FANDOM


Version 1.0

I have finished writing this.

Does anyone have any comments? Disagree with anything? Please leave feedback.--The Dragon Demands (talk) 06:43, April 7, 2015 (UTC)

Not quite sure how you managed to write a small novel out of 2 minutes of material, but I commend you on doing so! I agree mostly with you on the points you addressed, but I don't think I blame Graves as much as you. Granted, I do think he was at fault, but I see it as a simple mistake/misinterpretation on his behalf that for whatever reason was not rectified. 

All the contradictions to me seem like a bunch of people with different ideas/views giving their take on it, and some of those people afterwards were told a different story or decided they were wrong before, so they publicly tell a different story. All the while it seems nobody wanted to outright say "it was his fault" or in Graves' case "it was my fault". Ultimately if I were Graves I'd just come out and say it was a mistake on my part (which as you point out all the evidence points to that being the case) but for whatever reason he doesn't want the finger pointed at him.

I don't think Graves is a bad director, in fact I think he is a great director in spite of this scene as a few of my favourite episodes have been directed by him (The Children, And Now His Watch is Ended, The Moutain and The Viper) and I'll just leave it as everyone makes mistakes.

I think the George Lucas effect might be taking place a bit here, meaning had success in the past so he is given full control and power in which no one wants to second guess him, Graves to a much lesser extent than Lucas, as although Graves is probably to blame for a scene in a TV show, Lucas is to blame for 3 entire movies.

Your assessment that the scene should not be regarded as a rape scene is 100% accurate in my eyes. Even if everyone who has ever worked on the show decides to come out and say it was, I will always maintain that it wasn't. I think as far as the scene is concerned, and how it was handled afterwards, lack of clarity is at fault here. - Son Of Fire (talk) 09:51, April 7, 2015 (UTC)

I would remove the comparisons between D&D's handling of the situation and Tywin's handling of Gregor's rape and murder of Elia, for a start. Other than being disproportionate, it serves no actual purpose, and (no offence) sounds pompous and self-congratulatory. You also have a habit of bolding or italicizing words, sentences, and so on when quoting other people. Obviously you do this when you feel that particular attention needs to be drawn to what's being said. However, unless the person in question is actually emphasizing what they're saying, this is dishonest, as you're sensationalizing their words, and potentially changing the context of what's being said to suit your own argument. Generally your language throughout the article is highly personal and subjective, and reads like your waging a one man war against D&D and Graves... I would seriously question if there's an actual market for this kind of article on a wiki at all. I mean, why not simply stick to the facts? The article ends with "Hopefully in the meantime audiences can put this incident behind them"... frankly you sound like the one who's having a hard time doing this, and I honestly interpreted this article as an attempt to keep the controversy alive... dare I say even... to inflame it.--The White Winged Fury 09:54, April 8, 2015 (UTC)

I agree. The problem is that it reads as an editorial. If TDD is inflexible in his decision that such an article is really needed, he should really consider toning down the subjectivity, following your suggestions —take out all the unnecessary and sometimes misleading italics and bolding, all the qualitative adjectives and adverbs, and the commentary —certainly take out that Tywin digression, but not only that. I can't imagine that TDD believes that things like "We can analyze this until the White Walkers take us" belong in an enyclopedia. This reads like a review or an opinion piece, not a wiki article. The text is also way too long and repetitive; even if we accepted it as the opinion piece that it is, it should be heavily trimmed down.
However, the major issue is the commentary —quotes are used only in order to construct a story around them, but the truth is none of us have the whole story. It's merely speculation, such as the subjective speculation on GRRM's true motives, which contradict what he actually says just to make a point, and that's just not acceptable —just because GRRM usually is and has to be diplomatic about the show doesn't mean we can assume he thinks exactly the opposite of what he says (in this case, and Tysha and Talisa as well.) Sometimes, the texts strains the meaning of the quote even further, by bolding something else entirely and ignoring the more pertinent part, such as when Benioff literally says that Jaime forces himself on Cersei, which is featured but completely ignored on the analysis, or when it is suggested that because he was the only one to comment on it they were suspcisiously silent about it. They weren't. They commented on it in the "Inside the episode" feature and otherwise let the show speak for itself, which is what they have always done. To pretend otherwise is disingenuous, it's creating a conspiracy where there is none. Then there's stuff like this:
"it is extremely incongruent that in the very next episode she doesn't particularly react as if that is what happened."
Considering that in their very next scene Cersei barely looks at Jaime in the eyes and they don't refer to each other by name, and Cersei even remarks upon it ("Your Grace"; "How formal", and later "That'll be all, Lord Commander"), I'd say there's plenty of visual evidence that something had happened. Rape? I don't think so, I agree it's more complicated than that, but if I were as speculative as this analysis, I could argue that's what it meant. The text speculates, but only on one direction; this conversation, which clearly meant to imply a discomfort between them, is completely absent from the analysis, and contradicted in the quote above. Why? I assume that it's because it complicates the intended argument. The point is: there should be no argument, no commentary.
And how can "notes" like this be justified?
[Note: In the next paragraph Benioff finally attempts to answer the fan's specific question, why this change was made, and what the writers intended - but after spending over 60 seconds waffling and rambling, avoiding giving a straight answer.]
Is that necessary? That part is supposed to be a transcription. The same goes for "Weiss continued to remain silent", as if that was in any way necessary context to transcribe the interview. It isn't. It's commentary —subjective commentary intended to criticize D&D in a section that's supposed to be impartially transcribing their words. Then a sub-section is titled with the words "suspiciously evasive." And in that section, the claim is made that Benioff avoided the issue and waffled about, despite the fact that he literally replied to the audience member —though not fast enough for it not to be suspicious, apparently.  This is followed by "Cutting out all of the time that Benioff was wandering off-topic, this is all that he responded on the matter." So, if that's the case (it isn't; he was giving context, not vereeing off-topic), then why was the rest of the quote added? To criticize Benioff's interview skills? To create the elaborate story that he's being "suspiciuously evasive", despite the fact that he then answered the question by saying they stand by the fact that they believe that's what the character would do in the situation? Remember, the audience member asked why "the rape scene" was included, and Benioff answered that; she didn't ask if it was a rape scene, so of course Benioff didn't provide an answer to that —that wasn't the question. Finally, there's the section psycho-analizing Benioff and his words —"a tell in lie detection". I'm not even going there.
As "Son of Fire" suggests, this situation easily reads as a bunch of people with different ideas and views giving their take on it, not the elaborate plot the text suggests. So, basically, this is my suggestion: showcase the quotes in their context and that's it; people should do their own analysis and reach their own conclusions. It's not the place of TDD or the wiki to do it for them. —ArticXiongmao (talk) 10:13, April 8, 2015 (UTC)


...Yes, it is an editorial. From time to time, wikis need to make an Administrator-level editorial statement. That's what our "In the books" sections are. Heck, even in the "Notes" sections, what are we doing when we point out "the number of troops they give in this episode contradicts what they stated last episode"?

Fundamentally, what you're arguing for is a reflection of the entire problem - no one was willing to simply read and compare statements and say "it looks like Benioff and Weiss don't really have anything coherent to say, that they never scripted this as a rape scene, and they're just too embarrassed to outright state it."

Ultimately...are you disagreeing with my conclusions as inaccurate, or...are you simply arguing on general principle that we shouldn't make such obvious analysis? That we should be an utterly inactive filter simply reposting quotes?

Heck...if you're worried it sounds more editorial than encyclopedia...I would have the Bureaucrats leave their signatures at the bottom of the page, and simply formally make it a "Wiki Editorial".

Our job is to find the truth of the matter and inform the public as best as possible.

"Considering that in their very next scene Cersei barely looks at Jaime in the eyes and they don't refer to each other by name, and Cersei even remarks upon it ("Your Grace"; "How formal", and later "That'll be all, Lord Commander"), I'd say there's plenty of visual evidence that something had happened. "

...well that's just your "editorial", and far more subjective; I was citing major publications which asked "why aren't they reacting to this" -- the ENTIRE subsection titled "this was ignored in Season 4" was quotes from major review sites, establishing the point "they don't really react like it was for the rest of the season".

Thus every subsequent time in this that I say "they don't react like it's rape for the rest of the season"...I'm referring to that previous subsection, instead of making a half dozen citation tags over and over again.

...other than complaints on general principle about even analyzing this in the first place, are there any other specific complains?

Tywin comparison - I'll take that out if the other Bureaucrats don't want it.

Bolding text - that made it more legible and highlighted the important parts.

--The Dragon Demands (talk) 15:40, April 8, 2015 (UTC)

" I honestly interpreted this article as an attempt to keep the controversy alive... dare I say even... to inflame it."

"Controversy", "the controversy" -- everyone keeps using that as a buzzword without saying exactly what they mean. Do you mean to say "we've settled into just assuming it was rape"? Because if you don't, a LOT of people still do.--The Dragon Demands (talk) 15:46, April 8, 2015 (UTC)

". I can't imagine that TDD believes that things like "We can analyze this until the White Walkers take us" belong in an enyclopedia. "

Ack, I didn't say that, it was the source I was quoting, but I forgot to set it off in indents and quote marks - thank you for pointing this out.--The Dragon Demands (talk) 15:48, April 8, 2015 (UTC)

"To pretend otherwise is disingenuous, it's creating a conspiracy where there is none. "

...Considering Bryan Cogman's blunt refusal to discuss the scene at all, OR its impact for the rest of the show and episodes he writes...yeah, that's "a conspiracy". Not Illuminati, but "dear god, we shouldn't talk about this because it's embarrassing". NOR does this explain why the director and actors said contradictory things.--The Dragon Demands (talk) 15:51, April 8, 2015 (UTC)

": And how can "notes" like this be justified?"

Not everyone is going to take the time to watch the video, and relying only on text can lack the full context of the video -- the realization that it takes 60 seconds for him to even start answering the question, which in the video feels like a really long time. It's contextualizing the print text for those who don't watch the video.--The Dragon Demands (talk) 15:52, April 8, 2015 (UTC)

" people should do their own analysis and reach their own conclusions. It's not the place of TDD or the wiki to do it for them. "

No.

A flat "No".

We can refine this if anyone wants, but you're asking us to pretend to be blind? That's why this problem lasted for 12 months. No one called Benioff and Weiss on their silence but presented it as evidence that they wanted it to be a rape scene.

AS THIS ARTICLE POINTS OUT, they actually NEVER described it as a rape scene, but hesitated to call it anything. Hesitated.

There's something called a "lie by omission" - even seemingly neutral quotes, not given with editorial context, can themselves be misleading.

You're asking us to leave a quote saying "Benioff never denied it was rape" (accurate)....but not have the intellectual or editorial integrity to step in and point out the obvious? "He never actually said it WAS rape either, don't misunderstand us, and based on all evidence from the actors and directors it seems that they actually never intended that but are too embarrassed to admit it".

"People should do their own analysis"...we're a wiki, we analyze things.

To say otherwise is obscene.

But again: if we are "analyzing" the scene, do you disagree with this analysis? You argue that Jaime and Cersei's interactions in "Oathkeeper" are stiff and formal enough to imply a rape scene happened in the previous episode. Fair enough.

How, then, do you account for the actors and directors saying contradictory statements?

"As "Son of Fire" suggests, this situation easily reads as a bunch of people with different ideas and views giving their take on it, not the elaborate plot the text suggests."

Actually, Son of Fire agreed that it looked like Benioff and Weiss were too embarrassed to admit it was never scripted as a rape scene.

What I mean is, are you saying that Graves and the Actors honestly interpreted it as not a rape scene, while the writers always considered it a rape scene?

As I explained: if that were the case, given their other comments...had the writers "intended" it as a rape scene, had "written" it as a rape scene, as they say, then that would be in their script that they gave the actors and director.

The fact that the actors and director deny that they ever considered it "rape" suggests that the word "rape" was not in the script, nor was "sexually assaults her", or anything to indicate that Cersei isn't consenting to this.

I'm confused: are you claiming that the script did or did not include the word "rape" or more generally, instructions that it was non-consensual in some form?

--The Dragon Demands (talk) 15:56, April 8, 2015 (UTC)

I don't think this writeup is perfect, don't get me wrong. I'm not that thin-skinned. I assumed the other Admins would refine my language and make it more concise if anything needs to be fixed up in it. --The Dragon Demands (talk) 16:03, April 8, 2015 (UTC)

If you don't want constructive criticism, don't ask for it. I don't have much more to add; this article is highly subjective and doesn't belong in a wiki, for the reasons given by me and the others above. You don't want to hear that? Fine. As for that I think, that's irrelevant. If you really wanna know, I essentially agree with you, but that's not the point; the point is the way this text is written —poorly. It's a highly speculative analysis, and it's written as if it belonged on the Daily Mail or some scandalous paper like that, precisely because of what you choose (and it is a choice) to emphasize and how you choose to make your argument. You use all the dirty little tricks —selective quotes taken out of context (or taken in context but then disregarded "because they had to be civil, which automatically means he thinks exactly the opposite"), bolding and italics where there were none. I know this isn't a newspaper, but stil, this would be laughed out of any journalism-related endevor. It's beyond an opinion piece; it's sensationalistic, and certainly not encyclopedic. These don't point to a wiki editorial and an attempt to reach at the truth, but to a conclusion already arrived at and towards which you will argue absolutely anything, however crassly.

If you want me to be more constructive, I may do my own version in my page, based on your article, so that you see what I mean. However, for that this should be unblocked; having the HTML code will help out. —ArticXiongmao (talk) 16:08, April 8, 2015 (UTC)


Let me be very clear: I'm vehemently against doing no analysis, but I don't mean to be shouting at any of you if you disagree with the analysis that I made. That is, if you honestly concluded from the evidence that it actually was intended by the writers as a rape scene, I do not mean to deny your views at all. Yes, I am also grateful for constructive criticism in the "manner" that I wrote my conclusion, i.e. even by those who agree with it who nonetheless think it could be worded better and want to refine it.

WHEN did I take ANY quote out of context? Yes you are free to write your own on your Talk page (specifically phrasing it as "this is how I see it" to make sure no one mistakes it for an official article).--The Dragon Demands (talk) 16:24, April 8, 2015 (UTC)

As for comparing the Bush controversy to this —D&D didn't see Bush being there as a decision relevant to the story and the characters. You may argue D&D have been suspiciuously silent if you want, but they certainly haven't criticized the scene. In fact, in Oxford they stood by it. So I don't know why you think they'll change it in the future. That's not analysis, but speculation. Though god, I'd hope that were the case. Probably a better, less ambiguous cut of the scene could be made without shooting any new footage. —ArticXiongmao (talk) 16:39, April 8, 2015 (UTC)

No, they did not "stand by it" at Oxford - Benioff waffled around, merely restated the question, and peculiarly avoided calling it "rape" - simply "yeah we filmed it the way we did because we felt it was right to do for the moment". You are yourself subjectively reading what happened. It wasn't a ringing endorsement. And now you're agreeing that there should be a redited cut of it?--The Dragon Demands (talk) 16:43, April 8, 2015 (UTC)

Well, at least for myself, yeah. I'd love to edit the scene myself, for my personal viewing experience. What I'm saying is I don't think D&D or HBO will do it. As for Oxford, he didn't restate the question. I'm simply reading what he said. You're speculating on his possibly mischevious or calculated intentions. You may be right, but you can't know. No one can. And that's why most of this article is, though hard work I'm sure, in vain. —ArticXiongmao (talk) 16:50, April 8, 2015 (UTC)


Wait....let me be very clear: I don't think that Benioff and Weiss have "mischievous or calculating intentions" -- I don't think they have any intentions. That is, I think they're in such a blind panic of embarrassment that they've chose to say nothing - basically nothing, avoiding the question. They're not technically "lying" because they really avoided saying anything, even when directly asked.--The Dragon Demands (talk) 17:03, April 8, 2015 (UTC)

I think the article is okay. I find it a bit too long, but that is to be expected of a controversial matter that includes any points of view. Still I'd try to make it as simple as possible--Gonzalo84 (talk) 19:18, April 8, 2015 (UTC)

Alright, waiting to hear what QueenBuffy has to say...--The Dragon Demands (talk) 19:24, April 8, 2015 (UTC)
This brings to mind something that I've been wanting to get off my chest for some time, so let's get it out the way before continuing. The Dragon Demands: I see you making repeat references to "admin-level edits", "admin-level decisions", "admin-level discussions" and "admin-level statements". Let's be clear about this once and for all: There's no such thing. An administrator is not "in charge" of a wiki. An administrator is not "above" a regular user, just as a bureaucrat is not above an administrator. Nobody's opinion is more important than anyone else's. For future reference, I'd recommend you read Wikia's manual on how to be an administrator, with particular emphasis on the section "what an administrator is not".
Indeed to quote said manual: "Admins should always be thought of not as bosses or rulers, but as guides who are no more or less important or influential than any other user on the wikia. All users on wikias should be equal, even those who have a few extra editing tools. After all, if admins were the only important people on the wikia, then there would be no need for users. That would certainly make building a community difficult! The title of administrator would not mean anything were it not for the non-administrators that make up most of a wikia's community, because admins are there to serve the community."
At the end of the day, an administrator is simply a user who is trusted with a few extra technical functions in order to carry out maintenance on the site. A bureaucrat is simply an administrator who has the ability to give other users admin status. That's all. This isn't a hierarchy: "admins don't make the rules and don't make unilateral decisions, but rather they use their tools to carry out the will of the community."
Right, now we're clear on that, let's get back to the matter at hand. Firstly, no it's not "necessary" for a wiki to make a statement about such matters. By "the problem that persisted for 12 months" you mean the ambiguity of the scene in general, right? If so, how exactly do you think this article resolves that? Do you honestly think that anyone who reads this will suddenly experience an epiphany and go "OF COURSE, I understand now. I've seen the LIGHT!". No. That won't happen. People who are convinced that Jaime raped Cersei will still think that. From that perspective alone this article serves no actual purpose at all. It fails on every level.
You also seem to be under the impression that, when "Breaker of Chains" first aired nearly a year ago - the entire online Game of Thrones fandom was waiting with baited breath to see what the official reaction from this wiki was. Sorry to disabuse you, but that's not the case. There's no market for this kind of thing.
As for the bolding... like I said I figured that you're intentions were simply to highlight the key points. That doesn't change the fact that there are side-effects of this. It's incorrect. End of story.
No, I'm not asking you to "pretend to be blind". As I said, acknowledge that the scene generated significant controversy, but STICK. TO. THE. FACTS. It is not the job of a wiki (an encyclopedia) to convince people to adopt a certain position - which is something you seem utterly obsessed with. At the end of the day does it really matter that much if people hold one opinion or another... or none? This article won't change that, and I don't think it's the place of a wiki to try.--The White Winged Fury 11:55, April 9, 2015 (UTC)
I've thought to point that out once in a while, but I doubt he'll agree, even if it's on the rules. And yeah, as you said, the article should stick to the facts; it's not TDD's or the wiki's job to convince of any position on this issue (and he won't be able to, especially considering it's not a well written text). —ArticXiongmao (talk) 11:57, April 9, 2015 (UTC)
Well, if he doesn't, he doesn't. I'm sure a staff member will be more than happy to explain it to him. It's past time this was said. I can't stand watching him shoot people down with "this is an admin only matter" anymore.--The White Winged Fury 13:30, April 9, 2015 (UTC)

This would have been better off as a blog post than a full fledged article, in my opinion. DRAEVAN13 13:18, April 9, 2015 (UTC)

Let me be very clear, Winged Fury: I'm not pompous enough to think that the world was waiting with baited breath to hear what the wiki had to say a full 12 months later. This article being posted now is my failure -- I was graduating from university when the episode aired and wasn't able to give a more thorough writeup during Season 4. I intended to write this back then. Posting it now is..."for posterity?" (in the sense that Wookiepedia still posts notes about The Empire Strikes Back even though it is not current).

Enough people were coming onto the wiki to post about whether it was or was not rape that at some point the admins had to step in and establish "policy".

Yes, you raise a point that people who think it was rape even if they know the creators said it wasn't (that is, hypothetically, if Benioff and Weiss had immediately said it was not, some people - while believing them - would still say it "counted as a rape scene" because they couldn't tell the difference -- which is why it should have been reedited and rereleased.

However, there are also a large number of readers who honestly want to sit down and read all of the relevant interview quotes in context -- readers who are confused about what their intent was.

It was good to point this out, I'll add a few notes about this.--The Dragon Demands (talk) 15:15, April 9, 2015 (UTC)

So you're making this gargantua even larger, and by the way disregarding TWWF's greater point? —ArticXiongmao (talk) 15:20, April 9, 2015 (UTC)

"However, there are also a large number of readers who honestly want to sit down and read all of the relevant interview quotes in context -- readers who are confused about what their intent was."
Are there? Okay... good for them. If you can present those "relevant quotes" in context, from a neutral point of view, and without so much... stuffiness, and bombastic language then I'll look forward to reading your newer (and hopefully a lot shorter) edit.--The White Winged Fury 16:05, April 9, 2015 (UTC)
That Tywin analogy in particular needs to die.--The White Winged Fury 16:24, April 9, 2015 (UTC)

Well okay I removed the Tywin analogy.--The Dragon Demands (talk) 18:14, April 9, 2015 (UTC)

It's a start.--The White Winged Fury 18:51, April 9, 2015 (UTC)

Alrighty. Now I'm trying to meet you halfway on this: what are specific lines that you felt were too verbose or that need to be cut? I honestly can't tell so I really need specific instances you have in mind.--The Dragon Demands (talk) 20:18, April 9, 2015 (UTC)

I'll have another read through at the weekend when I've got more free time. Off the top of my head... I recall a section dedicated to why Martin approved the scene at script writting stage, followed by what you call "the only logical possibilities", which are in fact nothing but conspiracy theories involving D&D trying to "sneak" the scene in without him noticing. This is absurd, and as usual you're overthinking this. Even if true, this will never be confirmed for us, so such aimless speculation serves no one. You need to be neutral when desribing other people; saying that Benioff was "waffling", even if you think he was is innapropriate, and doesn't belong in an encyclopedia entry.--The White Winged Fury 11:09, April 10, 2015 (UTC)

I may have phrased that section poorly.

My point was that if Martin said "the script outline didn't mention this as different", the only possible scenarios (assuming Martin is telling the truth, and we have no reason to think otherwise):

  • 1 - It wasn't in the script outline because it simply wasn't in the finalized script at all - Benioff and Weiss never intended this to be a rape scene, and never scripted it that way.
  • 2 - It was in the script but not the script outline, meaning either:
    • A - They consciously hid it from Martin (we have no reason to suspect this)
    • B - They intended to write a rape scene, it uses the word "rape" in the script, but it honestly didn't occur to them that this was big enough of a change to inform Martin about.

...I really should have used those disqualifiers ("we have no reason to suspect they intended this and hid it from Martin")...but I think the overall logic stands.

Unless you think there are other possibilities?

Any other language in other sections I should tone down? It may help to go one section at a time.--The Dragon Demands (talk) 00:03, April 11, 2015 (UTC)

...having read that EW interview with Coster-Waldau, I'm now much more thinking that their attitude is "people will be offended if we deny this "was" rape"....yes, I've seen a few reviewers who say they would be offended even if they re-edited and re-released it...but the overwhelming majority of critical and fan reactions I've seen were actually offended that they did not re-edit it. I'm less and less thinking they were "avoiding it out of embarrassment at their own failure" so much as "terrified that no matter what they said they'd only be sticking their foot in their mouths again".

Again, this logic is inherited flawed: just change the god-damned scene. Again, the parallel with the Bush head: some hardcore conservatives are going to remain offended even after they re-edited the scene. That doesn't mean you shouldn't change something, to at least make your intent clear (they never meant to offend Bush or his supporters, it wasn't a big political statement). If nothing else, why not just make your intent as clear as possible?--The Dragon Demands (talk) 00:34, April 11, 2015 (UTC)


Thinking on it....those viewers, who I feel have a right to feel offended and lose respect for the writers that they let this happen...those viewers who would be more offended if they "said it wasn't rape".....wouldn't they be happy if they went beyond saying it to actually doing something by re-editing it?

A fraction of those are the groups such as the writers of that article in YesMagazine.com who said they would be offended even if the scene was re-edited.

In which case, logically....they're already offended! Re-editing and re-releasing the scene isn't going to satisfy them, but it will satisfy the larger number of viewers clamoring for it to be re-edited!

How is re-editing and re-releasing the scene to make it look consensual "denying" that it looked like a rape scene the first time? If anything, that's the ultimate admission that "this looked confusingly like rape the first time, so we had to re-do it".

And what's the other option? Assume that no, Jaime actually raped Cersei because what's on-screen the first time counts.....and then remain annoyed that the series never showed any aftermath to it?

This was NEVER a case of either/or, "well we can't just say it wasn't rape because the audience would feel we were denying it looked like rape"....yeah, guys, you're not just supposed to "say" it wasn't rape, you're supposed to RE EDIT it in such a way that it no longer looks like rape! Why the heck are we even discussing this! This should have been re-edited and re-released WITHIN THE MONTH THAT IT AIRED.--The Dragon Demands (talk) 00:44, April 11, 2015 (UTC)

Version 2.0

Okay, "Version 1.0" was the one I made without feedback.

Also...and I should have made this more clear...it's not as if I sat down and wrote a rough draft of this: "Version 1.0" was my rough draft. I was very much figuring out my thoughts as I went.

If nothing else it's very long - though something this important merits some length - but I should try and make it more "concise".

Also removed some of the more "preachy" parts like the Tywin analogy.

Really, what made me realize most of all that I needed to rework this into "Version 2.0" was when I read the recent Coster-Waldau and Headey interview in Entertainment Weekly (thanks for pointing that out by the way), and Coster-Waldau very succinctly explained that their real motivation seems to - primarily, anyway - be fear of offending people further -- apparently the whole semantics of "was it a rape scene" breaks down. Obviously there is really a split between "did people perceive it as a rape scene" and "was it intended as a rape scene" -- the latter of which wasn't even clear because they said nothing. Which was really a mistake, they should have just redited it.

So I'm going to re-read through this and "refine" it more.

Another major problem...and I hate it when I fall into this: I fell back into "storytelling mode" not "logical point by point research article" mode. Simply..."storytelling mode" is when you build up to a grand finale, build up to a punchline...in research articles, you're actually supposed to clearly explain your main point at the beginning of each subsection, in order to GRAB the attention of the reader, and then explain how you reached this by presenting your evidence (and then maybe restate the point at the end of the subsection if it is long enough). I don't actually point out why I'm saying stuff in section 1 which is only relevant by section 4. This needs to be fixed.

Dear god, the current "Version 1.0" is about 30 single-spaced Microsoft Word pages long.

So things in "Verison 2.0" will include:

  • 1 - Overall focus on trying to be more succinct (helps that now I know how it ends)
  • 2 - Clearly state conclusion of each subsection at the beginning instead of "building to a punchline"
  • 3 - Cut out some of the more preachy stuff or at least focus on being less overall negative, putting in more warnings like "either Benioff and Weiss lied to Martin or they didn't" -- need to add "there's no reason to think they lied, it seems to be the other option" etc. etc.
  • 4 - Shift focus from "They're avoiding the issue out of embarrassment" (which may have some elements of truth...) to the more prominent thing that even Coster-Waldau pointed out: they're terrified that saying or doing anything would end up offending some people (though, ironically, it seems that many more people were annoyed at their inaction).

I'll post here when I'm done.

--The Dragon Demands (talk) 02:24, April 11, 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I have finished "Version 2.0". Wow...it's still 26 single-spaced Microsoft Word pages long...keep in mind that much of that is block quotes I made from interviews, not my own writing.

Generally, I tried to soften the tone: not "they're hiding their embarrassment" but "they're terrified that anything they say will be misinterpreted as rape denial".

I focused on trying to be more coherent by directly stating the conclusions of each section at the beginning, then following with evidence.

Any specific criticisms? I mean point to specific lines you disagree with. Any parts that you would plausibly cut?--The Dragon Demands (talk) 06:35, April 11, 2015 (UTC)

Haven't read 2.0 yet, but your description sure sounds much better, especially the effort to make it concise and the language more neutral. —ArticXiongmao (talk) 10:46, April 11, 2015 (UTC)


Final

It is done. I have added images as per request. Both other Wiki-Bureaucrats signed off on it. This is now officially the position and policy of Game of Thrones Wiki.--The Dragon Demands (talk) 23:01, April 18, 2015 (UTC)

Can administrators decide that an article is part of the "official policy" of the wiki? This is content, not bureaucracy. Are the wiki rules, cited above by The White Winged Fury, wrong? How can this and many other of your so-called "admin-level decisions" (usually accompanied by threats of banning if the text is edited again, which shuts discussion down) be squared off with what the rules apparently state? "An administrator is simply a user who is trusted with a few extra technical functions in order to carry out maintenance on the site. A bureaucrat is simply an administrator who has the ability to give other users admin status. That's all. This isn't a hierarchy: "admins don't make the rules and don't make unilateral decisions, but rather they use their tools to carry out the will of the community." Meanwhile, you essentially just said that the admin bureaucrats made a unilateral decision, regardless of the will of the community ("officially the position and policy of the wiki",) in regards to a piece of content (not a technical, regulatory matter.) So, what gives?

Anyway, that side, the text iself looks better now. Still don't see why you can't synthesize the text a bit more, into a more compact and concise whole, but otherwise it looks much better. When will it be unblocked? —ArticXiongmao (talk) 23:08, April 18, 2015 (UTC)

It will never be unblocked, it's wiki policy, not "consensus reality". I asked the other two bureaucrats to look it over and give their go ahead.

Otherwise it's too late, I just tweeted it out to every news site that reports on Game of Thrones, and the personal twitter feeds of the main cast and writers. Hopefully this will get us some kind of response.

You have not adequately explained what could be cut out from this current version specifically. Yes it is 25 pages long - it needed to be. To be thorough (I'm all about Thorough). I cut down the extraneous parts, made the points clearer, you have no obvious objections, it's good to go.

I mean...any time the Admins decide "this character had no official name but we're going to use this descriptor as their official or assumed name in the wiki", we're making "an admin-level decision". YES, when it comes to such top-level policy, it is "an admin level decision".--The Dragon Demands (talk) 23:28, April 18, 2015 (UTC)

You won't unblock this, even after it's done? So, as I feared, this is essentially your own blog post, in the end, except you want it on the wiki. And yeah, it's too long. It's not a matter of what to cut. No single section or paragraph needs to be deleted; the whole thing just needs to be written more concisely. As for contacting the writers and cast, are you actually expecting that this 25 page "thorough" scrawl will change anybody's mind? That anyone will actually pay attention to it? That's kind of the problem with the premise of this article. You claim it's an analysis, but it's really not. You set out with a clear goal, helpfully (yet unnecessarily, as usual) in bold: "It is assumed (or at least hoped) that at some point they will re-edit and re-release the scene and episode, just as they would for any other technical error." The text has (vaguely) the trappings of a serious academic paper, yet you set out with an ideological goal, and then you look for evidence to support it. Even if your analysis is coherent (which I'd argue it is, though of course it's way too long), it's difficult to take seriously after that. —ArticXiongmao (talk) 23:38, April 18, 2015 (UTC)

Actually the editors on WatchersOnTheWall.com greatly appreciated it. No, it is not my personal blog post: other Administrators may edit it, or we'll discuss what they edit - regular users cannot.

I gave an opportunity to voice opinions, I revised it, and you're not even offering up specific suggestions, specific points you would change, other than that you feel it needs to be more succinct - without saying how.

It's done.

Would you prefer we went back to leaving the matter vague and unaddressed?

...look, if you have any specific lines you think should be cut down, and have an alternative suggestion of how you would phrase one paragraph to condense two previous ones, by all means post your comments here.--The Dragon Demands (talk) 00:47, April 19, 2015 (UTC)

If you copy the HTML on my page, for example, I could do my suggestions there. As I said, I don't think there's whole sections or anything that are redundant. It's about making it more concise, and considering it's a 25 page text It'd take a heck of a lot of time to explain each suggestion here, wouldn't it? —ArticXiongmao (talk) 00:52, April 19, 2015 (UTC)

Okay I posted it to your Talk page.


Wait...I should have explained this first: I was worried that those who expressed concerns wouldn't get to reviewing it, and it kind of needed to be up sooner instead of later, and I didn't want to leave it off until AFTER the end of Season 5.

So I was pushing things forward. Well, I can't change that now, but the message I can give is "If you have corrections you would like to make, please let me know about them immediately, this is on a deadline."--The Dragon Demands (talk) 00:57, April 19, 2015 (UTC)

Well, the article can change and evolve with time, as with any other in a wiki, right? Anyway, whatever I suggest wouldn't alter the article meaningfully; only in its form. Thanks for copying it in my page. —ArticXiongmao (talk) 01:04, April 19, 2015 (UTC)


...Yeah, I phrased that poorly: the article will always be locked, fundamentally its main points won't change, but if you have suggestions you can put them on the Talk page here (slightly more control than unlocking it for a day then locking it again and discarding unwanted changes).

...you said you were going to write up your own refined version a while ago, I didn't know why you weren't already.--01:08, April 19, 2015 (UTC)

I couldn't access the HTML without editing, or is that possible? I asked for it a while ago. As I said, I would work on it as soon as I had it, and I have. I've rewrote the introduction, for now. Now, I'm going to sleep ;) —ArticXiongmao (talk) 01:28, April 19, 2015 (UTC)

...I...think there's a "view source" feature, but that doesn't matter now.--The Dragon Demands (talk) 01:34, April 19, 2015 (UTC)

This is, for example, the problem with putting in bold whatever you want, even if it's not in the text. In the ASOS excerpt, you bold when she says "yes". But what about when she says "no"? Jaime is already trying to have sex with her, yet she's saying "no." She's still not giving consent. "She pounded on his chest with feeble fists, murmuring about the risk, the danger, about their father, about the septons, about the wrath of gods. He never heard her." What if you put that in bold? At that point, that is a sexual assault, though she eventually consents. Ignoring how problematic this scene is in the books as well is part of the problem here.

Your argument that "The scene is clearly consensual in the book version: Jaime and Cersei meet for the first time in a long while, Cersei only objects specifically because she's afraid they'll get caught (and that Joffrey's body is in front of them) but her initial objections about timing and place stop, and she wholeheartedly has sex with Jaime, urging him on" is quite disturbing. Are you equating sexual desire with consent? Because that's a big no-no. She's saying no; that's a fact. It doesn't matter the reasons (the location, whatever); the fact is that she's saying no and he isn't stopping. That is sexual assault, period. It's frankly creepy that you'd suggest otherwise. —ArticXiongmao (talk) 10:25, April 19, 2015 (UTC)


Sorry for not responding to this sooner, I've got exams coming up, and have been busy with my own studies.
  1. The article is better. I would cut it back further, but I won't ask you to do this. To be blunt: If this was ever edited to a degree which I find satisfactory... it would probably be short enough to exist as a sub-section of the "Breaker of Chains" article. However, I'm not interested in just "having my own way". It would be unreasonable, and unfair to you.
  2. This article is not "now officially the position and policy of Game of Thrones Wiki.". Wiki Policy requires consensus, and there has been none. The fact that the other bureaucrats have "signed off" on it means nothing. I know this has been explained to you in the past by a member of Wikia's Staff, so your continued attempts to misrepresent yourself and your fellow admins as Judge Jury and Excecutioner is not acceptable.
  3. Ultimately I think it's best to move on from this. I do not think that people will come onto the wiki looking to read an article like this, and I think it's reach will be fairley limited. Posting this into the personal twitter feeds of cast members and writers... was probably not a good move on your part, and the most likely result of this is that you've embarrased yourself and the wiki. Too late now, though.

(PS: In response to the message you left on my talk-page: I'll respond in-depth later today)--The White Winged Fury 11:17, April 19, 2015 (UTC)

Agreed on the job of the admins, The White Winged Fury. However, I think the article is salvagable, to be honest. I'm editing it into a more compact and less subjetive edition, if you want to take a look. —ArticXiongmao (talk) 11:44, April 19, 2015 (UTC)

By the way, now that I'm editing the text, I'm now sure that what you believe to be "thorough", TDD, is actually just repetitive. You repeat a lot of stuff, presumably to drill the point on people's heads. It's completely unnecessary. Just look at all the fluff I've taken out, without losing any relevant information (e.g. you analyze the footage in gallery form, and then again, almost exactly with the same words, in normal text; in the same section, you also have the same introduction and conclusion —in fact both are conclusions.) There are many painful examples of this. I'm pretty sure you repeat like a dozen times that "D&D did not intend it as rape but simply were afraid to speak out." It's a tad ridiculous. —ArticXiongmao (talk) 12:27, April 19, 2015 (UTC)

Neither of you can agree and now I'm confused:

One sentence answer from both:

1 - Do you disagree with the conclusions? 2 - Rather, is your view that the wiki should have made no comment on this at all?

...Yes, that's how academic articles are written. You state your conclusions in the Introduction, then reiterate it in the Conclusion.

But I'll wait until you're done to say more.--The Dragon Demands (talk) 14:07, April 19, 2015 (UTC)

I'm basically done. I've deleted all the numerous repetition and subjective statements that you treated as fact. I agree it wasn't intended as a rape scene, but that they wanted to make it rougher than the books. I don't agree that the books were consensual at the start (she says no; her reasons do not matter; she says no!). As for the need for this article, I think there is none, but if there has to be one (which you say there is, and it's an "admin-level decision", a thing that doesn't exist in terms of CONTENT such as this, not bureaucracy), I'd rather it was a readable article, which is the reason I edited it.

I see you keep ignoring TWWF's main point; that you are working against Wikia's rules.

EDIT: Yeap. I'm done.—ArticXiongmao (talk) 14:12, April 19, 2015 (UTC)


....Something I failed to make clear before, due to text not conveying emotions well, is that I keep doubling down on "Admin level decision" and that it would be locked indefinitely, because I'm terrified of attracting a revert edit war from casual editors who come on to the wiki specifically to claim that it actually was intended as a rape scene, all evidence to the contrary.

YES, I did ultimately want the consensus of both of you on this.

I'm sorry about that.

Let me read through what you wrote...--The Dragon Demands (talk) 14:26, April 19, 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I reevaluated my thoughts on not unblocking the article. A revert edit war is what would happen, you're right.

Even if you don't accept my edition (which I honestly don't expect you to), I'd still suggest doing the sections as I did ("what X had to say", all throughout), and doing the introduction and the conclusion as in my suggestion. —ArticXiongmao (talk) 14:30, April 19, 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to read through through ArticXiongmao's version, so please bear with me while I do so.--The White Winged Fury 14:36, April 19, 2015 (UTC)

Oh...because given half an hour to worry about it, and recognizing White Wing's Fury's complaints as entirely accurate, I was going to unlock it. Er...let's meet it halfway, and when the three of us are done, I'll lock it for anonymous editors.--The Dragon Demands (talk) 15:34, April 19, 2015 (UTC)

Well, needless to say I think ArticXiongmao's version is closer to what I would have written.
To answer your questions: 1 - No, I don't disagree with your conclusions. That was never the issue here. 2 - Yes, if this were happening a year ago, I would argue that a wiki is not expected or required to make such an in-depth analysis. I would have said (as I have been): Present the facts in their proper context, and let people decide for themselves (which they will anyway) I don't think it's an unforgivable sin to have a neatural point of view on the matter, as you seem to feel.
There is no point dwelling on this now, though. You've put so much time and effort into this endeavour that it would be an unforgivable sin to waste it; it just needed fine-tuning.
And I have no problem whatsoever, with some level of protection... that's only common sense for an article of this nature.--The White Winged Fury 15:58, April 19, 2015 (UTC)

I need to combine these revisions.

The reason I was getting upset about your insistence on just presenting the facts is...I worry that it sounds like "teach the controversy", like Evolution vs Creationism, instead of "we actually came to a conclusion".

I've seen wiki articles that gut information like that and they're not informative. That's what was going on for 12 months: like on main Wikipedia, just a curt "some were upset that this looked like rape, the director said it wasn't" - that isn't informative.

If anything that's sort of the point of the article: Benioff and Weiss were afraid to "commit" to actually saying "no we did not intend for this to be a rape scene", but by leaving any level of ambiguity, they left open the door for the false assumption that they actually did intend that. We can't repeat that mistake.

But there's a happy middle in here, and people are more likely to read it if it is shorter...

...I'm sorry for the back and forth on this, you guys have been helpful. I'm at my wits' end about this because I'm pressed for time and wish I'd done it when the episode itself aired. And no matter WHAT we do, there are always some who....are voicing bizarre opinions that even IF they re-edit the scene, that doesn't count or something?

How the hell did this even happen? If *I* were in their position, my first instinct would be to say "dear god, that actually does look like a rape scene, we should re-edit and re-release it as soon as possible!".....how along the way did they get the idea to do nothing? YES, "saying" it wasn't meant to be rape at this point would be seen as denial that it sure looks like it in the final version....which is why they have to go above and beyond merely "saying" something, and actually reedit it. Did it ever even occur to them that re-releasing the scene was an option?

I'll get back to this later tonight.--The Dragon Demands (talk) 17:21, April 21, 2015 (UTC)


I'm going to drastically edit this down - if it's over no more than 5 Microsoft Word pages, people won't read through it. --The Dragon Demands (talk) 22:57, August 19, 2015 (UTC)

Re-edit August 2015

Okay I got around to writing a major re-edit/refinement of this. The shorter it is, the more likely people are to read it.

Originally it was around 25 Microsoft Word pages long. I got it down to about HALF that size, around 12-13 pages. Any more I think would start losing some key stuff -- but I was surprised at how easy it was to shorten it even this much, without drastically losing anything.

Your criticisms about the length have been very helpful, i.e. ArticXiangMao - I didn't need to both make an image gallery with descriptions, then restate the conclusions of the image gallery. I guess I was nervous when I wrote that.

What does everyone think of the new version?--The Dragon Demands (talk) 18:24, August 20, 2015 (UTC)

Hey cool, a video briefly cited this: https://youtu.be/ttvGIIPhWws?t=13m20s --The Dragon Demands (talk) 17:13, May 21, 2016 (UTC)