Talk:Winter Is Coming

On the wedding night
Just a century a go women didn't get to decide who they'd marry. They'd just marry whoever their parents told them, and in a very early age. For a woman to cry on the wedding night was perfectly natural. Calling it a rape decontextualises the event. The fact that it's an arranged marriage against Dany's will is already stated.--RR (talk) 23:15, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Daenery is raped, she is clearly not crying because she doesn't want to get married. Calling it rape places this scene is a realistic context, rather than decontextualizing it. --Nhudell (talk) 13:16, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * RR, when women were forced to have sex with their husbands, regardless of whether it was a century ago or 1000 years ago, it was rape. It still is rape.  Rape has a simple definition:  forced sex.  If the sex is forced, it is rape.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.1.42.125 (talk) 14:11, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Caling it rape in this context is unhelpful. It should not be phrased this way in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.187.78.169 (talk) 12:50, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for that comment. I would also add that this television episode is set in a fictional world. Does anyone support the changing back of the article to mention rape, or forced sex? --Nhudell (talk) 14:46, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Simply because it's fiction doesn't mean that murder is no longer murder, or that rape is no longer rape. What's next, we won't call it incest when Jaime and Cersei get it on?  Because it's a fantasy world?  Of course not.  And if you want to "historicize" rape, the idea of rape goes back at least as far as ancient Greece (lots of rape in their mythology) and ancient Rome (see the rape of Lucretia, part of the downfall of the Tarquin Dynasty and the genesis of the Roman Republic). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.25.37.85 (talk) 19:49, 30 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I have to say I'm disappointed with all the efforts to force the word "rape" into the description. The matter here is not whether the consumation is rape or it isn't. According to our Western morals of course it would be what we call marital rape. But using this term in this context is ambiguous, and therefore we should use a better desciption when possible.
 * If you really know about Greek or Roman history you'll agree that while they would also call incest Jaime and Cersei, they wouldn't call rape what Drogo does to Dany. Let's get some examples from the times GRRM drew his inspiration: Margaret Beaufort was twelve when she married 24-year old Edmund Tudor, and had Henry VII at thirteen. Edward III of England married Philippa of Hainault when she was fourteen, and one year later she was pregnant with the Black Prince. Edward's own mother had been sixteen when he was born. Eleanor of Aquitaine was 15 when married to the French king Louis the Younger. Thirteen year old Maria Luisa of Savoy wed Phillip V of Spain, with his firstborn concieved two years later and the marriage probably being consumated before. I could go on. Look at all those articles. You won't find any mention of rape, nor any of those men are called rapers, although we would all agree that all of those cases would be rapes (or marital rapes) according to our standard. But when discussing those peoples and those times the term is not useful at all. In fact, it's misleading.
 * Because in the world where this story happens not only Drogo isn't comitting any crime consumating the marriage, but also it is Dany's duty to make sure it happens. She doesn't want to, but she has to. And Dany is not going to suffer any kind of social stigma for having been raped. On the contrary, she would have been stigmatized and treated as a pariah if she hadn't.
 * I really can't see why we can't agree than a redaction such as "the marriage is consumated despite Dany's unwillingness and fear" describes better the situation than "Drogo rapes Dany". I'm explaining why the word "rape" is confusing in this context: it is not "rape" from the character's perspective, it's subjetive, it implies things that are not true. Now I'd like someone to explain me why the word "rape" is need.--RR (talk) 22:44, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * In addition to this, calling it "rape" is OR absent a source. If you want to find a review that describes what happened as rape, then by all means it's a viable description.  Until and unless there's an RS that uses that term, it's not our place to include it in the article. Jclemens (talk) 03:44, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

The use of history to call this rape or not rape is misspent energy. This is a fantasy world, it could be in the "future" or the "past" or wherever you want to put it. We populate that world with our own ideas from our actual world. Rape exists in our world, what Drogo did to Daenerys in the show is rape, thus we ought to call it rape. Otherwise, we could say that there's no such thing as murder, treason, incest, treachery, etc in Game of Thrones simply because it isn't our world. We could go to extreme lengths, and say that Jaime didn't try to murder Bran, that Jaime and Cersei aren't incestuous, that defying Robert's will isn't treason, etc etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.25.37.85 (talk) 19:48, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The debate is not about whether what happened was a rape or not. The point you should address if you support the change is why the article would improve by introducing the word "rape" in the writing. (btw, if you want to involve in the project and participate in discussions, I would encourage you to create an account).--RR (talk) 20:11, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The point of this exercise is to describe what happened in the show. Daenerys is raped, so we should write that.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.25.37.85 (talk) 19:51, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks RR, those are very good points, and I see your point of view. My thinking behind using the work rape, is that "unwillingness and fear" is not plain enough an potentially confusing. I would also note that the previous (and still published) wording is "obvious desire to not do so", could be very misleading. --Nhudell (talk) 11:15, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I also agree with you that we don't need to call Drogo "the rapist Drogo" :) --Nhudell (talk) 11:56, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Calling him "the rapist Drogo" is a bit out of the spirit of the show, even if technically correct. However, we can't simply "forget" that Daenerys was in fact raped by Drogo.  Sex without consent is rape, and this appears to be what happened after their wedding.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mlepori (talk • contribs) 15:12, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Please stop reintroducing "rape" to the text without even explaining youself in this discussion. If you want it changed, you should register in Wikipedia and expose your reasons here. If the majority sides with you, then you'll have it your way. At the end, we could even ask for an arbitration. But stop changing the text!--RR (talk) 15:03, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * (1) It has been explained several times in the discussion why the rape theme needs to be in the article. It seems you are willfully ignorant of this fact.  (2) You don't like the arguments for why the word 'rape' should be included, which is fine, but you have no right to tell people not to edit the page.

Hi RR, thank you for continuing the conversation. I have not changed the text since you undid my original edit to the article, and I do not want to enter into arbitration without first having a proper conversation about the correctness of the language. I still feel that the current article is inaccurate, and offensive to those (including myself) who see rape as an act of violence and not how it is phrased, as a consummation that is unwilling by one party. Let's discuss that, and not about the etiquette of an anonymous user. --Nhudell (talk) 16:22, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Nhudell, for engaging in the debate. I hope it isn't needed, but let me state beforehand that I also see rape as an act of violence and none of my edits aim to offend anyone but to improve the article. In fact, I'm surprised by you finding offensive one particular wording. If your statement is that every "sexual act with one unwilling participant" equals to "rape", then we would just be using a synonym here.
 * Perhaps the simplest argument to leave the word "rape" out of the article is the one Jclemens used upthread. It's unsourced, and the plot summaries from the reporters following the series do not include it. For instance, James Hibberd summarizes the event as "Drogo takes his new bride to a isolated spot, where Dany tearfully watches the sun set on her virginity. He claims his wife in what we're now realizing is the most popular sex position on this show (and has often been ranked in Cosmopolitan's annual survey as womens' favorite position -- so who says Westeros ain't progressive?)." If we go to the two major websites covering the production we got, from wic: "Back across the Narrow Sea and we get the wedding and then soon after the bedding. Another change here, as Dany does NOT enjoy her first time. This change stands to be a bit more problematic as it has been noted that Danys sudden change in attitude towards Drogo later seems less motivated out of love and more of a case of Stockholm Syndrome.", and from westeros.org "Daenerys is less than willing, but years of abuse and domineering from her brother leaves her frightened and unwilling to assert herself."
 * Summarizing my view: calling it "rape" is misleading, since many authomatic assumptions regarding rape do not take place here. If we named it rape, to avoid giving the reader a wrong impression we should add many qualifiers to the word (there was no pysical violence, it was lawful within the setting, Dany submitted, there was no social stigma attached, etc).The word is just not useful in this context, and disturbs more than helps to a better comprehension. That's why the word is not used by reviewers when describing the plot. And that's why I think we shouldn't use it here.--RR (talk) 18:14, 10 June 2011 (UTC).


 * What does it matter what other websites say about the show, they are no authorities over us. We watched the show, didn't we?  We can describe what happened, can't we, without resorting to the words of other people?  I can, in fact, find several websites mentioning the rape of Daenerys.  Does that make it more convincing to you?  And yes, every unwilling participant in a sexual act is raped.  Point blank, that is what the word means.  That is why it should be in the description of events of the show. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.25.37.72 (talk • contribs)


 * I watched the show, they don't even show them having sex in this episode, calling it rape is nonsense.  X  eworlebi (talk) 15:03, 11 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I think you're being willfully ignorant. It's strongly suggested that they have sex, and it is clear from the need of Drogo to force Daenerys into "position" that this sex was unwanted by Daenerys.Mlepori (talk) 15:18, 11 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Saying they have sex is inaccurate because they don't in this episode. Saying what's insinuated is even worse, that's blatant WP:POV, only report what you see in the episode, what you think happens after the scene changes has no place here.  X  eworlebi (talk) 15:26, 11 June 2011 (UTC)


 * If we only should report what we can physically see occur, then all mention of the "consummation" of the Drogo-Daenerys wedding should be removed. We don't see said "consummation" - the (forced) sex - thus according to your logic we should edit this out.  Fair?  We could instead write somethinng along the lines that Drogo removes Daenerys' clothing, pushes her to the ground, and the scene cuts. Mlepori (talk) 18:19, 11 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Yah, that sounds good, maybe add that she's crying during the scene.  X  eworlebi (talk) 18:59, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

It's seems to me describing drogo a rapist would be a bit like describing plato as a pedophile. Technically acurate but misleading 82.40.4.248 (talk) 00:40, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Inquiry for Administrative Staff
Gday. I see this article has now been semi-protected due to edit warring, despite there being confirmed users involved. This would thus suggest that the administrative team class the edits towards the version of rape being vandalism, as only those contributors are being stopped. Could this be stated clearly? If they are not vandalism and this is actually a content dispute, then surely it should be full protection. Making this clear here would help resolve discussions and establish consensus. --81.98.49.11 (talk) 07:42, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed, it seems as if they administrators are treating this as vandalism rather than a content dispute, siding wholly on the side of the one individual (RR) member who is a confirmed user. The arguments here in discussion is being ignored and RR's version is being preserved either because (a) it came first or (b) he is a confirmed user.  The case should be judged on its merits rather than chronology or hierarchy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.25.37.72 (talk • contribs)
 * For the record, the current version is not mine. Not only was proposed by another user, but I don't particularly like it (although I can live with it). I find the word "obvious" out of place, and I would like to add "submits" and "fear" somewhere in the phrasing. When I have reverted the anonymous users edits I was doing it not because I supported the current version, but because you can't change polemic statements that are being discussed in the talk page before an agreement has been reached.--RR (talk) 23:36, 12 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Since the registered users were discussing the matter on the talk page and the IP's were reverting like there was no tomorrow a semi-protect seems perfectly appropriate. I actually requested full protection earlier when the registered users were involved.  X  eworlebi (talk) 15:03, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * And I've just requested full protection as a no-discussion-needed registered user joined the revert party.  X  eworlebi (talk) 15:08, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe you're referring to me User:Mlepori. Why is full protection necessary because registered users are involved in the dispute, vs. non-registered members?  —Preceding undated comment added 15:15, 11 June 2011 (UTC).
 * Because it's the only way to stop you and all other involved parties from reverting as you just have done. The IP's were stopped by the semi, the registered users just continued, which is just as unhelpful. Everyone just stop reverting.  X  eworlebi (talk) 15:26, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Sigh, yes, if edit warring then continues by confirmed accounts, the semi protection was insufficient. I have upgraded it to full protected, and restored the version as it was when it was first protected for due to edit warring (WP:WRONGVERSION). This is not an endorsement of either version. In my capacity as an editor, I can see merit in both ways this was worded. I believe there are many sources out there discussing this very scene. I would suggest to try and find a consensus version based on the interpretation of the scene in reliable sources, or to word it in a way that isn't running afoul of today's customs and values, which seems to be the heart of the dispute here. If protection runs out before this is settled, I must remind everyone to still work on this collaboratively, further edit warring would likely be prevented by blocks. Amalthea  18:00, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You do understand that by locking it as-is you are effectively promoting the current version? Mlepori (talk) 18:16, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Omission Correction
Under the Production heading in the Writing section, one of the chapters has been left out of the paranthetical list. Arya I should be listed as one of the chapters covered by the episode. It was covered at least in part (the stitching scene). -LWynten — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lwynten (talk • contribs) 15:10, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You're right that the text was incorrect. Arya I, however, belongs to episode 2 since the stichin scene seen in the episode is not the one from the books (Myrcella's not there). I've fixed the text to solve this and agree with the referenced source.--RR (talk) 18:11, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Amazing Main Image Caption
I really need to comment on brilliant caption under the main image for this article: "Lord Eddard Stark of Winterfell (Sean Bean), as he is about to behead a deserter." Brilliant, I really love this punchy caption.

Jargon
This doesn't seem very encyclopedic. The article makes use of jargon such as "wildlings," without any attempt to explain the meaning. It shouldn't be written just so that fans of the show/book will understand what is being described in the plot details. To me it looks like:

"The episode opens with three (fantasy type characters) of (some fantasy group) scouting beyond (some place), following the track of a group of (random fantasy word)s..."

Removal of Westeros.org has been contested: See Oathkeeper
The deletion of Westeros.org and the content it supports from this and other articles has been contested here. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:29, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Is Westeros.org an expert SPS?
There is an RfC at Oathkeeper regarding whether the site Westeros.org meets the criteria for an expert self-published source (and is therefore suitable for use on Wikipedia). It is being cited as a source for the statement "This episode was based on [specific chapters of] [specific book]." This article is likely to be affected by the outcome. Participation is welcome. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:32, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Should the article state which chapters appear in the episode?
The RfC on Westeros.org was closed with the result that the value of the disputed text should be handled separately. This RfC is meant to determine whether Game of Thrones episode articles should have a statement like "This episode was based on [specific chapters] of [specific book]" in the body text. (This article has one.) The outcome of this RfC is likely to affect all Game of Thrones episode articles. Participation is greatly appreciated. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:19, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Winter Is Coming. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://grrm.livejournal.com/146855.html?thread=9648551
 * Added tag to http://grrm.livejournal.com/2008/06/13/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091228004541/http://grrm.livejournal.com/115821.html to http://grrm.livejournal.com/115821.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110721220540/http://grrm.livejournal.com/118848.html to http://grrm.livejournal.com/118848.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111017095411/http://grrm.livejournal.com/211736.html to http://grrm.livejournal.com/211736.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:51, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Winter Is Coming. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20130104071957/http://arts.nationalpost.com/2011/04/14/game-of-thrones-is-behead-of-the-class/ to http://arts.nationalpost.com/2011/04/14/game-of-thrones-is-behead-of-the-class/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:25, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

For hindi edission
I want to like hindi edission for all seasons of game of thrones. Lakshit1203 (talk) 14:59, 22 November 2018 (UTC)