Talk:River Tam

message: What are the R. Tam sessions?---Mr. Tachyon
:Some clips of River being interviewed by a psychologist-type person while at the Academy. Contains at least one movie reference (but not really a spoiler). --Pentasyllabic 05:54, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: More specifically, they are 4 short clips Joss Whedon (who plays the psychologist himself) released on the Web, and which have been re-released in better resolution on the DVD, HD-DVD and Blu-Ray releases of Serenity. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 10:16, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: R. Tam Sessions

message: This article should be expanded now that Serenity is out. --Phoenix Hacker 01:17, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Though there should be a spoiler warning, and spoiler consolidation, rather then give out what river ends up doing part way, and at the end of the movie.--x1987x 03:16, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Spoiler warnings should note what's a spoiler for Firefly, and what's a spoiler for Serenity. Njál 01:48, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We no longer even have spoiler warnings. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 10:16, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Expansion, spoilers

message: What about when River tells Jayne that "Also, I can kill you with my mind." I forgot which episode it happens in, but it's the one where Simon confronts Jayne about his betrayal. Doesn't that hint to something that's not mentioned in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lamarcus (talk • contribs) 00:45, 7 January 2006
:I am quite confident that her comment was said just to put Janye on edge, and was not meant to be taken seriously. --Bacteria 03:05, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I added a reference to the comment, and I'm glad that I'm not the only person to think that it was more an attack on Jayne's fears than a real threat. --Pentasyllabic 03:07, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This and everything else in the article have been deleted, and the article redirected to a very short summary at List of Firefly characters, mostly because of original research like this.  As WP editors, we are not in a position to surmise and make suppositions about whether or not something was serious or what some fictional character's intent may have been. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 10:16, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "I can kill you with my mind" 

message: There seems to be a bit of debate about whether or not River is the pilot of Serenity. While, yes, she did appear to be piloting the ship at the end of Serenity, she only got it airborne; Mal continued to be at the helm. I think her Occupation should remain none/Fugitive (until another Firefly movie/TV show/comic shows her definitively as the pilot), especially since her replacing Wash is a bit of a spoiler. EVula 23:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say pilot in training or trainee pilot. --Joshtek 22:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't care what you'd say. This is not your blog. We only care what reliable sources are clearly cited as saying. I don't mean to be harsh, but this article, one of the 5 most important ones for WP:FIREFLY, has been completely deleted because people added runaway speculation and other blatant violations of Wikipedia policies to it again and again. It's going to have to be re-written pretty much from scratch. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 10:16, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  River as a pilot 

message: The novelisation by Keith R.A. DeCandido seems to imply that River was 14 when she heard about the Academy (page 22). Also, the book seems to call The Academy, the "Alliance Academy". Furthermore, instead of "a coded message" it has her write a series of messages. Is the book considered canoical?--Joshtek 22:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No. --Bacteria 00:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm fairly certain it isn't canon. EVula 00:15, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yeah, I guess so. I just read this interview with Joss Whedon: "I don't have much involvement. I just don't have time. If I started to read them I'd just get frustrated and have to write them myself. This would cause fewer movies and shows. I just whistle and look the other way. Hope ya like 'em!" --Joshtek 00:34, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Depends on who you ask.  The novelization was official.  But it conflicts in a few places with other materials, most of it straight from Whedon's head.  The simplest way out of a WP:NOR and WP:NPOV problem here is to just give the facts as they are: The book says this, and whatever else says that.  See Battlestar Wiki - they use this approach, and consider the TV shows, the books and the comics and so on to all be separate if related continuities.  No one seems to have an issue with it.  (Also, in response to specifics raise: If the dates don't agree, go with the date given in the show, since Whedon wrote it, and books are prone to typos. Use a footnote to mention that the book differs; even the TV show indicated more than one message, in the scenes of Simon arguing with his parents about the issue, so there is not conflict on that point; "the Academy" is obviously simply natural shorthand, just like Americans say "Congress" not "the United States Congress" and "the national anthem" not "the American national anthem", so again no conflict). — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 10:16, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Serenity novelisation 

message: River's rescue from The Academy by her brother Simon is described in sixty words in the Firefly episode "Serenity" and several scenes in the movie Serenity.  There is considerable debate over whether or not the two presentations represent a breach of continuity.
:Says who? I.e., cite sources, or don't add it, per WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:WEASEL, WP:ATT, WP:SOAPBOX, WP:TRIVIA, etc. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 10:16, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, no.  From that you assumed that he had no part in the physical rescue.  Nothing canonical actually states that. I.e., see the differences between wikt:infer and wikt:imply. The two versions are not actually mutually exclusive, and can easily be reconciled (I won't bother doing that here, since that would itself be original research and it's just not helpful. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 10:16, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

text: If it is based directly off what is seen in both the series and film, which are considered equally canonical. I'm restoring my edits for this reason. Although there may be a controversy, the series and film say otherwise. The Wookieepedian 00:16, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And Joss Whedon says otherwise too. He gives his explanation, which we should treat as canon. Speculation and Original Research does not belong in Wikipedia plange 00:29, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: in fact that section being in there, and unsourced, is one of the main reasons I put the unsourced box at the top plange 00:32, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  An unsourced tag is not a license to include original research or fan speculation that is not likely to have any reliable source. Statements like "fans assumed" and "Joss Whedon is reported to have said" make it clear this material comes from fan discussions. If this issue is discussed in a major publication (say, Entertainment magazine) or in one of the published books about Firefly, it is fair game. Otherwise, it's exactly the kind of fancruft Wikipedia tries hard to weed out. Firefly is one of my favorite TV shows, but this is Wikipedia, not FireflyWiki.org. I've removed everything from that section that isn't directly attributable to what's on the screen. (And I'm still not happy with the way it's presented, as without published statements, it's hard to even call this a possible conflict, especially given the possibility of the "there is no error" interpretation.) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 05:42, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we're saying the same thing Jeff, my reply to Wookie was in support of him - Since the speculation was unsourced I put the tag up there, NOT to give it a pass, but to alert a reader that there was POV stuff in the article and giving the writer a chance to source it since I didn't have time to edit it myself. If I had my druthers, I'd take out the controversy altogether, since we don't have a source and it's OR.-plange 05:46, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Utter fancruft - the section should go unless, as is said above we have a RS, source for the "controversy".  Sophia 08:22, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Is there a "controversy" every time a character lies in a piece of fiction? Pure speculation, delete it. Barnas 11:09, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yippee, will do! plange 16:57, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

text: What Barnas said.  And JBK405, your "three interpretations" theory and its rambling, if well-thought-out, details up there is all personal theorizing with no citation to any reliable sources that there even is any actual debate about this (among anyone but encyclopedically-irrelevant fanwankers, like the kid in Galaxy Quest who served as a lampoon of all con-going, obsessive mega-nerds).  I.e., this is just your own homegrown pet theory, which you are rather too enthusiastically pushing.  There is no reason whatsoever to put any of this stuff in the article, and the presence of what-if and in-my-opinion material like it is why this article got blanked and redirected.  Reconciling the two versions of the story is trivial, without having to go into any supposition about Simon lying, or whatever.  Per Ockham's razor, the third of the three interpretations is obviously the correct one (as the other two require all sorts of unsupported hypothesizing and contorted reasoning) and it is so obvious that it need never be commented upon in Wikipedia.  Doing so in this article (should it be restored) is not only begging for trolls and disputes, it does not help the reader, and violates WP policy, as already cited. We are emphatically not in a position to offer any opinion on this.  We should not even mention at all (per WP:UNDUE and several other concerns) this alleged "dispute" unless there is compelling, reliable evidence that the dispute is real and is major.  We simply don't have any proof of that. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 10:16, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Continuity issue with River's rescue from the Academy 

message: In the episode "Serenity" Simon responds to the question of how he rescued River by saying:
Money. And, and luck. For two years, I couldn't get near her. Then I was contacted by some men, some underground movement. They-they said that she was in danger, that-that the government was... playing with her brain. If I funded them they could sneak her out in cryo.  Get her to Persephone, and from there, I could take her... wherever.
From this it was assumed that he had no part in the physical rescue and indeed did not meet up with River until she was in a cryo box on Persephone.
However, when the movie came out audiences witnessed Simon breaking River out himself with the help of an unidentified ship.  In the movie it is also stated that Simon "spent his entire fortune developing the contacts to infiltrate" The Academy and Simon refers to the others involved in the rescue as, "the people who helped me break River out."
:Um, no.  From that you assumed that he had no part in the physical rescue.  Nothing canonical actually states that. I.e., see the differences between wikt:infer and wikt:imply. The two versions are not actually mutually exclusive, and can easily be reconciled (I won't bother doing that here, since that would itself be original research and it's just not helpful. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 10:16, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: If it is based directly off what is seen in both the series and film, which are considered equally canonical. I'm restoring my edits for this reason. Although there may be a controversy, the series and film say otherwise. The Wookieepedian 00:16, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And Joss Whedon says otherwise too. He gives his explanation, which we should treat as canon. Speculation and Original Research does not belong in Wikipedia plange 00:29, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: in fact that section being in there, and unsourced, is one of the main reasons I put the unsourced box at the top plange 00:32, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  An unsourced tag is not a license to include original research or fan speculation that is not likely to have any reliable source. Statements like "fans assumed" and "Joss Whedon is reported to have said" make it clear this material comes from fan discussions. If this issue is discussed in a major publication (say, Entertainment magazine) or in one of the published books about Firefly, it is fair game. Otherwise, it's exactly the kind of fancruft Wikipedia tries hard to weed out. Firefly is one of my favorite TV shows, but this is Wikipedia, not FireflyWiki.org. I've removed everything from that section that isn't directly attributable to what's on the screen. (And I'm still not happy with the way it's presented, as without published statements, it's hard to even call this a possible conflict, especially given the possibility of the "there is no error" interpretation.) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 05:42, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we're saying the same thing Jeff, my reply to Wookie was in support of him - Since the speculation was unsourced I put the tag up there, NOT to give it a pass, but to alert a reader that there was POV stuff in the article and giving the writer a chance to source it since I didn't have time to edit it myself. If I had my druthers, I'd take out the controversy altogether, since we don't have a source and it's OR.-plange 05:46, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Utter fancruft - the section should go unless, as is said above we have a RS, source for the "controversy".  Sophia 08:22, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Is there a "controversy" every time a character lies in a piece of fiction? Pure speculation, delete it. Barnas 11:09, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yippee, will do! plange 16:57, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

text: What Barnas said.  And JBK405, your "three interpretations" theory and its rambling, if well-thought-out, details up there is all personal theorizing with no citation to any reliable sources that there even is any actual debate about this (among anyone but encyclopedically-irrelevant fanwankers, like the kid in Galaxy Quest who served as a lampoon of all con-going, obsessive mega-nerds).  I.e., this is just your own homegrown pet theory, which you are rather too enthusiastically pushing.  There is no reason whatsoever to put any of this stuff in the article, and the presence of what-if and in-my-opinion material like it is why this article got blanked and redirected.  Reconciling the two versions of the story is trivial, without having to go into any supposition about Simon lying, or whatever.  Per Ockham's razor, the third of the three interpretations is obviously the correct one (as the other two require all sorts of unsupported hypothesizing and contorted reasoning) and it is so obvious that it need never be commented upon in Wikipedia.  Doing so in this article (should it be restored) is not only begging for trolls and disputes, it does not help the reader, and violates WP policy, as already cited. We are emphatically not in a position to offer any opinion on this.  We should not even mention at all (per WP:UNDUE and several other concerns) this alleged "dispute" unless there is compelling, reliable evidence that the dispute is real and is major.  We simply don't have any proof of that. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 10:16, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: The two versions

message: There are three different ways that this has been interpreted.
The first interpretation is that the two do not reconcile in any way, thus the series and the movie are in different continuities.  This means that the River of the movie was broken out by Simon with the help of others, whereas the River of the series was broken out by "some men."
The second interpretation is that Simon, who at the time had only the vaguest notion of the crews loyalties and personalities, did not want to be honest with the crew of Serenity and therefore told them an altered version of the breakout, minimizing his own role so as to leave the crew ignorant of his actions.
The final interpretation is that both versions are correct; everything Simon told the crew of Serenity was true, but what he implied and what fans assumed (that he had no role in getting her out apart from financial support) was false.  In this interpretation the "underground movement" broke River out by using not just Simon's money, but also Simon himself and then, once out of the facility, snuck her, in cryo, off of whatever world she was on, past customs and all other prying eyes, and finally to Persephone where Simon and River first appeared in the series.
Supporters of each interpretation have evidence that they claim backs up their way of looking at it, and thus far none of the interpretations have be universally accepted as correct, further the second and third interpretations are so similar it can be hard to tell them apart.  Joss Whedon is reported to have said he supports the idea that Simon was lying, but whether he meant by falsehood (second interpretation alone) or omission (second and third interpretation) is unknown, this statement has not silenced those who claim there is a breach of continuity.
It is possible that this part of River's history will never be agreed upon.
I'm re-adding, because this is a point of contention that needs to be addressed, it's not "unnecessary info" JBK405 01:31, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If it is based directly off what is seen in both the series and film, which are considered equally canonical. I'm restoring my edits for this reason. Although there may be a controversy, the series and film say otherwise. The Wookieepedian 00:16, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And Joss Whedon says otherwise too. He gives his explanation, which we should treat as canon. Speculation and Original Research does not belong in Wikipedia plange 00:29, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: in fact that section being in there, and unsourced, is one of the main reasons I put the unsourced box at the top plange 00:32, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  An unsourced tag is not a license to include original research or fan speculation that is not likely to have any reliable source. Statements like "fans assumed" and "Joss Whedon is reported to have said" make it clear this material comes from fan discussions. If this issue is discussed in a major publication (say, Entertainment magazine) or in one of the published books about Firefly, it is fair game. Otherwise, it's exactly the kind of fancruft Wikipedia tries hard to weed out. Firefly is one of my favorite TV shows, but this is Wikipedia, not FireflyWiki.org. I've removed everything from that section that isn't directly attributable to what's on the screen. (And I'm still not happy with the way it's presented, as without published statements, it's hard to even call this a possible conflict, especially given the possibility of the "there is no error" interpretation.) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 05:42, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we're saying the same thing Jeff, my reply to Wookie was in support of him - Since the speculation was unsourced I put the tag up there, NOT to give it a pass, but to alert a reader that there was POV stuff in the article and giving the writer a chance to source it since I didn't have time to edit it myself. If I had my druthers, I'd take out the controversy altogether, since we don't have a source and it's OR.-plange 05:46, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Utter fancruft - the section should go unless, as is said above we have a RS, source for the "controversy".  Sophia 08:22, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Is there a "controversy" every time a character lies in a piece of fiction? Pure speculation, delete it. Barnas 11:09, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yippee, will do! plange 16:57, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

text: What Barnas said.  And JBK405, your "three interpretations" theory and its rambling, if well-thought-out, details up there is all personal theorizing with no citation to any reliable sources that there even is any actual debate about this (among anyone but encyclopedically-irrelevant fanwankers, like the kid in Galaxy Quest who served as a lampoon of all con-going, obsessive mega-nerds).  I.e., this is just your own homegrown pet theory, which you are rather too enthusiastically pushing.  There is no reason whatsoever to put any of this stuff in the article, and the presence of what-if and in-my-opinion material like it is why this article got blanked and redirected.  Reconciling the two versions of the story is trivial, without having to go into any supposition about Simon lying, or whatever.  Per Ockham's razor, the third of the three interpretations is obviously the correct one (as the other two require all sorts of unsupported hypothesizing and contorted reasoning) and it is so obvious that it need never be commented upon in Wikipedia.  Doing so in this article (should it be restored) is not only begging for trolls and disputes, it does not help the reader, and violates WP policy, as already cited. We are emphatically not in a position to offer any opinion on this.  We should not even mention at all (per WP:UNDUE and several other concerns) this alleged "dispute" unless there is compelling, reliable evidence that the dispute is real and is major.  We simply don't have any proof of that. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 10:16, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: The three interpretations

message: I question the statement that R.T. was created as a weapon against Reavers.  While she fights a group of Reavers effectively in the film, it's hard for me to imagine that a single operative, however talented, would be a weapon of choice against a group of 30,000 or so well armed, highly aggressive individuals.  This sound more like a job for the military. 
R.T.'s talents seem more useful for covert operations involving espionage and assassination - purposes suggested by some of the lines from Book and Zoe in the Firelfy episode "Objects in Space."
Questions for others - 
Should this article contain any speculation as to the possible uses that her handlers had for River?
If so, is there support for the current "Reaver" theory, or should a "Covert Ops" theory be substituted?
Tall Willie Brown 00:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This article cannot contain any speculation at all, per clear WP policies cited many times above, especially WP:Verifiability, WP:No original research and WP:Neutral point of view.  Even incautious citing of external sources that offer an opinion about something like this topic can violate one or more of these policies. If it's not clearly stated in the fiction itself, or by an very reliable real-world source (e.g. Joss Whedon interview, director's commentary, etc.), it must not be in an article like this here. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 10:16, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speculation on purpose of River's weaponization 

message: Why does the article make such distinct separations between River's being intellectually and physiologically gifted? That and her inituition are all parts of her extreme intelligence; bodily-kinetic and intrapersonal intelligence and so on.
:The article cannot make such a distinction, since it's unsourced and simply speculation. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 10:16, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Intelligences

message: Can we find a better source for the bit about the translation of the Russian code phrase from the 'Serenity' film?  The IMDB in of itself is not considered a valid source for trivia.--MythicFox 11:22, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No kidding.  I'd like a reliable source that it's even Russian.  Didn't sound like it to me.  Then again, half the Chinese in the show has badly mangled pronunciation (I love River's over-done "R" in her psycho-rant outside on Miranda, in a language with no "R". :-)  — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 10:16, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Russian command from the film 

message: Someone else tag it 71.183.192.236 (talk) 06:14, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been deleted and redirected, for now, but this is a perfectly legitimate complain that must be resolved by those who would put back a real article here.  It does need to exist, as River is arguably the real main character, not Mal, even though he's the crew leader and has more screen time. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 10:16, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''So'' in-universe 

message: One of the reasons this and the other character pages became redirects is because the content was mostly WP:OR and WP:PLOT. I'm glad to see some details along production and reception. However, the Major Themes and Character Biography sections remain dubious generalizations and inferences -- in fact, it looks like they come straight from the same poor content from a couple of years ago. I invite the restoring editor to working not just toward beefing up the the real-life material (which may now help the subject stand up to GNG scrutiny) but also on paring down the unencyclopedic in-universe material. --EEMIV (talk) 13:25, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The Major Themes section was cited entirely to episodes. This is a perfect example of original research: making interpretive statements about a subject based on the primary source. Interpretation requires citation to third-party commentary, completely bereft from that section. I've axed it. Rather than restoring poor content from years before, interested editors can instead start anew on that material. --EEMIV (talk) 13:29, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll probably see what I can put together. Also, I'm going to replace the image with one of the promotional ones from Fox. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 16:58, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restoration of mostly cruft 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on River Tam. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060709025751/http://www.saturnawards.org/winners.html to http://www.saturnawards.org/winners.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061107100529/http://www.syfyportal.com/news.php?id=2895 to http://syfyportal.com/news.php?id=2895
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130509132027/http://www.smartpopbooks.com/river-tam-and-the-weaponized-women-of-the-whedonverse/ to http://www.smartpopbooks.com/river-tam-and-the-weaponized-women-of-the-whedonverse/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:36, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified