Major revision
Hey, I just started drastically rewriting the page due to several criticisms about length/structure. I blanked this talk page to start over along with this new version (anyone who wants to reiterate earlier points which are still relevant just copy-paste them back again). Clean start.
The new plan is this:
Basic intro description (this looks okay to me).
Instead of having three subsections on "in real life", "in the books", and "in the TV series vs in the books", it now has two major subsections: "in the books" and "in the TV series vs in the books" ---- and the "in the books" section now has three broad subsections:
- 1 - The original "in the books" section (with some trimming) basically a long quote from GRRM about it,
- 2 - a significantly shortened version of the original "in real life" section, to put Martin's comments in context, then
- 3 - First Night. The First Night section is unchanged -- it's comparing the books with real life, and it's relevant in the sense that the TV series notably omitted it. It made more sense to put it as a subsection here, comparing it with real life, than in the general list of TV series vs books.
I've looked over the "TV series vs books" section and I'm also satisfied, though it is long, I think it is merited. But I'm open to suggestions on trimming it.
Any thoughts or other refinements that should be made? Anyone think all or part of it are good as they are?--The Dragon Demands (talk) 02:45, August 27, 2015 (UTC)
I would inverse the order, as it is in the rest of the wiki and as Gonzalo has suggested for the Gender and Sexuality article (first GoT, then Books, and finally real life). Personally, I'd also merge "real life" with the other sections, comparing GoT/ASOIAF to real life, instead of having it as a distinct section, but I'm aware that'd be a lot of work.
Please, don't bold stuff for no (apparent) reason, like you did in the reactions to Sansa; you stressed a particular negative reaction —why not others, whether they are negative or positive? I'm gonna guess it was a mistake.
I'd also encourage you to use —or at least by inspired by the language of— the version I did of your Jaime/Cersei sex scene article, both for the article itself and this shortened version. It does away with subjective qualitative considerations such as "baffling", without which I believe the text is more appropriate (and more convincing.) In that particular example, instead of stressing your opinion that the choice is baffling ("What made this all the more baffling is that the sexual encounter between Jaime and Cersei in this scene in the books is presented as consensual"), it focuses on how controversial it was publicly, for many people, not just you ("Even more polemically, the same sexual encounter in the books is usually interpreted as consensual."). It's also shorter, more condensed and synthesized, without losing any relevant information. Pay particular attention, if you please, to the kind of language used; it reflects our job as documentarians and analyzers of GoT and this controversy in particular —Though the conclusion is the same, it's arrived at without the use of any judgemental/subjective/personal language or logic. It's mostly your own words; it simply has fewer qualitative adjectives, and less repetition in general. —ArticXiongmao (talk) 12:34, August 27, 2015 (UTC)
Well, Gonzalo84 already just did a once-over of the Jaime/Cersei article taking out some of the more critical language ("poor editing" became "unusual editing" etc.). So I cut down the Jaime/Cersei thing here to indeed try to be less aggressive.
I would specifically keep the word "baffling"....ah, might as well substitute in "confusing".
...boldings from the Sansa section will be removed, yeah.
Actually I did merge the "in real life" section: now there's just an "in the books" and "in the TV series" section. Right after the subsection of a quote from Martin saying "I tried to make this like real life", I then made a separate subsection co-equal to it saying "Martin wanted it to be like the real-life Middle Ages, and indeed this is what it was like" ...etc.
More generally I'm worried about some of the "in the TV series" parts being kind of long -- I just cut down the Jaime/Cersei part to be more of a stub linking to the main page.
Oh btw your own writeup of Jaime/Cersei was very helpful -- ultimately I realized my original version was absurdly long and gutted it even more than your version (down from about 24 pages to around 12 pages).
I'm worried if the Sansa/Ramsay section is too long and should just link to the episode article page's subsection....BUT it was so controversial that most people reading a page on "Rape in the TV series" would assume it would be written about on that page itself.
Thanks for the input, I'll tinker with this some more...--The Dragon Demands (talk) 14:40, August 27, 2015 (UTC)
Okay I reversed the order and changed some wordings. I took out the more subjective boldings (I kept in a few that are just important facts to make it easier to read, i.e. "Benioff and Weiss gave a response about this in Entertainment Weekly" or "Fundamentally we're not sure what happens to Sansa in the next unpublished novel" etc.)
...overall I'm satisfied with every section of this...except for how long the Ramsay/Sansa section is.
Other than the Ramsay/Sansa section, any changes need to be made to the rest of it?--The Dragon Demands (talk) 15:12, August 27, 2015 (UTC)
Looks much better to me, structurally speaking. I'll give it an in-depth read later, but if you said you wrote out the more subjective language, I'd say it's well done now.—ArticXiongmao (talk) 15:26, August 27, 2015 (UTC)
I think I removed what was too subjective. But what is subjective is...itself subjective. Well give it a thorough read and tell me if you have other objections (and again, the Ramsay/Sansa subsection is a whole separate issue - I mean are there any problems with the other sections before moving on to Ramsay/Sansa?--The Dragon Demands (talk) 15:35, August 27, 2015 (UTC)
By my standards the page is done now. I'm a bit wary of copy-pasting in from the episode article all of the critic comments about Sansa/Ramsay, it is a bit long...but it was one of the biggest changes in the show to date, and everyone was talking about it, so I think it would be remiss not to talk about the reaction -- though it has a balance of reactions on other side. Yes this makes it longer but also more balanced.
So does anyone else think anything should be changed in this article? Or is it officially done?
As it is a sensitive article I plan to just keep it permanently protected/locked (though if regular editors request, as with other articles, it can be briefly add something upon request on the Talk page, or upon request lock for a day to get something else done - this thing is a magnet for vandals, etc., better to keep it protected).--The Dragon Demands (talk) 21:37, August 31, 2015 (UTC)
If you want to be all encompassing you may wish to mention that Gared Tuttle's sister was raped by Bolton and Whitehill men, that the ironborn specifically often rape when they pillage (as seen in Royland Degore's family) and take salt wives. Besides the issues with the Sansa/Ramsay section. That seems to be all. -InGen Nate Kenny (talk) 21:48, August 31, 2015 (UTC)
It's actually pretty great now. And makes for lighter reading, which is nice! The sections have been reversed, the "middle ages" section has been merged into the rest of the text, Just one thing: Though funny, the "Vulcan death grip" reference reads quite out of place. Oh, and the picture in that section already explains the "fun trivia" that Royce was in Braveheart; it really doesn't need its own paragraph, as it kinda derails the point you're making. But anyway, other than those two details, this has ended up being quite good. —ArticXiongmao (talk) 22:03, August 31, 2015 (UTC)