Talk:Unbowed, Unbent, Unbroken

How to refer to the Sansa-Ramsay scene

I can see how this isn't as clear-cut as in "Breaker of Chains," in which Cersei said "No!" out loud. This clearly isn't the exact same thing as that, but it's also not exactly consensual sex. We could debate among ourselves exactly where this type of thing falls on the real-life consent spectrum, but on Wikipedia, we're supposed to follow the sources first and draw our own conclusions second.

We do have sources, lots of them, that refer to the Sansa-Ramsay scene as a rape scene, so that's what we should call it. Has anyone found a source that says it wasn't a rape scene?

It's early days now, and not everything that's going to be written about this episode has been written yet, but there was a similar scene in season one (between Daenerys and Drogo) whose reactions have long since shaken out. The consensus among experts has been that it's a rape scene. We can reasonably expect that the same thing will happen regarding this scene. If I'm wrong and the experts come down saying it wasn't rape, we can always change the article then. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:21, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I would be very interested to see a source that is not a review or critique of the episode that has emphatically labeled it a rape, such as by the writer or directors. George R.R. Martin was questioned about the scene, and he did not use the phrase "rape" at all . Even Sophie Turner was questioned about the scene, and she did not use the the operative word. The sensationalism of editorial reviews regarding this scene is not viable as a source, and their rhetoric should not be utilized. The prime source is the show, and beyond that, barring some sort of press conference from Benioff and Weiss, there is no vetted person outside of the show that should be utilized as an infallible source.

With that, we can only divine the answer from the episode itself. Sansa is married to Ramsay, thereby consenting to the acts that are involved in the consummation of the marriage. The same occurs with Danny and Drogo. She is wed to him, and she is consenting (even if she did not consent to Viserys' deal) to the actions involved. The scene with Jaime and Cersei is much more clearcut, as they are not married, she audibly rejects Jaime's advances, physically grapples with him as he forces himself on her, and is visibly distraught throughout. I will wholeheartedly agree with you that there is evidence to support that Sansa was raped, but until the context of this scene is enlightened by the coming episodes, the more logical summary is to call it a violent, even sadistic, act of marital intimacy. 2602:306:BD96:4B90:60C7:161:B578:7162 (talk) 01:50, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

The showrunners have been wrong about this before. Graves stated that he didn't think the Cersei-Jaime scene from last year was rape, even though it unquestionably was. This doesn't mean we should ignore what Martin has to say, but it does mean that artistic intent doesn't always match what makes it onto the screen. In general, Wikipedia prefers third-party sources to same-party sources, such as the creators' own words. While I'd love to see an expert on sexual violence weigh in, so far the reviews and critiques are the most reliable sources available to us.

If you want to add a line to the critical reception section saying that Martin did not consider this to be a rape scene, that would probably improve the article Turns out that's not what Martin said, so don't add the line.

We absolutely should not state or imply that the event on Sansa and Ramsay's wedding night was consensual. While I agree that it's in a grayer area than the Cersei-Jaime scene, that would require us to weigh the evidence and draw the conclusion. On a matter this charged, we should defer to the experts if they're available, and in this case they are. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:15, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm dropping in to this discussion to simply state that, just like with the Breaker of Chains article, I knew that editors would debate whether or not this scene was rape, especially since Sansa began to take off her clothes as Ramsay had told her to; that can be seen as more of a demand than an agreement, given that he questioned having to tell her to undress again. And so that others know, this is the text in question.

Also, IP, consider WP:Indenting your posts. I WP:Indented your post above. Flyer22 (talk) 02:19, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

That's precisely my point though, is that the grey area is grey. To label the instance as a rape would be taking a particular side on the issue. I'm not arguing to imply that Sansa wanted to be sexually accosted by Ramsay (which could be part of her mental conditioning by Baelish, we don't know yet), only that their bedding, a tradition in both the ASoIF and GoT universe, was not a happy, beautiful moment of intimacy that it is supposed to be. There are too many unknowns in this particular scene to immediately label it as a rape. Because Weiss and Benioff haven't come out to clarify the scene, or anyone of the production for that matter, we cannot, as viewers or discerning critics, pretend to know the intent of the scene or presume to understand the mentality of a character. If this were the books and we could by privy to Sansa's thoughts as she was being assaulted by Ramsay, then it would be much more valid to claim the scene as a rape. But we don't: we have Ramsay pulling apart her dress, Theon crying as he watches his step-sister being molested by a monster, and then cut to black. If someone decides to clarify the scene, or the next episodes have Sansa berating Theon for not helping her "while he was raping me", then I would have no quarrel with this description. But at the present moment, we are not privy to enough details to unequivocally label it as a rape. Also, thank you, Flyer. 2602:306:BD96:4B90:60C7:161:B578:7162 (talk) 02:36, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

EDIT CONFLICT: When we have gray area, we defer to sources. I performed an exercise below that might help with this. You are correct that we're not supposed to take sides, but we are allowed to represent the consensus among or prevailing view of reliable sources.

I read the sources you posted, Anon2602, and Martin and Turner don't actually say "this wasn't a rape scene." They talk about the scene without saying whether it was consensual or not. Entertainment Weekly also interviewed writer Bryan Cogman, who refers to Sansa as "making a choice" but later clarifies: "The ‘choice’ I was referring to was Sansa’s choice to marry Ramsay and walk into that room. She feels marrying him is a vital step in reclaiming her homeland. Not trying to change anyone’s opinion of the scene (negative or otherwise) but that it what I was … Ok, LAST last word. In NO WAY… NO WAY was that comment an attempt to ‘blame the victim.’" Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:45, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Anon2602, you asked if there was a source other than a review or critique that referred to this as rape, maybe someone involved in making the show? Turns out there is. Elio Garcia and Lise Antonnson, who run Westeros.org, have worked as consultants on the show. Their writeup of the adaptation refers to the scene as rape. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:01, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

"Prevailing" does not equate to validity. Vanity Fair several times quotes the actors who defer to their artistic interpretation of the scene, regarding it as "awful", "crazy", and "horrifying", among other qualities, but not referring to it as a rape (though not consent either). And you have valid grounds to point out that the Martin and Turner interviews do not implicitly use the word "rape" or refer to the scene as consensual, but only because Martin decided to delete all the comments that prompted his response, which were predicated on Martin's thoughts on whether or not the scene was a rape; and Turner was never faced with the divining of whether or not the scene was a rape (though I highly suspect her thoughts on it in the coming days). I don't want the summary to reflect consent, as it wasn't, but to elevate the summary to the extreme of the spectrum without context--which editorials, like Vanity Fair, whose headline reads "Did Game of Thrones Really Need to Rape Sansa Stark?" do--is not beneficial for anyone. Accepting sensationalism, which is what most of these reviews are doing, is to accept their lack of journalistic integrity and objectivity. Let the record reflect that I am willing to accept your view, but only once a more conclusive statement is released.

Also, I tried to examine their [Garcia/Antonnson] writeup on westeros.org, and have yet to find said writeup. The page regarding episode 506 is blank regarding a recap of the events in the episode. I would appreciate a link, sir/ma'am. Regardless, they themselves are subject to even greater criticism. Their role in production could be highly minimal, as they could have been consulted for anything from the color of Dornish garb to the accents of the Braavosi, and their knowledge could have been trumped by Martin, who was a consultant for the season as well. . Put bluntly, this scene never happened in the books (which is not valid grounds to dismiss the scene as consensual, I know), and their collective knowledge that was being consulted is based entirely off the ASoIF universe, so their response, and therefore their writeup, is subject to just as much scrutiny as any other review of episode 506. Also, please pardon my lack of manners regarding my title as "Anon 2602". Please, call me Richard. 2602:306:BD96:4B90:60C7:161:B578:7162 (talk) 03:39, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Westeros.org: I added the link below in the list of sources. The page isn't blank; it just takes a bit to load. Hit ctrl-F "rape" and you'll see it.

We have three options: 1) Describe the scene as rape. 2) Describe the scene as consensual. 3) Talk around the matter, describing it without explicitly stating either way. That is an option. However, the sources prefer option #1 by 4:1. When it's that big of a split, there shouldn't be much argument.

You say that referring to a scene with ambiguous consent as rape is "sensationalism." One could just as easily say that referring to it as consensual is endorsing rape culture or that referring to it as neither is cowardice. There's no one path that's inherently cleaner than the others. Is Jezebel known for being provocative? Yes. Is The Atlantic? No. A large group of sources with a wide range of reputations have come to the same conclusion. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:53, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't referring to the scene as sensational, only the response by the tabloids. I'd be somewhat appalled to find someone who finds the scene sensationalist, but that's beside the point. You yourself said that this is a grey situation. When there is no concise answer, (which at this point there isn't), it is not the editor's job to make up the mind of the reader. It is our job to present the summary using the show as the prime source, and vetted sources to support that truth. At the moment, we do not have the truth, only grumblings and angry, biased, and above all subjective responses to the issue. Until the issue is resolved, which it will be, come hell or high water, it is our job to reflect the reality of the situation until such time that new information enlightens that. A grey scene with a grey summary is better, as it allows the reader to make up their own mind regarding the situation. It is not our job to sway them one way or the other. Did Ramsay rape Sansa? Highly likely. Did she want to be intimate with Ramsay, thereby giving her consent to it? Not quite as likely. The point is that we cannot jump to absolutes without any solid ground beneath it, and journals of review, or minor consultants from a public encylcopedia--however much of a consensus there is amongst them--should not be considered solid ground. Right now, describing the scene using the context of the scene itself is much closer to the truth that we have at the moment. Was it violent? Yes. Was it a consummation of the marriage? Yes. Was it consensual? We don't know, but probably not. Was it rape? We don't know, but much more probable. Until it is coloured in, grey is a much better colour. 2602:306:BD96:4B90:60C7:161:B578:7162 (talk) 04:25, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I found plenty of sources that aren't tabloids, so we should be good there. Some of the sources are emotional in tone, some are flippant, and some are journalistic.

4:1. 4:1. Twelve saying it's a rape scene; none saying it isn't; three not weighing in. I'd like to thank you for this conversation because it's really helped me figure out my stance on what this article should say: either "rapes" or "forces himself upon." If the majority of sources said something that contradicted what my own eyes told me, I might have a problem with it, but they're all coming to the same conclusion. If the sources change, then we can change the text. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:38, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

For one, you cannot pick apart an entire review looking for one single mentioning of the word "rape" and use that as a viable tally in your counting. For every article that mentions the act as a rape, two others describe the scene as a consummation. That is not implying consent anymore than it's implying rape. It's simply stating that the two were engaged in sexual intercourse that was violent, which is what the scene showed. As well, some of those articles that do call it rape ALSO call it consummation. Furthermore, I honestly think you are misinterpreting my responses as being wholeheartedly against you. I want this entire debacle cleared up now, but no matter how I clarify, you seem to think that I want this scene labeled as a consensual scene of love between two equally consenting parties. I'm not trying to deny the prevalence of rape culture any more than I'm trying to convince you that the scene was not a rape. I'm just trying to tell you that until we get more answers, we should not use third party sources, let alone third party sources that are not involved in the writing or production of this show, to summarize events that could lead to people making up their minds about a scene they have or have not seen. Perpetuating what a news reviewer says as truth is no better than putting your own interpretation of the scene down as the truth. Even if they are statistically consistent, if they are all consistently wrong, then it's still a wrong assumption about the show. The truth is that there is not enough information, and the summary should reflect that, plain and simple. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:BD96:4B90:60C7:161:B578:7162 (talk) 04:58, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia's policies actually prefer third-party sources to sources that were involved in the show. Like I said, I'd love to hear an expert on sexual violence weigh in on this scene. I could see something like that trumping Entertainment Weekly, but until something is published that makes a good case that EW and Time and Westeros.org are wrong, we should leave the word "rape" in the article.

I don't think you're wholeheartedly against referring to this as a rape scene; you've communicated your position very clearly. What it sounds like is that Wikipedia's standards for whether we should call this a rape scene have been met, but your own have not. If you don't want to take my word for it, you don't have to. This is mostly a verifiability issue, so you can ask about it at the reliable sources noticeboard if you want a wider view than mine. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:08, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Would you be objected to a third opinion? Wikipedia may consider magazines or online editorials as reliable sources, but I am trying to convey to you that the reliability of these sources are compromised because they are interpreting something they did not see. The scene in question does not occur to the eye, so their account, however consistent, cannot be accepted as verified because they did not witness what occurred off camera. Every review/summary, at least on this particular issue, is not giving a valid, first hand account of what they saw. They are giving a response to what they believe happened by way of their interpretation of Sophie Turner's audible groans and Alfie Allen's emotional weeping. 2602:306:BD96:4B90:C8D:7D92:420B:6234 (talk) 21:09, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I have no objection whatsoever to a third opinion.

Remember, we're not trying to prosecute a real-life crime; we're deciding what to say in a Wikipedia article. We don't need witnesses and satisfaction of reasonable doubt. We need sources and verifiability. Remember, according to Wikipedia's rules, it's the Wikieditor who's not supposed to interpret the primary source material. The secondary sources are absolutely allowed to do that, and we're allowed to repeat what they say. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:48, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, that's just it, is that if we perpetuate the rhetoric of others interpretations as our own, which calling it a rape is doing, then we are in fact sacrificing the objectivity of the summary. Just because we are allowed to use their word choice doesn't mean that we should. Calling it a "violent" or "forced" consummation entirely discredits any view of it being a consensual act. It invokes a proper, unbiased word choice while also indicating that one of the parties is still doing something very wrong. Regardless, we shall have a solution soon, by gosh! 2602:306:BD96:4B90:C8D:7D92:420B:6234 (talk) 00:07, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Just noticed this earlier in the summary: "She [Arya] asks the man with Jaqen H'ghar's face...". This statement perfectly illustrates the ambiguity regarding the numerous potential interpretations of a particular scene; even one as simple as Arya talking to a person we--as the audience--are supposed to interpret as being who he says he is. Granted the entire premise regarding the Faceless Men is that they aren't who they say they are, we still admit to not knowing the absolute truth of a particular character. Could this character be Jaqen H'ghar? Yes, but it's just as probable that he's a person wearing Jaqen's face. So the only logical area to meet at is to call him a man with Jaqen's face. How many of these reviews have described this character as just "Jaqen H'ghar"? All of them, I would imagine. They accept something as truth even though it is not absolute truth, which this summary reflects: they do not know with absolute certainty that this man is Jaqen H'ghar, but they still call him Jaqen. These same reviewers do not know for a fact that Sansa was raped, but they still describe it as a rape even though the scene is far more ambiguous than the veil of mystery regarding the Faceless Men. The point is that ambiguity regarding interpretation is grounds to discredit the numerous interpretations of a scene that has far too many unknowns, whether that interpretation is credible or reliable.2602:306:BD96:4B90:C8D:7D92:420B:6234 (talk) 00:38, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Source breakdown: Sansa-Ramsay scene

Sometimes it's useful to line up all the sources and take a look. Because the episode aired in the U.S. less than thirty hours ago, I expect this list to change a lot. Anyone may add to any section. List sources in order of reliability (so feel free to insert your contribution in between two lines of someone else's). I'm adding a note for terminology other than "rape," so we can use that to develop a compromise phrasing if we need to. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:45, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Sources that specifically call it a rape scene

1. Time [1]
2. Vanity Fair [2]
3. The Atlantic [3]
4. The Guardian [4]
5. The Telegraph [5]
6. The Washington Post [6]
7. The Independent [7]
8. Entertainment Weekly writer James Hibberd [8]
9. Westeros.org [9]
10. The New York Post [10]
11. Business Insider [11]
12. The Daily Mail [12]
13. The Daily Beast [13]
14. Variety [14] also: "sexual assault"
15. IGN [15]
16. A.V. Club [16]
17. Jezebel [17]
18. The Mary Sue [18]
19. Den of Geek [19] also: "churning moment of sadism," "grotesque nightmare," "the heinous act of Ramsay Bolton perpetrated upon [Sansa]," etc.

Sources that discuss the scene without specifically stating whether it was consensual or not

1. George Martin's personal Livejournal [20]
2. Entertainment Weekly interviewee Bryan Cogman [21]
3. Entertainment Weekly interviewee Sophie Turner [22] "messed up" and "f---ed up" also "When I read that scene, I kinda loved it."

___________

Third opinion

Hi. I saw your disagreement listed over at WP:3O. I have read through the material here. In my opinion we should be describing this scene based on this world's values and mores, in which case using 'rape' or 'forced' are is the proper way to address the events in the scene. In this world marriage is not consent to sex, which seems to be the argument presented by 2602:306. In the world of Westeros things are different but we are not writing from an in universe perspective. In our world no consent == rape, also coercion == rape and the sources seem to reflect. Jbh^Talk 00:52, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

I would like to clarify that I was not arguing the point of the scene depicting consent, only that the phrase "violent consummation" is a more apt statement. It does not imply consent--in fact it discourages any notion of consent from one party--while also decries the act as despicable. Perhaps a "forced consummation" would be a better phrase? It denotes the act was perpetrated by one party in defiance of another in order to fulfill the forcing parties sadistic fantasies but also his obligation to consummate a union through marital intimacy. 2602:306:BD96:4B90:C8D:7D92:420B:6234 (talk) 01:46, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Hmmmm..... Your last sentence captures the scene better than either phrase does. The problem is in the modern world we do not really have nuance when speaking of coerced sex and the idea of coerced marriage is anathema to Western values so there is no 'obligation' to consummate a marriage - the marriage can be annulled but to my knowledge is not automatically invalidated by lack of consummation. The complexities of Sansa's situation are not easily translated into real world ethics. What in Westeros are obligations of blood and politics are simply coercion here so, due to the lack of practical choice on Sansa's part it is rape. Also, in Westeros the consummation of all marriages is forced since none would be otherwise valid and many of the nobles married people they did not want to. Sansa's experience is beyond even the norms of her society so even 'in universe' it would be rape even if no more 'forced' than many other noble brides. That is my OR thinking on the subject though I am not sure how clear I was. My policy thinking is that most of the sources we have, and our real world society, consider it to be rape.

I do see where you are coming from and maybe I'm missing something so if either/both of you have some proposed text? Jbh^Talk 03:01, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

The sources almost unanimously refer to this as "rape." I'd see "forces himself upon her" as the limit for euphemisms, but even that strikes me as a bit weasely under the circumstances. With "Breaker of Chains" there was a debate among sources as to whether this was rape or not; that's not the case with "UUU." The arguments are all about whether the rape scene made artistic sense or whether it was too gratuitous, not about whether it was a rape scene. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:15, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

I generally disagree with euphemisms. In the case of the text in the article I would change "...where he proceeds to rape her..." to the more direct '...where he rapes her...'. Jbh^Talk 04:39, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Oh sure. That's more of an issue of smoothness and encyclopedic tone. I don't see how anyone would object to that. But while we're on the subject of being extra inclusive, I added a link to the article on marital rape. That might head off future objections on the grounds that Anon2602 raised—that Sansa consented to sex by consenting to marriage. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:43, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

False: I objected to the summary on the grounds that Sansa consented to a consummation of the marriage--you can directly quote me on my very first response there, ser. Sex and consummation are not mutually inclusive across the board. ~Richard 2602:306:BD96:4B90:ADC9:9084:44C3:F953 (talk) 03:43, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

This is going to be a long one, so please bear with me.

As a bit of preamble, thank you, Dark, for that tacit swing at me in the page's view history section. As much as I enjoy being labeled as the prime objector, and being implied to be ignorant of marital rape, your statement was false because I am not the only one objecting: Anon 142 (pardon the monicker, as I don't know your name), and later user MumboJumbo, granted the latter's response was after your unsavory attempt to "educate" me, both tried to correct the summary. All the same, chapeau mate, as you gave me a nice idea.

Firstly, as far as my preference(s) for what the text should reflect, I am most partial now to "...he[Ramsay] proceeds to forcibly consummate their union while forcing Reek to watch." In between that would be referring to it as "violently consummates," and lastly "...consummates their union by raping Sansa while forcing Reek to watch."

As for reasoning, I implore you to refer to the articles. If this is going to come down to a matter of subjective interpretation by periodicals (sources), then I would be remiss to not point out that Dark's statement is valid: there is a consistent interpretive reference to the scene in question as a "rape". And to clarify Dark's summary of my position--once again, Dark, thank you for conveying your misconceived notion of my opinion above--I do not believe Sansa consented to the rape in question; I do believe she consented to a consummation of the marriage though. In Westeros, and a choice few real world cultures, a union is not valid until the woman has had intercourse with her spouse or, using another common definition, lost her virginity to the spouse. This implies sex--and, no, I'm not about to say that Sansa agreed to lose her virginity through a non-penile related penetrative act, only that she consented to lose her virginity to Ramsay. Does this mean she consented to rape? No. Does that mean the rape was an act of consummation? Yes. And that is what many of these articles are missing: they are too caught up in their respective outrage to understand what the scene is trying to tell us: that Sansa Stark has now become Sansa Bolton through a consummation of her marriage vows, thus making their union legally valid, and bringing her into the line of succession regarding the title of "Wardeness of the North". How was this accomplished? Through Ramsay Bolton forcibly consummating the marriage, i.e. raping Sansa. Just because he accomplished a legal goal with his act does not validate his rape, and "forcibly consummating" is not a euphemism or a dodge to avoid using a word I, or anyone for that matter, might find unsavory. It is what he did: he consummated his marriage by taking Sansa's virginity through force. Unfortunately, there isn't a word to denote a sexual assault as the final step of a legal/pseudo-religious process. As such, there are several options: denote the act as a rape and completely avoid what the scene was trying to show us, refer to the act as a consummation, or some sort of ground between the two. On the latter, I would implore you to re-read some of the choice tabloids that Dark cited as "sources". Many of them are outraged over the action taken against Sansa, and spend large portions--if not the whole--of the article decrying the show/producers as misogynist, rape endorsing monsters. To counter this, many of the articles also mention the act as a consummation. So, if this is going to come down to numbers, I would also like to point this out:

Why are we referring to Jaqen H'ghar as "the man with Jaqen H'ghar's face"? If we are to accept the prose of seventeen articles regarding their interpretation of the final scene as a rape, then should we not also accept their unanimous interpretation of this man as Jaqen H'ghar? Jb, you mentioned the we don't have the nuance to actively convey or reflect Westerosi values into real world rhetoric. I argue that we do not have the capability of properly describing how a Faceless Man works, because, as anyone who knows the Faceless Men's operandi, they are whoever they say they are, but also not. It is not possible to convey a truth and a falsehood--logical contradiction and whatnot. At that point, it comes down to interpretation, and that is whether or not you believe this character to be Jaqen H'ghar. The sources, at least the ones that aren't soap boxing about the final scene, refer to this character as Jaqen H'ghar. So, if we are to accept unanimous interpretation regarding a scene with an unknown--such as Sansa's mindset during coitus--then I propose that we must also accept, and reflect, their unanimous interpretation of other aspects of their reviews, whether that be Jaqen H'ghar's identity, whether or not Bronn is going to die from poison, or if Cersei was behind Ollyvar's appearance at the hearing.

That's just it though: we admit, though the articles are all consistent in their interpretation, that Jaqen has the possibility to not be who he is. If that is the case, then we are reflecting the nuances of the Faceless Men's methods in the summary, and should also reflect the nuances of Sansa's bedding.

What does all that mean; frankly I've lost track by now. I believe I can sum it thus: if we are to accept the majority of sources regarding the interpretation of an unknown, then the summary must reflect that majority. Most of the reviews Dark listed label it as a rape. Just as many label it as a rape and/or a consummation. I believe the scene is a rape, but I also believe the scene is a consummation. Don't let Dark insinuate that I am arguing from a point of consent to rape or sexual assault, as I'm not. I'm simply trying to accurately reflect the reality of what the scene is trying to depict, and so are others who reviewed this with some semblance of tact.

I mentioned I had a nice idea regarding Dark's not so subtle attempt at slander. He redirected the word "rape" to Wiki's article regarding "marital rape". If we were to use the phrase "forcibly consummates", would redirecting the phrase to the "marital rape" article clear up any sense of ambiguity regarding the word choice? It's concise, and it leaves absolutely NO question as to what the action Ramsay perpetrated represents. If I'm absolutely off my rocker, let me know. If your primary objection to my prose is mostly to deal with my tangent regarding the interpretation of Jaqen, then just pretend I didn't write it; my last paragraphs are more to my point than that nugget. ~ Richard 2602:306:BD96:4B90:ADC9:9084:44C3:F953 (talk) 03:43, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

No one took a swing at you, Anon2602; no one slandered you. I'm trying to head off other reversions by other editors who might also think that Sansa consented to sex because she consented to marriage. As for whether it's reasonable for me to think that is or was your position, your exact words were "Sansa is married to Ramsay, thereby consenting to the acts that are involved in the consummation of the marriage." I'm really not sure where you think I misinterpreted you. The acts involved in the consummation of a non-proxy marriage are pretty much sex.

In-text linking is common practice on Wikipedia. As for why I added this particular link, if the next guy clicks the "edit" button but sees a link to the article on marital rape, and goes "Oh! That's a thing!" and doesn't revert the text after all, then it's saved us all some time. Like I said in my post in this thread, I did not add the link for you but for the next guy: At this point in the article's history, you are not the problem. You're here on the talk page working things out. It's the next guy, the guy who doesn't know that the discussion is ongoing, who is the problem. Preventative measures wouldn't make any difference to you; they'd make a difference to the next guy.

I'm not really clear on why you think adding the word "consummation" to this article would improve it. Now we're leaving reliable source/verifiability territory and walking into the realm of editorial decisions. This falls under WP:TONE. "Consummation" is poetic rather than encyclopedic. It's old-fashioned. At least a few of the readers won't know what it means. The current wording gets the job done without it. You seem to be trying to say, "'Rape' is the most common word that the sources use for this scene but 'consummation' is also common enough, so let's use both words." Is that correct? I guess if you want to make the case that "consummation" is favored by a large number of sources, you could go through the list of sources (or find some more) and count the number of times each source uses the term. Off the top of my head, only a couple of them do, but I haven't checked. I'm not up for doing the legwork on this one, though. It's your point, so it's your turn to do the work. I don't think the word would make the article better, though. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:59, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

If there's consensus that the Jaime-Cersei scene in Breaker of Chains is rape, I see no reason this isn't. At least in that scene, Nikolaj and Lena and the director said it was not intended to be viewed as rape. Here, no one is not calling it rape. Pretty clear. Now, does that mean there is merit in the internet's whining over the episode? Not really. But I see no reason to avoid calling it rape just because the internet frequently jumps the gun on such things. Some corrections to what I saw above:

1. Sophie Turner loved the scene the minute she read it and has been defending it since the night it aired. Actually, she dropped hints about it a month or two ago, again, promoting the scene. I assume she (as the portrayer of the victim) is allowed a say? So let us not claim that Sophie was in any way abused in the filming of this scene as has been claimed in several of the sources.
2. The scene was absolutely in the books, and for those that say it isn't, go re-read Reek's chapters in A Dance with Dragons. If you want the cliffnotes, look up "Jeyne Poole" on A Wiki of Ice and Fire. The only difference is it was toned down (so far...there might be more) and Jeyne Poole's storyline was merged with Sansa's, which was apparent to everyone who read the books in episode 2 or 3, so I'm not sure what self-proclaimed book readers expected, yet now they're suddenly up in arms? It was actually far worse in the books. To be clear (as I know there are a bunch of bookreaders who like to lord it over others), I couldn't care less if you've read the books or not, but if you haven't, or if your memory of the 5th book is fading, don't claim a scene wasn't in the books.
3. She's not shown in the scene for the same reason she couldn't actually be stripped naked (like in the books) in season 2 when she's being abused by Joffrey in the throne room by Meryn Trant and is rescued by Tyrion. UK's law on child pornography apparently is based on the age of the character and not on the age of the actor/actress, and Sansa is 13...maybe 14 at this point. I heard that in a source back in season 2, forget where, could be wrong, someone more familiar with UK law, feel free to clarify.
4. I'm sure we have not seen the end of 'Dark Sansa', and if you ask me, this scene will have made whatever is to come so much more enjoyable. As has been said nearly every episode this season in some way, shape, or form: The North Remembers. ― Padenton|✉   05:18, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Which source claimed that Turner was abused? Also, I'm not sure what Turner liking the scene has to do with whether it was or wasn't a rape scene. Actors often like challenging scenes that wouldn't be enjoyable for the character.

Padenton, you will find most of those facts are already present in the article and not in dispute: The scene was toned down from the books. The scene originally involved Jeyne and not Sansa. Darkfrog24 (talk) 05:41, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

The Christopher Orr quote seems to me to be ignorant of 1 and 2, I saw an article earlier today, can't remember where, that complained about the camera being mostly on Reek, that's where 3 comes in. I wanted to correct some of the comments in the discussion above (mainly to do with 2). I'm glad they're not in dispute. 4 is a forum-y lapse in judgement where I got carried away. ― Padenton|✉   06:06, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Where did Lena Headey state that the "Breaker of Chains" scene was not intended to be viewed as rape? We currently state differently in the article.

As for Sansa's age, she should be 15 by now. As seen in this YouTube clip with Tyrion (the night she wedded him), she notes that she is 14. So she is about 15 going on 16 now; the ages on this show are tricky, given that some of the youngest characters are clearly older on the show than they are in the books and that it's complicated pinpointing the passage of time in the show. Flyer22 (talk) 07:42, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

And, for the record, I haven't yet read the books (only a few passages from the books online). So for all I know, it's complicated pinpointing the passage of time in the books as well. After all, it seems like it took the longest time for winter to come on the show. Flyer22 (talk) 07:47, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia, a well known and highly-praised source, "Rape" is a type of sexual assault usually involving sexual intercourse or other forms of sexual penetration perpetrated against a person without that person's consent. So the only question is: Was Sansa consenting? Well, she didn't do anything to stop it, but only because she knew she had no chance against the bastard. If he had asked her "Are you OK with this?", what do you think she would have replied. In my opinion we should follow the abundant list of sources and just keep it as "rape". --Rayukk (talk) 08:32, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't care enough to dispute the wording at Breaker of Chains, it's attributed to the reviewers, and the weight is fairly even between critics and those involved in the production. Headey and Coster-Waldau revisited the issue in interviews leading up to Season 5 covered here I'm not particularly interested in getting involved in that dispute again and am satisfied with that section as it is now (though if someone wants to take a closer look at the new interviews and see if there's stuff worth updating, go for it). Oh, and nothing I said above was a spoiler, the in-the-books comment I made is only current and past material, the redacted forum-y bit where I got carried away was not meant to imply that something will or won't happen (I honestly have no idea). I'm clarifying because I agonized over a similarly-provided fake spoiler before I read them. ― Padenton|✉   19:33, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

"...a well known and highly-praised source." Rayukk, the "highly-praised source" part gave me a chuckle. Thanks for the humor. Flyer22 (talk) 00:41, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm not going to involve much into the debate, but just to give my two cents: I think the debate about whether it should be called a rape or not is muddling the water and makes us lose sight of the main issue here. The current description of the scene is a bad one. The whole point of the Plot section is to explain what happened in the episode to a reader that has not watched, and I don't think that's achived now. The current versio "Afterwards, Ramsay takes her back to the castle where he proceeds to rape her and orders Reek to watch." is a poor depiction of what happened, and fails to convey the whole dinamic or describe the scene accurately. That should be specially important because of how much this scene is debated in the "Reception" section.--RR (talk) 11:33, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

RR, do you have any idea how to rephrase it? The plot should explain what happened, but not draw any premature conclusions from that. --Rayukk (talk) 15:01, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

In this case, solely describing the uninterpreted facts in enough detail for the reader to understand what was happening would be too graphic. I'm guessing that RR means there should be more detail. The problem with that is that it usually requires the Wikieditor to read into things at least a little ("Sansa boldly tells Myranda she's not afraid," etc.) Sometimes the most encyclopedic and concise ways to say things require drawing inferences, like "Sansa put Myranda in her place" or "Sansa told Myranda that she was neither easily frightened nor easily discarded." We're expressly allowed to summarize, but this walks a fine line. Usually, this isn't a big deal, but in a scene this controversial, I can see why people have been skittish about it.

I gave it a go, but someone else should go through it too. We'll triangulate our way to a good plot summary. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:19, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

The Critical reception section should not only be about the Sansa scene

This is overkill; that scene is not the only scene that critics focused on. It reminds be of how the Breaker of Chains's reception section became focused almost entirely on the Jaime and Cersei scene; but at least that article has reception material for other aspects of the episode...even though currently sparse. Flyer22 (talk) 00:45, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

I think some of the sources I used also talked about Arya's development a bit. The the ones that publish a review every week, like IGN and AV Club, would probably be a good place for whoever wants to start to start. Just roll over the links in the list of sources on this talk page and click on the ones that don't specifically mention Sansa in the URL.

That being said, I'd add that because most of the critical response to the episode did concern this scene, it wouldn't be inappropriate if most of the critical reception section did too. While the section probably could be pared down a bit, it also wouldn't be inappropriate for it to be bigger than usual since a lot more was written about it than usual. Most episodes don't have whole articles in written about just one scene, but this one did. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:20, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Trimmed down the existing text. Like I said in the edit summary, I chose the quotes I chose because they were 1) already available at the time and 2) well-suited to a small and growing critical response section. Darkfrog24 (talk) 05:51, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

What about the Dorne sections which, as I recall, were panned by pretty much every reviewer --190.157.50.38 (talk) 04:29, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

A quote or two about that would probably be a good addition. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:33, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Cathy Young of Reason magazine: Fringe view?

It's my opinion that the following quote by Cathy Young of Reason is a fringe view and should not be given equal time with other views.

"The contrast between the outrage on behalf of female victims and the blasé attitude toward violence (even sexual violence) toward males ironically replicates a quintessentially patriarchal trope: the assumption that women are fragile creatures who deserve special protection and greater sympathy if they are mistreated [...] Gender issues in popular culture are a valid topic of discussion, and feminist discourse can be a corrective to sexist cultural clichés; but when such discourse becomes one-sided and driven by knee-jerk outrage, it can turn into an ideological diktat that is bad for art and bad for gender fairness.[23]

Both the idea that the objection to the Sansa scene was knee-jerk and that getting more upset about sexual violence against women than against men supports the patriarchy or infantalizes women are far from mainstream and not supported elsewhere. Reason is an expressly political publication (it's Libertarian). There is other material from Ms. Young's review that can serve as a direct quote if one is needed. Darkfrog24 (talk) 11:18, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

I get where you're coming from, but I don't think WP:Fringe applies in this case for several reasons. First, the author's view as a whole is part of the much repeated criticism of the disparity of outrage at sexual assault depending on the plot relevance and gender of other characters. Second, the author's opinion does not appear to be getting upset about the rape of a female character infantilizes women in of itself. Rather that the disparity between reactions according to the gender of the character which is a victim of sexual assault represents a reflection of patriarchal values depicting women as more delicate and inherently more pure than their male counterparts. Third, the point itself is not the main view in of itself, but critical context of their two wider points regarding the differences in perceived outrage and as part of the broader feminist critique, neither of which are fringe points of interest. Fourthly, the wider point that the feminist critique could be construed to be on occasion somewhat reactionary rather than general discourse has been made by many critics since the series began.

I'm also not sure how the political position of 'Reason' factors in one way or another, given the article itself was in and written for Time magazine, not reason. -120.149.113.197 (talk) 11:27, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

While we can certainly say that Time endorsed this article by publishing it, the fact that Reason is political means that its content may be construed as meant to persuade rather than to report. We don't have to worry about that with, say, A.V. Club.

Easy fix, then: If this is "much-repeated criticism," then who is repeating it? When I wanted to say that the position that this was a rape scene is not fringe, I listed a large number of sources that thought so and their lack of opposition to this view. Who other than Reason thinks this (whether they're talking specifically about this scene or in general; both are relevant)? Darkfrog24 (talk) 11:41, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Wait, before going any further I'm confused. To my knowledge the article was written by and for Time as I said before. If Reason is a political magazine, as in a publication which expressly focuses and provides opinions on political issues, why would they address a popular culture television program? And if Young contributed the article outside of Reason directly for Time which I believe is the case, why would that be considered to be any more likely to persuade or constitute a hidden agenda than someone at A.V Club belonging to a political party in their own time?

-120.149.113.197 (talk) 11:48, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Secondly, as I stated before, the author's main view is part of the already established position regarding the incongruity and ostensibly arbitrary nature of electing this particular point as the juncture at which some people have elected to take offense, the apparent irony of the reflection of anti-feminist values was included only because without it, critical context for the remainder of the quotation was lost.

On a related note, I don't know why you changed "of both female and male characters is typical for Game of Thrones" to just "its characters". That seems like an important distinction of the author's point which could be potentially misconstrued with the second phrasing. -120.149.113.197 (talk) 12:01, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

EDIT CONFLICT: Most magazines do have sections on issues outside their main thrust. The political bent doesn't mean that a publication that's expressly about popular culture could never be inappropriate for use; it means we need to keep more of an eye on it.

I removed the "and male" because most of the criticism of sexual violence in GoT and actual use of sexual violence does concern female characters. I originally added "and male" because we had one quote in the paragraph about women and one about men. While the paragraph was at that time evenly balanced regarding men and women the overall criticism isn't. "It's characters" is less misleading without excluding men.

But that's beside the point. The core problem with including the quote is the idea that being more upset about violence against women than against men is pro-patriarchy/anti-feminist/knee-jerk/etc. If this isn't fringe, it should be easy to find more sources that maintain this idea. Even her assertion that the response to the Theon emasculation scene was blase isn't something I've seen elsewhere. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:05, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Once again, as I have said several times, the issue is your truncated paraphrasing completely lacked the relevant context the quote provides. Just saying cathy young noted etc etc. completely fails to captured the author's point. Her view is part of the already established thread of disparity of outcry of sexual assault dependent on the victim's gender and plot priority, but without mentioning the second half, the quote completely lacks context and fundamentally misrepresents the author's intention. Which I suspect may have been the point.

As for Theon, Radiotimes for one, "So people are up in arms about this scene, and yet so little fuss was made of...A man strapped to a wooden cross having his little finger bone pulled out and his cock chopped off..." & "So mass murder... torture and CASTRATION (Theon/Reek), but a scene that takes place OFF CAMERA is horrible enough to stop viewership?"

http://www.radiotimes.com/news/2015-05-21/most-game-of-thrones-viewers-say-controversial-sansa-rape-scene-did-not-go-too-far

-120.149.113.197 (talk) 12:31, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

This article does not say that objecting to the rape of Sansa more than to Theon's castration supports patriarchy or infantalizes women. You say the view is widely held. Where? Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:56, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

I am unsure how I can communicate this more clearly. Of course it does not. That article was meant to address your last point, in which you claimed you hadn't seen the response to Theon's eamsculation scene being treated as blase. Because I have stated multiple times, Young's view is part of the commentary on the ostensibly arbitrary nature of outcry to differing forms of violence in the program and the remark regarding the disparity seemingly re-enforcing notion of women as inherently in need of protection is part of the context of her contribution to that view, rather than a separate view in of itself.

-120.149.113.197 (talk) 01:45, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I see what you're doing now, so I'll be clearer myself. The part of what Young is saying that strikes me as show-that-it's-not-a-fringe-theory-before-including-it-in-the-article is the part where she says that getting more upset about female rape than about male rape (which occur at different frequencies, have different consequences in real life, and have historically been treated differently in works of fiction) supports the patriarchy. The assertion that no one got upset about Theon's mistreatment strikes me as an exaggeration, but not a remove-until-you-prove exaggeration. You'll notice I didn't remove that part of the Young reference from the article: [24]. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:00, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm glad we've cleared that up. But I still contend that without that completely fails to represent the author's due to the lack of critical context.

Also at the risk of seeming a stickler for procedure, isn't it customary to wait for the discussion on the talk page to be resolved and consensus reached before unilaterally editing the page while the discussion is still ongoing? -120.149.113.197 (talk) 03:10, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

If I'm right and this is a fringe view, and if you're right and the author's views are misrepresented if the fringe-view context is not included, then the author's views don't belong in the article at all. However, it's not rare for writers to express more than one view, even in the same article. Some of Young's views might be fringe and some might not.

If you mean my edits just now, you'll notice that they don't concern the Young text. No, the whole section didn't become off-limits when we started talking about this. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:28, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, you just unilaterally removed the entire quotation while the discussion was ongoing. If you'll pardon me saying so, this hardly seems in the spirit of trying to reach consensus through good faith discussion and indeed seems exactly the sort of thing likely to cause some manner of edit warring.

-120.149.113.197 (talk) 03:40, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Just now, I removed the Quora quote because it's from a user-generated site. Did you mean hours ago? Not to sound too playground, but you reinserted it while the discussion was ongoing. If it's unilateral for me to change it, then it's unilateral for you to change it, at least until someone else joins in and we're no longer having a two-person discussion.

The question you seem to be asking is, "While the discussion is ongoing, should the material remain in the article or stay out of it?" My take is that it should stay out until we can determine that it's not a fringe view. So let's get back to that: The idea that caring about female rape more than male rape is pro-patriarchy seems really off to me. This is the only place I've ever seen anyone say that. Can you show that it's not a fringe view? Can you show anyone else who thinks this? It's possible that I just don't come across the sorts of publications where this view would be common.

There's also another solution. If you think it's necessary to add a quote from Young's article, would any other quote do the job? Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:46, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Category:Rape in fiction?

Should this article be added to Category:Rape in fiction? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 02:15, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Other works that are only partially about rape are on there; it seems to fit the category. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:29, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Note for documentation on this talk page: It was added. Flyer22 (talk) 03:50, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

(Adder) yeah, I see no reason not to have it. Breaker of Chains has been in it since [25] with no contention. There are many other pages in the category that merely have rape as part of their story, it does not seem to require it be the main topic of the work. ― Padenton|✉   04:44, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Given how common rape is in fiction, it's surprising that the category is not even more crowded than it is; that makes me think some people have only used that category when rape is a main or substantial feature of the work. Then again, that category includes subcategories that help take away from overcrowding. Either way, given that this episode is a significant topic of discussion regarding rape, it can be argued that it has a substantial rape scene. Flyer22 (talk) 04:54, 25 May 2015 (UTC)