Jump to content
Onion Knight

The ASOIAF wiki thread

Recommended Posts

I was working on some of the calendar dates given in the Princess and the Queen (for once, we actually get internal dating within a year):

http://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Maiden's_Day
 

Someone probably asked before, but I'm confused:

Caraxes fought Vhagar above Gods Eye on "the twenty-second day of the fifth moon of 130 AC".

...and Rhaenyra died "on the twenty-second day of the tenth moon of 130 AC"

 

...meaning that a full five months passed between the Battle Above the Gods Eye, and Rhaenyra's death on Dragonstone?

  • Second Tumbleton happens, two bastard-born dragonriders betray Rhaenyra.
  • While the Green army dithers about at Tumbleton divided on how to proceed, Rhaenyra grows distrustful of bastards and tries to arrest the other dragonseeds - but Addam Velaryon escapes King's Landing on his dragon, causing her to arrest Coryls Velaryon, causing the Velaryon fleet to abandon the city, leading to panic and the eventual storming of the Dragonpit and riots that oust Rhaenyra from the city.
  • Around the same time Rhaenyra tried to arrest Addam Velaryon, she sent a letter to Maidenpool demanding Nettles's head, which makes even Daemon abandon her, instead seeking death fighting Aemond on Vhagar.  It took some time for the letter to reach Maidenpool, and Daemon waited at Harrenhal for two weeks before Aemond arrived.
  • Rhaenyra flees King's Landing due to riots, goes overland - albeit slowly - from KL to Rosby to Stokeworth to Duskendale, then takes a ship to Dragonstone. 

I don't see how that adds up to five months of time.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From raid on saltpans page : Rorge had his tongue ripped out when he refused to break his vow of silence, declaring that Clement had apparently no need of it anyway. Yet Clement page says: One of the attackers cut Clement's tongue out, saying he no longer needed it if he had taken a vow of silence. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Based on this question:

9 hours ago, Kandrax said:

I will ask again how can a theory earn its own page on Wiki?

 

What is the policy on placing theories on the wiki?

We have several of them, but I haven't been able to find a list of criteria a theory has to fulfil before it can get its own page. I've only found reasons for a theory to be removed.

That a theory has to have evidence to support the arguments seems cleae, but is what else?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Rhaenys_Targaryen said:

Based on this question:

 

What is the policy on placing theories on the wiki?

We have several of them, but I haven't been able to find a list of criteria a theory has to fulfil before it can get its own page. I've only found reasons for a theory to be removed.

That a theory has to have evidence to support the arguments seems cleae, but is what else?

It is not my theory and there is error that must be fixed below.

From raid on saltpans page : Rorge had his tongue ripped out when he refused to break his vow of silence, declaring that Clement had apparently no need of it anyway. Yet Clement page says: One of the attackers cut Clement's tongue out, saying he no longer needed it if he had taken a vow of silence. 

Edited by Kandrax

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Kandrax said:

From raid on saltpans page : Rorge had his tongue ripped out when he refused to break his vow of silence, declaring that Clement had apparently no need of it anyway. Yet Clement page says: One of the attackers cut Clement's tongue out, saying he no longer needed it if he had taken a vow of silence. 

Fixed it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Rhaenys_Targaryen said:

Fixed it!

I meant this: One of the attackers from his page vs Rorge from Raid on saltpans page.  ps: what about theory?

Edited by Kandrax

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding the customs page, my personal preference for the title of the section currently titled "entertainment"  would be "pastimes", a term used both in the RPG guides and on the Citadel, as it creates more consistency. Are there any opinions on the title of the subsection?

 

3 hours ago, Kandrax said:

I meant this: One of the attackers from his page vs Rorge from Raid on saltpans page.  ps: what about theory?

Rorge was one of the attackers, so there is no real incorrection there. But I've changed it to "Rorge" on the page of Clement, as it gives more detail.

No one has replied about the theory page yet. :) When they do, it will likely be on this thread.

Edited by Rhaenys_Targaryen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Rhaenys_Targaryen said:

Regarding the customs page, my personal preference for the title of the section currently titled "entertainment"  would be "pastimes", a term used both in the RPG guides and on the Citadel, as it creates more consistency. Are there any opinions on the title of the subsection?

 

Rorge was one of the attackers, so there is no real incorrection there. But I've changed it to "Rorge" on the page of Clement, as it gives more detail.

No one has replied about the theory page yet. :) When they do, it will likely be on this thread.

Oh...that's the term the RPG's and the Citadel use?

It just sounds archaic to my ear (merely personally).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Rhaenys_Targaryen said:

Regarding the customs page, my personal preference for the title of the section currently titled "entertainment"  would be "pastimes", a term used both in the RPG guides and on the Citadel, as it creates more consistency. Are there any opinions on the title of the subsection?

 

Rorge was one of the attackers, so there is no real incorrection there. But I've changed it to "Rorge" on the page of Clement, as it gives more detail.

No one has replied about the theory page yet. :) When they do, it will likely be on this thread.

Well, judging from Narbert's words it seems that unknown attacker mutilated Clement, though one could say that his words were ambigious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, The Dragon Demands said:

This talk of theory pages reminded me of something, so I just wrote up a theory page for "The Harpy" - the secret leader of the Sons of the Harpy:

http://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/The_Harpy/Theories

It's just a rough draft.  To get the ball rolling.

 

You didn t mention one of the most obvious suspects. The senescal.

So far he is the most likely candidate for the perfumed senescal in quaithe's warning, he is very pro hizdraq and is also pro killing the dragons. In adition he has the means to get the poisoned food to danny...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, The Dragon Demands said:

Oh...that's the term the RPG's and the Citadel use?

It just sounds archaic to my ear (merely personally).

Yes, that's where I got the term from :)

Also, the definitions given for pastime (something that amuses and serves to make time pass agreeablyan activity that is done for enjoymentsomething that serves to make time pass agreeably; a pleasant means of amusement, recreation, or sportAn activity that someone does regularly for enjoyment rather than work; a hobby) emphasize the fact that they are activities, while imo the term entertainment suggests more performances and such (which is only part of the activities listed).

 

2 hours ago, The Dragon Demands said:

I spent the last evening tinkering together a navigation template for "Organization" pages:

http://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Template:Organizations_navbox

Thoughts on this, before full implementation?

 

In my opinion, this template would be better when split into multiple smaller templates, because the groups are so very diverse. Group 1 (Political factions & alliances), Group 2 (Knightly orders), and Group 8 (Sellsword companies) would do well as separate templates, while Group 3 would do best separated into two templates (Order of the Maesters, and Night's Watch) in which not only the organizations structure, but also the location(s) are listed.

Group 5 (Religious) might be a separate template, but the contents currently do not allow that I think. The Dosh khaleen are no priests nor anything religious, and although it could be limited to priests only (Red priests, bearded priests, septons, septa's, (possibly sparrows), and drowned men) - Though do not forget that the term "drowned men" has thusfar only been used to refer to the acolytes of Aeron Greyjoy, not to any other priests of the Drowned God.

I'd personally sooner suggest creating a template similar to this one of the Faith for R'hllor and any other religion that allows it. Creates more consistency.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Ran,

Any opinion on a policy regarding the presence (or absence) of theories on the wiki? There's a policy on when a theory can be removed, but we have no requirements a theory has to meet before one might consider writing a page for it on the wiki. Any thoughts on those minimal requirements?

 

4 hours ago, The Dragon Demands said:

This talk of theory pages reminded me of something, so I just wrote up a theory page for "The Harpy" - the secret leader of the Sons of the Harpy:

http://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/The_Harpy/Theories

It's just a rough draft.  To get the ball rolling.

 

First thing I notice: there are no references whatsoever! Those should be added, because literary support should be the foundation of a theory.

General style: try to consistently use the writing styles used on wikipedia's. Not "don't", but "do not", etc. Also, "the Shavepates [...]" should be "the shavepates". The word is only capitalized when referring to Skahaz mo Kandaq, who is the Shavepate. And bullet points are unnecessary in the introduction paragraphs, as you're not listing anything.

Perhaps it would be an idea to separate the candidates to those present in Meereen (all subheadings except for Xaro and "external characters [..]"), and those not present in Meereen, and underneath those headings divide the candidates in supporters of Daenerys (slaver families supporting Daenerys, Shavepates, and Freedmen) and those not supporting Daenerys (slaver families oppossed to Daenerys). The Sons of the Harpy are Meereenese nobles, so the first criteria of the theory should be, imo, whether the proposed candidate can be an answer to the question "who would Meereenese nobles be willing to take orders from?". Other Meereenese nobles could potentially fit the bill, but Xaro or anyone else outside of Meereen possibly do not (so this could be a counter-argument), and shavepates (the enemies of the Sons), and freedmen (former slaves) seem absolutely unlikely to fit that criteria.

Regarding contents, my biggest concern is the current lack of arguments. Most of the text is speculative, and have no evidence given to suport it. (in more detail below).

I know that theories are quite  subjective (writing down the information from the books is not, the interpretation of the information is), but I would vote to avoid writing things like "The most obvious candidate", "the likely suspects", and "It honestly seems".  You are writing on a wiki, after all, and I guess that the page should reflect the arguments and solutions readers all together have concluded or suggested, thereby not giving preference to one or another outcome (that should be done by the reader personally), or trying to influence one's opinion (by using such wording).

Further, statements like "[...] from a dramatic standpoint, Martin making one of them the Harpy may be too obvious." are not arguments, imo.

The counter-argument that Hizdahr cannot have been the Harpy because Barristan was able to capture him is also thin, imo. Possibly rephrasing would make it a bit more firm. (E.g., that one might expect the leader of the Harpy's Sons to be heavily guarded by the Sons of the Harpy and their people, while Hizdahr's guard existed out of several former pitfighters which were reasonably easily defeated by Barristan Selmy and the Brazen Beasts). Also, the fact that the actions of the Harpy's Sons continue without Hizdahr is not a counter argument even if Hizdahr is indeed the Harpy. A faction can continue the fight without their leader (e.g., Rhaenyra's supporters fought on for more than half a year after Rhaenyra's death).

The section of Daenerys's supporters who might be the Harpy states that

Some members of the slave-master class might have simply been feigning allegiance to Daenerys, while intending to stab her in the back when she let her guard down.

  • Several characters suspect that Hizdahr zo Loraq, while openly working with and agreeing to marry Daenerys, may secretly be the leader of the Sons of the Harpy.

  • Galazza Galare, head priestess of the entire city, is overtly one of Daenerys's closest allies and one of the biggest voices calling for peace and stability under her new regime.

I would suggest rewording it to something like "several members of the slaver families who have shown support to Daenerys have been suggested as the Harpy, in the believe that they intend to stab her in the back and restore the old ways of Meereen. Among those suggested are [mention names]." Then use bullet points arguing why the characters (two in this case) might be the Harpy. Because the text currently behind the names does not give any arguments.

Also, the theory policy as it currently exists states that a theory can be removed if it is purely speculative. An example is the section under "Freedmen", imo.

Similar to the Shavepates, one of the former slaves in Meereen may be the secret leader of the Sons of the Harpy: tricking them into rebelling against Daenerys, in order to manipulate her into wiping out allof the former slave-master class, the major families and shavepates alike.

All of the text in that section is speculation. There is no textual support given here. So based on the policy as it currently exists, this entire section should be removed. (similar to the shavepate section as it currently is presented). 

The Shavepates are members of the slave-master class in Meereen who overtly proclaim their allegiance to Daenerys's regime by shaving their heads, as exotic hairstyles used to be a status symbol of the slave-owners. Understandably, while most of them were technically free citizens before Daenerys, they were the poorest and least powerful - minor slave-master families from the lower aristocracy, or simply free merchants and the like. Thus, they stand to gain from the downfall of the more powerful upper strata of the aristocracy.

While the Shavepates seemingly benefit from Daenerys's rule at first, she actually doesn't want to completely eradicate the population of former slave-masters (about a quarter of the city's people), and eventually tries to settle for a negotiated peace with the other slaver-cities of the region such as Yunkai. One of the Shavepates may be dissatisfied with this state of affairs, and secretly duped members of the slave-owning class to launch an insurgency against Daenerys, to trick her into executing all of the old and powerful slaver families (such as the House of Pahl) and then going to war with Yunkai.

 

Unless there is a quote in the text specifically stating the first bolded part, remove this (as the absence of such a statement makes this speculation). And they were not "technically free citizens", they were free citizens (all of them, as far as the text suggests if I'm not mistaken). The second bolded part most definitly is speculation, and should be removed.

Additionally, the person suggested most frequently is Skahaz, so a mention of his name should not be ommitted (especially since he is the leader of the shavepates, and it thus would be illogical if another shavepate was the Harpy). Also, in line of arguing that the shavepates may want to rid themselves of the powerful slaver families who have not "accepted a new Meereen", Skahaz is an important factor. Arguments for him can be the fact that he attempts to convince Daenerys that the slaver families are her enemies, the fact that he wishes to execute the hostages, his hatred for Hizdahr (if I'm recalling it correctly) and his disdain for the House of Pahl. 

Since we have no further information on the state of mind of the other shavepates, the suggestion of any of them being the harpy has no support (at the moment).

Under Xaro, the sentence used as introduction for the section ("Xaro Xhoan Daxos may have used his considerable wealth and influence to fund the Sons of the Harpy, in order to make Daenerys's rule so weak that she would marry him in return for his aid.") only gives a reason why Xaro would support the Sons of the Harpy. But (financially) supporting them does not make him the leader, so unless a reason is given as to why Xaro would be the leader of the Meereenese nobles, the entire section is superfluous and should be removed.

Within the section, there are several things as well. "Daenerys's hold on power was still strong enough that she felt she could refuse Xaro, but still successfully negotiate a truce with the large slaver-alliance arrayed against her." Sounds off, imo. Nothing in this sentence gives a reason as to why Xaro cannot be the Harpy. Additionally, Daenerys did not feel she could refuse Xaro, she refused him (fact), which resulted into war. The "but still" implies that she was able to do the second part in spite of the first part, yet they do not hold a connection with one another. Xaro was not involved in the truce Daenerys negotiated. Also, it omits the important fact that the Harpy's Sons were already opposing Daenerys before Xaro ever left Qarth. 

The last section states "Several characters who have nothing to do with local politics in Meereen may have launched the insurgency purely to delay her return to Westeros. So long as her hold on Meereen is shaky, she would never abandon her followers there. Specifically, Illyrio Mopatis and/or Varys." which should be rewritten a bit. For example (bold rewritten, strikethrough original text which has been removed): "The Harpy could possibly a character Several characters who havehas nothing to do with local politics in Meereen, but who hopes may have launched the insurgency purely to delay her Daenerys in returning to Westeros, knowing that  So long as her hold on Meereen is shaky, she would never abandon her followers theresupporters in Meereen as long as their fates are uncertain. Specifically suggested candidates are Illyrio Mopatis and/or Varys." Fuller sentences read a lot better.

Under counter-arguments (without changing the message):

  • The Sons of the Harpy start their opposition almost immediately after Daenerys begins her rule over Meereen. However, as far as the reader is shown, It honestly seems that Illyrio (and thus likely also Varys) believed that Daenerys would travel towards Westeros after taking Meereen, going as far as sending Jon Connington, Prince Aegon Targaryen, and their entourage to meet up with 's plan was for Daenerys at Volantis, the one city she could not avoid visiting when going west. to link up with Aegon VI in Volantis to invade Westeros.  News that Daenerys remaining remains in Meereen becomes known only after Connington and his entourage reach Volon Therys, long after the Sons have already begun their campaign. actually seems to have upset their plans considerably.

The second counter-argument I'm not sure how to handle. 

  • It is dubious if even Illyrio and Varys have the political reach to launch and coordinate a clandestine insurgency against Daenerys, without anyone noticing.

The third argument is superfluous. The counter arguments should demonstrate why they cannot be the Harpy, and this is not demonstrating that. 

  • It is possible that they provided some aid to whoever is leading the Sons of the Harpy, but even then, they can't be the direct leader in the city itself, when they are seen operating along the Narrow Sea around the same time. In which case the question remains of whoever their middle-man is directly leading the insurgency in the city.

 

Edited by Rhaenys_Targaryen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm all for theories on the wiki, but your points are good. References needed. I think it's harder to say when a theory merits inclusion, beyond perhaps citing examples of discussions among fans that show significant interest or belief in a theory, or perhaps citing GRRM indicating there's something to something (this is a very high bar) or perhaps better yet finding a reference to a theory in reputable media (there's a number of critics who are familiar with the novels and have referenced them alongside their TV show reviews).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Kandrax said:

Well, judging from Narbert's words it seems that unknown attacker mutilated Clement, though one could say that his words were ambigious.

Wil check later today!

Will also witte a page for the theory you linked today or tomorrow.

 

29 minutes ago, Ran said:

I'm all for theories on the wiki, but your points are good. References needed. I think it's harder to say when a theory merits inclusion, beyond perhaps citing examples of discussions among fans that show significant interest or belief in a theory, or perhaps citing GRRM indicating there's something to something (this is a very high bar) or perhaps better yet finding a reference to a theory in reputable media (there's a number of critics who are familiar with the novels and have referenced them alongside their TV show reviews).

BryndenBFish did a poll a while back about the beliefs of the fandom regarding multiple theories. Citing the outcomes of that poll to show the popularity of a theory might be an idea?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Rhaenys_Targaryen said:

Wil check later today!

Will also witte a page for the theory you linked today or tomorrow.

 

BryndenBFish did a poll a while back about the beliefs of the fandom regarding multiple theories. Citing the outcomes of that poll to show the popularity of a theory might be an idea?

Where is  that poll?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×