Editing Talk:Shallan Davar

== Shallan bisexual? ==
Um, that line is really out of place for being in the lead. At a very minimum, it should be moved to personality / appearance. But more so, is that tweet even confirmation that she's bisexual? It seems like he didn't write her to be bisexual. Either way, seems more like speculation than confirmation. [[User:SAMWAF|SAMWAF]] ([[User talk:SAMWAF|talk]]) 10:36, 6 December 2016 (MST)
: I completely agree. It's absolutely not such a defining characteristic that it should be mentioned in the introduction, and the tweet doesn't confirm that she is bisexual. He doesn't say "yes, she is"; he says "I agree that she comes across that way". I think something along the lines of "Shallan may be bisexual," should be written into the Personality/Appearance section. -[[User:Jofwu|Jofwu]] ([[User talk:Jofwu|talk]]) 10:48, 6 December 2016 (MST)
:: I just removed it. Someone can add it back into personality as a "speculated that she is bisexual", but I don't think it is appropriate. Seems more like fan projection than legitimate speculation. [[User:SAMWAF|SAMWAF]] ([[User talk:SAMWAF|talk]]) 13:42, 7 December 2016 (MST)
::: I added it in the first place because when presented with the idea, he specifically said, as I quoted in the reference, "This wasn't directly on my mind while writing, but looking back, I think it was in my subconscious." He wrote her like that subconsciously, not that he did not write it that way. Saying that he subconsciously made it so means that it ''is'' so. He said nothing so ambiguous as "I agree it comes across that way." Moreover, in a followup tweet he didn't correct a person who mentioned it, when it would have been the perfect opportunity to clear up any miscommunication. Given these two things together (plus textual evidence from the books which prompted the question in the first place) it really can't be considered to merely be fan speculation, or somehow illegitmate speculation. I added it where I did more for the sake convenience -- choosing to dump information into the article to be moved around and edited later as necessary. Now, given all that, I'll add it to the article again, this time in the personality section, and cite the second tweet. --[[User:Shroom|Shroom]] ([[User talk:Shroom|talk]]) 23:12, 31 December 2016 (MST)
@@ Line 4: / Line 4: @@
 :: I just removed it. Someone can add it back into personality as a "speculated that she is bisexual", but I don't think it is appropriate. Seems more like fan projection than legitimate speculation. [[User:SAMWAF|SAMWAF]] ([[User talk:SAMWAF|talk]]) 13:42, 7 December 2016 (MST)
 ::: I added it in the first place because when presented with the idea, he specifically said, as I quoted in the reference, "This wasn't directly on my mind while writing, but looking back, I think it was in my subconscious." He wrote her like that subconsciously, not that he did not write it that way. Saying that he subconsciously made it so means that it ''is'' so. He said nothing so ambiguous as "I agree it comes across that way." Moreover, in a followup tweet he didn't correct a person who mentioned it, when it would have been the perfect opportunity to clear up any miscommunication. Given these two things together (plus textual evidence from the books which prompted the question in the first place) it really can't be considered to merely be fan speculation, or somehow illegitmate speculation. I added it where I did more for the sake convenience -- choosing to dump information into the article to be moved around and edited later as necessary. Now, given all that, I'll add it to the article again, this time in the personality section, and cite the second tweet. --[[User:Shroom|Shroom]] ([[User talk:Shroom|talk]]) 23:12, 31 December 2016 (MST)
-:::: I read the referenced tweets differently. I think Brandon's response merely suggests that he can see how she ''might'' be interpreted that way. In other words, he subconsciously wrote her in a specific way... which inadvertently resulted this interpretation. There's no ''evidence'' which directly relates to Shallan's sexuality--only her personality, which may or may not be consistent with a "typical" bisexual personality. In fact, from what I remember, the original tweet wasn't actually even serious. The person wasn't approaching Brandon with a serious question based on evidence; it was just a joke that happened to receive a thoughtful answer from Brandon. If we want to make a hard claim like this without textual evidence, then the WoB has to be unquestionable. There's a big difference between "Yes, Shallan is bisexual," and "Huh, I guess I wrote her with a bisexual-like personality." All of that said, I don't disagree strongly enough (or feel that the issue is notable enough) to insist on further editing. --[[User:Jofwu|Jofwu]] ([[User talk:Jofwu|talk]]) 07:11, 2 January 2017 (MST)
-== First 2 Knight Radiant ==
-The article says that Kaladin and Shallan are the first two realized Knights Radiant in centuries.
-So what about the Skybreakers? They never participated in the Recreance in the first place. What about Jasnah, who was clearly a Knight Radiant when Shallan first met her?
-I assume this is one of the pending updates since ''Oathbringer'' was published?
-[[User:Nitpicking|Nitpicking]] ([[User talk:Nitpicking|talk]]) 16:59, 7 January 2018 (MST)
-: Nitpicking, this is definitely an old artifact that needs updating. Feel free to make any small edit like this that you think is an issue. :) If someone disagrees we can always question or revert the edits. There's certainly something to be said about the fact that Shallan was one of the first of the "new wave" of Radiants. But you'd have to get creative on how to word that... --[[User:Jofwu|Jofwu]] ([[User talk:Jofwu|talk]]) 16:05, 8 January 2018 (MST)
-This was still in the trivia section, I changed it to "one of the first non-Skybreakers" [[User:Cometaryorbit|Cometaryorbit]] ([[User talk:Cometaryorbit|talk]]) 15:33, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
-== Move Veil and Radiant to separate pages? ==
-To say that Veil and Radiant are just aliases that she uses is most certainly not up to date with RoW, and seeing as they have different skills and pasts (though imaginary, in some cases), it would make sense to just specify that they're personas of Shallan.
-[[User:Spriy|Spriy]] ([[User talk:Spriy|talk]]) 18:21, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
-:I would be opposed to a move like this; it seems like that'd just get a ton of duplicated history and info. However, certainly the non-History sections do need to be buffed to include more Veil and Radiant information. But definitely we should say that Veil and Radiant are Shallan's alters. -- [[User:Chaos2651|Chaos2651]] ([[User talk:Chaos2651|talk]]) 18:47, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
-== Formless ==
-Would Formless be worth adding as an alter in the Mental Health section, or would that be better suited to History?
-[[User:Spriy|Spriy]] ([[User_talk:Spriy|talk]]), 19:01, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
-:Formless should definitely be mentioned as part of Shallan's personality, I think, and yes somewhere in the Mental Health section would be the place for that. Of course, the events in Lasting Integrity should also be covered in her History section, but that'll be more of a "this is what happened" whereas Personality is more the place for describing what Formless means to Shallan's character. There was also a brief discussion related to this (though more focused on Veil's integration) [https://discord.com/channels/254245272060690433/736015348704477266/879549996167462942 on Discord a few weeks ago].
-:--[[User:Stargazer|Stargazer]] ([[User talk:Stargazer|talk]]) 19:16, 10 September 2021 (UTC)