Talk: Ravent

The following line was removed from the entry for Ravent:

Kamemor had a son name Sorilk, who may have been Ravent's son as well.

The explanation given was:

confused as to how two women could have a son?

A careful reading of the text of Serpents Among the Ruins does not prove definitively one way or another, but since the passage involves Gell Kamemor thinking about her mate and son, the speculation that the son may be that of Kamemor and Ravent seems reasonable. As to how two women could have a son, how could a Vulcan and a human, or any other interspecies couples? Perhaps more to the point, lesbian couples today have children, either through surrogacy, in vitro feritilization, or adoption, and such children do not refer to their parents as "stepmom" or any other term, but simply as "mom."

I checked the novel Rough Beasts of Empire, though, and Kamemor specifically refers to Ravent as her wife, and to Sorilk as their son, so I amended the entry for Ravent. -- –unsigned comment

It's not our job to speculate here, though. While what you propose is possible, it's not within our purview to state it here unless is was mentioned in a valid source.

That's why the addition stating "may have been" was removed. If the book said "was the couple's son", then there's no reason for us to translate that into "was her son, and may have also been her son" -- it's creating an extra context that doesn't exist in the source. Understand? -- Captain MKB 23:46, March 10, 2011 (UTC)

I understand your point, but I've noted speculations all over Memory Beta. I think it's possible and desirable to distinguish been wild speculation and reasonable inference. I didn't add the "may have been" text to this entry, but when I read it, it seemed not so much speculation as simply pointing out what could readily be inferred from the writer's own words, and which appeared to be his intent. This is actually borne out in a subsequent novel by the same writer, who explicitly states the Ravent is Kamemor's wife and Soirlk is their son. –Dragon Three 03:25, March 11, 2011 (UTC)

I think you might have missed that on Memory Beta, what you call "speculation" is maintained in a very toned-down state (i'd call in 'annotations' or 'observations') and is segregated from the "factual in-POV" section of the article, in a background section. The article should remain as I corrected it previously, and then any "may have beens" will be located below that section, either indented/italicized, or in a subsection separated by the heading "Background". This way we can present the solid facts, then break to a clearly defined section where "annotations", "observations", "may have beens" and things that are "readily inferred" and can be placed without disrupting the accuracy of the main body of the article that contains the more explicitly stated facts.

There are tons of examples around in articles I've formatted, and if you need any more help, let me know. There's probably a style guide we've written to explain this, kicking around here somewhere -- we could look it up just to prove that's how we do things on this site and not my personal autocratic tyrannical ramblings. -- Captain MKB 03:58, March 11, 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you missed what I posted, which is that what was offered as speculation in the article is actual fact. While whoever included the initial speculation (not me) inferred the information from Serpents Among the Ruins, actual verification of that speculation as fact comes in the subsequent novel Rough Beasts of Empire. I have therefore corrected the article, leaving the speculation removed but adding the fact.

Also, the reason given for removing the speculation was not that it was speculative. The reason given cited that the poster was "confused as to how two women could have a son," which seemed more of a judgment on the content than on its veracity. –Dragon Three 09:50, March 11, 2011 (UTC)

Since two women are unable to naturally procreate with each other based on their sex organs, I'm not sure what kind of "judgment" you refer to. I'd also be confused if pigs could fly, and it's not a judgment call -- it would be wondering if the explanation was pig-wing-mutation, pressurized-pig-anus-gas propulsion or pig-robot-wings. The fact is that it wouldn't happen on it's own -- this is not a judgment call, it's common sense to assume that there was intervention based on the improbability of the original posit, whether it be a flying pig or a female father.

The speculation is that there was a procedure that you described. The confusion is that it is also possible that the couple adopted, or that they had a surrogate parent involved for this in some manner. Since these are all probable, choosing one is definitely speculation. (since genetic manipulation is the most complicated of these possibilities, Occam's razor does not support it either)... After all, the novelist neglected to clarify the genetic fact in the novel, leaving it as an unknown quantity for the purpose of the wiki. Certainly it is one of the likely scenarios that could be inferred, but stating it here in the article body as fact is a mistake based on the fact that the novel sources don't specify the two genetic parents. Any family-oriented couple could refer to "their" child despite only one parent being biologically/genetically involved. -- Captain MKB 05:06, March 12, 2011 (UTC)

The article presently reflects precisely what the novel source says: Ravent has a son with Kamemor, whose name is Sorilk. That you don't know how the two women came to have a son is irrelevant. As for judgment, it seems plain: nowhere did the article ever state, even when somebody included speculation, that Ravent and Kamemor had a son via "natural" procreation, so insinuating that into the argument smacks more of judgment than a desire to reflect what is included in the novel. I mean, is it ever explicitly stated that, for example, Geordi La Forge's mother gave birth to him, or that she and Geordi's father "naturally" procreated? Perhaps she adopted him. Or perhaps she used a surrogate, or in vitro fertilization. How Geordi came to be her son has no bearing on the fact that he is her son. -- Dragon Three 17:17, March 12, 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the disagreement is, then. I agree with the terminology "the couple had a son" ... that's what I put in the article. the last edit i made that stated "the couple had a son" was removed in favor of this discussion about how there could have been genetic manipulation to make both the biological parents, even though no genetic manipulation or biological parentage was established in any published source...

If you agree with the terminology "the couple had a son", then A) why was it removed? and 2) what are you arguing against???? You seem to have a problem with me trying to make the language of the article reflect this, even though you agree it is a valid interpretation of the source. Are you just arguing for some other reason?

And yes, in male-female couples the factual nature of procreation IS more clear cut and self-explanatory, despite this argument to the contrary. I understand being accepting of alternate arrangements, but there is the reality that things work differently where certain organs are not involved. For example, it is less confusing to state that a bird can fly than to make the same statement about the pig because it is common knowledge that the winged bird can usually fly without assistance the pig would require (to make an analogy to avoid describing the penis and vagina in too much detail). - Captain MKB 18:12, March 12, 2011 (UTC)

It's unclear to me if you're being intentionally obtuse, or simply mistaken. You removed the statement about Ravent having a son with Kamemor. I added it back in, removing the speculative language that somebody else--neither you nor I--had put in the article. You initially stated your removal of that statement as being because you were "confused as to how two women could have a son," not because of the speculative nature of it. Since two women having children is not uncommon today, that's why it seemed like some sort of judgment. At any rate, you did not put "the couple had a son" in the article; I did. You removed the fact of a son entirely, and I re-added it, though without the speculative language that somebody else had added. --Dragon Three 00:38, March 13, 2011 (UTC)

So, everyone is in agreement, and there is no argument, right? I'm cool with two women having a son, and I'm pretty sure Capt. is cool with it too. There was a bit of a misunderstanding on his part, but we're now all in the same boat. - AT2Howell 13:47, March 14, 2011 (UTC)

No misunderstanding - the comments on this page suggested that we might describe one origin for this son, when three identifiable origins exist. I'm just clarifying that genetic manipulation shouldn't be presented as a foregone conclusion when more conventional and common methods such as surrogates or adoption are more likely. A vague statement is called for, and appropriate. And yes, Howell -- everyone's cool with that. Unless you're looking for some new accusation to make against me. -- Captain MKB 16:19, March 14, 2011 (UTC)

Just thought I'd help by breaking up this back and forth you guys had going. You've now agreed to the wording, as I understand it, and can both move on with your day. Right? - AT2Howell 16:53, March 14, 2011 (UTC)