu was taken from Kaji's DNA, but given that he was "born", I'm wondering. Given Kagi's connection to SEELE as well as his connection to Shinji, maybe it's possible that his DNA was used, or maybe he was even Kaworu's father. He would have been 15-- fairly young, but still. My personal opinion is, that if there's a connection, it leans towards Kaworu from Kaji's DNA, or at least purposefully taking on some kind of characteristic from Kaji for some reason. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.72.98.45 (talk • contribs) .

Your speculation is interested but that is probably false. Hiroki Sato, the director and spokesman of GAINAX said that Kaworu had no special model while declared Rei Ayanami was modeled on Yui Ikari :moreover Kaworu and Kaji have the different voice in Japanese original series. -Rider of Midland 05:17, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, the same voice actor doesn't always imply a direct connection. For example, Scott McNeil played four seperate characters during the Transformers series, Beast Wars (Dinobot, Waspinator, Silverbolt and Rattrap, I believe.) That's your totally unrelated tidbit for the day. Onslaught Six 07:58, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

They don't "have the same voice actor in the dubbed version" -- Kaworu was voiced by someone different from Kaji in episode 24, his big episode....then for the movies, i.e. End of Eva, for the *handful of lines* that Kaworu had, they just have the Kaji voice step in. It was simple economics, not their choice (most of the movie voices got messed up)--Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici (talk) 21:32, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

homosexuality

Would it be worth mentioning in the homosexuality section that Kaworu seems to have a lisp in the English dub, which is commonly associated with homosexuals (at least in American culture)? --Capibara 01:07, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Would it be worth mentioning? No, not really. There is no way anyone would find a lisp in either english dub. Drunktrumpet 20:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I took a shot at rewriting the section to weed out the speculative content and de-weasel it. Hopefully, I succeeded, or at least put it on the right track. I also took out the weasel template, but if anyone has objections or sees weasely content in my edits, please replace it. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 18:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I find it incredoulous that anyone would think of Tabris as a homosexual/heterosexual. He is an angel/apostole (i.e. of another world) who expresses nothing but pure love for another being. There is no sexual inference to be gotten at all on Kaworu's part. He/She/It acts the way any being would act trying to figure out humanity and all its trappings. Slightly bizzare and odd. I am not homophobic at all. But it amuses me to no end when certain memebers of a group feel the need to project its lifestyle/genetic bearing unto anything that might lend itself credence in popular culture. Maybe Jesus was gay, he did say that he loved all men. Right? Drunktrumpet 19:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree; I don't think normal sexual roles can be assigned to Kaworu. Still, as long as this series exists, there will be those who only see the surface of his interactions with Shinji and infer homosexual overtones. It can't be helped or avoided. Also, in regards to the section about this issue in the article: Personal views are not appropriate content for Wikipedia. The facts of the content in the series and the notes about the fan debate are all that belong in that section. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 20:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Homosexuality controverse should be mentioned, but without giving any answer to the question Is Kaworu Gay? because there is no fact in the series that can tell us that he is or not. But I dont understand why people feel so upset about that... he is a boy (at least has a male human body, therefore, with gender), so I think it's not possible to say he is genderless. If kaworu was (or seemed like) a girl and showed atraction to Shinji, would someone say: "We cannot say she's not heterosexual him cause shes and angel and stuff"? I dont think so... also, when in the series they told us that angels are genderless? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.139.179.111 (talk) 05:11, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Duly noted. Drunktrumpet 20:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Further...no that does not even sound like a "lisp" to me. --Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici (talk) 21:31, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Better mention the other characters that are heterosexual, and real world homosexual reviewers who find it worthy of interest, and openly proclaim their heterophobia >_> God, if any serious wiki editor has any sense, revert this section back to normal.

-G — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.24.150.9 (talk) 03:48, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

End of Evangelion

Is the info presented in the last edit about Kaworu merging with Adam after his death cited anywhere? Willbyr (talk | contribs) 06:13, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Something that I've been thinking about in EoE, tying into the debate about whether or not Kaworu and Shinji are in love: Does fan debate include Shinji's reaction to when Lilith/Rei changes into Kaworu, just before the start of Instrumentality? Willbyr (talk | contribs) 20:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Kaworu's line to Shinji

In the article, the sentence about Kaworu saying that he "likes" Shinji is a bit muddled. Does anyone know the exact line in Japanese that Kaworu says to Shinji? Seems to me that it would be easier to give the line in Japanese and then explain that the term can mean either "like" or "love". Willbyr (talk | contribs) 05:04, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

In Japanese line Kaworu seid to Shinji as below:

Kaworu: ガラスのように繊細だね、特に君の心は

Shinji: 僕が？

Kaworu: そう、好意に値するよ

Shinji: コウイ？

Kaworu: 好きってことさ

I don't know how these lines was translated in English dub, but I feel "like" is more suitable for "好意" and "好き" than "love" is. However it is a difficult translation. Rider of Midland 05:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

How do you pronounce these?--Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici (talk) 18:31, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

How is Kaworu?

How does Kaworu appear in Lilith if his soul was never collected by Rei?--Sandmen never sleeps 02:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)Ganderman 7:34 23 November 2006

I'd guess that the "Rei comming to get you" we see was just to kill and lower live people AT Field at the same time. I mean, no dead souls are ever shown yet they're most likely collected as well, Kaworu being one proof of that. What's not clear to me is wheter dead souls have AT Field or not. --Caue (T | C) 04:54, Tuesday 2007-04-10 (UTC)

Gendo used Metaphysical Biology to recapture his soul after his death, and reunite it with Adam's embryo-body (which Gendo then united with Rei, who then merged with Lilith). --Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici (talk) 21:43, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

When did....?

When, in the series, did they say that Kaworu's soul was put into Adam? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ganderman (talk • contribs).

You've got it backwards. If I remember right, Kaworu tells Rei in the director's cut of ep. 24 that he is the vessel for Adam's soul, just as Rei is the vessel for Lilith's soul. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 02:42, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

UPDATE: Hang on...if you're referring to the line where Kaworu's soul was placed in the embryonic Adam after he was killed by Shinji, I don't have an answer for that. I'm not comfortable with that line and haven't been since I first saw it, but I don't have a source to say anything different. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 02:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't remember them saying that they put his soul into Adam's body and if it not said in the series, I'm going to get rid of that line in the article.--Ganderman 15:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, they put "Adam's soul" back into Adam's body, once Kaworu was dead, and Kaworu had Adam's soul. However, it's only specifically stated in the movie booklets. Chalk this one up to "Metaphysical Biology". --Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici (talk) 18:32, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Rejected form

If Angels are rejected forms of humanity as Misato said, and mankind is the 18th angel, why is Kaworu in the form of a normal human? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dave175 (talk • contribs).

Well, lots of things about this series is about point of view. There are 16 angels born from Adam shown, and just humans would be born from Lilith, although the EVAs are also somewhat childs of Lilith... So maybe Kaworu would be the "human child" from Adam, while all other humans, including Rei, would be "human child" from Lilith. Anyway, I don't think anything on the 26 episodes explain Kaworu's form. --Caue (T | C) 05:07, Tuesday 2007-04-10 (UTC)

"Humans who rejected human forms" is actually kind of a poetical way of saying what the Angels are. They didn't actively "reject" human form, they're an alternate version of "life", an alternate branch. Meanwhile, there's heavy evidence that Kaworu isn't a "naturally occurring" Angel but was a human clone inserted with Adam's soul; thus created by Seele and not a natural choice. --Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici (talk) 21:45, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Soundtrack

Anyone can please tell me what's the song played both on episode 24 and the death(true2) when Kaworu rushes to find Adam? That's probably easy to find anywhere, but I don't know its name! --Caue (T | C) 05:12, Tuesday 2007-04-10 (UTC)

This is (appropriately) Beethoven's Symphony No. 9 in D minor Op. 125, the choral. It can be found on the Additions soundtrack. Dfrauzel 07:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Notes on Kaworu's design

Should the notes about the initial designs for Kaworu be copied from the main Evangelion article to this one? Willbyr (talk | contribs) 14:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Why not? --Gwern (contribs) 16:24 23 April 2007 (GMT)

I didn't see a reason not to, I just wanted to make sure that it wouldn't be seen as redundant. If no one else does this, I'll try to take care of this sometime tonight. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 16:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

"Physically Receptive"

"Shinji is unusually open, emotional, and physically receptive when around Kaworu, more so than with any of the other principal characters, while Kaworu treats him with a level of kindness and camaraderie that is completely unfamiliar to Shinji."

Could someone enlighten me regarding what that's supposed to mean? That word "receptive" (or a form of recieve; I cant quite recall) is also used in Asuka's article in (what I feel might be) a more appropriate yet similar context, or atleast one that is more widely understood. --Surfaced 12:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

That pertains to Shinji willingly allowing Kaworu to be in his personal space more than any other character (especially in the bath house sequence; if any other character had tried to approach him in that manner, he'd most likely have withdrawn like he'd done previously in the series). Willbyr (talk | contribs) 12:46, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I understand now. Thanks for clarifying that.--Surfaced 15:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Kaworu's Purpose?

I think someone needs to make note of what SEELE sent Kaworu to NERV to do in the first place. I'm not entirely sure myself. Why would they want him to come into contact with Lilith in the first place? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.39.214.112 (talk • contribs) 10:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

the entire reason Seele sent Kaworu, was to force Gendo to remove Eva-01 from stasis. The reason they created him in the first place was as a convenient vessel to keep Adam's soul in and thus control it; his cloned (human) body was also a convenient source of Dummy Plugs used in the Mass Production Evas.--Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici (talk) 21:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Edits

The section on the Japanese interpretations of Kaworu's name needs serious help. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 17:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Kaworu, homosexuality, and the Patrick Drazen article

Why is this name in the section about Kaworu's relationship with Shinji? Who is he?--Freespirit1981 (talk) 17:36, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

According to the references section, he is the author of "A Very Pure Thing": Gay and Pseudo-Gay Themes' in Anime Explosion! The What, Why & Wow of Japanese Animation Berkeley, California: Stone Bridge Press p.95".....but realistically, the thing is that it's not that I have a thing against homosexual male anime characters...its just that Kaworu obviously isn't one (being an alien), and while the Shinji page is a separate topic, nothing really shows them to be in a "relationship"; I would directly compare it to Elliot and E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial and their "love". However...I will be blunt: people like to assert their own nutty opinions about Evangelion, and this guy just managed to get an essay expressing this opinion published. This guy doesn't even have credentials that I know of....I mean, I also vehemently think Susan Napier has no idea what she's talking about when writing on the series, even though she's a university professor and I deeply respect her work on other anime series (which made it all the more shocking when I read her work on Eva, and it sounded like something blatantly written by someone who didn't even follow the series)....but I digress. Tell you what, I'm going to delete that and merge it into a bigger discussion subheader on the Talk page here, about how to handle this. As long as there is yaoi, people will accuse Evangelion of being Yaoi. Really, I think the Drazen reference was someone playing the system to disproportionately promote their views. --Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici (talk) 21:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Vx5, what you've added in the "relationship with Shinji" section is going to be reverted, because it is a violation of the neutral POV, and of "no original research". You're obviously working with the aim of removing every mention of homosexuality in the article. First you removed "homosexuality" in the section title, then you build a complete defence of non-homosexuality in the paragraph it self.

The problem is that you are not editing according to the rules of Wikipedia: 1) it is obvious you are pushing your own interpretation forward. For years, many viewers and commentators have seen Kaworu's behavior as "sexually ambiguous" at least (not mentioning Sadamoto's manga accentuating this aspect) and now you come with your own idea, you impose it as the valid one and you simply delete what has been said by others for many years. That's not how WP works. 2) In your defence of non-homosexuality, you bring up arguments that never appeared in the show (Kaworu's non-sexuality) and that cannot be substanciated in any way. These are obviously your own, personal view on the subject, but this is not necessarily the truth, and in anyway, none of this is sourced. On Wikipedia, you are not allowed to publish your own research on the subject. All must come from reliable sources, such as critics, etc, but in any case, not from fans, and not from the contributor himself. Also, no valid source should be rejected just because it doesn't agree with your views. Remember, we're not here to push POV and to tell people what they should think, but to report what others have thought.

You are perfectly allowed to present elements destroying the homosexual interpretation, but you must do so by providing reliable sources for your comments.

If it's just your opinion, it won't stay on the article. I'm sure you can find opponents to the homosexual view that have been published (and I remind you that reviews from reputed anime websites are also valid), so there's no reason to let you break the rules.Folken de Fanel (talk) 13:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

1-my opinions on "is Kaworu homosexual" etc. etc. are no more and no less, than my feelings on "was the "primary relationship" of the series between Rei and Shinji? (no, it was largely between Shinji and Asuka). My feelings on this are no more, or less, than any other position: for years, fans have been making up their own wacky interpretations that simply do not have a basis in the actual show 2-Sadamoto is a hack, an animator and not a writer, his Kaworu is no more basis for understanding "Kaworu" than is *radically altered* Asuka is a basis for understanding the real Asuka 3-I acknolwedge, however, that I couldn't find citatioins to back up what I added back in, and that my edits there were on shaky ground; I didn't intend for those to stay, so much as to kind of demonstrate "this is what I'd like the article to look like if we had good citations" ; you are correct, I don't really expect my additions to stay. But the fact remains, that citing "Kaworu is gay!" is just as much an "NPOV opinion" as anything else; citing random articles from clearly biased (that is, predisposed) publications; to be honest, I think we should just deleted most of that entire section. It's ALL NPOV, and as for the Drazen article, what I mean to say is I think that "Notability" comes into play, along with NPOV. --Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici (talk) 18:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

You're entitled to have your own views, of course. It's just that WP:OR and WP:NPOV always come before them.

It's not because you have an opinion about Kaworu's role, that other people didn't have their own too, and just because you decide it, 10 years of heated debate cannot be ignored like that. Citing what some thought about the character is not "opinion". This is one part of the work required on WP. Just like citing others' opinion about the show when we talk about its reception.

As for Drazen, I find nothing bad about it, it is a 3rd party-published work, Drazen seems to be notable in the anime world. He hosted various panels at conventions and "has written on anime for Animation magazine and SFX, on manga for Time Out New York, sits on the Editorial Board for Mechademia journal, participated in a panel discussion in 2006 with Gundam creator Yoshiyuki Tomino as part of the Chicago International Film Festival" (http://www.animecons.com/guests/bio.shtml/204/Patrick_Drazen).
Also, just looking at a subject with a particular angle doesn't make a work "clearly biased" in WP's standards (just so that you can see the difference, what you wrote was biased). Otherwise, we would have to eliminate 3 quarters of all WP sources because scholars, writers and critics do not have "npov rules" when they write. The principle of neutral point of view doesn't apply to sources, but to the way they are used on WP. Sources are here either to show various opinions or to prove what's written in the articles doesn't come out of nowhere, but of course if they are only used to favor a contributor's pov, that's different. But that doesn't seem the case here, since it's just used as an example of the debate about Kaworu's sexuality. Given who he is, Drazen's work seems perfectly notable, so yes, he has his place here and he stays. On a side note, "gay and pseudo-gay themes" is only one chapter among the 29 that the book contains.

Also, he says that Kaworu isn't homosexual. I can't see what you would have against this...

As for the section, it is notable because Kaworu's sexuality was discussed many times in various reviews (read the ANN one which considers Kaworu's behavior as yet another device for Anno to shock his audience), that fan portrayals of the character were highly influenced by his ambiguity. Even Asuka call him gay in the Addition Audio Drama. I don't see why, if even a director acknowledges a fan opinion he does not necessarily agree with, it would not be notable. The section must be rewritten and properly sourced, but not deleted just because you have something against the idea of Kaworu being gay (hence the neutral point of view required of contributors). By the way, it is good just because it allows to avoid being too much in-universe by focusing on audience reception. Folken de Fanel (talk) 23:27, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

"10 years of debate cannot be ignored" -- by the same logic, the hippie subculture that appropriated "The Lord of the Rings", for a time seriously maintained that it was "about the vietnam military draft" even though it was written by a British world war I veteran, during world war II, a decade before escalations in Indo-China. Yes, I throw away the years of "debate" spent on that because they were baseless, just as "Kirk/Spock" slash fiction bears no serious merit. We should not compound the mistakes of the past by blindly allowing fringe views to be perpetuated. Frankly we're stuck, as even the supposedly "real sources" like Susan Napier simply do not understand the series. Serious academic or critical attention was never applied to Evangelion; it was neglected and made the plaything of every hack philosopher eating tofu in the dark at film school. Fan portrayals are utterly meaningless and in no way can reflect the actual character, which is *defined* by authorial intent. There is no such thing as too "in-universe", at least as you are using the term. No, the section should not be deleted, but it needs extensive rewrite and we've been putting it off for far too long.--Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici (talk) 00:41, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Further, debate whether "Shinji is gay or not" on the Shinji talk pages, that's a separate debate, but as for *Kaworu* being gay....he's an alien. The confusion about the character is that the original series didn't exactly make it clear what he was other than that he was an Angel; later, *citable* information on-screen that Kaworu gives in the Director's Cut clearly establishes that "I am the vessel for the soul of Adam", and as such, concepts of heterosexual/homosexual probably cannot be applied to him any more than they could Rei; he's an alien, he's asexual. This isn't my "opinion" this is what the series presents. Shinji's feelings towards Kaworu are a separate debate. This is not my "opinion" but a fact. Also, he says that Kaworu isn't homosexual. I can't see what you would have against this..." -- the subtle ploy of "teach the controversy"; he introduces "many say Kaworu is gay, but of course I do not!" as it were.....that in and of itself is "weasel words" and loaded language. --Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici (talk) 00:46, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I have nothing against the idea of a major character being a homosexual male (gay) ; what I'm against is that Kaworu simply isn't, anymore than E.T. the Extra-terrestrial was "gay" for Elliott. It's simply not what happened. Would it have been more interesting that way? I don't know. But we've got to stop letting these NPOV fan opinions override "actual facts". I mean, Maya Ibuki is acknowledged to be romantically attracted to Ritsuko and in all but name acknowledged to be a lesbian. --Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici (talk) 00:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I do not seriously think we'll be able to settle on a finalized version of what to write in that subsection for some time; I took up the topic grudgingly, knowing we'll be working on this for a while, but we've left it idle for too long until it was just accepted as part of the article. --Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici (talk) 00:50, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Unless you provide valid reasons to remove the Drazen ref (and I mean according to WP policies, I don't care about your personal feelings about Drazen and what he wrote. And since he doesn't even say anything much different than you do, it would be pointless to continue to argue about it for ages), you must stop your revert war. This is a 3rd party-published book from a reputed publishing house relevant in the anime world, written in a perfectly academic form, its author is "trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand" (he's a writer for various serious anime publications, see my previous message), and it has already been referenced multiple times in other WP articles. There is no disputing the reliablility of this source.

If a reliable source provides an interpretation, it should be referenced (this is why WP has a policy of assessing the reliability of the source: if a source is said to be reliable, then its content is deemed acceptable on WP. The threshold is not "truth", it is whether it comes from someone serious), and if the source reckons that this interpretation is in the minority compared to others, then it also deserves inclusion because this assessment is reliable. "Minority" does not equal lie. Please read WP:NPOV. The threshold of inclusion is not "truth" or "popularity", it's the reliablility of the source. If something, even minor, is reliable, then it is included.

I will not discuss this any longer because your main logic, by nature, is to contradict every WP policy. This is pointless. And for the last time, either you have valid justification for removals/inclusions and you explain them here, or you stop edit warring. In any case, you cannot continue reverting just to have it your own way.Folken de Fanel (talk) 07:59, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I've gotta side with Folken on this one; I see no policy-based reasons why the Drazen material shouldn't stay. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 12:47, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, well, do you think is passes notability and NPOV? I thought it was kind of like "weasel words" as an article; i.e. "alot of people think Kaworu is gay...not that I'm confirming that" etc. What do you think should be done Willybr?--Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici (talk) 15:11, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Notability, NPOV and Weasel words do not apply to sources. Please read the actual policies, including WP:RS. If sources are not allowed to present personal views, then you should go and delete the entire sourcing for Time travel since it can only be based on the researchers' personal opinions and not on facts. NPOV doesn't mean that sources must not contain personal point of view. It's here to ensure that all significant views (ie views expressed in reliable sources) are equally referenced in articles, that is, to avoid that users promote their favorite views and discard those they don't like. As for the reliability of Drazen, I don't think it needs to be repeated a fourth time. Folken de Fanel (talk) 17:16, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

No. Even if not policy-based, its simply presenting a slanted view. What I take issue with is that even Drazen says that his view is in the minority...so why should we give voice to it?--Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici (talk) 19:33, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

"No" what ? If you have serious concerns about the reliability of the Drazen source, explain them in a way that can be clearly understood according the RS policy. If you are only expressing personal opinions, it won't impact the article itself, so stop wasting our time.

It is not a "slanted" view. This is a view from a reliable source, period. Besides, Drazen says he thinks kaworu is not homosexual. That's what you think too. I don't see any problems.

From WP:NPOV: "Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles, and of all article editors [...] The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one".

Folken de Fanel (talk) 20:20, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

There's something I don't quite follow about Drazen's comment. If it was just a tactic, then why did Kaworu essentially commit suicide? Is his view that Kaworu intended to merge with Adam anyway but the revelation of Lilith completely changed his mind? --Gwern (contribs) 00:49 31 March 2009 (GMT)

Yeah my point is that the Drazen article isn't really internally consistent even.--Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici (talk) 05:12, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Did Kaworu really have to pass as the 5th Children, steal Eva 02 and force it to fight with Shinji, so that he could be killed ? There could have been more simple to do it (or Kaworu really has a Eva 01 hand-crushing fetichism). The problem is, Kaworu's intentions are never made clear (and it's possible that Anno simply had no idea about it) and thus all interpretations are open. Folken de Fanel (talk) 19:03, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Good news everyone! After some time spent consulting the Scriptures (the Bible is the real good news!) I was going over Neon Genesis Evangelion Addition, a parody audio drama voiced by the entire original Japanese voice cast and released by Gainax (it's hi-larious) and when Kaworu shows up, Asuka says "oh great, it's the gay guy" and Kaworu's response is "I really wish you wouldn't say such things, particularly when there's no evidence to support them". So really, I think Kaworu isn't really meant to be "gay" but Gainax obviously has eyes, and knows that he's at least got "bishounen" traits (keep in mind that bishie does not equal homosexual, as many series have demonstrated) and are aware that fans debate this, and poked fun at this by having the original voice actor for Kaworu, in-character in a parody audio drama, point out that there wasn't any evidence for that :) Gainax poking fun at the whole situation --Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici (talk) 05:12, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I already mentionned that earlier... The important thing is that you don't try to produce your own interpretation on that. Folken de Fanel (talk) 19:03, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the current version that I just put up is more or less the best we can make it (unless anyone else thinks there are a few small changes to make). The ironic thing is....The Drazen article seems to be arguing that Kaworu *isn't* gay, but that he was trying to "seduce" Shinji. What really seems presented in the series is that Kaworu honestly "likes" Shinji (though Kaworu has no concept of sexuality, as an alien), and he isn't "using" Shinji (what difference would it have made if Shinji outright hated him? it wouldn't have stopped him from getting to Terminal Dogma any more or less). And at the end, Kaworu even insists that he must die so humanity (and Shinji) can live. I think Kaworu just honestly doesn't have a concept of sexuality or even romance, but honestly "liked" Shinji (he's also so naive of social norms that he doesn't understand that some of what he says may be taken as "foward")...much like Rei. And then we get into the whole debate over "well are all bishounen characters gay, or are they just "beautiful boys" based on japanese standards of beauty?" which is a debate bigger than this one character. Therefore, and I'm really happy I found that After The End quote, I think what is there now solves the duel purposes of 1-pointing out that the Drazen article is a personal minority view and is sort of contradicted by on-screen evidence 2-as an alien, Kaworu might not think in such terms 3-Gainax themselves likes to poke fun at fans for this, to the point that they essentially have "Kaworu" say "there's no solid evidence that I'm gay, so I wish you'd stop saying that" :) So I think this is settled. Of course, we now have the issue of "well is Shinji bisexual or what?"....Kaworu is more clear-cut because he's an alien, but Shinji is a human. That is a separate matter and to be handled on the Shinji talk page. All agreed on the above?--Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici (talk) 19:38, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Still neutrality issue that I have corrected.Folken de Fanel (talk) 20:47, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Wow! I ask a simple question and it turns into a huge argument! But, thanks for answering my question. :)--Freespirit1981 (talk) 23:50, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Pronunciation

In American English, I pronounce this "Cow-Roo"; "Kaworu" is an alternate spelling of "Kaoru". Sometimes people see the spelling "Kaworu" and pronounce it "Cow-WAR-oo"; that is incorrect, right?--Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici (talk) 20:12, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

References

Some of the info in this article can be cited to Gainax's commentaries:

• http://www.evamonkey.com/platinum_vol7_angel_profile.htm

--Gwern (contribs) 02:11 1 March 2010 (GMT)

What info? If so the manga chapters and the anime episodes should be used as references.Tintor2 (talk) 02:13, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

What info? Well, his eyes, his synch ratio command, his relation to Shinji, Rei, & Gendo, his mysteriousness, etc. If you don't see how it's a useful reference, that's a fact more about you than about the commentary.

And yes, the manga chapters & episodes ought to be used as references. Obviously. --Gwern (contribs) 13:54 1 March 2010 (GMT)

Yes but it's better to use manga chapters and anime episodes. And why is it important to have info from his eyes?Tintor2 (talk) 13:56, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Because it's one of the most striking features, emphasized even in the early production sketch used in the intro, and a key indicator of his Angelic nature?

And the nice thing about using the commentary instead of the primary sources is that we can't be accused of OR. --Gwern (contribs) 14:28 1 March 2010 (GMT)

What? In the series, nobody asked why did Kaworu have red eyes. Anything that can be accused of OR should be removed unless it is supported by WP:Reliable sources. Other info should be cited with primary sources per guidelines.Tintor2 (talk) 15:16, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I can't tell whether you're being deliberately obtuse, parodying reference nazis, or woke on the wrong side of the bed; so I'm dropping this. If you want to improve the articles, you know what to do. --Gwern (contribs) 16:45 1 March 2010 (GMT)

I'm not getting you either. Characters from anime and manga tend to have various hair/eyes color; Misato and Rei have blue hair and nobody thought that was strange. Focusing on the fact that Kaworu has red eyes seems to be WP:Fancruft as that has no importance in the series. And what is that of "reference nazis"? Please be more direct.Tintor2 (talk) 18:15, 1 March 2010 (UTC)