Talk:Baby William

Conception

I was under the impression that her implant had impregnated her. 65.93.150.125

it is speculated that her implant allowed her to become pregnant, but never confirmed. In the Season 7 DVD commentary, they confirmed that she and Mulder started sleeping together, and S8 flashback episodes prove she went through IVF. Either way, she was actively *trying* to become pregnant, so it wasn't just spontaneous. Marikology 19:34, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

It is also speculated but never confirmed that Mulder was the father of this baby. It was directly stated by one character, however, that the implant made her pregnant. In any case, if neither scenario has been confirmed, neither should be stated definitively in the article. --James26 (talk) 15:36, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

It was never stated that the implant made her pregnant. It has, however, been stated by director Kim Manners that the baby is called William Mulder (on the DVD commentary track for the episode "Existence"); executive producer Frank Spotnitz discusses whether Mulder is the father or just being a good friend on the DVD commentary track for "Alone", and states that in the end we did find out it was "something more". Mulder refers to William as "my son" in "The Truth"; Scully as "our son" when talking to him. Frank Spotnitz has this to say on his blog:

As usual on "The X-Files," the answer is purposefully cloaked in ambiguity. We intended for the audience to be uncertain (and continue to harbor doubts) about how William came to be. But for me, the 8th season finale, "Existence," suggests that Mulder and Scully, at least, believe the baby was conceived by them. Both because Scully chooses to name him William (after Mulder's father) and because when Scully raises the question of his conception, Mulder says, "I think what we feared were the possibilities. The truth, we both knew."

Whether you think that Mulder is the biological father of William or not, I think it's safe to say that the characters consider him the father, and the baby's name is given, on the "Existence" DVD commentary, as William Mulder. Now I'm curious as to which character states that Scully was impregnanted by the chip and when? 213.114.176.232 (talk) 00:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to discuss this.

Regarding the claim that comments were made on a DVD commentary, we need to refer to this link: Wikipedia:Citing sources. Simply claiming that someone said something doesn't equal verification.

The answer to whether or not the baby is both agents' son is, by the creator's own admission in the blog, "cloaked in ambiguity," meaning that nothing has been verified one way or another. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. It's a Wikipedia policy, meaning that it's not appropriate to state something conclusively in an article without proof.

On the other hand, if you want to say that both agents "consider" him their son, that's one thing; if you want to say that he is their son, that's against policy unless there's a verifiable source that proves it, rather than suggesting it. Also, these claims of "perhaps" (as in "Perhaps Mulder gave his power to his son") are also speculative and inappropriate for inclusion. Thanks. --James26 (talk) 10:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

In the panel at New York Comic Con 2008 Frank Spotnitz flat out said that Mulder was the father of Baby William.

Read the above links that flat-out mention the verification policies.--207.69.139.144 (talk) 04:52, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I've tried to gather all the evidence surrounding William's conception and put it here - [1] 84.66.24.141 (talk) 13:36, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Policy

All right I'm going to say it again: According to policy, encyclopedic content must be verifiable. The only thing that's been verified is that the child is Scully's son. There is no verification offered here that the child is Mulder's. Therefore, editors who continually assert the latter within the article are violating policy. Please note that speculation and conjecture are not the same as verification. Even if both Mulder and Scully consider him Mulder's son, it's still misleading for the encyclopedia to state that he is Mulder's son.

I can tell that some people harbor an affection for this concept, but policy is policy -- meaning this isn't the site to express said affection. Thanks. --James26 (talk) 00:15, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

If both Mulder and Scully consider William to be Mulder's son, it technically does make him Mulder's son as one definition of the word "son" is "A man considered as if in a relationship of child to parent" so, regardless of whether the term is "misleading" or not, it is nevertheless accurate, for this precise reason. --84.64.103.67 (talk) 12:36, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Your use of "technically" is an assertion of personal opinion, and this isn't the place for that. As stated, if the characters consider him their son, it can be said that they consider him such, not that he is. "Regardless of whether the term is misleading"? No, we don't disregard what's misleading on this site. --James26 (talk) 09:30, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

But it is an opinion what is misleading, since not all people will be misled by the same things - use of words, in this case - and not always to the same degree, if they are misled! This is why I said "regardless of whether the term is misleading or not", yet this sentence has been quoted out of original context! My use of the word "technically" is not an assertion of personal opinion, but a remark to those who are misunderstanding the term "father" (I used "technically" in the same way that one might use "actually" or "really"). I still strongly believe that the use of the words "father" and/or "son", regarding Mulder & William's relationship, should not be discarded, as those terms are accurate for what they describe; my description of the word "son" as additionally meaning "A man considered as if in a relationship of child to parent" is an actual dictionary definition, not an opinion! --84.69.22.61 (talk) 19:21, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Without the use of "surrogate," "supposed," etc, the immediate connotation behind the bare terms "father and son" in an article is that there is a biological relationship. That is not verified and therefore it is not an acceptable statement here according to policy. As I've already mentioned, the terms have been included when complemented, as opposed to in bare form, so there's little point in complaining about it and getting angry. Just let it go and move on; there are far more worthwhile things. -- James26 (talk) 04:27, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I have no qualms about "supposed father", etc. being used. I was arguing (without getting "angry", at any point) against the outright exclusion of terms like "father", as they're still appropriate. Complementing those by stating "supposed"/"suggested" or something along those lines is better than the familial terms alone, as doing so informs the reader more about the characters' actual relationship and adds more detail to the description. I therefore agree that this is a very good solution, but would still not be open to the complete exclusion of "father"/"son" and am pleased that this is not what you are now suggesting. Sorry for any misunderstanding of your motives previous, on my part. --81.79.225.225 (talk) 12:02, 7 July 2009 (UTC)