Talk:Korra

History too long?

Why should a history of the character be the plot of the show? I think it should consist of:

1. Creation and conception
2. Plot overview
3. Personality
4. Abilities

...Like every other page on fictional characters. 94.159.192.137 (talk) 03:30, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree. I will try to clean up the article, but it needs to through some major reorganization.Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:16, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I likewise agree. Current way is WAY too much, and we're only through 1/2 of the 1st season. Derekloffin (talk) 01:19, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Finished. I combined a lot of the biography information with the plot category and placed it all under "Biography". The plot box is now just a redirect. This was obviously a major change. If anyone has any objections, please post them here so we can work on improving this article.Spirit of Eagle (talk) 20:19, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Deletion Objection.

Why shouldnt an encyclopedic entry have a detailed account? KirtZJ (talk) 15:36, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Korra

I have problem with the name of this article. Why Korra (The Legend of Korra)? I think there's no character, person, place or group with this name as Korra already redirects here. So I suggest changing the name. Keivan.f^Talk 19:35, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I couldn't move the page blech -.-. I agree with you, most other Avatar character pages are written in this manner, even Zuko whose name is a common nickname for people named Zulfikar, Zuko Džumhur was a famous traveler from Yugoslavia. I support moving the page. --Killuminator (talk) 15:55, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

You may not like it, but it's canon.

You don't have to like the finale, but Korra and Asami are canon. Aside from the visuals, if you want text, the musical hits during the finale sequence are from a track canonically called "The Avatar's Love" which was used previously in The Last Airbender finale with Aang and Katara. That is text. Solarbird (talk) 21:40, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Another person demanded confirmation from authors. The idea that everything in a work requires confirmation from author is just silly, and I reject the assertion that it's necessary. Solarbird (talk) 21:41, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Because without confirmation it is a violation of Wikipedia's original research and reliable source policies. You are trying to make a factual statement about an intentionally ambiguous scene by taking the name of a musical piece from the previous series to try to prove your point. If that isn't unsourced OR, I don't know what is. Rhydic (talk) 21:45, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh, donkeys. They've been building the relationship for two years, and the idea that queer relationships need direct authorial confirmation (when het ones don't) is ludicrous. It is literally impossible to do any form of literary analysis on that basis, and yet that doesn't stop anyone. Solarbird (talk) 21:47, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I mean, if you insist, I will offer a (contested) tag after Asami's entry. But I won't condone erasure. Solarbird (talk) 21:52, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

That's not how it works. Contrary to the other relationships (e.g. Mako), there was no dialogue about each stating their attraction to the other, only mutual regret that their friendship suffered from three years of separation and a desire to repair their relationship. The creators intentionally left it vague, and trying to make a factual assertion about a scene specifically left open to interpretation is original research. As such, there is no other way to look at it. Rhydic (talk) 21:55, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

You have to work really, really hard to pretend that their dialogue indicates no attraction to each other. You have to ignore several scenes in Book 4 in particular. I will again offer a (contested) tag, but your interpretation of those scenes ignoring the emotional content of those scenes is under no circumstances objectivity. We know for a fact also that the authors stated that the emotional resolution of the show would be controversial, something they would not say for a het relationship, and let's not pretend otherwise. Solarbird (talk) 22:01, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

They have both proven themselves to be heterosexual. If they kissed or confessed their love like other characters in the show have then you would have a point. Your personal interpretations don't constitute as proof. Sellingpapayas (talk) 21:56, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

If having had a boyfriend makes you heterosexual, then I would be heterosexual, and I assure you, I am not. Your argument is prima facia invalid. Solarbird (talk) 22:01, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

How do you think that you aren't breaking Wikipedia's official rules? Have you even read them? Sellingpapayas (talk) 22:05, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

If you're going to try to lecture me on reversions, then one, half my edits today are fixing other peoples' broken edits, and two, I looked at your personal talk page before you deleted it an hour ago, you've got a bit of history of reversion complaints yourself, and three, you're reverting more than I am. So don't. Solarbird (talk) 22:10, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Instead of fighting the day after its airing, why don't you wait a couple of days for someone to actually interview the creators and ask them what they meant with the ending? And if the answers are among the lines "open to interpretation" well, then you can agree you're both right. At least add a topic talking about how some think Korra and Asami got together, enough people believe or debate it to get a freaking mention on the Wikipedia page right? (cause I pretty sure some Wikipedia entries or sub-heads are about theories)

Hi, 108.131.96.94, could you put four tildes at the end when you make comments? It adds a date on the end (and your IP address, which is logged anyway so you aren't showing anything extra) which makes discussions easier to track. Thanks!

As for the suggestion: again, I dispute the idea that het relationships can be automatically greenlit when very obvious GBLT relationships require special burdens of proof. That's not objectivity. That's very distinct and specific bias (heteronormativity) declaring itself objective, and I assert it has no place in a theoretically neutral source. Obviously, the two people above disagree, which I find to be part of the problem.

I did offer more or less what you're suggesting (adding a 'contested' tag, adding a 'relationship type contested' clause). Because honestly, if you're trying to say that Korra and Asami have less of a relationship than Korra and her pet Naga - who is listed uncontested under significant others - then I don't even know how you have a conversation. But those were summarily shot down. So I'm not sure that those above would have any more agreement with your version of it than mine. Solarbird (talk) 22:36, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

There really shouldn't be a need for argument over this; if anything, when it comes to heterosexual romance, it seems to be no problem, but since it's two girls you need the creator's input? What kind of bullshit is that? Just enter the fact that Korra and Asami are in love. If anything, the parallels between the endings of both ATLA and LOK should serve as enough evidence for the idea that the two are engaged romantically and it's not just a friendship. Trust me, if it's that hard for people to accept non-hetero POC animated characters, and easy for them to accept hetero ones, then that states a lot about Wikipedia's bias. Wadanohara (talk) 23:06, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

For general reference, here is another source confirming canon. IGN agrees: http://www.ign.com/articles/2014/12/19/the-legend-of-korra-the-last-stand-review Solarbird (talk) 23:08, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Another reminder to people who keep claiming that "There was no kiss, so it's not a canon pairing!" -- the show is airing in areas of the world that don't permit same-sex relationships being shown in television, be it animated or otherwise. It was all Nickelodeon could do to avoid the finale being banned in those countries. Wadanohara (talk) 23:13, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Here we go with the "anyone who opposes our trying to present our inferrence as fact must be a bigot" argument. The assertion that the presentation of a relationship founded on intimacy and specific dialogue is comparable to the presentation of an inferred relationship featuring two scenes of handholding and no "I love you" dialogue is ridiculous. An opinion article on an entertainment website doesn't do anything except show that someone has your opinion. The most that can possibly be done with this outside of an actual answer from the creators is the creation of a subsection presenting both theories. Unless you can prove that they did the last scene that way because of the international airings, Wadanohara, that is also WP:OR. Rhydic (talk) 23:23, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

When via reversions your side is asserting that Asami is less of a "significant other" to Korra than her pet polar-bear dog, which has been listed as a significant other uncontested for a long, long time, then yes. We are going to question your motives. I even brought that up specifically in the change logs in one of my olive-branch offering edits, where I changed "girlfriend" to "status contested," and it, too, got reverted without hesitation. Yes, that kind of thing absolutely does make me question motivation.Solarbird (talk) 23:47, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Appa was Aang's life-long animal guide as is Naga for Korra. If you want to complain about Naga, go complain about Appa on Aang. Don't accuse me of having an unreasonable bias for following the same format as the article on Aang. Rhydic (talk) 00:00, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Wait wait wait wait wait a minute. Directly above here, you say that me using a source of canonically special and specific musical phrases from ATLA ("The Avatar's Love") as text here is invalid because it's from a previous show. But now, you're using references to ATLA to back your points? Seriously? The word of the day is "No." You don't get to play that card both ways.

I would also argue that Appa is a much more important presence in Aang's life than Naga is in Korra's. Appa got special episodes. Naga didn't. Appa performed substantially in the plot. Naga, as much as I love the polar-bear doggie (rock-shaper fetch games!), did not. The two are not comparable, and yet, Naga is apparently more of a Significant Other to Korra than Asami Sato, who does, who has, who is the only person Korra wrote to during the missing three years, who is the only one offering to move across the world to be with her at the send of Book 3, who is the only one referred to as a "girl friend..." Really? Is this what you're trying to sell me? Because I'm not buying it. Solarbird (talk) 00:15, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

(eta: I would also argue that Appa counts more than Naga because Appa is literally the last living link to his culture.) Solarbird (talk) 00:21, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Before you started accusing me of hypocrisy, did you even look at how the Aang article is formatted? By the way, we have no significant others for Sokka, who explicity had a relationship that served as a plot function. Rhydic (talk) 00:34, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

To paraphrase you, "You are trying to make a factual statement about relationships by taking the formatting of an article from the previous series to try to prove your point." Sorry. Not playing that game. Solarbird (talk) 00:39, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

You realize we're not supposed to have a million different ways to write similar articles and that formats and infoboxes exist for a reason, right? If you cycle through every Senate election from United States Senate elections, 1914 to United States Senate elections, 2014, every article has the same information in the infoboxes. Rhydic (talk) 00:53, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I may be misunderstanding the requests for 'confirmation'. An encyclopedia which contains factual information should definitely contain citations, source material, links, etc. But that's not what Wikipedia does, or not ALL it does. And the subject under dicussion is not only a work of creative art, but fiction. As such it's absolutely open for interpretation. I can understand and accept differences of opinion, but IMO that dynamic should also be part of the record: an acknowledgement that things stated here are opinions and interpretations, none more valid than any other. That said, the objections to this relationship that I'm reading here have more than a whiff of heteronormativity; allowing at least the interpretation of possibility to stand would remove that. Editors, please consider the uses and impact of Wikipedia in the process of change.Adventuresnail (talk) 23:18, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I think that for now we should not be vehement. The ending does suggest (very strongly, in my opinion) an intimate relationship between both characters. However, there is room for ambiguity so we should wait until we have more information before specifying the kind of relationship they have. If anything, we could add that the finale hints (key word being hints) at them being more than friends. If it is canon, as we suspect, we should get a confirmation soon from the writers or producers. --StephenG (talk) 23:21, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree, Stephen: room for interpretation should be included here. Also, who is the authority for the 'final' determination? Writers? producers? director(s)? actors? All of them are collaborators in creating the overall product; viewers are also part of that collaboration. I see no problem in leaving things open, as long as such places as Wikipedia acknowledge that there are many possibilities, and none are more valid than any other.24.20.34.210 (talk) 23:54, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I've repeatedly stated my willingness to go with a (status contested) tag - and even edited that into the article as an olive branch - twice. But it got reverted both times. I don't think that writer-statement-or-nothing everything-else-is-OR is valid; I think it's a standard not typically applied, except where GBLT and other minority groups are involved, where it's suddenly invoked. This is not my first time on this particular pony. Solarbird (talk) 00:33, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

• Comment People within this discussion seem to be confused on exactly what level of interpretation we can do on the matter. There is no original research, but if there is a primary source, IE: The show itself WP:PRIMARY dictates we can use primary sources to establish non controversial, simple facts. The issue of whether a lesbian relationship is controversial, and it's gotten the article fully protected by an administrator, so that's out. Since it is controversial on whether or not they were--we need reliable sources to interpret exactly what happened. We don't engage in disputes, we describe them. We don't necessarily mandate a writer's statement saying 'Yes, there was an implication of a lesbian relationship or general affection' but that would be unambiguous proof and a dagger in the other side's throat. Additionally, there are no WP:DISCLAIMER's on Wikipedia, so having 'status contested' to describe controversial statements would not be acceptable unless there was a procedural reason for it. The {{dubious}} is for editors to tag dubious statements for more discussion. Regarding the specific issue, just wait it out. The finale just aired, more sources will likely pick up on it and we can use those. What should not be guiding this discussion is one's personal interpretation on the matter, but sources. Tutelary (talk) 00:48, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Tutelary. I renew my question: what constitutes a 'source' that would provide a definitive answer? And since it is a work of fiction, in a visual medium that allows for interpretation, what is the value in saying yes or no, rather than referring to the differences of opinion? Wouldn't that be 'describing the dispute'?24.20.34.210 (talk) 00:54, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

What would be a source that provides a definitive 'true' answer is one that came directly from the team that wrote The Legend of Korra. I say 'true' answer because we don't put truth into articles, but are guided by the sources. Barring that, any reliable source (I note that IGN was cited as one, and they do have an editorial team so they would count.) could be used to demonstrate a controversial fact like that. Though in my honest opinion, I don't believe it should be described in Wikipedia's own words, but by IGN's. "IGN described the ending scene as a heavy implication that Asami and Korra had a love interest." or something along those lines. Attempting to affirmatively assert in the infobox that Asami is 'Korra's definitive love interest' is the wrong way to go with this level of sourcing. Speaking of sources, Another source leans off from that approach that it was a lesbian implication while another and another does the same. Tutelary (talk) 01:05, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm confused by the phrase "leans off" here? Vanity Fair (at your link): "But if you think this final shot was denoting mere friendship, you’re kidding yourself." Hollywood Life seems to think that the korrasami shippers got what they want. I think that affirmatively supports korrasami, or maybe leans on, with leans off implying opposition? But I don't know if that's what you meant. (Genuinely. Both of those seem to support the most common reaction I've seen, which is to say they are canon.) Solarbird (talk) 01:37, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

As I've already said, the only thing this article can report is the personal interpretations of people reviewing or watching the show, no matter how much prestige any sources carry. If those sources actually interviewed the creators and reported what the creators said they intended, that would be a different story. Rhydic (talk) 00:59, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Are you attempting to say we shouldn't using sourcing at all to describe this matter? Tutelary (talk) 01:05, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

That's not what I said. All of these sources, barring direct input from those involved in the show's development, will merely be reporting on their own inferences. This is very similar to what happened with Frozen and the resulting pages and pages of discussion. Rhydic (talk) 01:08, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Frozen is a good example of this. Wikipedia is based upon sources. For controversial facts like perceived lesbian undertones, we need to look to the sources to decide the best course of action to describe it effectively or even whether it happened at all. And yes, Frozen 2013 depicts perceived LGBT parallels because that's what sources stated. We stick to the sources. The few I mentioned seem to be leaning in the direction of it describing it as an intense friendship rather than a relationship. Again, needing to wait for more sources. Tutelary (talk) 01:13, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Rhydic: no, that's not true. You've personally reverted attempts in that direction (my contested-marking and all that was an attempt at proof of sincerity, not a final design goal; my thinking was that it would eventually link to a section describing things) and have so far fought all efforts to include even a reference to Asami's status. Just look above. All I'm seeing from you and from Sellingpapayas is either statement-from-author-or-nothing (mostly you) or that the characters involved have been "proven heterosexual" (Sellingpapayas). Even if you're going to insist that the obvious meaning to the overwhelming majority of the audience isn't actually true, it is impossible to deny sanely that Asami Sato is not a significant other to Korra by the standards set of including characters like Naga, her pet polar-bear dog. It's nonsensical to do so. That is inarguably in text. And by adding Asami Sato with a note that the nature of the relationship is contested (to be augmented by a link later), that's what I was trying to address as a halfway point. But that, too, got reverted instantly, and you've been arguing with me against it above. Solarbird (talk) 01:09, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I reverted attempts to present something as fact when the only thing we have at this point are inferences and a few reviews. After the first few revisions people should have come to the talk page according to WP:BRD to get the issue resolved, but instead a nearly 100-edit-long chain of edits and revisions by over a dozen people occurred. I already said that a subsection talking about both viewpoints could be created; this should be a discussion about creating a subsection talking about interpretations of the scene, not a discussion forum about the merits of handholding. If we can agree to start drafting a subsection discussing the issue while avoiding presenting any non-concrete material as fact, I don't think we're going to have any other issues. Look at Talk:Frozen (2013 film)/Archive 2 as an example of what should be going on here. Rhydic (talk) 01:21, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

JFC, don't lecture me about coming to Talk to talk about it; I'm the one who started this discussion here. I'm was the one trying to get people to come to Talk instead of edit wars. I'm the one who went over to Sellingpapayas's talk page to try to get him to quit this and get to the Talk page. Check the edit logs, and don't lecture me about using Talk. Solarbird (talk) 01:30, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, congratulations on showing up. At least 32 other people haven't. Rhydic (talk) 01:38, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree that we should wait for confirmation. It is not right to treat inferences as facts, and right now all we have is that episode to guide us. Let's not rush into a decision and wait for a few days until more is revealed. The finale, especially that ending scene, was ambiguous. Whether that ambiguity was due to the show in question id a children's show, or because an explicit same-sex relationship would be censored in certain countries, or even because the writers intended to create suspense is unimportant. The reason for it is irrelevant in this discussion. The truth is that the episode in question could be interpreted differently by different viewers: it is possible for some to reach the conclusion that Asami and Korra are simply very intimate friends who have grown very close and helped each other grow and mature. On the other hand, other viewers may think the scene imply a romance between the two characters. Both conclusions can be effectively backed up. It is our job as editors to present facts, not our personal feelings on the subject. I think that due to the ambiguous nature of the episode, the best thing we can do is wait to see if it is confirmed by the show's cast and/or crew. This episode has generated such discussion that the writers or producers will most certainly add to the subject and either confirm or deny our interpretations. But until that happens, I think we should wait. --StephenG (talk) 03:03, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

The problem with editors like Rydic is that they take accusations of homophobia/heteronormativity personally and think "That can't POSSIBLY be me, I'm just following protocol." The problem is that when you live in a heteronormative society - and let's face it kids cartoons are at an absolute extreme of heteronormativity(which is an extremely destructive fact, but let's leave that for another day) - the Protocol we shape and how we abide by it are going to be influenced by that. When you have a bunch of Queer people telling Het people they're wrong about something Queer related - you should go with the Queer people. It's THEIR area of expertise and Wikipedia's general stance on this falls dangerously close to a fallacy of Appeal to Authority, where the Authority isn't the person who would actually have first hand experience of the subject at hand. We shouldn't be trusting heteronormative ideals of how to recognise queer romance when the *entire point* was to slip this episode past those who enforce such things. Users like Rhydic can be extremely smug about this - oh well sure if you had CONFIRMATION, etc., acting like they're doing this on behalf of some greater good, when they really aren't. Representation and listening to queer people is vastly more important than sticking to some set of guidelines that have caused incidents like this many a time on the past. When you have a society that is heteronormative, demanding certain sorts of sources is not going to be as reasonable. Basically, if the queer fanbase is overwhelmingly accepting this as a canon pairing, you should listen to them. Two people saying "I love you" or kissing is one particular cultural understanding of what it means to start a romantic or sexual relationship. It is not an absolute, so acting like it's a cold iron rule is ridiculous. What happened in the show looks like conformation to queer people - who have lived in their own subculture to some degree for centuries. We know what it looks like, we know how creators confirm these things in canon as much as they can get away with. A "totally not homophobic" Republican wikipedia editor does not. This is straight up erasure by appealing to a set of standards that reflect extreme heteronormativity in society. Don't complain about being called a bigot if you're going to consistently refuse to listen to queer people. Little Miss Desu (talk) 03:26, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Why exactly are you complaining about my following the rules? All you're doing is calling me a bigot for deferring to Wikipedia's oppressive policies or something. Does your argument mean white guy can go to White people and write that white people are the best since he has more experience with being white than someone else who isn't? Rhydic (talk) 03:47, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I can actually point to evidence that shows that White People underperform Asians in many metrics, proving that assertion wrong. Can you point to evidence that Korra and Asami are not a couple at the end of the series? Cause all the evidence says otherwise.

I don't think you read his argument. His point was apparently that straight people aren't allowed to have any say in this debate because they don't have the "expertise" to know what they're talking about. Or something. Rhydic (talk) 02:04, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm straight and I don't see that being an issue. No the problem with his opposition is that somehow gay relationships have to be held to a different standard than straight relationships. If one of them was male, there would be no opposition to this being listed as a relationship. But because both are girls, suddenly there needs to be creator confirmation. Its a dumb double standard.

So you're fine with segregated editing? That's great. See WP:OWN. Rhydic (talk) 02:57, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree with various comments throughout the Korra entries - the only 'fact' is that the ending (without further explanation/verification) is ambiguous. IMO, if we're being scrupulous about fact-based entries, this FACT should be included. I also think the importance of this discussion, and the underlying storytelling process, can't be overstated: this is part of the process of change that will someday render this very conversation obsolete. I think Wikipedia should be part of that process. Don't erase the shifting nature of gender/sexual identity because it doesn't fit in an artificially created box. Adventuresnail (talk) 19:41, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Any evidence that the two of them are not a couple? Because all the evidence is on the side of them ending up as a couple at the end of the series. Seems to me that those who assert that its not canon need to pony up some evidence that the final scene does not indicate a romantic relationship.

The Big List of Korra-Asami Relationship Sources

I'm just copying several sources here as they appear various places. Solarbird (talk) 17:41, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

IGN talks about the Korra-and-Asami (Korrasami) ending: http://www.ign.com/articles/2014/12/19/the-legend-of-korra-the-last-stand-review Solarbird (talk) 17:41, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

The biggest part of the Vanity Fair writeup raves about the groundbreaking nature of letting the Korra-Asami relationship happen, and ending with it: http://www.vanityfair.com/vf-hollywood/2014/12/korra-series-finale-recap-gay-asami Solarbird (talk) 17:41, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Hollywood Life: "Korra and Asami, the couple shippers have longed to be endgame, held hands and walked toward the spirit world. And that’s how The Legend of Korra ended. (Cue all the tears.)" http://hollywoodlife.com/2014/12/19/the-legend-of-korra-series-finale-reaction/ Solarbird (talk) 17:41, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Michael Dante DiMartino has linked to Vanity Fair's rave about the Korrasami ending on his Facebook page. Are we canon yet or is that still not enough? https://www.facebook.com/MichaelDanteDiMartino/posts/742679445801043 Solarbird (talk) 04:46, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Seychelle Gabriel, the actress who plays Asami, links to the same Vanity Fair article, and doesn't refute its conclusions: https://twitter.com/seychellegab/status/546397952025952256 Nerrolken (talk) 21:46, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

As has Jeremy Zuckerman, the composer for the series: https://twitter.com/JeremyZuckerman/status/546094088341032960 Nerrolken (talk) 07:20, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh look, Zuko's actor chimes in saying it's korrasami: https://twitter.com/dantebasco/status/546137848647147520 Solarbird (talk) 08:23, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

The Mary Sue: "Korrasami forever!" http://www.themarysue.com/legend-of-korra-finale/2/ Solarbird (talk) 17:34, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

TV.com (owned by the same people who own Nick) just says it's a relationship outright, and says, "If you replace Asami with a male character, not only is there not any ambiguity about the intention of the scene, but there's not any need for ambiguity either, since a kiss would've gotten through standards and practices in that context." http://www.tv.com/shows/avatar-the-legend-of-korra/community/post/the-legend-of-korra-series-finale-book-4-episode-12-episode-13-day-of-the-colossus-the-last-stand-141886896821/ (h/t StephenG above) Solarbird (talk) 17:48, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Co-creator and writer Michael Dante DiMartino again, reblogging and thanking a fan who wrote him about their gay kid, and "after all this time, i could finally share a “happily ever after” that connected our family." : http://michaeldantedimartino.tumblr.com/post/105667758470/avatar-mom-i-have-cried-about-so-many-things-in Solarbird (talk) 17:50, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Den of Geek talks at the end of their review about how hard you have to work to pretend that wasn't a Korra/Asami relationship ending: http://www.denofgeek.us/tv/the-legend-of-korra/242272/the-legend-of-korra-book-four-finale-review Solarbird (talk) 18:26, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Forbes: "The Legend of Korra now exists for the ages as a complete set, tracking Korra from being a cocky teenager with the emotional maturity of a high school freshman to her post-collegiate backpacking vacation with a lover of the same sex. ... A series revealing its openly gay Nickelodeon character in the last episode is certainly a way to spike the football when your core fanbase is the melodrama-craving annals of Tumblr, but it’s also the natural conclusion to a show’s fan base who was forced to grow up along with the series." http://www.forbes.com/sites/davegonzales/2014/12/19/the-legend-of-korra-finale-literally-made-fan-dreams-come-true/2/ Solarbird (talk) 19:01, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Huffington Post: "the series closes on Korra and Asami holding hands and going off into the spirit world together. Then Korrasami supporters around the world let out a scream of joy. The fan ship finally seems to be official." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/20/legend-of-korra-finale_n_6359698.html Solarbird (talk) 19:03, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

IBT: "Legend of Korra lesbian romance shocker? Korra and Asami end up together in series finale" http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/legend-korra-lesbian-romance-shocker-korra-asami-end-together-series-finale-1480381 Solarbird (talk) 19:04, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 20 December 2014

Asami Sato needs to be added in the significant other category as 'girlfriend' 120.145.28.101 (talk) 01:45, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Being discussed above, hardly an uncontroversial edit and certainly one without consensus. Tutelary (talk) 01:53, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Not done: judging from the discussion above, there isn't consensus for this yet. Please reactivate the request when a consensus forms. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 03:27, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 20 December 2014

You need to add Asami Sato to Korras significant others the writers have confirmed them as romantically involved so therefore you will need to update the information for both characters. 81.94.204.226 (talk) 02:08, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

See the above request. Additionally, where has the writers confirmed such? Tutelary (talk) 02:10, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Not done: per above. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 03:31, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

"Room for interpretation" vs. "Deniability."

I want to talk about "room for interpretation" for a minute.

What's that mean? "Room for interpretation" is usually invoked to imply that there are reasonable grounds for differing conclusions based on evidence. In fiction, one fandom example is the original Battlestar Galactica (1978). We don't see Pegasus destroyed; we see Pegasus destroy two base stars successfully and go in for the kill on a third. Then we do not see Pegasus again. Given that we had not seen Pegasus before, and that Pegasus had escaped similar situations in the past, it does not seem unreasonable to assert that Pegasus might have survived the battle - limping away needing months of work before getting back underway, who knows? Pegasus was most likely destroyed saving Galactica and the fleet, but it's not unreasonable to consider the alternative. That's "room for interpretation."

I want also to talk about "deniability."

Deniability comes in to play when you're forbidden to talk about or do a certain thing, but you do it anyway, with just enough obscurity to it that if observers really, really, really want to, they can deny you are doing what you're actually doing. An example is in the film Spartacus, and the "oysters and clams" discussion, which was cut from video for many years because it wasn't quite deniable enough for television censors. But that was the attempt; a discussion about gay sexuality that wasn't about gay sexuality, but was about seafood. It was deniable that it was about sexuality, at least for initial release.

Now, how does this apply to the Korra finale?

Nickelodeon has a known policy against showing clearly GBLT relationships. This is the same as Cartoon Network and work such as Adventure Time, and has been extensively discussed elsewhere, so I won't go into it here; it suffices to know that this policy is in place. It has to do, we are old, with overseas markets - but they don't make special cuts for places like North America and Japan, either, so we all get to fall under those rules.

This leaves creators who want to go in that direction with the reality that they must include at very least deniability. They cannot explicitly state the presence of GBLT relationships. They can only hint or imply, and the only question is how hard in that direction one can go.

In a context of women in relationships in particular, this can be difficult, due to the blinding phenomenon often referred to as "lesbian invisibility," or the cultural assumption in the west that two women involved in a relationship can't really be in a relationship until - and often not even after - it is stated explicitly. This causes many people to ignore vast swaths of contextual (and real-life, for that matter) evidence.

You can also see this phenominon in reactions online to this episode. Personally, I was surprised when I started seeing evidence of Korra and Asami building a relationship in Book 2, and told myself I was just overreading it - until it became pretty obvious in Book 3. Even then I was thinking that there was no way the show would be allowed to go there - until Book 4, when it became so strongly stated, given the limits of their allowed range.

And despite all that, a small but meaningful percentage of online reaction calls the Korra/Asami relationship ending "completely out of the blue" and "unexpected." This is lesbian and bisexual invisibility syndrome at work.

But at the same time, this reaction also indicates how far the authors went in this episode; even those people most likely to ignore and/or downplay same-sex relationships between women as "just friends" are reacting to the finale. It is that conclusive in their eyes; they can't ignore it - however much they might want to.

What does this have to do with "room for interpretation" vs. "deniability?"

I assert this to be supporting evidence that we are well past "room for interpretation" and into "deniability." When people who routinely ignore implications of same-sex female relationships are confronted with evidence so strong that they're reacting against it, "lesbian invisibility" has been shattered. Yes, deniability has been maintained, as we see in discussions above. If one insists, one can ignore enough parts of the source material to conclude it didn't happen. This allows the show to be aired in places like Russia - "see, it's legal, we didn't say romance. We didn't say elopement. We didn't say girlfriends."

But you're certainly out of the "room for interpretation" field. It's not ambiguous. It's just deniable. Which we already know is a Nickelodeon requirement. And I think all of this must be considered in any reasonable discussion of the topic. Context matters, and this is our context, and to ignore it is to do a disservice to everyone.

Solarbird (talk) 03:07, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that what you have is a theory. Personally, I agree with it. I think Korra and Asami have a romantic relationship because that is what I draw when I when I watch the series. It also makes sense that they wouldn't want to be explicit due to, as you said, there are policies and restrictions that don't allow it to be explicit. But that is the very problem we are facing: it isn't explicit. All we have are our assumptions, even if they are good assumptions. Unless we have a reliable source that supports this theory, though, there is nothing we can do. We need to wait for confirmation. Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation (see WP:CRYSTAL), so we cannot and should not add information as fact unless we have a source that indicates it as such. --StephenG (talk) 03:42, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

You have missed my point. My point here specifically is that the text - in the sense of dialogue spoken only - is intentionally forbidden. Therefore choosing to rely only on spoken text and dialogue will always be errant and is bad practice in this environment. Relying solely and only on spoken dialogue is working against the greater text of the work in this case. It is against encyclopaedic goals.

Secondly, I argue that it is also errant to rely only on spoken words in an audio-visual medium such as television. Symbolism is content. Theme is content. Music is content. All this text is being ignored in favour of a) the spoken word and b) whether two characters performed one specific action. All the content is text - not just the words. And given that, the visual cues, the parallel shots repeating firmly and well-established themes, the specific use of music used only in relationships with the Avatar - all these are text and they say, "this is canon." The musical cue in particular - I talked about it above.

Third and finally, we're talking first and mostly (since that was what was being edited) a "significant others" section, with a link to a further section talking about it. Her pet polar-bear dog is listed as a significant other, but somehow, given not just all the nonverbal text, but the spoken text and the spoken actions, Asami Sato does not qualify? Asami Soto, the one who in spoken text cares about Korra as much as she cares about her father? Who was willing to go halfway around the world to wait for her? Who was the only person Korra wrote back from the South Pole? The one Korra called her only girl friend? All that is worth less than her dog?

I keep posing that question and people keep not answering it. I will, though: the assertion that Naga is a "significant other" but Asami somehow isn't simply does not make any sense at all. Not without a huge heaping helping things I don't like talking about, at least. And I will not let that stand unchallenged, from anyone. Solarbird (talk) 04:22, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

In response to your first two paragraphs, the problem is that I think we would need proof (a source) that supports your statement that "text - in the sense of dialogue spoken only - is intentionally forbidden" and that because of this the writers had no other choice than to make it implicit and rely on other sorts of rhetoric and imagery. What you have is an assumption, and I think we need to prove this assumption is true before adding information to the article as fact. Wikipedia is NOT a crystal ball.

About the inclusion of Naga in the 'significant others' list, we should rely on past precedent. We know from canonical sources that all avatars have a companion animal guide, and since Appa is listed in Aang's article, it makes sense that we list Naga in Korra's too. While I agree that Asami is far more important in Korra's life than Naga, the discussion of Asami's role in Korra's life is currently ongoing so we cannot list her as a girlfriend/romantic interest yet. If a relationship between Asami and Korra is confirmed, then we should include her on the list as Korra's love interest. If the relationship is denied, considering Asami's role, I think she should be included anyway as Korra's most intimate friend, if other editors feel it would be appropriate. But that is a different discussion. The fact remains that Naga ought to stay in the list and Asami should be included, in my opinion, regardless of whether she is Korra's love interest or not, but not until we can define her role in Korra's life. --StephenG (talk) 04:44, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Speculation? It's come from so many different sources I've lost track. What do we need, a press release? They aren't going to do that.

Oh, by the way, co-creator and writer Michael Dante DiMartino has linked to Vanity Fair's rave specifically about the Korrasami ending and how it changes cartoons on his Facebook page. Are we canon yet or is that still not enough? https://www.facebook.com/MichaelDanteDiMartino/posts/742679445801043 Solarbird (talk) 04:58, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

You talk about sources... which of those is an authority on the subject? If we can find one, then this discussion is over and we should list Asami as Korra's love interest. I don't think articles from Vanity Fair or IGN would be considered reliable sources since they simply prove that other viewers reached the same conclusion we did... I suggest we add to the body of the article a line or two explaining the situation between Korra and Asami, something along the lines of "The show's finale hinted at a romantic involvement between Korra and Asami, although show representatives have not yet confirmed this." This seems fair given the response the episode has had, and should satisfy both sides of the argument until we get an official declaration from the show's executives. We could also add Asami as a significant other, as a "possible love interest (see discussion below)." I think these suggestions are appropriate for the amount of information we have now, but I still think we cannot and should not treat their alleged relationship as canon until we get confirmation from official sources. Thoughts? --StephenG (talk) 05:11, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Okay, so... Michael Dante DiMartino, show co-creator, linking to an article that is almost entirely about the korrasami ending (again, here's his post on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/MichaelDanteDiMartino/posts/742679445801043 ) is still not adequate for more than "hinted?" What do we need? What is "confirmation from official sources?" Because if it's Nick, we aren't getting that, and everybody knows it.

Leaving that aside, it wasn't just the final episode, so I would not be satisfied with this phrasing - the build-up was clearly scattered throughout Books 3 and 4, and the end of book 3 pretty much clubbed you about the head with it. And weeks ago now, the writers acknowledged on video (IGN again, iirc) that picking up on those hints was legitimate. They even used the word "good," again, iirc. Coy about it? Sure.

So I would insist at least upon a phrasing that talks about books three and four, and insist that it not be presented as having been dropped out of the sky at the finale. It wasn't. It was built up over months in real life, and years in story time. And "hints" is too weak a word - "strongly indicated" or "strongly suggested" might be acceptable, though.Solarbird (talk) 05:27, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid official sources means almost exclusively Nick. If one of the show's producers or cast members says something about it it could be considered official too, I think. The article on Vanity Fair isn't all about the Korrasami ending anyway, you're just seeing what you want to see. The article devotes almost all of its length (did you even read it?) to the multiple barriers the show breaks, including the inclusion of a female non-Caucasian protagonist and the show's symbolic Eastern-inspired settings. All that aside, adverbs like 'strongly' add bias to the text, you should remember this is an encyclopaedia and thus we should attempt to be as unbiased as possible. I think 'hinted' works fine for now, if it is decided that this information should be added to the article. StephenG (talk) 05:50, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Did I read it? Did you? Korrasami is the longest single topic. That's by word count and image count. It is roughly a third of the article by words alone. More importantly, it is what the article concludes on. It is what the article calls "the final envelope" and where it is described as going "further than the show has ever gone before." Okay, I'll admit, i was perhaps distracted into calling it "mostly" about that, since that was the single largest topic by far and the conclusion of the article and what the article, in its headline, is talking about (things the show did in 2014, which is to say books 3 and 4, and therefore in meaningful part the Korrasami topic). And maybe also by the fact that the headline image is also about their relationship. So yeah, distracted by things like introduction, heading, lead image, context of headline, plurality of words, and conclusion. But by all means, by strict word count, I retract that the article is "mostly" about Korrasami. It's not. Not by word count. And it does talk about other things. Good things. Things I like! Korra and Asami's relationship is again, just the introduction, conclusion, roughly a third of the words (using wc), and 6/13 of the images, including the framing images at top and bottom. So noted.

And if you're saying that really only Nick can really confirm this, then we can never have confirmation, and that reads to me as just looking for excuses - see above about how when the dialogue is excluded, using only dialogue is a disservice to reality. By that standard, we don't have confirmation of Adventure Time either, and we again know why that is true. Solarbird (talk) 06:18, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

There is no need to be discourteous, I am simply saying that we ought to follow Wikipedia's policies and rules, and they specifically ask for reliable sources in case of ambiguity, like in this case. In any case, I think more editors should agree on whether we do as I suggested and include in the article that the series hint at a romantic involvement between Korra and Asami or not before a change is made. As I stated before, I agree with your opinion about the episode and I share it, but there are rules that ought to be followed. See in WP:TRUTH: "It is not good enough for information to be true, and it is definitely not good enough for you to (perhaps wrongly) believe it to be true. Wikipedia values accuracy, but it requires verifiability. You are allowed and encouraged to add material that is verifiable and true; you are absolutely prohibited from adding any material that is un-verifiable, with zero exceptions—even if the un-verifiable material is True." My point still stands: we ought to get confirmation from a reliable source (i.e. Nick representatives, the show's producers, writers, cast members or other crew members) before we present Korra's and Asami's romantic involvement as a fact. --StephenG (talk) 06:41, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I just found an article by TV.com which confirms the relationship between Korra and Asami. I think this would count as a reliable source, as it is owned and edited by CBS Corp. The article seems based on a viewer's opinion (it's a review, but written by a member of staff), though, so I still think we should use words like 'hint' or 'suggest' when tackling the information. --StephenG (talk) 07:05, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

See, now, I don't see why distant ownership by the same mega-corporation at some distant level really means they're all on the same page. I mean, certainly, I don't want to argue against making this statement, but I'm honestly perplexed why this extremely-distant perceived authority reference counts for more weight that the nonverbal text of the actual work, and the author's comments.

I mean, honestly, I should shut up and take the link (and I will!) but ... this is the kind of adherence to pro forma doctrine over actuality that makes my head spin, and I say that as a former research scientist. I mean... yay? But why is a technical chain of ownership of a website with a commentary article more valid than the content of the material? I don't get it. Solarbird (talk) 07:21, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

If you're going to talk about courtesy - asking me, and I quote, "did you even read it?" regarding a source I provided strikes me as of questionable courtesy. I merely documented in excruciating detail that I had, indeed, read it.

I agree that all those statements would qualify as verification. I am demonstrating further that - particularly where oppressed minorities are concerned - a stridently limited approach to that makes suppressing fairly obvious facts inevitable. (I can only imagine what Wikipedia standards would've done to reporting of things like the Soviet gulag system in the 1950s-1970s, for example - but only if they'd been enforced to this sort of letter, which I doubt would've happened.) To be blunt about it, if you or a character like you are of a suspect minority group, these strict applications end up including large segments of the lives (or virtual lives) of you and yours, and I have grave opposition to that. Worse, in my rather extensive experience, the standards for what qualifies as "acceptable sources" are always raised for suspect minorities, and I cannot escape the reality that these wouldn't've been controversial edits if the very existence of me and mine was not considered controversial. In short: the entire edit war which prompted this discussion (and this discussion itself) are a continuing reminder of many unpleasant and very real attitudes towards me and mine - and how the structures of information sources echo and reinforce those attitudes.

Such is the background radiation of my life. But you and yours not experiencing it does not make your reality more "objective," and I would hope I do not need to argue that point. But I am having to argue - as always - that it does not make really somehow less real. Merely that the sources which document them are disproportionately disqualified as illegitimate. Solarbird (talk) 07:17, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Were it up to me, I'd have added the Korrasami pairing as fact hours ago, but it in't up to me; I'm just trying to follow Wikipedia's rules. For better or worse, WP policies state that even if something is true, if it cannot be verified it cannot be included. I'm not making up this rules, they simply exist and we ought to follow them. If you disagree with it, then I suggest you use this discussion as an example and request that the policy is revised (and you'd probably have my support in that, really). But until that is done, the fact remains that we have to follow the guidelines set and wait for an official confirmation or use the link I found (maybe it would be better to write it in such a way that it is clear to the reader that TV.com is saying it). This is not a discussion of how Wikipedia treats minority groups nor should it be. Whether I personally agree or disagree to this seem irrelevant to the discussion of a fictional character's love life.

For the sake of honesty, though, I will say this: you are not the only one with unfortunate experiences here. You assume that I have not experienced unpleasant attitudes, but whether I have or haven't (truthfully, I have) has no effect on my opinion regarding this discussion. Personally, I am very pleased that a TV show, especially one marketed at a young audience, has made such a bold move and presented two protagonists (not even secondary characters!) as a gay couple. I sincerely hope that Nick officially recognises it, so as to make it undeniable. --StephenG (talk) 08:04, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

It's just the constant fight, you know? Gets to me sometimes. I'll be less tired in the morning. Meanwhile, hey look what Michael Dante Dimartino reblogged on Tumblr: http://michaeldantedimartino.tumblr.com/post/105667758470/avatar-mom-i-have-cried-about-so-many-things-in Solarbird (talk) 09:04, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Reading through all of this, I think the problem main issue isn't actually people fighting over ships; it's WP:OR, which states that we can't put two and two together within an article without somebody else saying it and us sourcing them. Therefore, I think the best solution is to say "These sources (in particular Vanity Fair) interpret it as a LGTB" and leave it to the reader to decide if it's deniability or room for interpretation until (or rather, if) Nick makes an official statement. Luthien22 (talk) 18:56, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 20 December 2014 (Created account specifically to make this request)

Jwaresolutions (talk) 07:53, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

@Jwaresolutions: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Please don't paste the whole article onto this page. See WP:PER for more information about making protected edit requests. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:02, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Edit Request: Remove Real Estate Company's evaluation of Air Temple Island from "Reception"

I realize why this article is locked (and I applaud that), but I'd like to request an admin remove the sentence from the reception section mentioning that a real estate company did an evluation of Air Temple Island. It strikes me as WP:TRIVIA, it has nothing to do with the character in question, and it's not really an example of reception. Luthien22 (talk) 19:01, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

A Korrasami Compromise

So, I don't want to stick my head in the lion's mouth or anything, but given the incredibly fierce debate about Korra and Asami's relationship, a compromise presents itself: why not have a section about it? Whether you think it's confirmed or not, the controversy itself is undeniably notable, as Solarbird's list of sources proves. This is an important factor of the character, and I think we can all agree it will continue to be important as the show and the character is remembered. Any encylopedia article about Korra really ought to include some discussion of this debate. So why not do that for now, report the discussions in official sources and the media, and then add her as a "Relationship" once a more firm agreement is made? --76.91.190.155 (talk) 20:57, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

And to be clear: I'm not talking about some list where both sides lay out their case. I'm talking about a "Personal Relationships" section, or some similar, where the controversy can be reported on as part of the larger article about the character. Personally, I think that when the creators of the show re-posted an article from Vanity Fair about the groundbreaking LGBT relationship, it has been confirmed by official sources. But either way, this is an important part of the character, and as such ought to be discussed in the article. 76.91.190.155 (talk) 20:59, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Or we could go the route of what the official page for Korra did, add it in and remark about how media sources described it. See this edit. The infobox 'Girlfriend' or 'SO' is not going to happen in any version, however. Tutelary (talk) 21:00, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, (truly I'm not arguing, I'm asking about Wikipedia policy and how it's being applied here), what WOULD constitute a firm confirmation of their relationship? When the relationship is being reported widely as a given, and the creators are re-posting these articles without refuting them, what is the "ok, now it's official" line? What do Wikipedia's standards require? I thought it only had to be widely reported and unrefuted to be "notable" and thus worthy of adding. Thanks in advance for explaining.  :) 76.91.190.155 (talk) 21:06, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

A statement by the official writers of the development team affirming the final shot as an official relationship. That would be unambiguous. It's also however somewhat muddied by our sourcing requirements of reliable sources, and the "not truth" principle. This is a contentious issue unlike her relationship with Mako, or other details about her livelihood. So we need sources to do the work for us. I thought it only had to be widely reported and unrefuted to be "notable" and thus worthy of adding. Thanks in advance for explaining.  :) I really shouldn't have stated that the 'Girlfriend or SO' thing might not happen. If the reliable sources are in heavy agreement, it very well could, but they seem more conflicting at the moment between friendship rather than relationship. But if the vast majority of RS say affirmatively that 'Yes, it was a relationship' then that would be fine. You can see the section that Solarbird is collecting for what the sources seem to say. I'll need to do my own research. We've got 4 days before the article is unprotected and another edit war might scurry on if this isn't solved on the talk page. Tutelary (talk) 21:13, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Now that I've undeleted it, you may want to go up to the section on "deniability" vs. "room for interpretation" above, wherein I critique the unequal application of Wikipedia metrics for truth in relation to GBLT in particular and minority representation in general. I think it's extremely relevant to this discussion and being used to bad ends, and I describe that above. Solarbird (talk) 01:19, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

How about we include the episode's ambiguity and reception by multiple media outlets in the "Reception" section of the article? It seems suitable, and we could phrase it in a way that shows that we are not treating their relationship as fact but many outlets are. --StephenG (talk) 22:07, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

That's probably what would've happened otherwise, or it would've been stuck under Book 4's balance section. I support that option. Tutelary (talk) 22:26, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

The editors and admins here are just amoral enforcers of heteronormativity and are too blinded by their own privilege to see their issue here. Debating them is a waste of time. This would not be an issue for a het couple and it's absolutely absurd. Once again heteronormative people are demanding queer people prove something to them and they fail to see any issue in it because they have guidelines to hide behind. This is queer erasure, it's malicious and I have zero respect for the integrity of those enforcing it. These are the same sort of people that refused to allow Chelsea Manning her identity for some time. Little Miss Desu (talk) 23:04, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

This is nothing about privilege or anything of the sort. This is about what sources consider the matter to be and in compliance with Wikipedia policy and guidelines. If you can't comment on the content, rather than the contributor, then you're not fit to edit Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a collegial environment and every user is entitled to WP:CIVILITY and respect as editors. Do not see other editors as your enemy. We're hopefully all WP:HERE to build the encyclopedia. Tutelary (talk) 23:09, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I offered that twice. It got reverted twice. I don't think they'll go for it. Of course, my mood is a bit coloured - I just got back here to discover that Tutelary had deleted a huge chunk of my contribution to this discussion above and flagged it "copyright violation." I've reverted it, but I don't think they're exactly working in good faith at this point. Solarbird (talk) 01:13, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I repeat my suggestion from above: that we include the relationship in the section for "reception," where we can discuss the conclusion several media outlets (and casual viewers) reached. Instead of discussing the issues regarding the ambiguity of the episode we can expose all the facts and the general conclusion the media has reached and let the reader of the article formulate his/her own opinion. --StephenG (talk) 01:39, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, like I was saying talking with you last night - I could live with that, given the right wording and context. It'd be a hard slog to get to that, I suspect, but I could live with some variation on that. After all, I did offer it a couple of times before being slammed down. Solarbird (talk) 02:14, 21 December 2014 (UTC)