Forums > Administrators' noticeboard archive > NB:Biased wording on Eron and Rhee
Eron and Rhee contain wording that breaches WP:NPOV by stating that the story only "defined them as aunts". This is factually incorrect as they are also noted as being mothers and ignores the subtext that many readers identified that they were in a relationship. This subtext relies on cultural expectations around two aunts taking in a child to raise as their own, which of course vary in the real world, as does the definition and use of "aunt"—many cultures (notably asian and indigenous australian) use this as a term of reference for older females regardless of any familiarity with the individual, using this term for complete strangers as a term of respect. Wil Wheaton confirmed the subtext interpretation of their relationship that they were a couple. Using this terminology in the article provides a bias against same-sex relationships that is not needed in the article. While my original edit provided context on Wheaton's need to clarify, my removal of the biased wording noted only Wheaton's confirmation. This was reverted to re-add the biased wording and posits their relationship as outside-expectation of the reader, minimising same-sex experiences. I ask that the last edit be removed to remove the mention and interpretation of some users and note only the fact that Wheaton confirmed the relationship. ℳÅℕ☉❂Ⅎ he/him/his 05:49, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
- The articles are factually correct as is. The story itself refers to them as aunts, and the author later clarified they were in a relationship. Both of these things are relevant to the Behind the Scenes section. Supreme Emperor Holocomm 05:55, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
- "He knew Eron and Rhee would take good care of Laina, be good mothers to her, and raise her as their own until they could be reunited."
"...but I know that you'll be safe with your Aunt Rhee and Aunt Eron. [...] They love you very much, and they're going to take you to a planet called Alderaan, [...]". Are the only two quotes that I can see in the story in which these two ladies are mentioned. Neither one of them outright states they are in a relationship. As someone who is also queer, I kindly ask that you stop throwing around the insults that we are minimizing experiences. It's you speaking over queer folks who happen to disagree with you and is highly inappropriate. —SnowedLightning (they/them) 06:01, 8 November 2023 (UTC)- As mentioned above, "aunts" has different meaning and the context of the adoptive parents being a clear inference for some as them being relationship is what leads to different interpretations. While your interpretation isn't incorrect in isolation to the text, it is clear I am not the only one to get the correct interpretation of them as being together, confirmed by Wheaton. As stated, the text as-is negates the experiences and interpretations of people who see and identify with this relationship. @SnowedLightning I am not speaking over anyone, as everyone has an equal voice, if anything I have less of a voice given I do not participate on Discord and do not have admin authority (and am speaking without support from anyone). I am speaking from my own (and clearly others give that post) experiences and yes, I see the existing phrasing as passive-aggressive and minimising my experiences. Queer experiences are not homogenous and just because you do not relate, see your own experience or interpret something the same as me, that does not make my opinion or experience less valid. Given the vibes and accusations thrown at me, this is my last response and I will accept the authority of the collective admins in this matter ℳÅℕ☉❂Ⅎ he/him/his 06:17, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
- Manoof, you know as well as I do that admin authority is not the be all, end all. Jayce does not have admin authority either, they have the same level of voice you do. The existing phrasing is supported by the book, and by asking us not to include it you are in fact asking us to exclude information from the article. There is nothing discriminatory about saying this is the wording the book uses, and this is what the author confirmed. At present, the article details what the book says, and what the author says. End of story. Supreme Emperor Holocomm 06:25, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
- That post, as I saw it, contained some pretty sketchy shade thrown at Wookieepedia and was not exactly the most pleasant thing to read. Nor were anything else associated with it, if I'm entirely honest. The information should be intended to accompany what is said in the book (of which I have a physical copy right next to me that I referenced for my reply above). It is not invalidating, and in fact the opposite. It reinforces the fact that they were written as a couple and the interpretations that others made were correct. Having "they are said to be aunts, and Wil confirms this on tumblr" is not removing experiences or someone's understanding of how something is written. I really do not see how that is even remotely possible in this situation. It's arguing over semantics, and if you say that each person has their own voice, that means we should not be debating over which version is correct. (lol I also do not want admin authority for the record, keep that far away from me tbh) —SnowedLightning (they/them) 06:31, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
- SnowedLightning, apologies, but I'm confused. Where is the "sketchy shade" in the post? What part of it is unpleasant to read? The text of the ask is this: "hi, wil! in your star wars story laina, are the two aunts rhee and eron in a relationship? the admins at wookieepedia are claiming they can't be considered canon queer because they could be sisters, but i thought it seemed clear the story was portraying them as a couple. thanks so much for your time! love the story, btw. (regardless of who's right, would you mind responding publicly so that wook can count it as evidence?)". As far as I can see, all it is is stating facts. The admins at wookieepedia (namely, spookywillow) claimed that they couldn't be considered canon queer because they could be sisters. This was stated in edit summaries. OP thought that they were in a romantic relationship, a perfectly valid interpretation, though one that differs from the position of the administration. That's literally the entirety of the post. 185.176.222.194 09:49, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
- Hi! Just wanted to jump in and say that as a queer person myself, I agree with Manoof. Of course it is validating that Wil Wheaton confirmed the two aunts to be in a romantic relationship, but I personally felt that the wording of the Wookieepedia article was quite invalidating. The way it was worded implied that there was nothing in the story itself to indicate that the two aunts might be in a relationship, when they in fact adopted and raised a child together. In the story itself, they are even identified as Laina’s mothers, which strongly implies a romantic relationship between the two women. If a man and a woman were in the same position, they would likely be assumed to be a couple by the vast majority of readers, and therefore it makes sense that many readers drew the same conclusion about Eron and Rhee. In ANH, for instance, Uncle Owen and Aunt Beru are never identified as married or in a relationship, yet in 1977, when the film came out, they were generally assumed to be a couple because they were raising Luke together. Therefore, it is not without good reason that many readers thought Eron and Rhee were a couple, even without Wheaton’s confirmation, and I believe the wording of the article should reflect this, rather than making it seem as though the aunts’ romantic relationship came out of left field. Queen Amiadala (talk) 07:01, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
- Wookieepedia is a factual website serving as an encyclopedia. When two possible interpretations exist, we don’t assume either is the case, and only present what the text says. This standard applies to not just character articles, but articles of all types. —Unsigned comment by Lewisr (talk • contribs)
- I do realize this! I was less concerned with Wookieepedia's request for confirmation and more with the way the BTS is worded. The current wording of the article implies that there is nothing in the story itself to imply that the aunts might be in a relationship. Though raising a child together (as her mothers) does not necessarily confirm that they are in a relationship, it does HEAVILY imply it. Therefore, the BTS should reflect that Wheaton's confirmation of the aunts' romantic relationship did not come out of nowhere! Currently, the BTS reads: "Although the story only defines Eron and Rhee as Laina's aunts, Wheaton later confirmed the pair were in a relationship in a Tumblr post." I believe the first clause should be removed, as not only does it read as invalidating to many queer fans (myself included; I have explained why above), it is also factually incorrect. Eron and Rhee are explicitly identified as Laina's "mothers" in the story: "He knew Eron and Rhee would take good care of Laina, be good mothers to her, and raise her as their own until they could be reunited." Therefore, in the interest of maintaining an unbiased, factual database on Star Wars, it is important that Eron and Rhee's status as Laina's mothers also be acknowledged, or at least not undercut by claiming that they are "only" identified as her aunts. Queen Amiadala (talk) 13:45, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
- Wookieepedia is a factual website serving as an encyclopedia. When two possible interpretations exist, we don’t assume either is the case, and only present what the text says. This standard applies to not just character articles, but articles of all types. —Unsigned comment by Lewisr (talk • contribs)
- That post, as I saw it, contained some pretty sketchy shade thrown at Wookieepedia and was not exactly the most pleasant thing to read. Nor were anything else associated with it, if I'm entirely honest. The information should be intended to accompany what is said in the book (of which I have a physical copy right next to me that I referenced for my reply above). It is not invalidating, and in fact the opposite. It reinforces the fact that they were written as a couple and the interpretations that others made were correct. Having "they are said to be aunts, and Wil confirms this on tumblr" is not removing experiences or someone's understanding of how something is written. I really do not see how that is even remotely possible in this situation. It's arguing over semantics, and if you say that each person has their own voice, that means we should not be debating over which version is correct. (lol I also do not want admin authority for the record, keep that far away from me tbh) —SnowedLightning (they/them) 06:31, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
- Manoof, you know as well as I do that admin authority is not the be all, end all. Jayce does not have admin authority either, they have the same level of voice you do. The existing phrasing is supported by the book, and by asking us not to include it you are in fact asking us to exclude information from the article. There is nothing discriminatory about saying this is the wording the book uses, and this is what the author confirmed. At present, the article details what the book says, and what the author says. End of story. Supreme Emperor Holocomm 06:25, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
- As mentioned above, "aunts" has different meaning and the context of the adoptive parents being a clear inference for some as them being relationship is what leads to different interpretations. While your interpretation isn't incorrect in isolation to the text, it is clear I am not the only one to get the correct interpretation of them as being together, confirmed by Wheaton. As stated, the text as-is negates the experiences and interpretations of people who see and identify with this relationship. @SnowedLightning I am not speaking over anyone, as everyone has an equal voice, if anything I have less of a voice given I do not participate on Discord and do not have admin authority (and am speaking without support from anyone). I am speaking from my own (and clearly others give that post) experiences and yes, I see the existing phrasing as passive-aggressive and minimising my experiences. Queer experiences are not homogenous and just because you do not relate, see your own experience or interpret something the same as me, that does not make my opinion or experience less valid. Given the vibes and accusations thrown at me, this is my last response and I will accept the authority of the collective admins in this matter ℳÅℕ☉❂Ⅎ he/him/his 06:17, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
- "He knew Eron and Rhee would take good care of Laina, be good mothers to her, and raise her as their own until they could be reunited."
Before the confirmation was obtained, the articles reflected that Rhee and Eron were Laina’s aunts, and that they loved her. According to Merriam Webster dictionary, aunt can mean “the sister of one’s father or mother” or “the wife of one’s uncle or aunt”, both as valid definitions of the term. The same standards and barriers for proof *should* be applied for all heterosexual couples as well — two wrongs does not make a right, all assumptions should not be present in articles. So many different types of unique familial structures exist both in real life and in Star Wars. Our wishes for what we want to be true do not mean we can reflect these onto article pages because of sentiment if the canonical material does not have firm basis for it. One reader can read something some way, another can read it the other— so per our sourcing policy, we will only ever state what the story itself states, and any extrapolation is headcanon. Lewisr (talk) 07:39, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
- For the case of heterosexual couples, if it had been a child being taken in by an uncle and an aunt who are said that they would be good parents—and additionally are said to be unrelated by blood—I think the same non-assumptive standard of needing explicit confirmation from the author should still be applied so as to be inclusive of the complexity and possibilities of many types of relationships, romantic or otherwise. Adding on to that, of course, no matter the authorial intent, everyone's got the right to their own interpretations of the text itself, like maybe they're adoptive siblings or friends who see each other as siblings, and they're all valid, which is all the more reason why an article should use wording that makes no assumption of ambiguities. OOM 224 (he/him) 09:24, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
Given others have interjected, I've decided to ask one final question. The article already notes the two are aunts, and references this to the story. The reference to their relationship is separate, to the tumblr post. So it is redundant and unnecessary to include this in the BTS. You've indicated that it is relevant to note how the source describes the two but that isn't the full picture either, restricting the story's depiction (per BTS) to just "aunts", contradicting the rest of the article. They're referred to collectively as "good mothers" who would together love Laina, take her to Alderaan, keep her safe, and raise her as their own. Noting they are aunts in the BTS acts to void alternate interpretations of the story itself resulting in the feelings of passive-aggressiveness and minimising of personal experiences. After all, if the story in isolation had no indication they were in a relationship, or were something else, there would not be any discussion on the matter. My edit, which only noted Wheaton's confirming their relationship, allows the reader to note all the information in the article body for all known information and draw their own conclusions and interpretations on the story itself without prejudicing anyone to any one interpretation. So my question:
Why is it so critical to note the point of them being aunts in the BTS given that is already captured in the article body, deliberately omitting all else that was defined about the characters noted above, shouldn't it note either all the definitions of the two (aunts and mothers who loved, sheltered, homed and raised Laina) or none of them (per my edit)? ℳÅℕ☉❂Ⅎ he/him/his 11:56, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
- There's some off-site discussion about this topic and i feel the need to note that many users here, myself included, are part of the LGBTQ+ community. To be blunt, some editors using a very strict "only refer to what is confirmed" model of thinking is not some grouping of homophobic straight people. Project PRIDE did the same thing with Merrin and Ilyana. Editoronthewiki (talk) 13:55, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
- Hi! As a Jewish person, could I please request that you don't use the term "cabal"? It is an antisemitic term and the Jewish community is currently experiencing a huge surge of antisemitism right now around the world. Thank you, I appreciate it. Queen Amiadala (talk) 14:03, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
- Noted, apologies for that. Replaced with term "grouping" Editoronthewiki (talk) 14:11, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you, much appreciated! Queen Amiadala (talk) 14:21, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
- Noted, apologies for that. Replaced with term "grouping" Editoronthewiki (talk) 14:11, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
- Editoronthewiki, "don't worry, we did this to another sapphic couple" is not as strong an argument as you think it is. Are there examples of m/f couples where wook has denied a romantic reading because they could be siblings? 185.176.222.128 04:20, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
- Hi! As a Jewish person, could I please request that you don't use the term "cabal"? It is an antisemitic term and the Jewish community is currently experiencing a huge surge of antisemitism right now around the world. Thank you, I appreciate it. Queen Amiadala (talk) 14:03, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
From what I've gathered, they're referred to outright as Aunts, and that they would "be mothers" in canon text. It's noted in BTS that the author stated they are in a relationship, but it seems odd to me for it to only be noted there considering the fact we've taken authorial intent as canon fact for quite some time now instead of merely BTS noting it. Why are we not enacting that precedent here? As far as I'm concerned this should all be in the IU portion of the article. Correct me if I'm misunderstanding the issue at hand here. - Thannus (DFaceG) (he/him) (talk) 20:51, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
- To clarify my meaning, I see no reason they cannot be denoted as biological aunts to the character, adopted mothers, and a couple in the IU body. - Thannus (DFaceG) (he/him) (talk) 20:55, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
- Correct, we've taken the authorial intent as canon, and their relationship is reflected in the articles' bodies, as far as I can see. The particular section that Manoof is contesting is the wording of the BTS. Cade
Calrayn 20:56, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
- I see. Looking at it, I agree with Manoof in this case; the specification that the story only "defined them as aunts" is a bit of a weird way to say it. I see no harm in mentioning that the relationship being authorial intent is BTS because it wasn't mentioned in an IU source, but it should be worded in a manner better than it is. It makes it seem like the authorial confirmation is somehow in spite of canon word. Removal of the mention of them being "defined only as aunts" could honestly be removed entirely, and the BTS could mention solely that them being in a relationship was confirmed by the author. There's no real reason to mention the "defined as aunts" bit because it's irrelevant to their relationship between themselves. - Thannus (DFaceG) (he/him) (talk) 21:15, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
- Think I will side with Thannus, if the issue really is just the presence of the words "defined them as aunts" then that could probably just be removed, especially since the BTS reflects the author confirmed they were a romantic couple. Much like, as I brought up, Merrin and Ilyana. We waited for official confirmation that they were a couple, we got it, the article is updated accordingly. It looks like a whole big deal is being made out of the presence of like four words in the BTS which seems like a very easy thing to solve, folks Editoronthewiki (talk) 21:48, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, this is exactly what Manoof and I have been saying since this forum was posted. We are simply requesting that the first clause be removed because of the harmful implications that Thannus acknowledges above. Queen Amiadala (talk) 22:25, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
- Think I will side with Thannus, if the issue really is just the presence of the words "defined them as aunts" then that could probably just be removed, especially since the BTS reflects the author confirmed they were a romantic couple. Much like, as I brought up, Merrin and Ilyana. We waited for official confirmation that they were a couple, we got it, the article is updated accordingly. It looks like a whole big deal is being made out of the presence of like four words in the BTS which seems like a very easy thing to solve, folks Editoronthewiki (talk) 21:48, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
- I see. Looking at it, I agree with Manoof in this case; the specification that the story only "defined them as aunts" is a bit of a weird way to say it. I see no harm in mentioning that the relationship being authorial intent is BTS because it wasn't mentioned in an IU source, but it should be worded in a manner better than it is. It makes it seem like the authorial confirmation is somehow in spite of canon word. Removal of the mention of them being "defined only as aunts" could honestly be removed entirely, and the BTS could mention solely that them being in a relationship was confirmed by the author. There's no real reason to mention the "defined as aunts" bit because it's irrelevant to their relationship between themselves. - Thannus (DFaceG) (he/him) (talk) 21:15, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
- Correct, we've taken the authorial intent as canon, and their relationship is reflected in the articles' bodies, as far as I can see. The particular section that Manoof is contesting is the wording of the BTS. Cade
- I did have several points I wanted to clarify in about these pair of articles, will list below:
- The original revision was made after finding assumptions within the articles—in almost all modern countries, marriage is defined as "the state of being united as spouses in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law." Many long-term committed relationships never turn into marriage; we should never assume the legal status of marriage without a depiction of marriage or a wedding, as it is an act, and a couple needn't be married to be cohabitating as a couple. Any Wookieepedia article that does assume a couple is married, when they are not depicted as having been so, should have that assumption removed.
- The original (above) change was made after it was brought to my attention by a board member that the pair were only mentioned in two passages, neither of which indicated proof for the above wording. It was further forwarded to the AgriCorps channel for discussion, in which it was compared to Rondale Merced; was advised to change it, until confirmation could be attained, as at the time, the Tumblr post had not existed. I do want to clarify that prior to making this revision, it was discussed to gain other opinions, and that had been the result at the time based on what we had; I did not act unilaterally, but agreed with my colleagues that we should strive to keep status articles non-assumptuous.
- "Aunt" is a term with many definitions, all valid interpretations of the word. As noted above, it can definitely mean family friends, or older women, or anything else. But, it is also worth noting that "the sister of one's father or mother" or "the wife of one's uncle or aunt" are also dictionary-supported definitions, and it is Wookieepedia's job not to assume which of these intrepretations are correct. We don't assume information for things across all sorts of articles, character articles aren't an exception to that—but based off the story alone, there are valid interpretations other than the pair being a couple. I'm grateful it was later confirmed, but that had not been the case at the time.
- I find the dig at "some fans" in this edit unnecessary; 'aunt' can be defined in so many ways, very distasteful. We strive to uplift all opinions, and just in this forum, I'm saddened to see some of our editors feel as if their interpretation doesn't matter.
- I find speedy additions to prove a point to status articles distasteful; additions to these articles should be held at the highest standard: properly sourced and all, no matter the scenario, and especially if an active nominator is on hand to fix. In my revision to remove "some fans" wording and fix the other sourcing issues it ended up where it was. Have revised the pages in this edit to remove the wording in question, add a BtS quote, and better integrate the PT. I don't really have an issue with amending the wording slightly with feedback, it's good to hear all's opinions. But I think this should be done more respectfully in the future; many editors were asked their opinions on this, including several of our queer editors, and to have them trampled over and labeled as "queerphobic" is quite honestly disgusting.
- I also denounce offsite involvement on this issue; we can easily solve things onsite in a public forum such as the Senate Hall, without bashing Wookieepedia itself. I'm for one, very grateful this got confirmation, as I'd been sad to see it go when it was unsourceable; but do strongly believe in the site's principles to uphold standards without sentiment.—spookywillowwtalk 22:21, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
- Hello! First of all, thank you for changing the wording of the BTS. As a sapphic fan, I really appreciate it. However, I’m a bit confused about some of the points above and would like to request some clarification. What was the offsite involvement related to Rhee and Eron’s relationship? As far as I can tell, the only offsite discussion around this issue took place on Tumblr, where one editor requested confirmation of the aunts’ romantic relationship so that they could be confirmed as a sapphic couple on Wook. The editor explained that the reason they were asking was because other editors on Wookieepedia claimed that OOU confirmation would be necessary for the aunts to be included in WP:PRIDE. As I see it, this editor was simply stating a fact. I don’t understand why it is harmful to Wookieepedia for that editor to mention their reason for asking the question. They wanted to make sure that Wheaton could give a clear answer that could be cited according to Wookieepedia’s policies.
Furthermore, I do agree that all editors should feel that their interpretations are valid, which is why I contested the wording of the BTS in the first place. At the time, it implied that those readers who interpreted Rhee and Eron as a couple had no reason to do so based on the story itself. However, I generally read two mothers raising a child together (and yes, they are referred to in the text as Laina’s mothers) as a couple unless otherwise specified. Maybe this cannot be assumed per Wookieepedia’s policies, but many sapphic readers recognized themselves and their experiences in that story, even before Wheaton’s confirmation. I (and many others, I believe) simply wished to ensure that the sapphic interpretation of Rhee and Eron was not discounted by the wording of the BTS. Queen Amiadala (talk) 23:00, 8 November 2023 (UTC)- Hiya, you're right, asking authors for clarification is a great and lovely thing, and I'm not referring to the post used as a citation at all when saying "offsite." I'm grateful for the post, and its asker, so that we could add it. However, its generally status article precedent to use wording such as "in an interview" or simply "on this platform, the author said..."—and not neccessarily indicate that "some" individuals didn't agree, so it had to have been stated, and as an encylopedia, its also optimal if we can focus on what the authors say and less on what fans indicate. That too, violates NPOV from the other way around. The reason the edit was worded the way it was was simply an edit to fix the hasty and unformatted plainlink citation; though I do stand firm on not reverting to the first revision's wording, I'm more than happy to have altered it to what it is now, and thank everyone for their opinion. A lot can be solved with communication by shooting a nominator a talk page message or such, but I recieved no such communication other than to wake up to most of this. And yes to the latter point as well—reading them as mothers is also a very valid interpretation to be reflected (hence why the article had been written that way originally before being challenged) but Wookieepedia is indeed very strict, we did have to cede to not assuming. I'm glad we got the confirmation, I do genuinely enjoy writing articles for the Pride project and would like to see the category entirely completed!
To the earlier point, I'm referring to other offsite involvement, not the posters of the question to Wheaton (whom I am grateful to). That point isn't necessarily going to be picked up by everyone, I'm afraid, but something I feel strongly on nonetheless; that other offsite actors bashing the work we do and our thriving Pride project, which has seen more articles completed this year than any other, can only continue to thrive so long as people aren't attacking each other. But, everyone involved here on site, in a public forum and in a civil manner, is more than welcome and we're grateful to have current site contributors discussing this matter.—spookywillowwtalk 23:20, 8 November 2023 (UTC) - Just want to step in real quick and correct "The editor explained that the reason they were asking was because other editors on Wookieepedia claimed that OOU confirmation would be necessary for the aunts to be included in WP:PRIDE." The characters were always and forever included in WP:PRIDE's scope. the contest was whether they belonged in the category or not. NBDani
(they/them)Yeager's Repairs 01:07, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, sorry, I meant to be included in WP:PRIDE as LGBTQ+ characters. Queen Amiadala (talk) 01:36, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
- Hiya, you're right, asking authors for clarification is a great and lovely thing, and I'm not referring to the post used as a citation at all when saying "offsite." I'm grateful for the post, and its asker, so that we could add it. However, its generally status article precedent to use wording such as "in an interview" or simply "on this platform, the author said..."—and not neccessarily indicate that "some" individuals didn't agree, so it had to have been stated, and as an encylopedia, its also optimal if we can focus on what the authors say and less on what fans indicate. That too, violates NPOV from the other way around. The reason the edit was worded the way it was was simply an edit to fix the hasty and unformatted plainlink citation; though I do stand firm on not reverting to the first revision's wording, I'm more than happy to have altered it to what it is now, and thank everyone for their opinion. A lot can be solved with communication by shooting a nominator a talk page message or such, but I recieved no such communication other than to wake up to most of this. And yes to the latter point as well—reading them as mothers is also a very valid interpretation to be reflected (hence why the article had been written that way originally before being challenged) but Wookieepedia is indeed very strict, we did have to cede to not assuming. I'm glad we got the confirmation, I do genuinely enjoy writing articles for the Pride project and would like to see the category entirely completed!
- Hello! First of all, thank you for changing the wording of the BTS. As a sapphic fan, I really appreciate it. However, I’m a bit confused about some of the points above and would like to request some clarification. What was the offsite involvement related to Rhee and Eron’s relationship? As far as I can tell, the only offsite discussion around this issue took place on Tumblr, where one editor requested confirmation of the aunts’ romantic relationship so that they could be confirmed as a sapphic couple on Wook. The editor explained that the reason they were asking was because other editors on Wookieepedia claimed that OOU confirmation would be necessary for the aunts to be included in WP:PRIDE. As I see it, this editor was simply stating a fact. I don’t understand why it is harmful to Wookieepedia for that editor to mention their reason for asking the question. They wanted to make sure that Wheaton could give a clear answer that could be cited according to Wookieepedia’s policies.
