Talk:Frozen (2013 film)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Appropriateness of a Lesbian cartoon for children?

Just curious why the issue is not discussed?Presidentbalut (talk) 09:08, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Which character is lesbian? BOVINEBOY2008 12:02, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Do you have independent reliable sources stating this is an issue or were you just hoping to stir something up? - SummerPhD (talk) 14:41, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I have been reading about it all over the web. I should not have to say this, but I am not a religious person. I also am not a bigot. But I do draw the line when it comes to children. Besides, if this is a controversial element of the story, should it not be discussed? As I understand it, the story is about two princesses that fall in love? Presidentbalut (talk) 18:53, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

You are severely misinformed. The story is about two sisters. They have sisterly love. There is nothing the least bit sexual about it. Reading crazy conspiracy theories by right-wing nutjobs is not the best way to get your information. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:34, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

184.155.141.104 a.k.a. Presidentbalut does not have a source for this and is apparently trying to stir up a discussion about nothing. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:11, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

This is not some kind of conspiracy theory; Google "Frozen LBGT" and other similar keyword searches. "Frozen LBGT" comes up with over 3 million hits, including articles from the Huntington Post and Independent.co.uk. "Let it Go" in particular has been seen as a coming out analogy, though that may better be seen added to the Elsa article. Bruce Campbell (talk) 18:54, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Actually, there are a lot of articles out there interpreting the film as a LBGT analogy; not to mention other interpretations and themes of the film. It could be interesting if some of that discussion could be included into the article. Wikipedia has entire articles about thematic content in films. However, obviously anything would be need to be very highly referenced and researched quite thoroughly, so including something like that would have to be very carefully executed. Bruce Campbell (talk) 18:54, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Also, a lot of these articles are actually quite positive, mentioning that the film is teaching tolerance and acceptance. Bruce Campbell (talk) 18:55, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Those interpretations = "lesbian cartoon"? Wow. A Google search for "+Frozen +lesbian" brings up nothing. Special:Contributions/Presidentbalut, however, seems to bring up a number of heat>light situations. - SummerPhD (talk) 20:14, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

The first page of "Frozen LGBT" came up with these hits. If you want comments from articles that elude to Elsa's sexuality:

From Forbes:

This is not about whether there should be a theatrical Frozen 2, from an artistic point of view. There surely can be more stories to tell as the kingdom comes to terms with Elsa’s “totally not a metaphor for homosexuality” ice powers, as well as how the two mostly separated sisters adjust to actually be in each others’ lives again.

From Slant:

"Disney's Frozen teems with gay themes long before it hits its stride. It tells the story of Elsa, a princess from the land of Arendelle endowed with inexplicable, ice-emitting powers that shame her parents."

And these are all literally from the first page search results. Other critical reviews likely mention similar things. There is a large amount of articles that discuss this from websites that Wikipedia recognizes as reliable. If this stuff like this isn't notable enough for inclusion in the main article, than its understood, since there is already so much to talk about, but I don't see how somebody can pretend like there aren't articles that are discussing the lbtg allusions. Bruce Campbell (talk) 05:15, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Not to say that the main page, and the character pages, aren't wonderfully done and intricately researched, because they are! Kudos to all the editors involved. Bruce Campbell (talk) 05:15, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Comment on content, not on the contributors. ALittleQuenhi (talk to me) 08:54, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you all for the work and references. I am not "trying to stir up" anything. Except a better article. There is endless talk about the lesbian aspects of the film. Be it intentional or not, the film has many lesbian overtones. This, as evidenced by the talk page, warrants a section in the main article. I apologize for being a lazy bum and not putting more work into this myself. But at least I sounded my voice. Someone listened and a chain reaction started. Please, for you wikimasters out there, add a section. I would thank you. For good or for bad. This is supposed to be an academic work. Please leave your emotions at home and be objective.184.155.141.104 (talk) 05:35, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Do we really need a separate section? I think the LGBT issue is just part of the critical reactions, therefore, just drop a few lines within the "Critical response" heading. ALittleQuenhi (talk to me) 08:38, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

The Forbes piece, about animated-film marketing, gives one snarky aside about homosexuality that seems like just a sarcastic jab at people reading lesbian themes into a movie about two sisters. And the Slate review calls the X-Men movies gay-themed also. I guess if framed as one reviewer's opinion (as opposed to a serious discussion about the topic) this can be a quote in the "Critical reception section," but there's a big, big difference between a reviewer saying there may be metaphors about homosexuality as opposed to insinuations that this story of two sisters is "a lesbian cartoon." --Tenebrae (talk) 15:53, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Note/Comment: As is mentioned in the #LGBTQIA Inferences/Parallels section above, there are a lot of reviewers (I'm speaking of the ones who pass as WP:Reliable sources) who have interpreted, or have reported people as having interpreted, the film as having one or more LGBT parallels, regardless of some wild theory about whether or not the sisters are in love (I don't see how anyone can come to a valid conclusion that the sisters are in love with each other, by the way). The fact that various reviewers have commented on perceived gay themes in the film, and that there is controversy regarding this topic, as shown by this and this Google search, makes this something that should be covered in this article. If this article is not going to have a Themes section, or Themes subsection of the Critical reception section, like other Wikipedia film articles that deal with what critics feel are themes in the film, the gay themes aspect should have a paragraph devoted to it in the Critical reception section. I'll alert WP:FILM to this topic for more opinions. Flyer22 (talk) 03:10, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I might also alert WP:LGBT to this discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 03:17, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Comment @Presidentbalut: I'd just like to point out that whether or not Elsa's storyline was meant to be a metaphor for coming out and embracing one's true sexuality, it is completely irrelevant when it comes to this animated film's suitability for kids. I for one am highly offended by the notion that making children aware of homosexuality is a bad thing. And the part I hate the most is when people claim to be okay with homosexuality...just as long as it is kept far away from them. It's the Not In My Back Yard principle. And its disgusting. If your child was gay, wouldnt you want them to understand they were okay and normal, rather than make them feel wrong and isolated and a disease their whole life? I was there. I know what it can do to a kid. So I think you should reconsider your claim that lesbian themes in a "kids" movie (I would even argue with you on that point), is detrimental in any way shape or form. Oh and yes, by the way I can definitely see the metaphor, and thought it myself. Just like the Mother Knows Best (reprise) which is a metaphor for losing one's virginity ("This is why he's here, don't let him deceive you give it to him what you see".), this is most definitely a story about coming to terms with ones sexuality, obscured just enough for it to pass through the censors of simplemided people who are offended by the unknown or the other, and have no justifiable reason why.--Coin945 (talk) 04:47, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, all of this goes along with what I was suggesting: We include a paragraph in Critical reception saying something like, "Some reviewers found the story a metaphor for coming to accept oneself's gay identity, with So-and-So saying 'quote'. As well, So-and-So found 'quote', with So-and-So adding, 'quote.'"

This way we're just stating the plain facts and not adding POV about "appropriateness." And, yes, as I stated earlier and Coin945 seems to agree with, Presidentbalut's subhead and premise are both overreaching and a bit offensive.

What does everyone think of adding a short paragraph of this sort to address what some reviewers are saying? --Tenebrae (talk) 14:28, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

If we really have to include such a thing, then I agree with Tenebrae's proposal. ALittleQuenhi (talk to me) 14:34, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Frankly I find the whole thing ridiculous, but if there are enough people talking about it and we have WP:RS, then a short paragraph under the "Critical response" section seems appropriate. My only concern is that we avoid WP:UNDUE. This has not gotten the same level of press as Spongebob or Tinky Winky supposedly being gay. But if there is consensus that it warrants mention in the article, do so and source it heavily. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:23, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I tend to agree with EvergreenFir, but the BBC had a good description of the issue. A starting point might be as follows:

Critics outside the film industry, such as [[evangelical]] pastors and commentators, claim that the movie promotes normalization of [[homosexuality]]. Other critics believe the main character, Elsa, represents a positive image of [[LGBTQ]] youth, viewing the movie as a metaphor in some capacity for [[Coming out|openness]].<ref>{{cite news|last=Petersen|first=Kierran|title=Disney's Frozen and the 'gay agenda'|url=http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-26759342|accessdate=27 March 2014|newspaper=BBC News|date=27 March 2014|location=Washington DC Bureau|language=En}}</ref>

The paragraph above seems apt for the "critical response" section. Just my opinion.Mvblair (talk) 15:02, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Section break: Consensus?

It seems a consensus has been reached. I also believe that the article should have something regarding this topic, even if it's short, because there has been enough coverage regarding it in media, as others pointed out. It also helps to make this page broad in coverage. Varunga (talk) 08:33, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Well we *had* a controversy section, I've been maintaining what is left of it, if anyone wants the just jam every complaint and wak-job theory they want there, do so. BerserkerBen (talk) 13:46, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

What consensus?? There's certainly no consensus to add evangelical pastors and commentators, since the "Critical reception" section is for professional film critics only. What I had suggested was a paragraph in "Critical reception" saying something like, "Some reviewers found the story a metaphor for coming to accept oneself's gay identity, with So-and-So saying 'quote'. As well, So-and-So found 'quote', with So-and-So adding, 'quote.'" If it's not professional reviewers but some just religious fringe groups reading things into it, that's a whole 'nother thing.-- Tenebrae (talk) 17:13, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

The controversy should be covered in the article. Googling frozen gay, there are numerous articles covering it. Wikipedia should summarize the controversy. I think it should be covered in a section apart from "Critical reception", and we should come up with a neutral section heading to define the matter. WP:FRINGE does not apply here because even if the groups were fringe, the controversy has clearly become discussed in the mainstream. Wikipedia should not ignore such discussion. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:27, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I did (and do) agree with Erik et al. that if there's a serious cultural discussion about the topic, then a paragraph covering it belongs somewhere — in "Critical reception" if it's professional film critics discussing it, in another section if it's others. I would note, though, that we can wait and see if this is anything more than a conscious controversy-for-controversy's-sake tempest in a teapot that's forgotten about after a week or so. If that's the case, then it's an WP:INDISCRIMINATE blip and we'd be playing into the hands of a small group trying to gin up controversy where, in the general public, there is none.

I'm curious now to see where these claims started, and whether all the "coverage" is just me-too media all re-reporting the same press release?--Tenebrae (talk) 17:41, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

The gay themes assertions were "forgotten about" before, but resurfaced due to more "It'll turn your kids gay" accusations, as noted here at WP:LGBT. All news aspects die down, of course, and controversies usually do as well; that doesn't make those matters any less notable. Notability is not temporary. In my opinion, mentioning the gay themes assertions is as relevant as mentioning the Portrayal of female emotions aspect; for example, as mentioned above, the "Let It Go" song from the film has also been interpreted as a coming out theme and has been widely embraced by the LGBT community, though material on that could be argued to fit better in the Let It Go (Disney song) article; I was surprised to see nothing about it there. The gay themes discussion regarding this film concerns a lot more than the "It'll turn your kids gay" accusations from a few religious people. Also, if we are to keep the non-professional critics commentary out of the Critical reception section, the Portrayal of female emotions section should be an independent heading, not a subheading of the Critical reception section; that material could also fit in the Animation section. But either way, both critics and general media have commented on perceived gay aspects with regard to this film, which is one reason why a paragraph or two about it in the Critical reception section is a better fit to me than giving it its own section; the other reason is WP:Due weight (including that policy's subsections) and MOS:PARAGRAPHS (it's generally not a good idea to create a section for something only consisting of one paragraph, unless it's a huge paragraph that is clearly two or more paragraphs bunched into one). Flyer22 (talk) 07:57, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

@Tenebrae, there certainly seems to be a consensus regarding whether this should be covered or not by the article. You conceded this yourself. What has yet to reach a consensus, is what aspect of it should be included. I'm not for giving a platform to insane theists and Christian bloggers, but many of us are in agreement that the LGBT parallels are relevant enough, and have given numerous reasons why this is the case. Further, regardless of any personal opinions, this has cultural significance. For an example, see the critical reception section of the ParaNorman page. Varunga (talk) 11:35, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not disagreeing with you, Varunga. As I said, "If there's a serious cultural discussion about the topic, then a paragraph covering it belongs somewhere." My concern remains that we include only professional critics under "Reception", as the MOS states, and put other commentators in a separate section ... while also being careful to include mainstream and not WP:FRINGE commentators. As to ParaNorman, its "Reception" section is violating MOS — the paragraph there needs to be moved in order to comply. --Tenebrae (talk) 13:26, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I have absolutely no problem with ensuring the critical reception section remain only for professional critics, and placing others under another section. I would think the next step is pulling our sources, which some people have already done, and determining what goes where. The controversy section has been suggested, or should we do another section as you did for ParaNorman? (By the way, I don't really mind, but you misrepresented my reason for presenting that page as an example on its Talk Page. The purpose wasn't to say, "They are doing it that way, so why can't we?" It was to show that they considered the controversy notable enough to include, regardless of the section, which you rightly corrected). Varunga (talk) 15:39, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Cool. I love it when consensus starts to shape and be molded like this. It's Wikipedia at its best. (And my apologies if I misinterpreted your example.)

So what do we call this separate section? "Controversy" sounds a little strong; is it really a controversy where people are taking sides and arguing over whether something is true and what it means? Or is it more like people across an ideological range see the same subtext and are just commenting on it. Would "Perceived gay subtext" or some less awkward but equally neutral phrase serve us? --Tenebrae (talk) 17:45, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Seems like most people agree. I think the most logical thing would be to make a new sub-section of Critical Response called something like Portrayal of LGBT Qualities. A good reference that summarizes the whole situation is here at the BBC. It's got a quick synopsis, so perhaps there isn't a need to create a huge new section listing every single person who has ever said anything about it. Mvblair (talk) 17:41, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Again, a separate section, yes. Under "Critical response," no — that section is only for professional film critics. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:47, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

And "Perceived" portrayal or subtext of whatever. Unless the filmmakers specifically say they put it in there, any gay subtext is only interpretive perception by others. (And "portrayal" is not the right word. Nothing is overtly "portrayed."). --Tenebrae (talk) 17:48, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes. I like the phrase "nothing is overtly portrayed." I'm usually not a big fan of just a "controversies" section, but it seems very common on these types of pages, so I'm keeping my mouth shut. :) In my opinion, it doesn't need a big write-up and I'd push for a short few sentences. Maybe something like this: Although not overtly portrayed in the movie, some reaction to the movie has focused on the perceived image of Elsa as a lesbian, gay, or bisexual character. Such reaction has largely focused on the song "Let It Go," suggesting it is a metaphor for coming out. <ref>{{cite news|last=Petersen|first=Kierran|title=Disney's Frozen and the 'gay agenda'|url=http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-26759342|accessdate=27 March 2014|newspaper=BBC News|date=27 March 2014|location=Washington DC Bureau|language=En}}</ref> Mvblair (talk) 19:02, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

To quote Kurtwood Smith in RoboCop: "I like it!"

Your sentence, I mean. (And certainly a mainstream quote or two after it might be appropriate.) Still not sure "Controversy" is an accurate term, though. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:15, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I tweaked the order of the ParaNorman piece; while it may or may not belong under Critical reception, it is perfectly fine under Reception. Similarly, the gay themes aspect of the Frozen (2013 film) article should be a subsection of the Reception section, similar to how the Portrayal of female emotions section is a subsection there (though, again, if we are going to keep professional critical commentary separated from general media commentary, it should not be a subsection of the Critical reception section). All that stated, I must reiterate that I fail to see any problem with the gay themes aspect being a part of the Critical reception section since the matter concerns professional critics as much as it concerns general media commentators. We do not always limit critical reception sections strictly to what professional critics stated, especially if it is significantly tied to what the general media has stated. In fact, I'm certain that the vast majority of Wikipedia film articles, including the vast majority of WP:Good article and WP:Featured article film articles, have a Critical reception section that mixes professional critical commentary and general media commentary; it's rare that I don't see a general media commentator in the Critical reception section of a Wikipedia film article, such as a writer for The New York Times or Entertainment Weekly, and I do mean newspaper, magazine or website writers who are not professional film critics. Sometimes even what book authors thought is included in such a section, as is currently the case for the Schindler's List article; also notice its Reception section as a whole. To sum up, professional critics are not the only ones who are a part of a film's reception, which is obviously why "Box office" is often a part of the Reception section. And a Controversy section? The gay themes matter is not simply a controversial matter, and I don't see why it should be put under a controversy heading if the Portrayal of female emotions piece is not also going to be under that heading, or how we can label it a controversy if we are not going to mention any specifics with regard to it being considered controversial. Erik, you got any ideas on this? I'd like to see you propose text on this matter to sufficiently cover all important aspects. Flyer22 (talk) 07:40, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

And, Mvblair, remember to sign your username; I signed it for you twice (your initial two comments in this subsection). Flyer22 (talk) 08:08, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Has anyone ever thought of the possibility of merging the "Portrayal of female emotions" and "LGBT parallels" into one subsection? (because I think the former was only a small one prior to the release of the film and quickly faded afterwards) Furthermore, this piece should also be trimmed (I have made an attempt, once, here), why do we have to quote the whole statement of DiSalvo in the article, while we only have to summarize what media commentators said in a few words and leave the readers to find what he actually said themselves? ALittleQuenhi (talk to me) 08:53, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I thought you were stating that you made an attempt to trim the Portrayal of female emotions section; the diff-link you just provided after my comment instead shows you having added a small piece about the LGBT aspect. Anyway, I've definitely been thinking that the Portrayal of female emotions subsection needs a trim; it keeps looking like WP:Undue weight to me. One paragraph is all it needs and it does not need its own section. Flyer22 (talk) 09:07, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I'd have to respectfully disagree with my good and longtime colleague Flyer22. If other articles are mixing-and-matching professional critics and others doesn't mean that we break policy here — it means we fix those articles there. It's a slippery slope once we start mixing commentators, who generally have agendas, and professional film critics, who have a knowledgable background specifically in movie language, history and aesthetics.

That said, I can go along with Flyer22's suggestion that this content go under "Reception", under a separate subhead than "Critical reception." In this context, after all, "critical receptions" refers to "reception by professional film critics" and not to people being critical. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:44, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

In fact, I really like the way he did it at ParaNorman. It looks good, it has appropriate weight — nice edit! --Tenebrae (talk) 23:50, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry Flyer22, I meant this piece. ALittleQuenhi (talk to me) 06:34, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Tenebrae, it's of course fine that we disagree. We won't agree on everything, and have disagreed at times before. I generally agree that the Critical reception section should be limited to professional film critics ("generally" meaning "not always," especially if creating a separate section violates MOS:PARAGRAPHS and WP:Undue weight). I ask that everyone here keep in mind, though, that MOS:FILM is a guideline, not a policy, and notes that there is no one correct way to have a film layout (though, of course, there are certain things that all or almost all editors agree on in such cases, such as the placement of the plot section) and currently states in its Critical response section: "Sources that are regarded as reliable are professional film critics, though notable persons or experts connected to the topics covered by the film may also be cited." Whether we are to take that to mean not under the heading "Critical response" or "Critical reception" is not yet clear, and I would rather that WP:Consensus is achieved at the MOS:FILM or WP:FILM talk page before any text in that regard is changed to state one way or the other. But either way, we are generally in agreement on this matter. Flyer22 (talk) 22:08, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, we, at least, seem to be in consensus on placement, if I'm reading you right: A dedicated subsection in "Reception," following "Critical reception" and "Box office," similar to how it's done at ParaNorman. Other editors OK with this? --Tenebrae (talk) 00:12, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I just read further criticism today (I confess I've not seen the movie either)

Disney slammed for 'homosexual' and 'bestiality' agenda in Frozen [1] at the SMH Montalban (talk) 10:08, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I think claims that Disney had a "bestiality agenda" would be considered WP:FRINGE. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:19, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

At this point, I think the "subsection in Reception" is the best place for it. I like the ParaNorman section as well, but in ParaNorman it plays an actual role in the movie, as opposed to Frozen (2013 film) in which it's just speculative. Mvblair (talk) 13:50, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Mvblair and Quenhitran (ALittleQuenhi), since there is WP:Consensus from this discussion to include LGBT parallels material in the Frozen (2013 film) article, I suggest that some sort of combination of the text you both proposed, respectively, be added to the article, with respect to all of what has been stated in the discussion with regard to placement and the appropriate material to focus on (as noted above, Quenhitran's text was already added to the article before). It should definitely go in the Reception section, because it is reception to the film, which is why I moved the Portrayal of female emotions section back to the Reception section minutes ago. Quenhitran, your idea of having one section to cover the portrayal of female emotions and LGBT parallels material is a good idea, per what has been stated above about the level of detail to give these aspects. The title Portrayal of female emotions and LGBT parallels is not bad, but perhaps a better (but still descriptive instead of vague) title can be used for the section. Anyway, it is far past time for the LGBT parallels material to be included in this article, and there is no valid reason to keep it out of this article. Flyer22 (talk) 05:47, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Flyer22. I am having a little trouble finding Quenhitran's proposals, but you're right that it should be included in a section other than "critical reception." The Portrayal of emotions section is a good idea, but I'm not sure if LGBT Parallels fits there (though I'm not opposing it at all because I can't think of something better). It's already a good article and an apolitical inclusion of the LGBT parallels will make the article even better. Mvblair (talk) 11:07, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Flyer22 and Mvblair: What I had proposed previously is that we should put both the current "Portrayal of emotions" and "LGBT parallels" under one subsection under the big "Reception" section (since both these "controversies" were only raised by several reviewers and audience, we don't need two separate sections for each). And I recommend that we name this subsection "Portrayal of characters" to cover both the "emotions" aspect and the "possible LGBT parallels" aspect of the character. Personally I don't like the way some editors name the similar subsection in "ParaNorman", since "Gay character" is very, very informal and only covers a very particular aspect of the problem, which is by no means parallel with "Critical reception" or "Box office". And this is the piece that I previously added, I think we should begin with this one. ALittleQuenhi (talk to me) 11:41, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Love it, Quenhitran! I think what you suggested is to-the-point and covers the issues. I added a citation for good measure:

Although not overtly portrayed in the movie, several critics outside the film industry, such as evangelical pastors and commentators, argued that Frozen promoted normalization of homosexuality, while other commentators believed the main character, Elsa, represented a positive image of LGBTQ youth, viewing the movie and the song "Let It Go" as a metaphor in some capacity for openness. These claims were met with mixed reactions from both Internet bloggers and the LGBT community. Allegations of sexism occurred following a statement by Lino DiSalvo, the film's head of animation, which was taken to mean that a difficulty exists due to a limited range of facial variation for female animated characters because of the need to keep them "pretty." However, a Disney spokesperson later told Time that DiSalvo's quote was widely misinterpreted stating that he was "describing some technical aspects of CG animation and not making a general comment on animating females versus males or other characters." Director Jennifer Lee also expressed her sadness towards the case, explaining that his words were recklessly taken out of context, and that he was talking in very technical terms about CG animation. "It is hard no matter what the gender is. I felt horrible for him. He was so proud what achieved in the movie. We never had such sophisticated rigs (the skeletal structure of the figures used to model characters on a computer) to show awkwardness and grief on a face. I'm so proud of them." she stated.

The subsection Portrayal of characters or Portrayal of female emotions and LGBT parallels would both seem to fit and I object to neither. Mvblair (talk) 12:00, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Mvblair, did you previously miss that Quenhitran is ALittleQuenhi? So that you would not, I put "ALittleQuenhi" in parentheses when very recently addressing you. Above in this section (Section break: Consensus?) before very recently, Quenhitran had proposed text and that we place both the emotions and LGBT material in one section; that's what I was referring to. Your latest suggested text is fine, but I think it should explicitly mention that some reviewers, etc. interpret Elsa as lesbian, similar to your "some reaction to the movie has focused on the perceived image of Elsa as a lesbian, gay, or bisexual character" 19:02, 2 April 2014 (UTC) proposal. So where your latest proposal states "while other commentators believed the main character, Elsa, represented a positive image of LGBTQ youth, viewing the movie and the song "Let It Go" as a metaphor in some capacity for openness," we could add "while other commentators believed the main character, Elsa, represents a positive image of a lesbian, gay, or bisexual character, viewing the movie and the song "Let It Go" as a coming out metaphor." Notice that I changed "represented" to "represents," since it's not a past matter; it's an ongoing matter because Elsa always exists in that fiction. And I changed "as a metaphor in some capacity for openness" to "as a coming out metaphor"; this is because WP:Pipelinking the word openness under "coming out" is a WP:Egg violation (which means we should keep links as intuitive as possible). And I removed "in some capacity" because I'm not sure what that is trying to say or why it is needed.

Quenhitran, the heading "Portrayal of characters" is too vague, I feel, for the content that will be discussed in the section. Both matters seem to get buried and will be easily overlooked with such a heading. I definitely feel that what the section is about should be more explicit with regard to the heading in this case. We could shorten the heading to Emotional portrayals and LGBT parallels or Female portrayals and LGBT parallels. Or do either of you have a suggestion for a descriptive, non-vague title for this content? Flyer22 (talk) 12:30, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I have the same feeling about the heading, but do you think that the "Emotional portrayals and LGBT parallels" is too concrete? Anyway it's very hard to name a heading, so we can just temporary pick either of them and go on thinking about the matter later. Your revision to Mvblair's text is generally fine, but I still prefer the "a positive image of LGBTQ youth" to "a positive image of a lesbian, gay, or bisexual character", 'cause, again, I feel that it's a bit too concrete. I'd like to hear more from both of you on this matter. There's no need to hurry, so just spare our time.

Like the "Portrayal of emotions" heading, I found a statement from the film's directors that we may add to have a broad coverage of the issue:

“ When asked about the film's homosexuality undertone, director Jennifer Lee said that "We know what we made. But at the same time I feel like once we hand the film over, it belongs to the world, so I don't like to say anything, and let the fans talk. I think it's up to them." She also explained that Disney films were made in different eras and were all celebrated for different reasons, but a 2013 film would have a "2013 point of view". ”

ALittleQuenhi (talk to me) 14:24, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Flyer22, sorry if I confused things regarding Quenhitran (ALittleQuenhi). Were I notable enough for my own Wikipedia page, my wife would already have created a section called "density" and filled it with ample references, none of which I would challenge. Your revisions flow with what has been written, sound logical and I support them fully. Quenhitran, I also like your suggestion of "a positive image of a lesbian, gay, or bisexual character." Flyer, I'll step back and let you handle the editing rather than butting in anymore! Mvblair (talk) 16:37, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for interrupting so late here. However, I believe that:

• Emotional portrayals and LGBT parallels or Female portrayals and LGBT parallels imply that the idea of the film containing LGBT parallels is widely supported. It may not be intended, but such perception exists, especially if viewers haven't watched the film themselves. If I'm one of them, I'd expect the content to be something like"Several critics, namely Jones, Paul and Emma, have spotted several LGBT parallels in the film... which Scott agrees, saying'...'"
• "a positive image of a lesbian, gay, or bisexual character" is not as suitable as "a positive image of LGBTQ youth", because the main point of those commentators is not that Elsa is lesbian,etc, which is not even a general idea among them, but the implication (they claim to see) of LGBTQ youth having a positive affliation (like Elsa). The former would imply it's certain that Elsa is a lesbian, gay, or bisexual character in addition to her being positive, which is obvious not the idea reflected in those sources. (Actually, very probably she'll get a love interest if there's a sequel, though it is unrelated to our topic.)Forbidden User (talk) 08:52, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Quenhitran (ALittleQuenhi) and Forbidden User, "LGBT parallels" or something similar regarding "LGBT" should, in my opinion, be in the heading because the sources are making those parallels; when a heading can be clear about what its content concerns and not ambiguous, it should be. This is per MOS:HEAD, which points to what Article titles states: "A title should be recognizable (as a name or description of the topic), natural, sufficiently precise, concise, and consistent with the titles of related articles. If these criteria are in conflict, they need to be balanced against one another." I understand that it mentions "concise," but if being concise means being needlessly ambiguous, that is not a good thing. Forbidden User, including "LGBT parallels" in the heading is not us taking a stance on the matter; like Wikipedia:Due weight#Giving "equal validity" (an aspect of the WP:Neutral policy) states, "We do not take a stand on these issues as encyclopedia writers, for or against; we merely omit them where including them would unduly legitimize them, and otherwise describe them in their proper context with respect to established scholarship and the beliefs of the greater world." That stated, we could add "perceived" so that "LGBT parallels" reads as "perceived LGBT parallels," though the suggested combined headings above are long enough as it is.

With regard to my suggesting the wording "a positive image of a lesbian, gay, or bisexual character" over "a positive image of LGBTQ youth," that has to do with, as I indicated above, many of the sources addressing Elsa as gay or lesbian, and I think this should be specifically mentioned in the section we are pulling together; additionally, some of the sources do discuss Elsa being seen as a positive image of a gay or lesbian character. There is also the fact that while some of the sources use "LGBT" with regard to Frozen, I don't see where any use "LGBTQ"...except for this source by The Daily Dot. But the LGBT article, which we will link to (note: LGBTQ redirects there), addresses "LGBTQ," so the "Q" is not needed anyway. Furthermore, the vast majority of the sources with regard to LGBT parallels and Frozen use the word gay. All in all, I agree that it is important to acknowledge that Elsa is seen as a positive role model for transgender youth as well. For example, this source states "The Oscar-winning track has become an LGBT anthem," and this source asks, "Is Frozen's Elsa a metaphor for LGBT people, and is the whole film an attempt to advance the 'gay agenda' — fueled by none other than Satan? Some conservative commentators think so." So "LGBT youth" is fine with me, and we can elaborate further by noting Elsa being considered lesbian.

Mvblair, you are not in the way. This is a talk page for those interested in improving the article, and you are more than welcome to continue weighing in on this topic. Flyer22 (talk) 09:50, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Adding "perceived" makes the heading more just and neutral. I think it's much less misleading now. Meanwhile, I don't really understand what the "Q" means as well, so I think "LGBT youth" would work. Thanks, Flyer22!Forbidden User (talk) 10:07, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Quenhitran (ALittleQuenhi), any take on the latest comments? Ready to add the material now? I didn't link your username in my "09:50, 10 May 2014 (UTC)" post, and this is because it's clear to me that you are watching the Frozen (2013 film) article and therefore its talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 00:32, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Oh yes, I'm watching this page, of course. So let me make everything clear again before we add.

1. The heading will be a level-1 heading with the title "Portrayal of emotions and LGBT parallels". To me it's not very important, we may change it later if necessary.
2. We use the piece that Mvblair last proposed with your revisions, with the wording "LGBT youth" and "the gay agenda".
3. Are we including director Jennifer Lee's viewpoints as I proposed above? Because I've heard your ideas towards this yet. ALittleQuenhi (talk to me) 04:11, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

"The gay agenda"? By definition an agenda needs to have someone or some group consciously creating and advocating a specific program or set of steps. Who exactly are we saying is the mastermind behind this "agenda" And what are the agenda-points? --Tenebrae (talk) 04:27, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Quenhitran, the heading will be a subsection of the Reception section (not the Critical reception), just like the "Portrayal of emotions" section that is currently there is a subsection of the Reception section, since it concerns reception to the film. By most recently suggesting "Portrayal of emotions and LGBT parallels" as the heading, it seems that you prefer that we leave "female" out of the heading; I don't mind much if we do, since I also suggested it as one of the choices and since the heading is long enough already. We should, however, consider adding "perceived" to the heading, per Forbidden User's points above. Though Wikipedia does not take sides on these matters (or at least it should not), omitting "perceived" gives the immediate implication that there are indeed LGBT parallels in the film. I'm fine with "perceived" being added, and it seems others are as well, so I asked you if you were ready to add material on the LGBT aspect. I didn't address the Jennifer Lee matter, and this because I don't mind you adding it.

Tenebrae, I agree that we should not add the wording "the gay agenda," at least not without briefly elaborating on it. Besides, that aspect is covered by the "Although not overtly portrayed in the movie, several critics outside the film industry, such as evangelical pastors and commentators, argued that Frozen promoted normalization of homosexuality" wording in Mvblair's "12:00, 5 May 2014 (UTC)" proposal above. Flyer22 (talk) 06:09, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

One thing I point out, however, is that I don't think that several professional critics argued that Frozen promotes normalization of homosexuality; I think that's more the argument of a few evangelical pastors and other such commentators, while professional critics and other media reported on that matter. So we should perhaps tweak that wording a bit. Flyer22 (talk) 06:17, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Draft of the proposed new section

In order to make things easier for all of us, I'll leave a sample of our proposed content here. Edit the content in the quote box and don't forget to explain what edits you have done to it.

Portrayal of emotions and perceived LGBT parallels

Allegations of sexism occurred following a statement by Lino DiSalvo, the film's head of animation, which was taken to mean that a difficulty exists due to a limited range of facial variation for female animated characters because of the need to keep them "pretty." However, a Disney spokesperson later told Time that DiSalvo's quote was widely misinterpreted stating that he was "describing some technical aspects of CG animation and not making a general comment on animating females versus males or other characters." Director Jennifer Lee also said that his words were recklessly taken out of context, and that he was talking in very technical terms about CG animation. "It is hard no matter what the gender is. I felt horrible for him. He was so proud what achieved in the movie. We never had such sophisticated rigs (the skeletal structure of the figures used to model characters on a computer) to show awkwardness and grief on a face. I'm so proud of them." she stated.

Several viewers outside the film industry, such as evangelical pastors and commentators, argued that Frozen promotes normalization of homosexuality, while other commentators believed that the main character, Elsa, represents a positive image of LGBT youth, viewing the film and the song "Let It Go" as a metaphor for coming out. These claims were met with mixed reactions from both Internet bloggers and the LGBT community. When asked about perceptions of a homosexual undertone in the film, director Jennifer Lee said, "We know what we made. But at the same time I feel like once we hand the film over, it belongs to the world, so I don't like to say anything, and let the fans talk. I think it's up to them." She also mentioned that Disney films were made in different eras and were all celebrated for different reasons, but a 2013 film would have a "2013 point of view".

(References:)

ALittleQuenhi (talk to me) 06:51, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

About the word tweak you proposed, I chose to use "viewers" because all these allegations are started by two statements from an aggressive mother and a pastor; professional critics and reliable third-party websites just reported them. ALittleQuenhi (talk to me) 07:08, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

I think the mother got the film wrong. Elsa is not the main character, it is Anna, but I don't know if we should change this bit.Forbidden User (talk) 16:50, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

I might suggest changing "when asked about the film's homosexuality undertone," to "when asked about perceptions of a homosexuality undertone,"

I might also tone down the interpretive aspects of "Director Jennifer Lee also expressed her sadness towards the case, explaining that his words were recklessly taken out of context, and that he was talking in very technical terms about CG animation." and say something neutral such as: "Director Jennifer Lee said his words were taken out of context and that he was speaking in strictly technical terms about CG animation." --Tenebrae (talk) 17:49, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

It might be a good idea to invert the order of the paragraphs so they follow the same order as the section header. Just a thought. Also, "homosexuality undertones" sounds a little weird; it's an adjective, so it should end with "-ual." Otherwise, it's strangely objective considering how this kind of thing usually turns out. Go team us, I guess. Rhydic (talk) 21:25, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you both about ordering of the sentences and that "homosexual undertone" is better grammatically; I was working with the extant phrasing and didn't realize I hadn't adjusted it. Good catch! And, yeah, considering how contentious I've seen debates like this get on Wikipedia, this has been a pretty civil discourse overall. Nice. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:33, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

I also agree about the order of the content, per the headings. Also, "promoted" should be "promotes," since, like Wikipedia:Writing about fiction#Contextual presentation states, fiction is experienced in the present. "At any particular point in the story there is a 'past' and a 'future', but whether something is 'past' or 'future' changes as the story progresses. It is simplest and conventional to recount the entire description as continuous present." In other words, the film exists and, if it promotes normalization of homosexuality, it never ceases to promote normalization of homosexuality. I still feel that the letter Q should be removed from LGBTQ for the proposal, per my "09:50, 10 May 2014 (UTC)" comment above. Additionally, we should avoid using "explained" in this case, per WP:SAID. I might also add something about Elsa being perceived as lesbian, per the aforementioned "09:50, 10 May 2014 (UTC)" comment above, so that it is clearer which letter in "LGBT" professional critics and other commentators feel, or have commented on others' believing, represents Elsa; like I noted above, it's actually two of the letters -- both L and G. But other than all of that, I am fine with the proposed text. Flyer22 (talk) 00:36, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I've applied the changes. By the way, have we put this source here?Forbidden User (talk) 15:00, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

For clarification in this talk page section before the changes are implemented, Forbidden User is referring to the suggested changes above -- they've been applied to the proposed paragraphs, as seen here and here. Flyer22 (talk) 20:03, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Flyer22, Forbidden User: Generally, I agree with the latest revision. Do you have any other comments on it? ALittleQuenhi (talk to me) 09:33, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

No, I don't. But if your "generally" means that you object to and therefore won't add any of the suggestions regarding the latest proposed paragraphs, we should discuss that. If it's an objection you don't care much to debate, then, yes, of course, go ahead and add the latest proposed text. If you leave anything out, I'll add it in. Flyer22 (talk) 11:04, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

OK, I added the latest proposed text. Any editors who are willing to make further revisions on the issue, please feel free to do so within the main namespace. Thanks. ALittleQuenhi (talk to me) 11:57, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I had never even heard of any of this until I saw it in the article, as far as I know, it never even made television news, so it doesn't seem very "big" or substantial enough when it's only been talked about on the Internet. Especially when it's some fans or critics that are just trying to stir the pot (in the cases of people who are against the LGBT community, and are looking for something to complain about) Also, I know it's not relevant to this discussion, but in all probability Buck and Lee had no intention of LGBT parallels. I just wish that so much importance wasn't given to a perceived "agenda" (regardless of whether people are for or against it). But, whatever...I just wanted to share my thoughts.(As a side note, as I recall, some people thought that Who Framed Roger Rabbit had parallels to civil rights, yet there's no mention of that in its article.)Wikicontributor12 (talk) 01:54, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate you weighing in on the matter, Wikicontributor12. Like I told you above, I can't agree that we should not cover the LGBT parallels topic in the Frozen (2013 film) article. WP:Due weight plays the biggest part in our having included the material; many WP:Reliable sources discuss, or specifically discuss, this aspect concerning the film. Therefore, we have given WP:Due weight to it (a single paragraph on it) in the Frozen (2013 film) article. The sources give "so much importance [to a perceived 'agenda']" and to the Elsa character and the song "Let It Go" being perceived as positive LGBT aspects. We have only summarized that content. As for television vs. the Internet, the vast majority of film reviews happen on the Internet, not on television; it's the same with regard to any film news. So your argument that "it doesn't seem very 'big' or substantial enough when it's only been talked about on the Internet" is not, in my opinion, a strong argument in this case. That aside, I'm sure that the matter has been covered on some television news channels. The Who Framed Roger Rabbit parallels you mentioned, if true, likely are not WP:Due weight enough for inclusion in its Wikipedia article. Either that, or it's simply that no one has gotten around to adding it to that article yet. Flyer22 (talk) 02:20, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Quenhitran, what did you mean by this? Also keep in mind that there is no need for WP:Citation overkill in this case, at least in my opinion. Flyer22 (talk) 04:48, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Well I've just read Wikicontributor12's comment, and I'm afraid some aggressive readers may question the popularity of this so-called "controversy". Therefore I tried to add several more third-party coverages... Anyway, I only added three additional citations for this, which doesn't contribute to the citation overkill, in my opinion. ALittleQuenhi (talk to me) 05:14, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Aggressive or not, there are many ( I mean many) Elsa fans, partly due to Let It Go, who will highly bombard this paragraph in case we don't stress the opinion's minority enough. Meanwhile, I'm quite concerned about the fact that the film hasn't been off from theatres (eg. Japan). I don't mean Disney will take action on Wiki whatsoever, but I think we may wait until it's off before posting this section. Meanwhile, reputable media reports this issue because of its huge popularity (being the highest grossing animation), so WP:Due weight may not be as a strong argument as you think, Flyer22. We need to be sure that WP:Neutrality is maintained, otherwise even semi-protection cannot save this page.Forbidden User (talk) 15:01, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Forbidden User, I'm watching this article; so there is no need to ping me to it. As for "there are many (I mean many) Elsa fans, partly due to Let It Go, who will highly bombard this paragraph in case we don't stress the opinion's minority enough.", I'm not 100% sure what you mean. If you mean Elsa fans who will object to us mentioning the perceived LGBT parallels... Well, if they do bombard that paragraph, their reasoning had better be grounded in Wikipedia policies and guidelines. The state of Wikipedia articles are supposed to be based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines, not on Wikipedia editors' personal opinions (other than trivial formatting). As for WP:Due weight, it is quite a strong argument when used correctly; I've used it correctly. There is no need to wait to include the LGBT parallels material. And, as I've noted above, WP:Due weight, is a part of the WP:Neutral policy. Disney can't take action against Wikipedia regarding this matter anyway; others have tried and failed to take legal action against Wikipedia. Also see WP:No legal threats. And as the paragraph in question shows, Disney already knows about the LGBT parallels. Furthermore, and also shown by the paragraph in question, it's not like the LGBT parallels material is all negative. Having the LGBT audience embrace the film as deeply as many of them do because of the perceived LGBT parallels is clearly a net positive. Flyer22 (talk) 15:18, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

You're all correct in theory. I'm only talking on a practical basis. Wikipedia policy strictly bans vandalism but there are still vandalism on pages, so as other policies. So, if we are not really careful, many unnecessary arguments, vandals, etc will pour down. Way before I joined Wiki I've witnessed one as an IP user. We all have put much effort in it and so we should make sure such sensitive content are treated with strict neutrality. By the way, as the people starting the LGBT topic themselves are controversial, the risk doubles up. The policies are there, and we all follow them in constructing this subsection, but we should consider if we could persuade the large crowd of fans that this subsection is only reporting such realistic controversy (with reliable media reporting on the matter, neutrally as well, proving it's not storm in a teapot) but NOT trying to harass the film or ruin its reputation through wiki. We should make sure the content can show that we wrote it with our neutral stance in mind. I've checked it and it works well now. P.S. I know Disney won't take legal action, I only wished to state I didn't give my comments based on such thought. And by "there are many (I mean many) Elsa fans, partly due to Let It Go, who will highly bombard this paragraph in case we don't stress the opinion's minority enough." I meant if people find it hard to believe the section's neutrally written, etc, and we couldn't persuade them, then there will be a war. I think it's been largely fixed on the final version, though I feel I shall put the concern up so that all editors working here can be alerted.Forbidden User (talk) 17:16, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I understand what you mean, but I don't go by that type of logic when it comes to Wikipedia articles. Am I always aware of what topics are likely to be contentious? Yes. Do I usually plan ahead in such cases? Yes. But anyone inappropriately removing the paragraph in question will be dealt with accordingly, especially with me watching this article.

By "put the concern up," I take it you mean what you have stated here in this section? Flyer22 (talk) 17:25, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Yup, the concern is what I said in the 15:01, 21 May 2014 (UTC) post. Forbidden User (talk) 17:38, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

To be honest, Forbidden User, I'm a very, very big fan of Disney in "large" general and of Frozen in general and of Elsa in particular, and I must admit that if I didn't have any background on this matter then I'd smash my laptop when I first read it :) But here in Wikipedia we must learn to accept the so-called neutrality. Just like my favorite The Little Mermaid, it's a statue and standard of traditional animation in my mind, and one day I went to Wikipedia and I saw a paragraph saying that the prince's castle has a detail which looked like a penis!!! I know you have a point by saying people will bombard this article, I understand that, and I would do the same thing if I didn't work here. So in order to balance the response from potentially aggressive readers you mentioned above, I had to find and add a piece from the film's director to make it easier for them to accept. And I must emphasize that these LGBT claims came from no professional critics but only from a pastor and a mother, and thanks to blogging technology and radio signal they became popular. Professional critics and reliable newspapers only report them, they don't express any approval/disapproval on the case. And one more thing, which I hope angry readers can see if they go through this talk page, is that the LGBT thing is nothing important if you are a true Frozen fan, just like me. I still love it even when Armageddon comes. In the BBC source there are plenty of statements against these things, you can cite some to cool down the thing.

Flyer22: You see, now adding several third-party coverages as references are important. It proves that we just report things, we don't further comment/agree/disagree with them. ALittleQuenhi (talk to me) 01:40, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Quenhitran, like I told Forbidden User, "I'm watching this article; so there is no need to ping me to it [via WP:Echo ]." Like I also told Forbidden User, in the #LGBTQIA Inferences/Parallels section above, "some of [the professional critics] have made the parallels by entertaining the topic when commenting on the discussions regarding the matter, and some of them have especially cited 'Let It Go' as a LGBT anthem. This is shown by simply searching the matter in the aforementioned Google searches." As for "several third-party [coverage sources being] important," your extra citation additions (noted a little above on this section) is still WP:Citation overkill to me. WP:Citation overkill is clear about what WP:Citation overkill is. Do I sometimes engage in WP:Citation overkill? Yes (never too excessively). But that's only because, as you know, editors or general readers can be stubborn on a matter. Flyer22 (talk) 01:50, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I think the aforementioned criteria ( those in bold) can be seen as guidelines for future edit on this subsection. Do you agree? By the way, in case it's needed, just quote things like the BBC arguments directly on the paragraph and then cite the source. This would avoid overkill. However, it should only contain at most 2 rebuttals from Disney, BBC, etc, per WP:Due weight. We will be seen as standing with Disney if we quote too many as well, per WP:Neutrality.Forbidden User (talk) 04:38, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

No, I don't agree that "the aforementioned criteria ( those in bold) can be seen as guidelines for future edit on this subsection." This is because, though I pointed out above that professional critics and other media commentators are simply reporting the claims, I was clearly referring to the wild claims (such as Elsa being in love with her sister and the film promoting bestiality); I was not referring to any LGBT parallels that can be considered sensible. Professional critics and reliable newspapers actually have expressed approval or disapproval regarding one or more of the claims (whether what are considered positive claims or what are considered negative claims), as Googling the matter shows. I don't see a need to continue this discussion, however. The paragraph is in the article, and it's fine there in the article. Flyer22 (talk) 05:05, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Agree, we can leave it as it is for now, unless some notable development surfaces.Forbidden User (talk) 10:48, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Deleted songs of Frozen article

The sources are out there. Thoughts?--Coin945 (talk) 20:18, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

They're deleted. So I don't think they have any WP:Due weight in this article. Again, it belongs to the soundtrack.Forbidden User (talk) 04:41, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

There are some materials mentioning the deleted songs. But as Forbidden User explained above, I think we should only include them as a few subsections in Frozen (soundtrack) article. ALittleQuenhi (talk to me) 08:47, 29 May 2014 (UTC)