# Talk:Misato Katsuragi

In NGE her promotion to Major was well established.  
However, I don't recall in 2.22 there ever being a promotion.  It is very common for Lieutenant Colonels to be addressed as Colonel, so when Akagi calls her Colonel Katsuragi, I don't think that is grounds for assuming a promotion has taken place.  If anyone has any better information, please say so, or I'm going to change this line.
thryllkill (talk) 13:17, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Misato Katsuragi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070819093918/http://www.evacommentary.org/appendix/character-names.html to http://www.evacommentary.org/appendix/character-names.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:45, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

I saw what you did. How many times am I gonna have to explain to you over and over again? Misato and Kaji never rekindled any romantic relationship in 2.0. Kaij is confirmed dead in 3.0 and is believed to have died shortly after Third Impact. And he is not set to return in the final film 3.0-1.0. So please leave this alone. You don’t get to dictate the facts. SG1994! (talk) 06:56, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Sjones23, I stated the facts and they are proven true within the films. Please do not edit that out.  SG1994! (talk) 06:59, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you were edit warring, which is forbidden by policy. Also, no one owns the article. We may need a consensus among other editors on whether to include the relevant information. I've already asked at WT:ANIME to get further input. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 07:03, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
But it is relevant. Cuz it shows how much different her story is from the original. Misato in this continuity, never gets back with him. And that does make a huge difference in her character from how she was in the original. And that information was there last year before I even came to this. So that was put there for a reason. There is no reason to take it off is what I am trying to say.  SG1994! (talk) 07:08, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Also due to the fact he is dead in 3.0 and is not confirmed to return in 3.0-1.0, it only backs up my argument further. I don’t see any reason for this to be taken out. It’s very relevant to how different Misato is in Rebuild than she was in the original.  SG1994! (talk) 07:12, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

If the film does show something happening, then the description should reflect what is in the film itself. Anything beyond what is shown in the film would require secondary sources, since we don't presume. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 07:18, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Yes but in the film, we never see them get back together. Their relationship never rekindles. That we do clearly see in the film. And his death was confirmed in 3.0 by some of the characters.  SG1994! (talk) 07:20, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
So we know for a fact, he is dead in 3.0 based on the statements and how consistent it is throughout the film.  SG1994! (talk) 07:21, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

FYI, I've asked Tintor2 (talk · contribs), Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk · contribs), Popcornfud (talk · contribs) and Nihonjoe (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), who are uninvolved third-parties, for their thoughts on the matter. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 07:24, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
But the point is, in 2.0 we don’t see any sign of them ever possibly rekindling anything. Misato most of the time showed more animosity towards him. And didn’t like him being around her. Even though she does get a bit softer towards him when she was being patched up by medics, we never see any hint or indication of them possibly getting back and so far, they haven’t. So that ultimately proves my argument and why that should be made relevant.  SG1994! (talk) 07:24, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Ok so you asked them. What did they say?  SG1994! (talk) 07:25, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

They haven't said anything yet. Still, since two editors have already challenged your edits, the proper way to resolve it is to discuss on the talk page as per WP:BRD, not revert again. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 07:38, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Then let’s leave the page alone then. Nobody edit it until the discussion is over.  SG1994! (talk) 07:42, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
@TeenAngels1234: is a better Evangelion viewer than me so I'm pinging him. Been long since I watched Rebuild.Tintor2 (talk) 11:31, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm not a Rebuild fan, but, generally speaking, it sounds like an irrelevant question to me TBH. On Kaji, Evageeks states: "In Evangelion 3.0, Kaji's name is mentioned by Koji Takao but it is not entirely clear if he is still alive at the point". It doesn't seem necessary to mention Kaji's eventual death in this article, anyway. On their relationship, I agree with SG. Asuka makes no mention of a relationship IIRC, like the original series; Kaji doesn't phone her for a date, and they don't have sex like in the twentieth episode. But to exclude a priori that they have not entered into a relationship again seems wrong to me, wikipedianally. Rebuild is not finished, we do not know what happened in the timeskip, and it could be disproved by flashbacks or posthumous revelations in Shin Evangelion. Therefore, it seems to me a smoky and irrelevant point to be mentioned. While I found a staff confirmation of Asuka and Kaji's "estrangement", I have not found an official denial for Misato and Kaji in the whole CRC. They probably voluntarily left it to the fans. Perhaps it would be better to wait for Shin's release or an official confirmation.--User:TeenAngels1234 (talk) 12:58, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Actually there are good reasons as to why they never entered a relationship in the time skip, cuz Misato shows no grief or sadness of his death. And judging by her character change, I doubt she cares. I know Rebuild isn’t finished yet but due keep in mind, leaks for the characters who are to return was shown recently and so far Kaji is not one of those confirmed characters to return. So it’s apparent, Kaji is not returning in 3.0-1.0. So I feel this is relevant.  SG1994! (talk) 13:32, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
The point is, if it didn’t happen on screen or was mentioned, then it’s relevant to add to her Rebuild profile. Also if you watch 2.0 during the watermelon farm scene, Kaji asks Shinji to protect Misato for him as he can no longer do so. Indicating, Kaji’s chances to be with Misato are over and he can no longer be there to protect her or it could be because he knows he could get killed at any moment cuz he has made enemies that will come after him. And the scene during the teaser of 3.0 seems to show his life is in danger.  SG1994! (talk) 13:41, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
So please leave it. It is relevant since Misato and Kaji didn’t rekindle anything on screen and it’s relevant to the differences in her character story in Rebuild. Cuz Rebuild is supposed to be a completely different continuity.  SG1994! (talk) 13:43, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Also to further note; the fact Kaji isn’t set to return in 3.0-1.0 as he was not one of the leaked characters who are confirmed to be in the film, kinda indicates he is most likely dead. Otherwise, we’d see him in 3.0.
Plus Koji believes him to be dead. And I think Evageek site needs more work to be honest. So I don’t take too much credibility with that site.
Anyway, the fact Kaji is never brought up again in 3.0 and Misato doesn’t seem to have any grieving feelings or any indication to care about what happened to him, seems to back that up further. So I highly doubt he will ever comeback in 3.0-1.0.  SG1994! (talk) 13:58, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Still, we need a reliable source to confirm that Kaji's not in 3.0+1.0 as well as his relationship with Misato in Rebuild. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 14:01, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Exactly. As a fan, I tend to agree with SG assertion, but, as a Wikipedian, I want to found a reliable source. I want to search on Evangelion Chronicle. Give me just a day and I'll let you know.--User:TeenAngels1234 (talk) 14:14, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
If you check the voice actors who are going to voice the characters in 3.0+1.0, Kaji’s character isn’t listed. So he isn’t going to be in it. 
And in 2.0 they don’t rekindle anything. So it’s apparent theh didn’t. Misato didn’t even show any past feelings. And Kaji seemed to have accepted the relationship was over as shown when he asked Shinji to protect and take care of Misato as he can no longer do so.  SG1994! (talk) 14:20, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, where were the voice actors listed? Why would they release such a list before release? You know, people used to speculate that Toji died and yet we see him in the height chart "leaks" too. Because it's a "leak" (though it was probably intentional...) it might not be considered wiki-worthy, sure, but nonetheless it goes to show how just because a character doesn't show up in the 3rd movie, doesn't mean he won't show up in the 4th. We never get hard confirmation of anything, 3.0's whole deal is that it's a very opaque movie, by design. FelipeFritschF (talk)
The fact they didn’t even try to rekindle anything in 2.0 nor made any hints towards it, clearly makes that proof right there. And the fact is never stated or referenced in 3.0, I doubt they ever did. Plus 3.0+1.0’s voice cast doesn’t mention his voice actor or character listed. So it’s obvious he isn’t going to be in it.  SG1994! (talk) 14:24, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Unless there are reliable, third-party sources discussing this, it's original research. It may be 100% true, but we need sources here on Wikipedia. Anyone who edit wars over this (or anything else) after the "06:53, 5 February 2021‎" edit will be blocked. This is your only warning. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:56, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
If you look up the movie details, they show the voice cast. And on the leaks they only showed characters who are confirmed to be in the movie. But Kaji wasn’t among them. So that proves he isn’t confirmed to be in the film.  SG1994! (talk) 17:15, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Toji, Hikari, and Kensuke are leaked to be the only returning characters in the film. The leak showed only them and the rest of the main cast. Kaji is not listed. Therefore, he isn’t set to return. 
The leak showed, Toji, Hikari, Kensuke, Shinji, Asuka, Mari, Misato, Ritsuko and etc. but no Kaji. So it seems he is not set to come back.  SG1994! (talk) 17:21, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Not even that. We get Asuka, Rei, Shinji, Toji, Hikari and Kensuke. No Misato, no Ritsuko, no Hyugga, no Aoba etc. Yet they're all in the trailers. I assume the idea with that "leak" was getting people's attention by hinting at their return. This doesn't cover Kaji at all. Similarly, I've seen a supposed list of a VA being cast for both Kaji and Kyoko - obviously not gonna quote it here because it can't be verified. You could also argue that Kaji is coming back because he's in the 3.0 previews. There is no official source saying he's dead or alive - just like there weren't for Toji et al. Either way, the height chart doesn't disprove it either. FelipeFritschF (talk)  — Preceding undated comment added 17:32, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
I’m saying to add that Kaji is dead in the Rebuild (even though he clearly is) all I’m asking is to leave the part that Misato and him never restarted a relationship cuz in the film they CLEARLY did not. And there is no evidence of them doing so during the timeskip and it’s never hint. This is based on 2.0. Not 3.0.
So based on the facts in the 2.0 movie, they never rekindled anything. So it’s relevant to that part of her profile as it is part of her 2.0 film history.  SG1994! (talk) 17:35, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Actually the voice actor for Kaji was mot listed in the voice cast for 3.0+1.0. I checked.  SG1994! (talk) 17:36, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Kôichi Yamadera is not listed. You may have went to a forum source. Cuz most sources for 3.0+1.0 that do show the voice cast, don’t show him.  SG1994! (talk) 17:43, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Not* SG1994! (talk) 18:17, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Can you please point out what lists exactly you are referring to? Because it doesn't seem to me that there any official voice actor listings yet. Sure, plenty of sites will speculate on it... and guess what, they're not listing Toji et al either, because the Khara leaks are not widely known. Plus, the forum source is just a translation of the Khara tweet, so I'm not sure why you're insisting on it, unless you want to dispute the translations of the names or something. FelipeFritschF (talk)  — Preceding undated comment added 18:35, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
The leaks were given to me from a forum on Evageek. But they were taken off the Twitter so we can’t view them now. But I can send you the link to the forum that did show them.  SG1994! (talk) 19:01, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
https://forum.evageeks.org/thread/19771/Height-Chart-Leak-Mistake-or-Otherwise/  SG1994! (talk) 19:02, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
But this is besides the point.
In 2.0 we clearly see they don’t restart their relationship in any way. And who ever put that there knew what he was doing. Cuz I wasn’t the one who originally put that there. I only restored it when someone tried to delete it.
But regardless, they never restarted anything. Misato wanted nothing more to do with Kaji. She had no hint of feelings left. Kaji started to respect her space later on and asked Shinji to protect Misato and take care of her as he no longer could. Kaji knows it’s over between them. 
The film CLEARLY shows this. So it is relevant to Misato’s 2.0 info cuz it was shown in that exact film.  SG1994! (talk) 19:06, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Evageeks isn't the source, it just made a translation. The source is a tweet from Khara's account. It was deleted after a few hours, which is why it's technically considered a link - officially they'd say it was unintended, but it'd be a typical marketing technique to let a "fake" leak happen. Either way, although the original image and the translated one have been saved by people, the original tweet was unfortunately not archived. It's not directly relevant to this point however, I was merely illustrating my point about making assumptions based on 3.0 alone that might not hold up because the movies are simply not complee yet. But neither are there any official sources denying it, so, again, we can't make assumptions. FelipeFritschF (talk)  — Preceding undated comment added 23:01, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Well regardless, Misato and Kaji never rekindled in 2.0. So because of that alone, it’s relevant. Especially for her character cuz it makes a huge difference in this incarnation of the character.  SG1994! (talk) 23:41, 5 February 2021 (UTC)


### Section break
Given that we as Wikipedians must refrain from making assumptions about Misato and Kaji's relationships in Rebuild as per WP:OR, we may still need a reliable source to confirm it. Any ideas? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:19, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

It's deliberately left open. I was opposed because there was simply no way to tell. There's a 14 year timeskip and they deliberately tease the audience over it only to leave things hanging in the next movie. FelipeFritschF (talk) 04:59, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
It’s not left open cuz in 2.0 we never see any hint of lingering feelings with Misato. She seems done with Kaji. And Kaji seems to acknowledge that later on in the film. Going as far as to give her space.  SG1994! (talk) 00:33, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Regardless, Misato and Kaji never rekindled in 2.0. There was never any hint of it being possible. So because of that alone, it’s relevant. Especially for her character cuz it makes a huge difference in this incarnation of the character. You can’t use the 14 year time skip as an excuse to not include this factor.  SG1994! (talk) 00:34, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
The facts are in 2.0. The 14 year time skip is never given any hints or indication of them ever rekindling and Misato doesn’t seem to care about him anymore in 3.0. Especially due to her personality change. So the only reliable source is 2.0 itself. So you might as well go with it. Kaji is not set to return in 3.0+1.0 and the confirmed characters who are returning were all leaked and Kaji was not one of them. 
Kôichi Yamadera who is his voice actor was not listed in any source other than the voice actors of the confirmed returning characters.  SG1994! (talk) 00:39, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
His only confirmed anime film he will voice in is Gintama The Final as Shoyo Yoshida / Utsuro. That’s it. So that there is good enough to assume he will not be in 3.0+1.0.  SG1994! (talk) 00:48, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

That's really not a very good reason to assume he won't be in the film, so no. This is definitely OR and does not belong on Wikipedia without proper tertiary sourcing. Sarcataclysmal (talk) 12:10, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Bruh, if it’s not in the film, it didn’t happen. Simple as that. The film is your source. 
There was no chance of them getting back to together in 2.0 and that’s all that counts.  SG1994! (talk) 14:12, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Pretty sure that’s what Anno intended for this one. Cuz he wanted to make the characters different than they were in the original. The point is, you can’t use the 14 year time skip as an excuse to not have fact that they never rekindled anything. They never did in 2.0. That much is apparent. Misato didn’t show any lingering feelings. She wanted to move on with her own life. And he started to respect that. He even asked Shinji to take care of Misato for him as he can no longer do so. Which indicates, he knows it’s over between them and that Shinji is the only one he can trust to protect her. In 3.0, she didn’t seem to care about the fact he was assumed dead. And due to the personality change, that much is apparent. Which is an indication that they still didn’t rekindle anything.  SG1994! (talk) 14:13, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
They wouldn’t just not list him as a returning voice actor if he is to return in the film, dude. Like use your head. They already listed the confirmed returning voice actors. And the fact he only has 1 anime film listed in 2020 amd 2021 to be voicing in shows he will not be in 3.0+1.0. SG1994! (talk) 14:14, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

"Pretty sure that’s what Anno intended for this one" WP:OR. The film doesn't work as a source, because it's what we call primary sourcing, and in this case doesn't work beyond perhaps actually claiming that he was or was not in the film using that very film itself; in this instance, you can't claim either using primary sourcing, because 3.0+1.0 has not been released, and therefore cannot be used as a source. No other film can be used as a source for the supposed voice actors of this film, either, otherwise it's no longer primary sourcing and is something completely irrelevant. So, primary sourcing is absolutely out of the question right now. Your reasoning is also founded upon... thematic/character analysis? Which, again, is WP:OR, and does not support the claim using third-party sources. So, unfortunately no, axiomatic evidence has not been provided. Sarcataclysmal (talk) 16:10, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Ok see your not making a very compelling counter argument. The point is, Misato and Kaji never rekindled their relationship in 2.0. It didn’t happen on screen. Nor was it implied to have happened off screen in 3.0. Wouldn’t make sense to wait until 3.0+1.0 to show that. So the poing it, they didn’t rekindle. The fact it didn’t happen in the films is proof enough. Seriously, you are running out of excuses. 🤦‍♂️🤣 SG1994! (talk) 16:13, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with making a compelling argument. You don't have sources, and it's as simple as that. Sarcataclysmal (talk) 16:15, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
The 2.0 film clearly shows Misato and Kaji never rekindled their relationship. That much is certain. And there is no evidence of them ever possibly doing so within the 14 time skip nor was there any possibility of them ever doing so. 3.0 has never shown any of it. Therefore, the evidence is within the film itself. That’s all you need. There doesn’t need to be a link to prove that cuz the film itself shows that they don’t restart any romantic relationship. Nor does it ever hint to any possibility. So your argument is moot.  SG1994! (talk) 16:20, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

You're repeating the same thing and it's still not a source. Again, WP:OR. Sarcataclysmal (talk) 16:21, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Doesn’t matter. The film 2.0 doesn’t show any possibility of them rekindling their relationship. That’s proof enough. Don’t need a link or source to prove that. It’s in the damn movie. Gosh you’re an idiot. 🤦‍♂️🤣 SG1994! (talk) 16:24, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Seriously if you’re gonna make that argument, actually prove me wrong then. But until then, it is relevant within the 2.0 film. The whole point is that in her 2.0 profile, they never rekindled anything. Misato never shows any lingering feelings towards him. She wants nothing to do with him. Kaji acknowledges this later and starts to respect that. The 14 year time skip makes no indication of them ever possibly restarting anything. And in 3.0, Misato shows no grief or worry for him. And due to her personality change, that seems apparent. You have no way fo debunk this in any form.  SG1994! (talk) 16:29, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
And seeing as how Misato’s personality change was due to the aftermath of Third Impact and blaming Shinji for it, it seems she never focused on him nor ever thought about him sense.  SG1994! (talk) 16:32, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
If you’re not going to make a compelling counter argument, then don’t bother. Cuz you are waisting your time.  SG1994! (talk) 16:35, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm not making an argument, I'm saying you have no sources; and refrain from name calling. Whether or not 2.0 shows any possibility of anything is irrelevant to the subject, tou're still purporting original research, and that has no place on Wiki. Sarcataclysmal (talk) 17:00, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
How is it irrelevant to the subject? That info was there before I even came to this site. And it is relevant because it shows a drastic difference to her character in the Rebuild continuity compared to her original counterpart. So it is relevant, weather you agree or not.  SG1994! (talk) 17:23, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
It’s important people who haven’t seen the movie, know that difference cuz this is how different her personal is in this series compared to the original. Your excuses have no warrent to remove that information. SG1994! (talk) 17:25, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

It's irrelevant because saying stuff about "they didn't rekindle the relationship in 2.0" doesn't prove anything about the characters in 3.0+1.0; it is OR, what is it that has you perplexed on the understanding of OR? Sarcataclysmal (talk) 17:28, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
No that’s not the point. It proves Misato’s personal love life differences in 2.0 compared to her original. In 2.0 she has no love life. That’s a big difference between her and her original version.
How is that irrelevant or OR? You claim it’s OR but it really isn’t. Your excuses are starting to run out. 

SG1994! (talk) 17:36, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Look, your waisting your time. You don’t have any other excuses to prove it’s irrelevant. It’s not OR and you can’t prove that it is. And I will keep defending this if I must.  SG1994! (talk) 17:37, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

No one is wasting their time here. Most Wikipedians who have replied to this topic seem to be in partial or full agreement with the statements I've made. Now, this isn't indicative of who is right or who is wrong, but considering that most of them have brought up the issue of original research, then we can infer that it is a relevant policy issue your argument is facing. Sarcataclysmal (talk) 17:45, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Who cares? The policy doesn’t dictate what is fact. The film of 2.0 shows the facts enough. Ok based on your argument, Misato being a sister to Asuka isn’t relevant then. Cuz there is no source to prove that except in the film. So I’m sensing hypocrisy here.  SG1994! (talk) 17:49, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
There are so many holes in all of ya’lls argument, it’s funny how you all don’t see it. 🤦‍♂️🤣 SG1994! (talk) 17:50, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

That's not how that works. We can use the films as sources, but only for objective content. If Asuka were to, in the film or series, say Misato was her sister, or a sister-like figure to her, then that is primary sourcing and therefore objectively factual (well, even here such a claim might fall due to context). What you're saying, in this instance, is not comparable; it's subjective evidence that can't be used because it falls within the realm of OR. This is neither hypocritical nor argumentatively fallacious. Sarcataclysmal (talk) 17:53, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
But Asuka never did. Nor was it stated. You allow this to be relevant yet not allow what I am defending be relevant? See that’s where I sense inconsistency in your statement. So yes there is hypocrisy here. 🤦‍♂️🤣
And you can’t prove that anything I said falls in the realm of OR. So your statement has no basis.  SG1994! (talk) 17:56, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

"The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist." It falls within OR. You need verifiability. Sarcataclysmal (talk) 18:07, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Then your information of “Misato being a sister figure to Asuka” needs verifiability then. 🤦‍♂️🤣
Can’t you see that everything you’re telling me is nothing but sheer hypocrisy? Like wow. You’re literally blind to this.
Not all information needs a published source. Everything you say about her character is all taken from the film and one of the users on here did say he agrees with my argument as he has obviously watched the film and can see why my argument is valid. But you claim my argument is original research but you can’t provide any proof to that. Not every information on this page has published sources. So not only have you shot yourself in the foot, but have proven to me your hypocrisy. Nothing you say next is going to disprove that. You have no more excuses. I suggest you throw in the towel.  SG1994! (talk) 18:23, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

You're not making a lot of sense, here, but you're welcome to continue with your attempt, I suppose. Sarcataclysmal (talk) 18:35, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
I am making sense. It’s your statement that isn’t. Your argument of OR and all facts must have a verifiable source, seems to have holes in it as almost all facts on Misato’s page don’t have every verifiable source backing them up. But again, you don’t have a valid argument against me now. I called you out on your hypocritical statement and you can’t pretend anymore. You lost.  SG1994! (talk) 18:41, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Nothing has been lost, it isn't a hypocritical statement, and the OR argument is still valid. Please try convincing the Wikipedians here with sources instead of reactions to their statements and usage of subjective evidences. Sarcataclysmal (talk) 18:56, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Dude the statement of “Misato being Asuka’s sister figure” is subject evidence. I don’t see any verification source confirming that. Yet it is confirmed in the film cuz we see it. And you reject the fact Misato doesn’t restart her relationship with Kaji in this film when it is very clear in the film they don’t. But you allow Misato being a sister figure to Asuka as fact despite no verifiable source confirming it. Cuz the film does show that. And Misato nor Asuka make such a statement in the film. But it is visibly shown to be the case. So again, you being hypocritical. Your argument has no basis. You can deny it all you want but the facts clearly show that you’re wrong. I don’t need sources. The movie is a credible source on it’s own. Again you have no valid argument of this being OR. Cuz if it’s proven in the film, then it’s fact. Again one of the Wikipedians on this talk page did say he agrees with me in that. So keep acting like your argument has validity cuz it clearly doesn’t and I already called you out on that. You lost. 
🤦‍♂️🤣 SG1994! (talk) 19:11, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
“ She plays more of a big sister role towards Asuka and does not restart her romantic relationship with Kaji.”
Both these facts have no verifiable sources, yet it is clearly confirmed in the movie itself. That is all you need as proof. And these were put there because of that. 
The factor of Misato being a sister figure to Asuka you seem to keep despite no source to confirm it but it is confirmed in the film. You allow that to stay, but not the factor of Misato never restarting or rekindling her relationship with Kaji when it is clearly shown in the film that they don’t, just like Misato being as sister to Asuka? Yeah that right there is sheer hypocrisy. I mean the facts don’t lie. You have been exposed. 
Not only did I expose you for being a hypocrite, but your denial of it is only making it look worse for you. And arguing with me about only backs me up more.   SG1994! (talk) 19:19, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

I've added my two cents, there's nothing for me to lose here. Also, just because one Wikipedian agrees doesn't make it correct, I even said this earlier. Also, talking all this nonsense about "facts" and "exposing" and "hypocrisy" and "denial" and all that is worthless ad hominem speak that has no place in any conversation. So, I'd suggest you stop making such reaction-based statements, as they really don't add anything to this conversation and, really, deter from your own statements. Sarcataclysmal (talk) 19:31, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Keep telling youself that. Cuz you have been exposed for your hypocrisy and now you’re trying to brush it off like it’s not relevant. It is relevant cuz the facts show that you are. 😂 SG1994! (talk) 19:35, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
You might as well let it go, cuz your two cents have been wasted.  SG1994! (talk) 19:36, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Invalidating other's ideas because of silly claims of hypocrisy doesn't look too well for anyone. We could keep going forever about how nonsensical this is, but considering this should stay on topic I believe we should both wait for other opinions to be posted regarding the topic so that, eventually, a decision is made.   Sarcataclysmal (talk) 19:43, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Gosh don’t you have something better to do than argue with me? 🤦‍♂️🤣
I doubt any decision will be made. Plus you haven’t made a valid argument against the fact your hypocrisy. Again you cna deny it all you want, but the facts still remain.  SG1994! (talk) 19:48, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

"Gosh don’t you have something better to do than argue with me?" Same to you. I'm strongly suggesting you cease attempting to incite further non-relevant discussion on this matter. Sarcataclysmal (talk) 19:51, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
I’m not attempting non-relevant discussions. Everything I’m saying is relevant to the discussion. What you’re doing is not relevant and hypocritical. 
You’re just trying to pretend it is. You can’t hide the truth, buddy. 😂😂😂 SG1994! (talk) 19:56, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
I suggest you stop pretending to be innocent here.  SG1994! (talk) 19:57, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Do not change that until the despute is over. Cuz I am not done yet. No one is to touch that until the despute is finished. You had no business to do that yet. I will keep fighting this if I must.  SG1994! (talk) 08:41, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Sjones is not correct. Nothing any of you guys said is correct. You are hypocrites for even saying that. And I am demanding you all stop acting like that just leave it how it is. There is absolutely no valid reason for it to be taken off. Again, I will continue to dispute this if I must. I am that determined to keep facts the way they are. The proof is in the film itself. You don’t need a website source to prove it. I mean you don’t have a credible website confirming Misato being a sister to Asuka. Yet you allow that without consensus. So not only have you all shown your hypocrisy, but I will do what ever it takes to keep that information preserved.  SG1994! (talk) 08:45, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Don’t change it again. Sjones said for it to not be touched until the dispute is over. Which it isn’t.  SG1994! (talk) 19:26, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
We are not done with this. You still haven’t proven your side of the argis valid. And you’re still showing your hypocritical nature as we speak.  SG1994! (talk) 19:55, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
You guys don’t get to govern this page. You’re not even admins. 🤦‍♂️🤣 SG1994! (talk) 19:56, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
See this is exactly why this website gets a lot of flack. Cuz this type of hypocritical nonsense is why Wikipedia lacks credibility anymore. Thanks for showing your true colors.  SG1994! (talk) 19:57, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Misato Katsuragi/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Tintor2 (talk · contribs) 21:25, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

I'll be reviewing this article. Since we are taking in the middle of parties, I suppose the editor or might make less active but no pressure.Tintor2 (talk) 21:25, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
Let's go!
Lead:

Lacks the nihongo lead specific template to properly identify the kanji and romaji
"Critics have drawn parallels between Misato's characterization and concepts of philosophers and psychologists such as Carl Gustav Jung, Arthur Schopenhauer, and Friedrich Nietzsche." Considering the analysis is suddenly brought up, I would suggest give a brief explanation to why she is compared to those.
The second paragraph uses the word character several times.
Since Shinji is the anime's protagonist I would suggest mentioning that in the third paragraph to make it easier to understand.
You considered giving the infobox a more appropiate image fitting of Misato? Full body shots are hard to find though.
Conception

"Some staff members, such as Jun'ichi Satō, had also worked on the animated version of Sailor Moon." This is kinda random unless you can expand on this. If not it seems trivial.
Seiyuu seems unnecessary when we can already write Japanese voice actor. Kinda like how mangaka is rewritten as manga artist to make it easier to understand.

Appearances

Is the nihongo for Captain needed? Feel free to keep it but I find it redundant.
When first mentioning that she takes Shinji, I would suggest writing it's the first episode to make it easier to understand rather than giving the idea of a biography.
I know the tv series and End of Evangelion are pretty much similar in terms of inent (correct me if I'm wrong) but I would suggest mentioning that movie.
Is the Rebuild of Evangelion image needed? There is no commentary from Sadamoto or anybody else to give the character. For example, when I wrote Allen Walker I only added his armor look when finding real world information about its creation.
In other media I suggest writing this part in present tense.
@TeenAngels1234: That's all for today. Good work.Tintor2 (talk) 21:24, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

@Tintor2: I revised all points. Hope it helps.--TeenAngels1234 (talk) 22:22, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
@TeenAngels1234: 
Okay let's go with round 2:
Characterization and themes

"In 2015" sounds kinda like too much in-universe. I suggest revising this tidbid.
Misato's relationship with Kaji is also explored way too much when appearances already details them. I suggest trimming it. Same with Shinji's relationship as this is mostly about Misato. The commentary from the staff themselves might be more appropiate that the previous sentences.
"The disappearance of her father caused her psychic trauma, leading her to become mute for several years and to act in an unhealthy manner towards other men." Is this really important for the character
Cultural references and psychoanalysis

Her relationship with Kaji is explored again.
Popularity

There are several polls mentioned but are those Evangelion exclusive or anime in general. We could divide into two different sentences in regards to that.
They are already divided according to this pattern, since the first two groups are generic.
"The websites Screen Rant[202][203] and Comic Book Resources[204] ranked Misato among the best characters in the series." This sounds like popularity content but I'd suggest just leaving the content the article' prose have.
The last sentence about similarities kinda seemed trivial as they don't explain why those journalist compared Misato with other characters.
Nice work with the article.Tintor2 (talk) 23:29, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

@Tintor2: Okay. I think I fixed all the points.--TeenAngels1234 (talk) 18:29, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
Passing the review.Tintor2 (talk) 23:58, 18 December 2022 (UTC)