Talk:The Iron Throne (Game of Thrones)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Let's try to keep this article balanced

Obviously the show is going to be divisive because of it's widespread & cultural appeal, and because of strong fan reactions to a major character's story arc last week. I sat up and read about 20 reviews last night, and I am going to try and read more of the sources here when I have time. Several of the ones posted here by "Starship.paint" on May 20, were not actual 'reviews,' but were early 'recaps' and 'blog-style debates,' where random negative quotes appeared to be "cherry picked." The more positive quotes from actual reviews appeared to be glossed over. So, I replaced some recaps / blog-debates with the actual reviews (The New York Times, for example), and added quotes from more reputable sources. Also, the often criticized Rotten Tomatoes (now owned by Warner Brothers), that is frequently, too easily sourced here by less experienced editors, should not be used as a 'singular source' for citing and balancing critical receptions. SportsEdits1 (talk) 02:26, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Restored reviews from Chicago Sun Times, New York Times, TV Guide, A.V. Club. SportsEdits1 (talk) 03:04, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

SportsEdits1 - please add a source when you restore your AV Club review. starship.paint (talk) 07:21, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

While "bittersweet" is a finely balanced word in itself and lots of people are saying it (because lots of people are saying it), I don't think it helps anything here to repeat it four times. I suggest we choose one critic to state the obvious. I don't have a preference, but will probably delete the three that aren't first before anyone who cares picks one (don't worry, there are tons of suitable candidates left in the wild). InedibleHulk (talk) 03:08, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

I just deleted a summary of a review that was based around an arbitrary snippet from the headline. Literally the only part of the article the reviewer didn't write, and the only part we explictly attributed to her. It should go without saying, but be mindful of that. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:33, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

To be fair, maybe she did write it somewhere beyond the two paragraphs people can read without a subscription. Not that these kinds of source are illegal or anything, but given the heaps and heaps of freely-readable stuff on this topic, there's really no urgent need for them. Stick to what's verifiable, especially when others might wonder if the "cherry-picked" words originally meant what the editor used them to say. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:39, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Before my edit of today, we have 9 reviews: Chicago Sun-Times (+), The Guardian (+), Rolling Stone (+), The Washington Post (+), The New York Times (James Poniewozik is not rated), IGN (+), The A.V. Club (+), Newsday (-), USA Today (-). Rotten Tomatoes rated 6/8 of them as positive, and 1 was not rated. Since the approval rating by critics was around 50%, the balance is extremely off here. Clearly, more negative reviews need to be added. Also, aparat from the Guardian, all the rest of the reviews are from American sources. We need more global views. starship.paint (talk) 05:48, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Here's what we can do. Remove IGN and The New York Times' James Poniewozik for not being top critics on RT. Change the Washington Post's positive review to a negative one by Alyssa Rosenberg (top critic). Add top critic global reviews, both positive, from Australia's The Age and UK's BBC. Add more negative top critic reviews for balance: Canada's Globe and Mail, America's The Atlantic and Detroit Free Press. starship.paint (talk) 06:12, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Result: 6 positive top critics - Chicago Sun-Times, Rolling Stone, The A.V. Club (USA), The Age (Australia), BBC, The Guardian (UK). 6 negative top critics: Newsday, USA Today, Atlantic, Washington Post, Detroit Free Press (USA), Globe and Mail (Canada). starship.paint (talk) 06:14, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

If the "positive" reviews praise more things than the "negative", they should get more space and citations simply for having more to tell us. And vice versa. Be careful not to just add six variations of "the writing felt rushed" or "Peter Dinklage was superb" when one would say as much. There's more to writing than numbers, believe it or not. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:16, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

We'll see when I add them. starship.paint (talk) 06:36, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't know what that means, but it sounds cool and I look forward to finding out. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:49, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

SP, it's nothing personal, but I am just going by what you posted on May 20.[1]. Some of these were recaps, and not official reviews, and you seemed to only pick out negative language, and barely picked out any wordings at all from any of the more reputable reviewers, top critics, or any positive reviews. It seems like you have a bias here WP:BIAS? You are also relying too heavily on Rotten Tomatoes (NBCUniversal, Warner Bros.) for an encyclopedia, which often misrates reviews (ex. Myles McNutt's (A.V. Club) "The Bells" review (B-, 80) counted as "rotten" when should have been "fresh" last week, among others), who have far more internet critics (who go by likes on their pages), rather than established critics. Top critics are more reputable and should carry more weight. This is also English (US) wikipedia. Your count above is also incorrect: The New York Times and The Washington Post reviews you listed as positive, they were in fact, very, very "mixed." SportsEdits1 (talk) 07:21, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

@SportsEdits1: - that was a review from India. This is the English language Wikipedia, not the United States Wikipedia. We don't have only American reviews here, there are many countries that speak English too. Rotten Tomatoes listed some reviews as fresh (positive) and rotten (negative). I'm merely following what they say. starship.paint (talk) 07:28, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Chicago Sun-Times, Rolling Stone, The A.V. Club (USA), The Age (Australia), BBC, The Guardian (UK) Newsday, USA Today, The Atlantic, Washington Post, Detroit Free Press (USA), Globe and Mail (Canada). Still biased? If you think the A.V Club is negative, you're free to find a positive one. starship.paint (talk) 07:30, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

The A.V. Club one was uncited and tagged, so I deleted it. Nothing for or against it, just needed a citation. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:49, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

@SportsEdits1: - please add one positive review for balance (seems like 5:6 now) starship.paint (talk) 07:54, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

@SP, my mistake about English wiki, that was meant to be struck. "The Bells" reception section also needs more balanced improvement. More balanced edits, but I would like to see you use more of the actual quotes, than breaking them down so much. It almost "sounds like" the reader is being mislead. One can always add a source if one gets left off by mistake than just removing the whole quote. Too many people ripping down sourced content on this article. But question: how did you justify removing The New York Times review? SportsEdits1 (talk) 07:56, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

No, no. No artificial balance. Thank you. See the subsection below. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:47, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

@SportsEdits1: - well The New York Times one wasn't listed in RT so I have no indication if that person is a top critic. Do you want to restore it? Since there is a space now, we could. RE: The Bells... that's a separate issue for that talk page. starship.paint (talk) 08:07, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't see why we can't have nice things. Even if they come from someone primarily butthurt about not getting the story he wants, praise for cinematography and scoring is still valid criticism, I think. Are we splitting everyone up into two camps for counting's sake and don't want to blur any lines? InedibleHulk (talk) 08:10, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

If that article was primarily positive, or evenly mixed, we could have nice things. He said 2 nice things and 12 troublesome ones, then we mention the 2 nice ones? starship.paint (talk) 08:13, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

I mentioned two nice ones. You mentioned however many of the troublesome ones you apparently wanted to. That is balance. Without it, how is anyone supposed to learn this episode contained a cool shot and some interesting ambience? Without watching it or surfing the web, I mean. How an individual source for an article is biased shouldn't influence the leanings of the whole article (or section). We're only meant to mirror their facts. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:27, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

@SP, sorry, wasn't trying to get down on you, or anyone. It sounds much better. I originally added A.V. Club with IGN because those are two top "internet critics." I may take out Newsday? Also, if you use other articles as a template, a lot of controversial media subjects are organized with the positive review, mixed reviews, then negative reviews, respectively clumped together. SportsEdits1 (talk) 08:37, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

@SportsEdits1: - please please cite your AV Club. Thanks. starship.paint (talk) 09:01, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

@Starship.paint: Ok. Do you think The Age, Globe and Mail, or The Atlantic should stay? Which one is more reputable? SportsEdits1 (talk)

@SportsEdits1: - Why can't all of them stay? Age is Australian and top critic on RT, Globe and Mail is Canadian and top critic on RT. Atlantic is top critic on RT and is a prestigious publication. starship.paint (talk) 09:07, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

@InedibleHulk: - the old WaPo review, now back in the article, says "swelling imagery". starship.paint (talk) 09:18, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Not sure why you're telling me this. Is this supposed to adequately convey the cool dragon shot or interesting soundtrack choice? If so, it doesn't come close. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:32, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

• @SportsEdits1: - based on the text at present, I'm counting 7 positive reviews and 6 negative ones. 1 positive one should be on the chopping block then? Rolling Stone? Or.... I could add Slate, as a negative review. 7/7 or 6/6? [2] top review on RT. starship.paint (talk) 09:20, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

If "eh" counts as positive, I suggest chopping the Detroit Free Press review. If she doesn't care enough to form an opinion, we shouldn't care to share her apathy and indifference. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:41, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

I've done so many edits I've probably exceeded 3RR, so I won't be reverting this. But what's grrrr as an edit summary SportsEdits1?? If anyone finds out where I've exceeded 3RR, ping me. I'll self-revert in my next edit to Wikipedia (if I'm offline, I'm offline). I totally agree with InedibleHulk on this, a synopsis (after showing us a nightmare for eight seasons, ''Game of Thrones'' finally dares to dream of spring) is not a review ("quiet, and quietly lovely, affair"). starship.paint (talk) 09:39, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

• @InedibleHulk:@Starship.paint: You two need to chill. *lol* Thanks everyone though. I'll change it, but if the critics choose the words "bittersweet" that's their prerogative... but that is also reference from George R.R. Martin. He stated years ago that he was planning to make his ending (in the last book "A Dream of Spring") "bittersweet." Also, there is nothing in stone to say the reviews have to be numerically perfect. And again, I we shouldn't use RT as a primary source for consensus. SportsEdits1 (talk) 09:44, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Of course he said it years ago. The attribution, like the word, has been used to death since. A thousand writers can make the same "clever" allusion, and it still won't bear repeating a thousand times. The first paragraph got to it first, that's good enough for people who wondered if he was lying to know he wasn't. Find me something in life that isn't bittersweet, though. It's not particular to or defining of this episode, just often associated with it. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:58, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

@SportsEdits1: - if we’re not using RT as a guide for what the critics are saying, then what shall we use? Shall I add 10 negative reviews based on some arbitrary view in my mind? starship.paint (talk)

@Starship.paint: It's very late here, but thanks for your help BTW. Some editors just use RT to cut corners, and not actually read the sources is all I really meant. SportsEdits1 (talk) 10:58, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

@InedibleHulk:@Starship.paint: Oh I wasn't grring at you, just my browser locking up having to backpage when two or more people are submitting edits at the same time. I rather think the "dream of spring" reference in the Rolling Stone article sounds better. SportsEdits1 (talk) 11:26, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

That was probably one of us, anyway, so "grrr" to the whole edit conflict system! The line sounds good enough, sure, but when read as encyclopedic text, it rings a bit hollow. Ask a hundred people what a dream of spring means to them, you'll get a few who recognize it as a book they haven't read, but the rest will be all over the board. Since the episode doesn't feature grass, lemons, mosquitoes, rabbits, hockey or [insert your own wilder dream], we shouldn't accidentally imply it does. Stick to plain English here, I say, save the highbrow stuff for fairy tales and concept albums. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:18, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Starship.paint, there should definitely be something in the section about Jon and Daenerys's endings. No need to ping me if you reply. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:01, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

I haven't yet looked to see what reviewers are stating about Drogon, but it's likely that a bit on Drogon should also be added. I know that people have had a lot to state about him burning the throne. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:05, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

• Hugh Montgomery of BBC talked about Jon/Sansa/Arya as a whole. provides an efficient, if disappointingly uncontroversial, ending. It's already in this Wiki article. As for Dany, I only remember this source saying something. [3]. starship.paint (talk) 12:16, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

The "provides an efficient, if disappointingly uncontroversial, ending" piece is vague. And as for Daenerys, there was also this piece that InedibleHulk removed. You added it, right? If it's the reviewer stating that, I don't see an issue with including that piece. Although it's best to generally stick to sources that focus on the episode, the sources don't have to be solely about the episode for us to include their opinion on an aspect of the episode. Either way, Googling "The Iron Throne episode Daenerys" or "The Iron Throne episode Daenerys death" brings up enough material, such as this "Game of Thrones Series Finale Recap: Broken" source from Vulture. The source addresses Jon's fate and other material as well. Like I stated below, the recap pieces are also reviewing the episode. I don't see a problem with you adding them, as long as we don't go overboard with them. We shouldn't go overboard with anything. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:47, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

That's funny, the Daily Telegraph piece was the sole one I didn't add (before SportsEdits1 added anything). I don't know who added it, and I can't read the Telegraph article. I personally would not have quoted the title. starship.paint (talk) 12:57, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Regarding what InedibleHulk stated about sources we have to pay for, see WP:PAYWALL. He has a point about trying to keep to sources we don't have to pay for, though. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:19, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Well okay. I agree. Let's use open sources. starship.paint (talk) 13:29, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

If an editor adds a paywall source, we shouldn't throw it out simply because we have to pay to read it. This is per WP:PAYWALL. If we have valid reason to suspect that it's being misrepresented, that's different. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:53, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Starship.paint, I stayed up very late the other night to add reviews you wanted, and most have been reverted back solely to the ones you chose, but are again paraphrased the way you wanted, with a negative slant because of one character's arc. I am seeing a trend of this with the reviews, and paraphrases you added on "The Bells."[4] DavidK93 also pointed this out, here. There is already an entire section on that article devoted to Daenarys' character arc. Since this section is devoted to the "series finale," we need to stick with more direct quotes about it as a finale. Poniewozik summed up (in his own words) his thoughts about the finale on the whole in the third to the last paragraph. SportsEdits1 (talk) 09:35, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Replied in the #New York Times review section below. Don't misrepresent DavidK93's comment. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:53, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

"Everyone's talking about" Drogon! We know he burned the throne, but why not Jon? We know he spread his dark wings for momma, but how did the Internet get it twisted? And of course, even the "mainstream media" is abuzz with morbid speculation about the missing white woman's body. Can Eastern medicine still save her? Will she go to waste in Old Valyria or will he eat her like a goat? Emilia Clarke is quoted as laughing in The New York Times when she strongly suggests he eats her in Hawaii. But was she joking? Nervous? Mad?!?

Something to chew on, anyway. The dragon does have three heads, as "they" say, and it does nobody any good to read about two without the other. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:49, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

False balance

SportsEdits1, you need to stop adding false balance to this article. Our reception sections are not for you to artificially balance because you don't like the reception, including the Rotten Tomatoes rating. With this edit, we can see Dcfc1988 removing the following WP:Editorializing piece from you: " 'The Iron Throne' received mainly favorable to semi-favorable initial reviews from top critics. Early fan reception, and the response from internet critics were mixed." That piece was not sourced in the least. And I don't know why you thought your "as predicted before the finale's airing, the initial reactions to the final episode were divisive" piece sourced to this source was appropriate. With this edit, we can see Templeowls17 reverting you, stating, "undoing previous editor; cited a desire for 'balance' but reception sections are not meant to be balanced. They are meant to be informative, and this user simply shifted negative reviews to the last paragraph and created 4 positive paragraphs. Hardly reflective of an episode that is currently 48% on RT." Templeowls17 is absolutely correct. And I was going to revert you once I logged back on, but I was glad to see that Templeowls17 had reverted you. WP:Due weight is about giving most of our weight to what the majority of reliable sources state on a topic. It's not about what being neutral means in common discourse. And review aggregators like Rotten Tomatoes can help assess critical consensus. But looking for sources that specifically report on the reception to this episode are better. For example, there are some reliable sources that state that this episode received mixed reviews. You mentioned Starship.paint adding recaps? And? Those recaps are also reviewing the episode, offering opinions on how things played out.

You speak of the Rotten Tomatoes top critics or maybe some other top critics based on your personal opinion; do see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Film#Critical response, especially the "Rotten Tomatoes Top Critics" section. Yes, this is not a film article, but what MOS:FILM states about the Rotten Tomatoes top critics is still valid. Going by what is stated there, I don't see why you are prioritizing the Rotten Tomatoes top critics or any top critics. For example, that MOS:FILM section states, " 'Top Critics' scores are inconsistent with the aims of aggregator scores on Wikipedia. The purpose behind using aggregators is to provide readers with an overview of how a film was critically received, and focusing on an exclusive subset of the available criticism may not reflect the prevalent view. 'Top Critics' scores may not be notable. The general 'All Critics' score is more widely reported than the 'Top Critics' score, and is the statistic for which Rotten Tomatoes is generally notable."

I am tempted to revert back to Starship.paint's original setup, right before your edits to the section. Reverting to the WP:Status quo while editors discuss and achieve WP:Consensus on this matter is fine. But I'll leave it as is for now. Instead, I'm going to go ahead and alert Talk:Game of Thrones, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film to this matter for further input. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:47, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Umm, the four of us (including Starship.paint) just "worked together" for the last 3 hours to improve this article, using "talk." This works better than simply "hammering policy" I find. False Balance? I simply used the word balance as an expression to keep things more "objective," and hopefully to curtail any edit-warring. Apparently, there has been a lot of backlash between fans over a character arc. Many of the official reviews had not been published yet three days ago. And "templeowls17" did "rush to judgement" reverting, in fact, and removed several sources as stated (New York Times, A.V. Club, Washington Post, etc.) without using talk, article history, and making little contributions. Seems like we got it handled already. SportsEdits1 (talk) 10:46, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Starship.paint taking the time to try to appease you does not mean that what you were/are doing was/is correct. It's not, per what I stated above. And this comment by Starship.paint speaks volumes; it echoes what I stated. We are not supposed to arbitrarily balance reception sections. I don't see that you edited objectively at all. You suggested that Starship.paint has a bias toward the negative side of the reception. Well, it's clear to me that you have a bias toward the positive side of the reception. Objective would be looking for sources that summarize the reception and not adding unsourced editorializing such as "received mainly favorable to semi-favorable initial reviews from top critics." And the backlash has been from both critics and fans, and not just over one character. Season 8 of this series is the worst-reviewed season, especially its last two episodes. That's just the way it is. The drastic Rotten Tomatoes drop is clear as day at Game of Thrones#Critical response. We do not need you trying to counter any of this. Templeowls17 did not rush to judgment; Templeowls17 was absolutely right. And if you cannot see why you are wrong, which seems to be the case, that's a problem. All you had to do was retain your "positive commentary" pieces without reverting back to your problematic version. I would have retained your pieces (except for the editorializing, of course) while reverting back to Starship.paint's version. Yes, your editorializing is gone, but that TV Guide piece should not be the first piece in that section. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:26, 23 May 2019 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:45, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I concur with Flyer22. After reading the critical response section, it feels too positive, like most of the negative is being swiftly countered. I can't quite put my finger on how I'd remedy that, but a good start might be to devise a structure of three paragraphs, each with a different focus. The first would be centered on the lukewarm reception, the second on negative aspects of reception, and the third listing some of the positive aspects. The 2nd and 3rd can be flipped of course, but I tend to place the positive last when I lead with mixed. Doing this may result in a different selection of reviews. Right now, that section seems a bit unorganized. --GoneIn60 (talk) 13:04, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

I think this is a good plan of action.--Templeowls17 (talk) 13:13, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

I got to say, the reception section is has an obvious PoV pushing going there. How does a section starting with On review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes, the episode had an approval rating of 48% based on 120 reviews, and an average rating of 6.4 out of 10. have almost all of the reviewers being on how good-ish (3-4/5) the episode is. If the overall consensus is of a 48% approval rating, less than half of the ones cited here should be about the better aspects of the episode, as WP:WEIGHT (policy) clearly states. --Gonnym (talk) 13:00, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

@Gonnym: - if the rating is 6.4/10, you would expect 3/5 and 4/5. Not every review gave a rating. In fact the majority of reviews don't give ratings. So the 6.4/10 doesn't reflect every review. Even the Indian source (since deleted from this article) rated it 3/5 [5] when it said that the show "went out with a whimper". I suppose people have very high expectations (because of the earlier seasons). starship.paint (talk) 13:03, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

I think the point Gonnym is making is that the overall reception trends negative, and at best, it's mixed or lukewarm. So when reading that section, we shouldn't walk away with warm fuzzies that the overall reception was more positive than negative, or that it trends positive. That's not what the overall average tells us. --GoneIn60 (talk) 13:12, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

The 6.4 clearly contradicts the 48% approval rating (which is less than 3/5), which are the actual reviews. A clear read through the reviewers see you've masterfully cherry-picked ones that make this episode seem much more successful than it was with critics. Also, GoneIn60 maybe have phrased by words better as that is exactly what I was trying to say. --Gonnym (talk) 13:16, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Gonnym, I think by now you would have read, and realized, from below, that your second sentence shouldn't be aimed at me. I am not the sole writer of the current version of the article. starship.paint (talk) 13:38, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

I am not going to further this editing war, especially with SportsEdits1, but will give my two cents and go on my way. Based on its current status, this reception section is not only wildly unbalanced, but its not truthful to the actual reception of this episode. Is balance even the goal in reception sections? Someone with further Manual of Style experience than myself may have more insight, but I am among the belief that RT is a great tool to help mold our reception sections. Isn't that why the RT score and consensus is at the top of every reception area? Yet this section is doing everything in its power to counteract the RT score, going as far to put a TV Guide note immediately following the RT consensus in an attempt to counter it. I have not seen this in any other reception sections, especially GoT ones. It's laughable tbh. Additionally, the first three paragraphs are entirely positive and The Atlantic review is shoved to the bottom and displays a positive reception, despite the overwhelming majority of the article being negative of the episode. Meanwhile, Top Critics like CNN, The New Yorker, Slate, Time, etc. are ignored, and reviews from Rolling Stone are cherry picked. I understand that RT should not purely dictate reception sections, but it's clear from their consensus that critical acclaim is quite low, not to mention the severely low viewer reception. On top of that, GoT RT scores are typically in the 80s to low 90s. There has only been 6 episodes out of 73 that have been below a 80 RT score. This episode is at 48%! For this section to be largely positive, is quite disingenuous and I can't help but think personal bias involved. I reverted SportsEdits1 edits in accordance with WP:BRD. I did not rush to any judgment. I reverted their edits back to the original form because they changed the entire nature of the section to conform to a positive take on the episode, while based on critical reviews, that is not accurate.--Templeowls17 (talk) 13:12, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Balanced should not be what this section tries to be per WP:WEIGHT. It should give both sides, but per their actual weight. --Gonnym (talk) 13:16, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Gonnym and GoneIn60, yes, I think that Starship.paint's original setup is more reflective of the critical consensus (although it probably should have had a few more positive pieces). But like I stated, we should be looking at sources that report on the critical consensus in cases like this. I've seen a few reliable sources call reception to this episode mixed. This episode is not as divisive/hated as the previous episode, even though the Rotten Tomatoes scores for both episodes are currently separated by only percent. GoneIn60, I like your idea, at least for a start. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:19, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Flyer, this was my setup. No Daily Telegraph. starship.paint (talk) 13:38, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Starship.paint, I wasn't counting any additional stuff that was added. I was simply stating that the previous setup was mainly the one you crafted, that it was the setup before all of the debated changes. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:28, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Starship's edit does indeed sound much more reflective of the overall reviews and Gone's idea sounds good to me as well. --Gonnym (talk) 13:24, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I won't have any time to help implement it. Seems like there's plenty of able-bodied editors here though! --GoneIn60 (talk) 13:25, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm happy to try and get something going in my sandbox, but if someone can do it more effectively (quickly), by all means. I think your three paragraph structure makes the most sense here, given the reviews.--Templeowls17 (talk) 13:54, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Yeah okay but please don't overload American sources. Thanks. starship.paint (talk) 13:56, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Please take a look. Tried to combine some of alot of users' ideas and used @GoneIn60's 3 paragraph format (not including the RT paragraph). Let me know what you guys think and absolutely feel free to make edits.--Templeowls17 (talk) 14:13, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Reviews of the episode proved divisive, with the majority of critics viewing the episode as lukewarm. - are we allowed to conclude that on our own...? Also, I think it needs 1 more positive review for balance. I'll add the Age. starship.paint (talk) 14:54, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Yea, that paragraph and the next should probably be sourced. Just thought it added structure to the "lukewarm, negative, then positive" paragraph structure. I'll try to work on it.--Templeowls17 (talk) 15:11, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Almost seems like the same problems as before, with all the positive reviews shoved way down at the bottom, especially with the holy aggregate at close to 50% (but 6.4 avg rating). But at least now, there seems to be more direct quotes from the actual reviews than just a few words. We could just intermix both negative and positive quotes. And wouldn't the word "mixed" be more appropriate than "lukewarm"? The latter kind of sounds like we are cooking leftovers. I'm generally just asking. And as I pointed out before, do we need both the New York Times review (Poniewozik) here, as well as the New York Times recap? SportsEdits1 (talk) 15:15, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

I was also curious about the accuracy of "the aggregate," and how this article [6] (a clear B-, 8.0?) last week, as well as others marked 3 out of 5 stars, were marked as "rotten," when in fact they were clearly over 60%. SportsEdits1 (talk) 15:45, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, either negative or positive is going to be at the bottom. It's one or the other. And IMO, positive should be last. 1) The RT consensus implies a negative reception. It does not make much sense for the next paragraph to detail positive reviews. It has no flow. 2) Thrones episodes are traditionally 80-90% on RT. This episode is clearly an outlier (48%), along with The Bells (48%) and The Last of the Starks (58%). I believe that their respective reception sections should be structured as such. 3) Even the positive reviews that I've read still document critical flaws; I've yet to see one that is nearly all acclaim (like every other season's finale review). That said, I will remove the New York Times recap and replace it with an actual review; apologies, I missed that.--Templeowls17 (talk) 15:57, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Well "obviously" they are all going to have positive and negative points. And rather than make this so one-sided or complicated, you all could also use other TV shows as a guide, maybe?: [7][8]. It's interesting to note that The Sopranos finale, which received some negative backlash, came out before full blown social media, and a film aggregate was used for television. False Balance? Don't think so. Also, the final season of Dexter was one of the worst reviewed seasons for a cable program in the last 5 years (much lower that Game of Thrones), and yet it too seems to have positive reviews mixed at the beginning of it's finale reception section. Hmmmm. SportsEdits1 (talk) 16:21, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Um, Made in America was widely critically acclaimed by reviewers when it came out, the reception section even demonstrates that. It was the viewer reception that was mixed, but even then, the mixed reception is from the last 20 seconds of the episode rather the episode as a whole. And I do not think Remember the Monsters should be a guide here. The article is not well written. There are only 2 sections; the plot section is far too detailed and violates multiple Manual of Style guidelines. The reception section cites 5 reviews (3 of which are positive), despite there being 28 rotten reviews on RT. In addition, that episode is widely considered one of the worst finales ever made. Does anyone even dispute that, even yourself? Clearly the reception section is just badly written.--Templeowls17 (talk) 16:56, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

"Almost seems like the same problems as before...We could just intermix both negative and positive quotes."

I disagree. The proposal is a considerable improvement over what was in the article previously. It is much more coherent and structured. You typically want to separate the mixed, positive, and negative reviews into their own paragraphs. Each review being quoted, however, can always include both positive/negative elements. However, if it was picked for the positive paragraph, then the positive needs to outweigh the negative in the quote. Vice versa for negative reviews in the negative paragraph. You get the general idea. I care less about content and chosen reviews than I do about structure.

"And rather than make this so one-sided or complicated, you all could also use other TV shows as a guide, maybe?"

I'm not sure why you think separation into coherent paragraphs is complicated or one-sided. It really isn't. I didn't bother to look at the examples you linked to, because it isn't necessary to identify and fix the problems here. There's always going to be some variation between articles, especially when different editors are involved. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:16, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

I like what Templeowls17 did with the reception section. And as for quoting the critics, it's best to summarize when we can. See WP:Quote farm. Yeah, WP:Quote farm doesn't hold up well when it comes to reception sections, but we should still at least make attempts to summarize instead of heading straight for quotes. That stated, sometimes the quote or parts of the quote relay a matter better. Also, when a quote is a certain length, WP:Blockquote suggests that we use blockquote format. But it would make for a poor and silly format if we had several or more blockquotes in the section. So breaking up the quotes at times is also beneficial in that way. Per Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing#When there are a limited number of ways to say the same thing, there is no need to quote material in some cases. Some words or phrases can simply be stated in Wikipedia's voice without the quotation marks. We should wisely choose what parts to quote. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:28, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, it has looked better in the last 24 hours than it did 3 days ago. From actually reading many of the reviews, the general consensus has been mixed to favorable. I also keep seeing the word "bittersweet" used a lot in these reviews as IndelibleHulk pointed out in several edits last night. That "average rating" of 6.4 is also very telling, and I also see that the "Tomato Meter" has risen to nearly 50%. My suggesting is to add one of the more favorable voices toward the top ("bittersweet"?), so all the more positive voices don't read so suppressed down at the bottom. SportsEdits1 (talk) 03:38, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

You'll see what you want to see. In the end, the numbers don't lie. 48%, 49%, even 60%... these are not good, especially for a series that has consistently averaged upper 80's or low 90's per episode. Only four times did an episode get a "rotten" score, and three of those times were the last three episodes. Looking at "average rating" (which is lower on the totem pole and harder to judge by the way), episodes were almost always higher than 8.0 and never dipped below 7.2 until the last two episodes, which were 6.35 and 6.4 respectively. The final leg of the series trended negative no matter how you spin it. And I don't know about you, but in school I wouldn't have considered a 64% an acceptable grade. --GoneIn60 (talk) 04:20, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

In my day, 50% was good enough to stick with familiar classmates next year and graduate on time; anything more was just gravy. A 49% certainly sucked. But TV becomes part of a permanent record that actually matters in the real world, so higher standards are reasonable. Speaking of eternal disappointment, Sports, I'm not indelible and wouldn't even try. Just proud to consistently get "N/A" grades from food critics. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:03, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Flyer that perhaps more paraphrasing would further improve the section. Definitely off to a good start! Keep up the good work! --GoneIn60 (talk) 04:20, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Oh, I don't think anyone is denying that the last two seasons have taken various shortcuts. I was just expressing from the average rating and reading the reviews, that there were still a lot of favorable opinions. I have always been more concerned with the actual sources, and less so about the tomato meter as others. Also noting that the Laura Prudom piece does seem to flow better into the next paragraph. SportsEdits1 (talk) 04:35, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, as I explained in my last post, I don't think you fully grasp what that average rating is telling you. As for "reading the reviews" and forming an opinion that differs from the review aggregator, that ventures into WP:OR territory. RT may not be a perfect system, but it's better than relying on personal research. --GoneIn60 (talk) 06:16, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

SportsEdits1, I'm not sure why you decided to do this when it's clear that's going against the forming consensus in this discussion. I've reverted those edits for now. We are splitting the positive, mixed, and negative reviews based on feedback from multiple editors. --GoneIn60 (talk) 06:35, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

GoneIn60 Listen, it is 5 am now where I live. Actually, this is a "discussion," that I started in WP:GF. And many of the sources and quotes in this section I actually contributed myself, some very late last night (while also working with Starship.paint). I also (re-)added The Washington Post reviews, and The New York Times, The Chicago Sun Times because all of them are considered very reputable sources. And templeowls17 just uploaded these changes yesterday evening (consensus?)- "Certainly needs continued work." I also added the A.V. Club article and the IGN article by Laura Prudom here. So I chose to move the Prudom source and awkward quote (that I previously added, same paragraph) closer (leading into) the next paragraph, that deals with a similar issue of episode's "pace and structure." It sounds better. And I also removed the unnecessary 'short phrases' (unnecessary--'with swelling imagery' and unnecessary parenthetical 'ignoring others completely') that I previously added to the quotes I sourced, to help the wording flow, and sound less clunky. What I don't understand is how all of this (which I already explained in talk, and in the edit summaries)-- got reverted!? So, can you please fix it back? Also I noticed that there are two Atlantic articles in the second paragraph (which still sounds choppy) [9]--templeowls17; this was supposed to already be corrected, and the Atlantic "Cruz" article was already re-added by Starship.paint here. No offense, but it's getting too difficult on the eyes to look all of these diffs up, when they are already explained in talk, and logged in the edit summaries themselves. You can easily look this stuff up. SportsEdits1 (talk) 09:14, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

GoneIn60 So, you only fixed the word "also"? SportsEdits1 (talk) 10:03, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

There are no less than 5 editors here who have agreed to divide up the reviews, yet your edit moved a positive review (Richard Roeper's) from the positive paragraph up to the paragraph that contains mixed/lukewarm reviews. That is the primary reason for the revert. I didn't think moving the Prudom source was necessary, and as for "swelling imagery", that was starship's addition. I went ahead and left it in. I don't feel too strongly about the latter two changes, so if those are ones you really would like to reinstate, then so be it. However, messing with the division of positive/negative/mixed flies in the face of the work others have done to tidy up this section. I would avoid doing that. --GoneIn60 (talk) 13:58, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

GoneIn60GoneIn60, I haven't heard back from you, but I would have preferred you had restored my other contributions. And to clarify, I didn't revert templeowls17 because of all of this crazy conjecture above. I only did it because I saw it as being disruptive because he removed all the reviews from reputable sources/journalists, like Roeper (who used to write with Ebert), Myles McNutt, Poniewozik, etc, without retaining anything. I also didn't have time to reorganize the reception section because I stayed up half the night working with Starship.paint and IndelibleHulk and had to work second shift. I still think Roeper's review belongs closer to the top regardless of whether it's deemed simply positive or negative. There's no reason we can't all work together to make this article better. SportsEdits1 (talk) 14:14, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

GoneIn60 Ah, ok. See you responded now. I think the Prudom quote is written awkward, choppy and works much better as a lead in to the next paragraph. I'll let templeowls17 or starship change the Atlantic reviews if they wish. SportsEdits1 (talk) 14:17, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

New York Times review

Flyer22 Reborn, I found the review that reviewed Daenerys' turn. It's James Poniewozik of The New York Times. Now reflected in the article. starship.paint (talk) 00:53, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Starship.paint, I stayed up very late the other night to add reviews you wanted, and most have been reverted back solely to the ones you chose, but are again paraphrased the way you wanted, with a negative slant because of one character's arc. I am seeing a trend of this with the reviews, and paraphrases you added on "The Bells."[10] DavidK93 also pointed this out, here. There is already an entire section on that "Bell's" article devoted to Daenarys' character arc. Since this section is devoted to the "series finale," we need to stick with more direct quotes about it as a finale. Poniewozik summed up (in his own words) his thoughts about the finale on the whole in the third to the last paragraph. SportsEdits1 (talk) 09:43, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

SportsEdits1 - you've misrepresented James Poniewozik review. Here's what you chose: "as a finale, “The Iron Throne” was limited by the story arc that led up to it. But it also recalled the epic and intimate moments that made “Game of Thrones” a genuinely exciting, absorbing appointment." That sounds like an overall positive review for the episode. However, the review was actually a negative one, and the main focus of the following review was the following topic:

How well “Game of Thrones” ended depends largely on how well you think it pulled off the key turn of last week’s “The Bells,” in which Daenerys, having won the surrender of King’s Landing, presses her attack and incinerates the defenseless townspeople. After a week, and especially after the finale, I’ve decided it was a botch.

Leaving aside whether the attack “should” have happened, it failed the basic job of a story, to give us a clear sense of what the central figure did and why. Is Daenerys insane? Did she have a rationale for targeting the defenseless that she never spelled out? Or were the citizens simply collateral damage in an overzealous drive to eradicate Queen Cersei’s troops? I’m still not sure, and after the finale, I’m not convinced the makers of the show are sure either.

In a Nuremberg-like speech to her victorious troops — which opened with the breathtaking image of Drogon’s wings behind an imperious Emilia Clarke, as if unfolding from her own shoulder blades — Dany spoke of having “liberated” the people of King’s Landing, who, to all appearances, were mostly dead. Maybe she’d gone mad (an interpretation suggested in the attack, which she began with an expression so twisted that the bells may as well have been playing “The Merry-Go-Round Broke Down”). Or maybe most of the populace actually survived, like the Dothraki, whose encounter with the army of the dead at the Battle of Winterfell turned out to be a flesh wound.

We could only guess, clued partly by a dialogue between Jon and Tyrion Lannister (the opening figure and moral heart of the episode) that felt like a meta recap of fans’ defenses of “The Bells” online. Daenerys, Tyrion argued, had a history of cruelty. “Everywhere she goes, evil men die and we cheer for it,” he said. “And she grows more powerful and more sure that she is good and right.” Who created this monster? Dear viewer, it was us.

On paper, honestly, it almost makes sense. The problem is that a TV series doesn’t unfold on paper. The endgame had a great idea to work with: A woman, abused and traded like chattel, becomes so caught up in her zeal to do good that she sees anything but blind adoration as evil. But it never took us inside her perspective to make that change seem real and inevitable.

“Game of Thrones” instead relied on propulsion, like Wile E. Coyote running off a cliff. If things feel right enough in the moment, momentum carries you to the next thing. Look down, and you plummet. Maybe that’s the secret of dragon flight.

440 words. By comparison, the part you stressed, was 207 words long, less than half of the 440 words on Daenerys' arc. Still, I mentioned However, he praised the "small character moments" of Tyrion, Arya and Jon. That's giving your part credit. You apparently claim that all these 440 words is sums up his thoughts on "finale" in 3rd to last paragraph by limited by the story arc that led up to it. No can do. Plus, I've shifted your response, so pinging you. starship.paint (talk) 13:12, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Reverted SportsEdits1. Like I stated, the way her character arc has gone has been the main complaint as far as the way character arcs have gone this season. In fact, it's the main reason people (critics and fans alike) disliked the previous episode. It's the main reason that big petition is going on, as alluded to by Sophie Turner. Commentary on Daenerys's end should be noted somewhere in the reception section of this article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:53, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

And I really don't think that you, SportsEdits1, are grasping what other editors have told you about false balance and due weight. It doesn't seem that you at all grasped what GoneIn60 stated above. "The Bells" episode hardly received any positive responses from critics, and that is especially because of the Daenerys arc. And even critics who stated that they understood why the writers would want to go with the Daenerys turn and/or went over reasons why it would make sense that she would eventually reach that point criticized the way it was handled. That is the general consensus on that character turn. Starship.paint wasn't selectively choosing negatives when it came to building the reception section for that episode. Neither was I. After DavidK93 started that section about "mixed reviews," I was clear what the issue was with calling reception to that episode mixed. You surely already saw how that discussion progressed. DavidK93 was not criticizing Starship.paint's editing. DavidK93 was questioning calling reception to that episode mixed. We should not be trying to artificially balance anything regarding the reception to that episode. I started the section on this talk page about your editing both because of how you edited/what you stated about balancing material in this article and you feeling that material in the "Bells" article needs to be balanced. Balanced, when the episode hardly received any positive responses from critics? It is already balanced. Similarly, as editors have told you, reception to the "Iron Throne" episode trends negatively. It's just that, to critics and fans, it has more positives than the "Bells" episode. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:16, 25 May 2019 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:28, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

All that stated, I don't mind if a different piece about Daenerys's end is added and the Poniewozik piece about her is removed. In fact, I'd prefer that since commentary on the turn having been botched is already extensively covered in the "Bells" article and her Wikipedia article. Commentary about the writers failing her character and/or how they did so, and/or her mindset in this episode, would be better for the section. Like I stated near the end of the initial portion of the #Let's try to keep this article balanced section, although it's best to generally stick to sources that focus on the episode, the sources don't have to be solely about the episode for us to include their opinion on an aspect of the episode. Googling "The Iron Throne episode Daenerys" or "The Iron Throne episode Daenerys death" brings up enough material, such as this "Game of Thrones Series Finale Recap: Broken" source from Vulture. I'll go ahead and remove the Poniewozik piece about Daenerys. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:53, 25 May 2019 (UTC) Decided against removing the piece since it's what his review is mainly about, but I did tweak it so that it better indicates that this is his personal opinion. We could instead include a different piece from his review, such as questioning Daenerys's mindset and how she evolved to the point she was at. I'll add that instead. Poniewozik clearly states that how well the show ended depends largely on how well the viewers think it pulled off Daenerys's character turn. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:06, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Changed the Poniewozik summary to this. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:23, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

I trimmed some short fan fiction that put trademarked characters into unauthorized situations. While that's only debatably illegal, it seems generally unethical to hold a show responsible for not sufficiently delivering what a critic thought could have worked. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:11, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

It's a key part of his criticism (or rather the key part -- the show failing "the basic job of a story, to give us a clear sense of what the central figure did and why"); so restored. It doesn't fit the definition of fan fiction, and I don't see what retaining it or removing it has to do with real-world law (joking or otherwise). The reason that I changed the text from "failed the basic job of a story, to give us a clear sense of what the central figure did and why" is because it's not as clear as "Daenerys becoming 'so caught up in her zeal to do good that she sees anything but blind adoration as evil' could have worked, but that the show 'never took us inside her perspective to make that change seem real and inevitable.'" Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:19, 26 May 2019 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:47, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

And, really, all of the criticism is about how the story or character arcs could have been told better; so I don't understand your "this space is for critique of the show that was actually made. Anybody on the Internet can believe what's good for this kingdom and its characters" rationale. The criticism doesn't cease to be about "the show that was actually made" by stating that what was actually made could or would have worked better a different way. They are reviewers/critics. They criticize and praise. Relaying their opinions is just that -- relaying their opinions. Even in the case of critical consensus, it doesn't mean that they are right. Even in the case of critical consensus, viewers/fans might largely disagree with them. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:27, 26 May 2019 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:47, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Regarding this and this, that is not the main focus of his review. That main focus should be there and has been echoed by other reviewers. I'd rather not add more pieces from other reviewers making the same or similar points. Furthermore, editors generally agreed to have the first paragraph after the Rotten Tomatoes paragraph not start off on a positive note. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:50, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

If Daenerys' actions from the prior episode were the focus, he'd have lead with that, not spent ten paragraphs talking about Drogon's actions. You're seeing what you want to see, and detailing something the show did not explain (while simultaneously realizing that's the whole point of both of our complaints, somehow). And where do you see a close approximation of "felt more like they were blaming the fans for her ultimate state"? Or any mention of her "becoming a villain"? He concludes that "Dear viewer, it was us", not any alleged "they". And he only blames us for "creating the monster", not her "ultimate state". Her ultimate state was a trusting, loving girl who couldn't count to twenty or see a blade coming. Total OR job. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:16, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Responded below. I'm not going to respond in multiple places. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:36, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

How's this? Judging from the first couple of screens, the key part is what he calls the "key scene", where Drogon melts the throne for similarly confusing reasons. It's one thing to say he doesn't get it (even arguably fair to blame the storytellers), but it does nobody any good to hear him complain about how the show could have told the story like he did, just didn't. If that were cool, we might also say "Maybe she’d gone mad" or "maybe most of the populace actually survived" or Drogon could have had "a political epiphany that the hereditary monarchy must be smashed in favor of a system that involves consent of the governed." These are just fan theories, even if they come from a professional columnist.

The thing about intellectual property is that the people who invent characters have the right to choose how they're presented. In the darker corners of the web, you can have The Little Mermaid bone Sonic the Hedgehog, or Daenerys Targaryen "become so caught up in her zeal do good that she sees anything but blind adoration as evil", but Wikipedia isn't a dark corner. We stick to authorized retellings, and commentary of those stories.

I'd be fine with "failed the basic job of a story". That's a valid opinion, as opposed to an entirely different story that he thinks wouldn't have sucked onscreen. Almost nobody thinks their own ideas are failures. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:58, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

I disagree, per what I stated above. He quite clearly states, "How well Game of Thrones ended depends largely on how well you think it pulled off the key turn of last week's The Bells, in which Daenerys, having won the surrender of King’s Landing, presses her attack and incinerates the defenseless townspeople. After a week, and especially after the finale, I've decided it was a botch." He clearly bases the success of the episode on Daenerys's character turn and viewers understanding it. He clearly states, "Leaving aside whether the attack 'should' have happened, it failed the basic job of a story, to give us a clear sense of what the central figure did and why." Critics stating that a story would or could have worked better another way is standard and is not fan theory. I know that you think the show did fine with Daenerys's villain arc, but the critical consensus is a no on that and overwhelmingly speaks of how the show could have successfully pulled the arc off. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:06, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Stating that a show could have worked better another way is fine. Detailing the other way is not. Especially when the fact that the show didn't do it the imaginary way is used as a "negative" point against it. Why are we choosing this theory, buried in the middle, and not his others? Even if I wasn't fine with the storyline, I'd still want critical response to an episode to focus on things that happened in that episode, not what could have happened to explain the previous one. It's a relevance issue foremost, then a legal problem. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:16, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

And, again, "failed the basic job of a story" does not tell us why he feels that way. In this specific case, the criticism is about the show not giving viewers enough to understand why Daenerys turned. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:12, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, my edit explained that. It also conveyed how he thought the show didn't give viewers enough to understand why Drogon turned (which actually happened in this episode).

How about "it failed the basic job of a story, to give us a clear sense of what the central figure did and why. Is Daenerys insane? Did she have a rationale for targeting the defenseless that she never spelled out? Or were the citizens simply collateral damage in an overzealous drive to eradicate Queen Cersei’s troops?" Those questions are at least presented as questions, not what "could have" worked. The piece doesn't even say this "caught up in her zeal" angle could have worked, only that it was a great idea to work with (in his opinion, not Wikipedia's voice). InedibleHulk (talk) 01:20, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Or does this suck? I think repeating things as they were said instead of cutting and bending them to fit a preconceived section theme is generally best. Or at least more honest. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:41, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Speaking of confusing rhetoric with direction and exposition, it's been over a minute. It's been thirty. Hurry up or I get my way for free! (Half-kidding.) InedibleHulk (talk) 02:22, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Your edit did not "explain that." It did not explain why Poniewozik felt that way. I'd already gone over why I objected to simply stating "it failed the basic job of a story, to give us a clear sense of what the central figure did and why." And, no, I don't agree to go with that long, unnecessary quote mentioned in your "01:20" post that leaves out the points about Jon and Tyrion and why the reviewer mainly thinks that the Daenerys aspect was a bust.

There is literally no Wikipedia rule that supports "Stating that a show could have worked better another way is fine. Detailing the other way is not." Critics have, for example, overwhelmingly stated that the way the villain arc could have worked better is if the series had built up the villain arc beyond foreshadowing and over the course of episodes, a season, or even extra seasons. They state exactly what Poniewozik states -- that the viewers needed a better grasp on her perspective, to see her become that person over time. Foreshadowing was not enough. And you want to exclude this material, because, what, we already cover it in the "Bells" article and in her Wikipedia article? Because you view it as a fan theory? Yes, we already cover it, but it is just as relevant here since viewers were waiting for an explanation and the writers attempted to use Tyrion to explain how Daenerys had gotten to the point she was at -- believing she was right because she had been right so many times in the past. Although Poniewozik speaks of Drogon, he does not state that the episode's success depended on Drogon burning down the throne or viewers knowing Drogon's intention by burning down the throne. So, no, Poniewozik does not consider Drogon's actions the key to the episode in any way. We have focused on this criticism because it is significant. There is no relevance issue or a legal problem. If I'm seeing what I want to see, you're seeing what you want to see.

As for "felt more like they were blaming the fans for her ultimate state"? That is not WP:OR. That is paraphrasing, which is exactly what we should be attempting to do instead of dropping in quote after quote. At the talk page for the previous episode, you were complaining about quote farms. And now what? You just want to drop in quote after quote? The "felt more like they were blaming the fans for her ultimate state" piece is obviously covered by the "Who created this monster? Dear viewer, it was us." He is stating that it felt like the writers used Jon and Tyrion as a response to the viewers/to blame the viewers. This is also why he also stated that Jon and Tyrion's dialogue "felt like a meta recap of fans' defenses of 'The Bells' online." And "villain"? Reviewers have consistently used "villain" and "monster" interchangeably when describing Daenerys's final arc. But "villain" is used more often and is far more neutral than stating "monster" in Wikipedia's voice. And "ultimate state"? He is literally talking about how she evolved from the point she was at to where she finally wound up at. How is where she wound up at not her ultimate/final state in the story before she dies? He even states "the endgame had a great idea to work with," and so on (going into how she evolved). And now you state that her "ultimate state was a trusting, loving girl who couldn't count to twenty or see a blade coming" after you went on (at the previous episode's talk page) about how she was always a bad apple or meant to be one? Also, Poniewozik stating that "but it never took us inside her perspective to make that change seem real and inevitable" is him stating that the arc could have worked if the writers had taken us inside her perspective to make that change seem real and inevitable.

As for your compromise, I suppose I'll have to somewhat go along with it since it doesn't appear that you will agree to go with the paraphrase I used. I do think it's worth noting that the writers used Jon and Tyrion to talk to us about how Daenerys evolved. But anyway, I would not go with the full quote you added, and it's not just about King's Landing for Poniewozik. I would change it to the following: "James Poniewozik of The New York Times felt the story insufficiently explained why Daenerys burned King's Landing and how she arrived at her final character arc, stating that "a woman, abused and traded like chattel, becomes so caught up in her zeal to do good that she sees anything but blind adoration as evil" was a solid idea for the character's endpoint, but that viewers were not taken "inside her perspective to make that change seem real and inevitable." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:36, 27 May 2019 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:43, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Changed to the compromise wording. And by that, I mean both what you suggested and what I suggested. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:19, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

We're definitely seeing different things. How does replacing what the show did tell us with what a critic wanted the show to tell him (a fan theory) address the pacing issues? It'd still be as long as it was scheduled to be, except all the scenes explaining her loneliness, poverty, betrayal, grief, entitlement, jealousy, rage, power, enablement, greed and envy would illustrate her zeal to do good and consideration of non-adorers as evil instead. In my opinion, that would be simpler, but wouldn't make any sense. People don't want to do good when their friends die while their enemies grow stronger. They want to break things, hurt people, get even and live happily ever after.

I'd rather fewer quotes, but when we use one, we should use it in its original order instead of turning it into two, removing pieces we don't want and putting it back together with pieces we do. When a guy tells you he thinks the audience is to blame, it's not "paraphrasing" to say he's referring to the show's writers by "I". Especially since he explicitly refers to them elsewhere, he's probably not being metaphorical here. I find "villain" and "monster" suitable substitutes for each other, just not for "her ultimate state". I've a problem with us implying he wrote anything about her "becoming a villain" when he only describes this "key turn" as one "in which Daenerys, having won the surrender of King’s Landing, presses her attack and incinerates the defenseless townspeople." If you think that's a dick move, great, but that's your opinion of his opinion of the show. A lot of other people who thought the Westerosi were holding her back from her life's goal count it as a success story. I never said she was always meant to be a bad apple, I said she always meant to conquer King's Landing with fire and blood. At least that's what I was getting at, sorry if I was cryptic. She's not a hero, she's not a villain, she's a human who does various things that some people like and some don't.

If it makes you feel better, I probably dislike my proposed compromise as much as you do. I wanted to talk about Drogon first, like the review does. At least you still get the general quote you want, albeit in a pristine condition. If you want to single out (double out?) Jon and Tyrion for not explaining enough, that's fine by me. I just think it misses buddy's point that the whole show (including the two scenes where the Queen Herself explained herself) didn't explain her choice enough. You seem to be totally winning in your vision of the compromise, losing the dragon and respinning the quote. Maybe just focus on what characters did say and do rather than what they didn't, but might have in an ideal world. Have a good one! InedibleHulk (talk) 03:31, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

If there's no further objection to this minor tweak, I'm ready to move on. To what, I have no clue. Just pretty much had it with this imaginary storyline. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:48, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

I disagree with almost all of that. I'm mainly going to refrain from repeating myself. Also, "so caught up in her zeal to do good that she sees anything but blind adoration as evil" is not a different route that Poniewozik is proposing. It's him stating that the writers did go that route and why that route did not work (in his opinion). It absolutely belongs. I don't care about winning. No Wikipedia editor should. I care about criticism of Daenerys's final arc/her end being in the reception section because it should be there, whether in the form of "the writers failed the character," which you also removed, or the current form. But having information on why the writers failed the character is best. We shouldn't just leave the matter with some vague piece. And for the last time, it's all opinion. That should go without being stated.

And as for your "When a guy tells you he thinks the audience is to blame, it's not 'paraphrasing' to say he's referring to the show's writers by 'I'" rationale? What???? He is not stating that the audience is to blame. That is not at all what he means by "We could only guess, clued partly by a dialogue between Jon and Tyrion Lannister (the opening figure and moral heart of the episode) that felt like a meta recap of fans' defenses of 'The Bells' online. Daenerys, Tyrion argued, had a history of cruelty. 'Everywhere she goes, evil men die and we cheer for it,' he said. 'And she grows more powerful and more sure that she is good and right.' Who created this monster? Dear viewer, it was us." He is stating that the writers are blaming us, the viewers. He even says "us." He does not state or imply that he's blaming the viewers.

As for you having "a problem with us implying he wrote anything about her 'becoming a villain' when he only describes this 'key turn' as one 'in which Daenerys, having won the surrender of King's Landing, presses her attack and incinerates the defenseless townspeople'"...he literally calls her a monster. There is no mistaking that he is saying that she has become the villain in the story. As for "a lot of other people who thought the Westerosi were holding her back from her life's goal count it as a success story.", what? The critical consensus is that the writers failed her arc. That is not my opinion. And Poniewozik, just like all of the other critics, is also stating that the writers failed her arc. The viewer consensus is also that the writers failed her arc. That is not my opinion. It is an opinion to state, "She's not a hero, she's not a villain, she's a human who does various things that some people like and some don't." According to various reliable sources, she is a hero and is then a villain. We follow what the reliable sources state and with due weight.

And regarding this? No, it's not about the series endgame; he is focused on the character's endpoint for that piece. He specifically talks about her being a monster and then goes into why this endgame did not work. The time when he's speaking of the series as a whole is when he states, "How well Game of Thrones ended depends largely on how well you think it pulled off the key turn of last week's 'The Bells,' in which Daenerys, having won the surrender of King's Landing, presses her attack and incinerates the defenseless townspeople." How can Daenerys becoming what she became be the series' endgame when the series continued on after she died to wrap up other character arcs? Daenerys becoming what she became is not a series endgame; that is a character endgame. If speaking strictly at least. That "on paper" paragraph in Poniewozik's article is specifically about Daenerys's evolution and how the final phase of that evolution did not work because the show "never took us inside her perspective to make that change seem real and inevitable." Other than your "series" tweak, I'm fine with the compromise wording.

GoneIn60, can we get your thoughts on this? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:15, 27 May 2019 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:35, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

I removed "endgame" in its entirety; we already state "final character point." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:35, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

They went that route out in Essos, no doubt. It worked insofar as it bought her ships and not-technically-slave soldiers. But that was way back when audiences still understood how war works; she made a lot of fans "freeing" her armies and "punishing" her enemies, and many thought it's be a "great idea" is she sailed West, sacked King's Landing and killed Cersei. Maybe "on paper" or "in theory". But a TV series is not on paper; it has a logical endgame and sometimes when logical outcomes occur, people "tricked" into naming their kid after a character who sailed West, sacked King's Landing and killed Cersei get angry. That's probably what he meant when he explicitly blamed the audience with "it was us", and also what Tyrion was implying. I must've wrongly assumed we were talking about the last few years of the show, sorry. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:37, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

InedibleHulk, per WP:TPO, I ask that you don't break into my comment. If it's a different comment with a different time stamp, that is fine. So I moved your 04:37 post. I'm not going further into all of the personal opinions talk. The compromise is there, and it works. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:44, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Thought you signed off, then started with GoneIn60. I was wrong, you were right, everyone wins! InedibleHulk (talk) 04:50, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Regarding this, yeah, the post you broke into originally ended with the GoneIn60 query. Your latest reply is fine where it is. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:56, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

GoneIn60, it appears the matter is resolved. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:02, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Good, because I think I would have been in over my head to jump into the middle of this one! --GoneIn60 (talk) 22:27, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Further discussion, mostly in-universe

InedibleHulk, just for discussion, I want to state that with regard to "sailed West, sacked King's Landing and killed Cersei," many viewers would have been okay with Daenerys destroying only the Red Keep and killing Cersei, but the point is that the show took it too far by having Daenerys kill just about everyone in King's Landing when she'd never harmed innocents before and when her character development hadn't yet reached that point for her killing thousands of innocents to have been logical.

And I still feel that Poniewozik is translating what that scene between Tyrion and Jon seemed to be stating. He shouldn't have to state "In translation, it's like the writers are blaming those who cheered for Daenerys." for us to get the point that he's stating that the writers were referring to both the characters and viewers supporting Daenerys. He is relaying that the writers were stating, "See? People supporting her brutal actions time and time again has led to her thinking that her latest brutal action -- burning down King's Landing -- is right and that her future brutal actions will always be right. After all, she was justified all of those other times. Well, almost all of those other times. So now she's built up this unshakeable belief that she is always right when it comes to discerning what is good." Of course, the writers know (or should know) that they only have themselves to blame for viewer perception, but the "cheered for her" piece speaks directly to the story and indirectly to the viewers. Poniewozik's whole point about "on paper" is about doing the work and not just relying on an outline. He was saying that the material needed to go beyond its paper incarnation and transition well to the screen. It needed to build up to that, and the show just didn't do it sufficiently. I pointed you to the "Foreshadowing Is Not Character Development" video before, and you stated that you understood what the uploader was stating, but that you couldn't agree. It seems you feel that the show did just fine with the buildup and that it's the viewers' faults for not seeing the true Daenerys, or if not the true her, where she was headed. It seems you think that the viewers were just blind. Critics and fans obviously generally don't see it that way, though.

Anyway, have you watched the "Game of Thrones: The Downfall of Daenerys Targaryen - Ending Explained (Part 1)" video yet? It's a very good video, explaining how ultimate power (or rather the desire for it) corrupted Daenerys and that, although the villain arc was rushed, it's a solid and poetic end to her character. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:18, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

As I noted in our "Bells" chat, I consider Mirri Maz Duur, Hizdahr zo Loraq, the crucified masters, the burned khals and the Tarlys innocent enough. Not as much as little children, but what adult is? They were doing what they considered "good" by the norms of their cultures, but those rituals and practices didn't fit with her narrow-minded vision of this new world she consistently swore to build atop the rubble of the old. Through a variety of methods, the writers, actors, composer, directors, editors and cinematographers used mostly-"Western" audiences' built-in biases about things like slavery, patriarchy, magic, beauty and arrogance to their advantage in building toward an explosive climax that (I assume) was supposed to "blow people's minds" before rebuilding a realization that, despite being younger and whiter, those "locals" in King's Landing were every bit as foreign and backward in their social acceptances to her as those weirdos from earlier were.

And they would have gotten away with it, too, if it wasn't for the sudden rise of Donald Trump, #MeToo and ISIS, which empowered everyone with an online presence to believe they alone know what's good (at least relative to great and terrible men behind the curtains). So a few thousand people missed the episode's point and went online to ragesack the show they used to love, several thousand more liked, shared and subscribed them on, and soon even you believed the hysteria was both justified and important. The real-world equivalent of the downtrodden population of King's Landing "worked themselves into a shoot", as they say in wrestling fandom, with that petition that most people signed only after it became famous and "cool".

So it was a good idea for the TV series on paper back when, but nobody foresaw the loyal mob going that blind. In that sense, yes, the bookers "went too far", but give them credit for appreciating how their evolved audience would take the finale in their "penultimate state" and having Tyrion, who most people like, patiently and compassionately explain how all her supporters are to blame. The ficitional ones directly and the real ones implicitly. It was a classy move on their part to at least try to inform her fans they were wrong all along, beyond simply having the new Queen tell her faithful army (onscreen and off) why she was right all along. They wouldn't have believed her, because being told you're wrong hurts and is something only a "trusted advisor" can do.

That might be why you can't admit Poniewozik is plainly agreeing with the show's point and blaming the audience; you probably only just met him. It's only natural to look for an alternative explanation in separate but surrounding paragraphs, or even the wider "wave" of similar articles, rather than focus on the pertinent paragraph: "We could only guess...who created this monster? Dear reader, it was us." As a somewhat old Wikiquaintance, I feel for you, but in times like these, when all hope is lost and the ink is dry, the most heroic thing we can do is look the truth in the face. And that's the bottom line, because the Queen in the North said so.

And if I may be blunt for a second, I don't wanna watch that video! Sorry, eh? InedibleHulk (talk) 23:20, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

In our other discussion, you didn't state that you think that Mirri Maz Duur, Hizdahr zo Loraq, the crucified masters, the burned Khals and the Tarlys were all innocent. You and I have different ideas of what innocent is if you think that the Khals and crucified masters were innocent. There may have been a few masters that were innocent. But anyway, it matters not what their culture was. Even back then, slavery and rape, especially rape, were considered bad or evil acts by many people. Not just western people. It's not narrow-minded to view rape and slavery as wrongdoings. It's why Tyrion says that Daenerys killed evil men before. He wasn't suggesting that they were good or innocent men and that Daenerys was simply wrong. He was stating that because she was right (almost) all of those other times, she now has this unshakeable belief that she is always right when it comes to discerning what is good. The creators are clear that certain factors led to Daenerys burning the city; they haven't stated that her past choices to use violence were wrong all along or that she was the Big Bad all along. It's a story about how absolute power corrupts absolutely, as noted by that "The Downfall of Daenerys Targaryen" video I pointed you to and this "The Tragedy of Daenerys Targaryen" Vulture source. Obviously, Daenerys showed many kind acts throughout the series that weren't based on her benefiting herself, and that includes when she locked up her dragons after one of them burned one child.

As for "nobody foresaw the loyal mob going that blind"? We're just going to have to agree to disagree that the audience was simply blind. Going by that logic, then the vast majority of the critics, who also called the Daenerys villain arc rushed and poorly executed, are a part of the blind, loyal mob.

You're wrong about Poniewozik. I don't understand how you can't see that he's translating what Tyrion was stating rather than agreeing with Tyrion.

That petition was on fire immediately after the "Bells" episode. Like I stated before, the Games of Thrones writers have themselves to blame. No need to feel for me. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:34, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

I didn't use their names and did use sarcasm, but if you search for "legitimate business owner", you'll find my innocence plea for three groups ("innocent" here meaning not deserving of a very painful death). I know you know we discussed the witch's motivations elsewhere. Also didn't mean to imply real Eastern folk tolerate and respect rape and slavery, just Dothraki and Slaver's Bay folk. The Tarlys had a similar-but-different ethos about not bending over and submitting to strangers, and she burned them for it (didn't apologize to Sam, either). Tyrion didn't tell Jon she was right for killing these "evil men", just that the roar of the crowd made her "grow more powerful and sure she is good and right". There's a difference between thinking something and being something.

Also didn't mean to discount all the recent events that put a woman with her backstory and character into the position she was in by "The Bells". Death, betrayal and foreplay with the Iron Fleet and scorpions certainly lit her fuse, but her underlying explosive potential was always growing. That's not to say she was a Big Bad all along, there are no simple babyfaces or heels in this show. She just wasn't the relatively white and cherished Mhysa she'd been before (who was rather kind in chaining up her dragon children to save lamb children), since coming to Westeros. Of course her recent Westerosi history was "rushed", seven episodes are fewer than ten, and six are even fewer. If we'd gone along at a "normal pace", we'd have ran out of time 60% of the way through. While I agree with the mob in blaming the show for not making the extra seven episodes, I blame the mob for not anticipating a 40% speed boost in the two years they had to prepare for it and adjusting their thinking caps accordingly.

I don't aim to overly generalize when I say the audience was blinded in this whole rush, because many people "got" many things. But it's been 30 days since Azor Ahai came again to clasp a burning sword during the Long Night, and despite that light appearing in indisputably unusual darkness, not a single reviewer reported it. Even two days ago, one Screen Ranter remained convinced that "no one who clearly fit the propecy appeared." Too focused on fan theories that Azor Ahai was supposed to destroy the Night King or that Lightbringer itself had to be "reborn" first or that Cersei (not death) was the enemy Melisandre and Beric spoke of. All because they were preoccupied with wanting to see Jon, Dany and (later) Arya as the heroes. In that context, can you really blame me for thinking similar stubborness and denial was still strong two short weeks later for this fiery conclusion?

If I'm wrong about Poniewozik using his own voice as a stand-in for the writers', you're wrong about how he "does not consider Drogon's actions the key to the episode in any way." He called it "the climactic act and the tenderest emotional moment in the series finale." Not just the climax, but the "the perfect climax for the show that “Game of Thrones” finally became. Its key scene belonged to a massive CGI animation whose motivations we will never fathom." The caption of the obvious and gigantic lead screenshot isn't one of Daenerys or Jon or Tyrion, but "one last pivotal burst of dragon fire" from a dragon that seems to be Drogon. So we're even, OK? And I'll watch your video if you intently listen to three Bob Seger songs ("Still the Same", "Against the Wind" and "Turn the Page"). They kind of explain a lot. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:13, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

I didn't miss your points. I simply don't agree with most of them.

Again, it matters not that the Dothraki and Slaver's Bay folk "tolerate and respect rape and slavery." It doesn't mean that they weren't wrong/bad for tolerating, respecting, and engaging in it. I understand the argument that "well, that's their culture and it's right to them; so an outsider's view that it's wrong is the outsider's view." I understand the argument that "it's an outsider deciding that it's wrong." But even within the Dothraki culture, the women viewed rape as wrong. They didn't want to be owned and raped. The Dothraki are a male-dominated society. When it comes to rape and murder, these are things that are universally recognized as wrong (both in the real world and in fiction, although there are lower degrees of murder that have been considered more tolerable throughout real-life history). The Dothraki engage in war rape as part of an attack. They know it's not pleasant for women or even men who are possibly raped. In the end, even in the fictional world, people decide what is good or bad behavior for others and what behaviors should be rewarded or punished. It's just that kings and queens decided back then. Daenerys wanting to rule and to decide what is good or bad for the people was nothing new. It's just that she ended up going about it the wrong way.

Tyrion called those men evil because they were evil. Or just "bad" in some cases, whichever word one prefers since "evil" is extreme. He very much did state that she was justified. He noted that the Dothraki would have done worse to her (although many would say that being burned alive is worse). What was she supposed to do? Just let them rape her and hurt her in other ways? He didn't refer to the Tarlys. And, obviously, the audience isn't going to think that the Tarlys were among the evil men that Tyrion was talking about. Again, he was stating that because Daenerys was right all of those other times, she built up the notion that she could not be wrong. Reliable sources state the same thing. They note that, until the "Bells" episode, just about all of Daenerys's killings were justified. And I state "just about" because the Tarlys are sometimes given as an exception.

As for "her underlying explosive potential was always growing. That's not to say she was a Big Bad all along, there are no simple babyfaces or heels in this show. She just wasn't the relatively white and cherished Mhysa she'd been before (who was rather kind in chaining up her dragon children to save lamb children), since coming to Westeros," having a ruthless side obviously is not the same thing as being capable of the mass murder of innocents. Except for perhaps the murders of the Tarlys, which I didn't like and saw as the writers possibly headed toward turning Daenerys dark, the audience never got an indication that Daenerys would be capable of murdering innocents, and especially thousands of innocents. Yes, Daenerys had the potential to turn mad due to her pesky family genes that somehow Jon doesn't have to worry about (I guess because he's half-Targaryen), but this is why she surrounded herself with wise advisors (well, mostly wise advisors anyway) -- to help ensure that she would not become the Mad Queen. This wasn't a story about Daenerys not being able to overcome her Targaryen nature, although Benioff and Weiss attributed her burning King's Landing partly to her being a Targaryen. It's a story of ultimate power corrupting a good person. And although the book series and show have prided themselves on not having characters that are completely good or completely bad, Daenerys was a good person; the creators were clear about that. Many critics state that she was an unambiguous good person. So, except for the murders of the Tarlys and perhaps the crucifixion (that one of her advisors questioned her on), the writers failed to make her brutal actions ambiguous. She was never presented as a gray character. Hell, it's not even clear to some reviewers and fans that she had truly become mad at the end of her story arc. And by "mad," I mean the strict insane definition. One doesn't need to be insane to do what she did.

As for "blam[ing] the mob," it's not just about an extra seven episodes. The writers could have done another seven episodes and still not have sufficiently built up the Daenerys villain arc. If the show had done its job of sufficiently building up the Daenerys villain arc, then the audience would have "anticipat[ed] a 40% speed boost." The poor execution cannot be blamed on the viewers just not having been smart enough. You stated that you "don't aim to overly generalize when [you] say the audience was blinded in this whole rush, because many people 'got' many things." Good. Even many people who saw the villain arc coming before the last few episodes that were used to question Daenerys's ability to rule/her sanity have stated that the arc was rushed and that Daenerys burning all of those innocent people who had already surrendered to her did not make sense for her character at that point.

As for "does not consider Drogon's actions the key to the episode in any way," yes, it's clear that he considers the Drogon piece important and symbolic, like a number of other reviewers do (which is why I suggested that we give Drogon his own paragraph in the reception section). But my point was that he's quite clear what he feels the episode's success mostly hinged on; it's not Drogon burning the throne. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:22, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

As a longtime viewer of infamous killers and wrestling, I'm inclined to believe most people with delusions of grandeur, feelings of underappreciation and thirsts for revenge against "the system" tend to start off small. Burning "ugly" bugs and impaling "stupid" frogs (akin to refusing a tag from your partner and huffing off). Next come cats or dogs (which of the two more "deserves it" is a division in itself) Then it's on to homeless people, hookers, immigrants and other marginalized folk (rather like outright pushing and screaming at Jannetty to wise up). Then there's a moment of tender reconciliation with humanity (either in a barber shop, a throne room or wherever "legit" mass murderers fall in love). Finally comes that heartbreaking moment where buddy (or buddess) realizes "that special someone" is a lying, cheating no-good such-and-such like "all the rest", and from there, all bets are off and the sky's the limit.

If Marty doesn't want the belts, if King's Landing wants to "be with" Cersei or if Tabitha (not a real name) wants to "see other people" at prom, then everyone who didn't cheer will have to boo, at least they're paying attention. It's a bit of a disturbing logic, but it seems to make sense to all troubled go-getters around Daenerys' age (I blame the music). Hell, "burning it all" even crossed my own mind once or twice during my wasted punk years (and I actually went through with superkicking an old friend, just to see how it felt). There but for the grace of good fortune went I, and maybe you, too. This urchin wasn't so lucky, though, and some sick society entrusted her with the most awesome godddamned force in her whole godless world (as Maester Aemon put it) instead of the assault rifles and sexy new managers regular "heartbreak kids" get for Christmas. It's tragic and shocking at the time, but "there were signs", as the dirtsheets usually note later.

I appreciate your proposal about Drogon's paragraph, and there'll be time for that later (hope to see you then). For now, I just wanted to get through to you that, yes, a "key scene" is absolutely, unquestionably one in which the actor's actions are key to the whole episode in a big way, not just any way. You take that key scene out, the episode won't work, as simply as your door won't open or your car won't start. That's a fact, Jack. Now we could argue till the cows come home about whether he's mistaken or freely lying or directed by management in his apparent conviction that this was the key scene, but he wrote it and we read it, and in a perfect Wikiworld, we'd give it a prominence and distinction reflecting the source material, like the wishy-washy jellyfish network our dominant religion says we should be. But so long as people know what's good in their own hearts of hearts, these lands shall be plagued by edit war, pocked by plot holes and blanketed in endless waves of talk page abstractions.

But maybe, just maybe, we've seen the beginning of the end of it in Games of Thrones-related articles now that the scripted part's over. Are you watching anything cool next? This is my first favourite show to ever end (not counting the canceled one), so I'm not sure where I go from here (probably why I'm still rambling semi-coherently over the ashes of this one). Don't say Barry, though, they all say Barry. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:32, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Good on you for for breaking our discussion off into a "Further discussion, mostly in-universe" subsection. I'd also be fine with collapsing it via a collapse box. I also see that you defined what you mean by "innocent."

I can't see Daenerys as having been like a serial killer who starts off small before moving on to killing humans. Of course, some would state that non-human animals aren't less important than humans, and so it's not starting off small. Society is human-centric, though, prioritizing human life. I've already addressed the "in her nature" aspect above.

I fail to see how taking out the Drogon piece causes the episode to not work, and Poniewozik doesn't state that not having that scene would cause the episode to not work. To repeat: "he's quite clear what he feels the episode's success mostly hinged on; it's not Drogon burning the throne."

There are a lot of shows to watch, and I'm too busy to watch most of them. I don't see any show replacing this one on the involvement and excitement level, at least not at this time. And I am speaking generally as well (with regard to all of the people this show impacted), not just for myself. I recently finished watching the latest season of Lucifer. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:32, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

I personally think dogs, cats and frogs are as "big" as humans. Also homeless people, hookers and immigrants. Flies, not so much. Hive creatures, forget about it (just save the queen). But yeah, there are general levels in society as a whole. Once he hit "destroying the capital", it's sort of natural for smallfolk to stop remembering Drogon as "the son of a bitch who ate my sheep".

James says it's the key scene, and I say it wouldn't work without it. I wouldn't be surprised if he agrees with my paraphrasing. Meaning the whole scene, not any one shot. From the sniffing to the melting to the flying away and leaving us with truly unanswered questions (intentionally, of course). Of the three actors in it, Daenerys has the least screentime, Jon and Drogon are about tied. And between the two of them, Drogon had more moves and a wider emotional progression, so the key scene "belonged to" him. Jon Snow played Jon Snow for that one (important) kill, but is killing a person equal or greater than sparing one? Because I'm not buying this theory that Drogon's incapable of killing a Targaryen. He's not Robocop, he made a legitimate fateful choice there, for some unfathomable reason or another.

I'll look into this Lucifer business, thanks. I don't expect it to quite fill the void either, but somewhat fitting after Carnivàle and Game of Thrones. I'm a bit of a sucker for lightbringers, it seems. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:15, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Just in the spirit of remembering the days we used to talk via edit summaries, hindsight and "mixed" metaphors (has it been a whole new day already?), what do you think about tempering your vision of Daenerys "turning evil" with my various sublayers of onionesque reasoning behind Arya's "failed but noble" "great idea on paper" to "liberate" Nora and Tabitha? I'm not asking you to agree with the chronological veracity (or lack thereof) of the underlying edit, or to swallow the preposterous notion that someone we don't know would name her kid "Tabitha". Just, when you have the time, stop and think about how young your beloved queen truly is, rather than how old Emilia Clarke looks. She's been (rightfully) aged a bit for television, but at the end of the day her "ultimate state" of wisdom, maturity and XP combined literally couldn't buy her a goblet of wine for the gold price per the unified rules of the United States (maybe sanctioned in Nevada, definitely welcome up North). In your father's day, she'd be "old enough to kill, but not for votin'" in her "penultimate episode", her "Eve of Destruction", if you weel. That last line was intended as an allusion to Dusty Rhodes and "The Wheel", I'll have you know, but it's up to you, dear reader, to choose which ones and why. And with that, I'll make like Miss Muffet's spider and get out of your hair, "praying" we all choose wisely in this disputed plot-turned-schism. If not, I fear the online fandom is headed toward...what comes after a schism in the real world, again? InedibleHulk (talk) 23:29, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

What do you mean by "tempering [my] vision of Daenerys 'turning evil'"? That is not my vision. I don't think she was evil. Do I think she was a villain by the end? Yes, and so do various reliable sources. It's the critical consensus that the show turned her into a villain. It's also the viewer consensus. The show clearly portrayed her as the villain there at the end. If you want to debate that she wasn't, I'd rather not. And my opinions on Daenerys are not about how Emilia Clarke looks. Furthermore, I think you are confusing me relaying what critics and viewers generally think with my personal feelings. But as for my personal feelings, yes, I think that the writers botched her villain arc. And I don't need to note why; the critics have done that for me. But I do like tragic stories and I appreciate the story of power corrupting the good Daenerys. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:38, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

I figured you figured a villain is evil. If not, what quality do you (or your understanding of the critical and viewing majorities) think she has now that she didn't before she took King's Landing? From what I've read (and sometimes heard), "evil" and "madness" seem tied for first among the loudest booers. I'm glad her botched corruption from good Dany to...something Dany didn't "ruin the show" for you, personally. Had a feeling you were always "better than that". Cheers to overall enjoyment! InedibleHulk (talk) 02:32, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

The difference is what I've addressed before/what sources have addressed: She burned thousands of innocents. She decided that burning thousands of innocents was necessary, and it seemed she was willing to go full force ahead burning more innocents. Now, although we might differ on who is innocent, the show told us that almost all of her other killings were justifiable. Even when she burned the Tarlys, the show had her give them a choice. She gave the people (or rather those in charge) of King's Landing a choice as well, but she then took that choice away from them. After they had surrendered, she burned them all alive. She later spoke of no one being able to choose except for herself and Jon. Her actions in those last two episodes is why she became the villain, the one that Tyrion, Arya and Jon felt needed to be stopped. As for the show being ruined for me, well, I can't watch the triumphant Daenerys scenes in the same way again, and I don't like that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:32, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

She gave Cersei, the voice of the people in an absolute monarchy, a choice. She not only refused, but killed Missandei and shielded herself with her people. Even if she didn't want to surrender, she had time to evacuate them and let her soldiers fight her unwinnable battle. If you mean the second chance with the bells, that was always Tyrion's plan, not hers (even though she nodded at Grey Worm) and his plans are suspiciously unreliable and pro-Lannister lately. Who's to say she doesn't accept their surrender, put Drogon in the garage and be murdered that night by a loyalist rebellion? As the old queen's brother, Tyrion has a lot to gain. Not every castleholder is such a cunt as Cersei or Harren the Black, so it's unlikely that Daenerys would need to burn the rest (Aegon didn't, Truman didn't, Bush didn't). It still wouldn't be sunshine and lollipops, but King's Landing was an extreme case calling for extreme measures, and an example to the rest. Anyway, you didn't answer my question. If that was intentional, no worries. If not, let me rephrase it: A good person who is corrupted by power and burns innocents full force without acceptable justification turns into a _______ person? You can say "villainous", but that seems a bit too easy. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:23, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Hold that thought. Why didn't Tyrion, Varys or Davos tell Daenerys about the backdoor to the keep? Are they evil for knowingly leaving that option secret? InedibleHulk (talk) 20:18, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Wording in some of the plot summary

Hi there!

I rarely edit on Wikipedia so I wanted to bring this to the talk page first before making any edits. I'm sorry if this is the wrong thing to talk about here or if I'm being too nitpicky!

I noticed a few changes in summary wording from yesterday to today and I wondered if it wouldn't be correct to characterize Jon's killing of Daenerys as 'reluctant' because he didn't want to do it and tried to convince her off of her plans until he saw she was resolved? Likewise, I wonder if the phrasing "stabbing her to death" is best because it makes it sound like she was stabbed multiple times instead of once to the heart.

I'm sorry if this is not the proper place to put this or if it's not the right thing to discuss on a talk page. I was hesitant to make an edit on such a high profile article. Thank you for considering this!

Anatashala (talk) 06:08, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

See how your reluctance made you not do it? That's why "reluctantly" doesn't work for Jon Snow, who did it right on time. He was "conflicted", "troubled" or "guilty" about it, but didn't hesitate. As soon as she felt trusted, loved and had her eyes closed, bam! Right in the ticker. One shot is normally all it takes in mercy killings, executions or assassinations. The paragraph doesn't make Jon sound like he's enraged, sadistic or nuts going into this, so I didn't think readers would be confused. It used to say "stabbing and killing her", which could equally sound like 75 times if you're so inclined to believe that.

But yeah, I'm not attached to my wording. As long as the facts stay true. Might be helpful to note his side of the pre-kiss debate, if we want to get your idea of reluctance across. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:29, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you so much for replying!! Your response made me laugh!

I see what you mean! But that's because I'm a scaredy-cat ;) I would argue 'reluctant' is still applicable to his action of killing her because people reluctantly do things quite often. I've reluctantly gone to the blood lab, even though I didn't want to because needles suck. I've reluctantly agreed to surgery, but I still had to do it.

Or if not, would there be another word you'd agree to? As for the kiss, I don't know if that was reluctant as it seemed genuine because, per Kit Harington, he loves her. But anyway, thank you so much for responding!

Anatashala (talk) 06:41, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

There's "begrudgingly", but it's long and full of Gs. I'd use it "cautiously". That might work, too, and is aesthetically less fugly. The kiss was realer than he's given all season, at least in the story. Didn't mean to suggest otherwise, just meant we could get the begrudging caution over if we mentioned what he'd suggested before (forgiveness, consideration of others' values, not firing on future human shields). InedibleHulk (talk) 06:55, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Could also devote a paragraph to the scene between Jon and Tyrion. He did more than warn him, he's pretty much the mastermind. Duty beats love, love beats duty, yadda yadda. Nothing too wordy, but enough to convey the semblance of an internal struggle, second-guessing or whatever it's called. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:00, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Oh, you're right! He's the one who was like, "Do it, just suck it up and do it or she's going to murder everyone." Should I give it a try? I'll try to summarize that in a few sentences. If it gets too wordy, please feel free to edit it down.

And yes, I see what you're getting at! I do like one of your former suggestions, 'conflicted', and wrote a draft of the paragraph with a few changes. How is this for the Dany/Jon paragraph? Is it too much?

In the throne room, Jon confronts Daenerys, who justifies her burning of children by blaming Cersei for using them as human shields. She will not forgive Tyrion or the Lannister prisoners, arguing that their executions — and the liberation campaign — are necessary to establish her vision of a good world. Jon tries to convince Daenerys off of this campaign but Daenerys is resolved, convinced only she and Jon are capable of determining what is good. He reaffirms his eternal fealty to her and they kiss, during which a conflicted Jon stabs and kills her. He weeps over her body when Drogon arrives. Drogon melts the Iron Throne and carries Daenerys's body away. Jon is arrested.

Anatashala (talk) 07:03, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't love the part where he tries to "convince her off of" it. I'd say "tries to dissuade her" (using pronouns to save space). Essentially fine, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:53, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Great! I'll exchange that phrasing for yours. I wrote a paragraph for the Jon/Tyrion scene. I'll add that in but if it's too wordy, not accurate enough, please edit as you see fit! :)

Anatashala (talk) 07:58, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Anatashala - I thought the guideline was 400 words for a TV episode plot. It's now 489 from like 402. starship.paint (talk) 08:10, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I didn't know there was a hard and fast limit. As seen in the discussion above, I was adding changes to one of the paragraphs and adding a paragraph for the Tyrion/Jon scene. I apologize.

Anatashala (talk) 08:14, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

It's alright. It's at MOS:TVPLOT Episode articles should have a prose plot summary of no more than 400 words. I'll work on cutting the sections starship.paint (talk) 08:21, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Aim for wordiness, not whole facts! InedibleHulk (talk) 08:24, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Starship.paint and InedibleHulk for your help and guidance!

Anatashala (talk) 08:28, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

@Anatashala: - I've done my best to trim it, Hulk's done some as well, it's 422 now. starship.paint (talk) 08:59, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Starship.paint I very, very much appreciate your efforts both to include my thoughts and keep to the plot summary limitation! Thank you to you and InedibleHulk! Anatashala (talk) 09:03, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi, TedEdwards! I'm sorry for bothering you but I was wondering about some of the changes you made to the plot summary? The details removed in your edit (second paragraph with Arya/Tyrion/Jon and third paragraph with Dany/Jon) had been discussed above with InedibleHulk and Starship.paint and we were able to come to a consensus on the details included in those paragraphs.

I discussed this with Flyer22 Reborn and perhaps there is some leeway to the 400-word limit to MOS:TVPLOT cited above? Perhaps we can restore the plot edits discussed above and still establish the familial relationships between the characters that you added? What would be other thoughts on this? Thanks! Anatashala (talk) 00:44, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

• I restored some parts of the summary, which explained Arya and Tyrion's messages better, as well as Daenerys' rationale for her villainous actions. Anatashala - it's actually 392 words now, under 400. starship.paint (talk) 14:06, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you again, Starship.paint! I think those changes (differences between Arya and Tyrion's warnings, Dany's rationale) better explain the character motives. Hopefully it sticks this time around :) Anatashala (talk) 14:25, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

@Anatashala: Sorry, I think your ping must have failed, so I didn't get the message. If there was a consensus between you and some other editors, that's fine by me and I'll go along with it (hadn't realized there was a consensus). I edited from an old plot (with the newer plot in sight) to remove details that would have not made sense to a non-viewer, and removing extraneous details that did not add much understanding, which were my priorties here rather than getting a plot down to under 400 words (that I believe is more of an ideal situation, which should be possible in most cases, but sometimes isn't). --TedEdwards 17:25, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

I've reclarified some inaccuracies you restored, and also hope these stick. If they don't, keep in mind that at least six of the sixteen alleged "lords and ladies" are neither, and while knights have sometimes been considered lower nobles in the real world, this can't be argued for Sam, Arya or Bran (if not Yara). Nobody showed up for an election but for a prisoner negotiation. Yara might be happy with Jon's sentence, but nobody says so. Jon doesn't lead the Wildlings, either as King-Beyond-the-Wall or the northernmost in the group. They might be going to their homelands, but the camera (thus we) only follow them as far as the bushline.

I've left the Masters on the Small Council's roles out, though still believe they're important in context. This is a scene about a new government, and government is more than a ragtag bunch sitting around and chatting. Certain characters now have defined roles, and these tidily reflect their actions throughout the series. Of the four positions, only "Grand Maester" could reasonably confuse a newbie reader; Coin, ships and Kingsguard (the King's guard) mean the same things they do in the real world. "Lord of Highgarden", conversely, doesn't mean shit in the real world or at the fictional cabinet level. I also think it important (after everything leading here) that this new Kingdom lacks Masters of Whispers, Laws and War. Any reader who can't discern what those words represent simply isn't ready for English Wikipedia, and pandering that low does a disservice to any reader who is. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:57, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

@TedEdwards: Yes, I probably screwed up the ping somehow, I'm sorry! What you say makes sense, editing for greater understanding of a non-viewer. I felt a few words in the plot summary owing to the conflicted nature of the assassination, as well as what led up to it (Tyrion and Arya's reasons; inability to dissuade Daenerys), would be important to non-viewers because it's a more accurate depiction and it's a defining aspect of a major character's arc as well as the culmination and conclusion of a primary plot involving two major characters in the show. Those were my reasons for the edits to the plot. Thanks for your response and explaining your reasoning!Anatashala (talk) 18:21, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

And if we're going to explain "Hand", we should probably discuss what it means. Currently defined as "chief advisor", which is partially true. This ignores the main executive duties, though, namely "commanding the king's armies, drafting laws, dispensing justice, and generally managing the day-to-day running of the kingdom." Anybody opposed to "chief advisor and executor"? Maybe "top assistant" is sufficiently wordy and understandable to the real world? InedibleHulk (talk) 18:12, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Always thought it was just a way to say prime minister or premier... --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 14:43, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Hey @TedEdwards: (and anyone else who has thoughts!), do you think it would be relevant to include any details pointing to what Daenerys means by 'liberation'? Out of context, it sounds like a really good thing, but considering Daenerys believes she liberated the people of King's Landing by killing them all after they surrendered to her, maybe not such a good thing? I think it points to why Tyrion calls her the people's greatest threat because liberation doesn't usually mean the liberator is a threat to the people while in this context, considering how Daenerys is framing it, it does. Thanks! Anatashala (talk) 19:36, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

@Anatashala: If I understand correctly, you want to make it clear in the plot summary that Daenerys's idea of "liberation" is delusional? If that is correct, I agree that it should be made clear. How are you thinking of doing this? --TedEdwards 22:05, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

@TedEdwards: Yes! Something that indicates what Daenerys is referring to as "liberation" but I'm not sure how to go about doing this without being too wordy. Maybe a reference to her words after the massacre of King's Landing, wherein she tells her army that they liberated the people? Anatashala (talk) 22:11, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

@TedEdwards: I gave it some thought today and here is my suggestion, what do you think? Is it clear enough? Is this too convoluted?

"Daenerys declares to the Unsullied and Dothraki armies that they liberated the people of King's Landing and she will liberate the entire world."

Also, I wanted to ask your thoughts on this - I'd like to change this line (" [...] Jon reaffirms his fealty to her and kisses her, but then stabs her to death") back to something like the previous version of this sentence: "[...] Jon reaffirms his fealty to her and fatally stabs her while they kiss," as I think the latter wording is more representative of what happened on screen because he killed her during their shared kiss and it's fewer words -- but what do you (and anybody else who'd like to weigh in) think? Thanks again! :) Anatashala (talk) 03:39, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Your sentence about Daenerys's death seems good. However, I think the sentence about liberation, without meaning to cause offense, is a bit of a brain-twister to realizing what she means by liberation. I'm thinking if we put the word liberation in quotation marks, might that make it clear that what she means by liberation isn't what most people mean by liberation. Or maybe use your suggested sentence, just put "liberated" in quotation marks. --TedEdwards 16:16, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

@TedEdwards: Yeah, I was puzzling over that and I agree it is on the more confusing side because it doesn't really explain what Daenerys means by 'liberation'. What if something is said like, "After killing most of the populace of King's Landing, Daenerys believes she liberated them and declares to the Unsullied and Dothraki armies that she will liberate the entire world." Or is that too much on the wordy side without being clear enough?

But I think your suggestion is good -- putting 'liberation' in quotation marks. What is your preference? Anatashala (talk) 20:55, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

I just realized that my suggested revision ("After killing most of the[...]") doesn't work within this plot summary because the massacre didn't happen in this episode and makes it seem like it occured again. I think we should go with your suggestion :) Anatashala (talk) 04:23, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

@TedEdwards: I've made those edits to the plot summary. If any are incorrect or if I misunderstood you in any way, I apologize and please modify as needed! Thank-you! Anatashala (talk) 20:36, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

____

References

Audience response

I was surprised to see no audience response question and no discussion (at least not here) about adding one or actively avoiding the inclusion of one. Given the tremendous amount of outcry to the episode, it seems worthy of inclusion and it's easy to find numerous sources discussing said outcry, but I don't want to work on a section for this information if it's accepted that we don't need it. Thoughts? Sock (tock talk) 19:03, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Sock, I saw more about audience response with regard to the previous episode, and we included audience response material in that episode's article. People seem more "meh" about this one, although I know that many people didn't like this episode or didn't like some parts of it (such as the Bran aspect). But, yeah, we can add some audience response material. I'm not against it. No need to ping me to this section if you reply since this page is on my watchlist. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:24, 18 July 2019 (UTC)