Talk:Baby William

message: All right I'm going to say it again: According to policy, encyclopedic content must be verifiable. The only thing that's been verified is that the child is Scully's son. There is no verification offered here that the child is Mulder's. Therefore, editors who continually assert the latter within the article are violating policy. Please note that speculation and conjecture are not the same as verification. Even if both Mulder and Scully consider him Mulder's son, it's still misleading for the encyclopedia to state that he is Mulder's son.
I can tell that some people harbor an affection for this concept, but policy is policy -- meaning this isn't the site to express said affection. Thanks. --James26 (talk) 00:15, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If both Mulder and Scully consider William to be Mulder's son, it technically does make him Mulder's son as one definition of the word "son" is "A man considered as if in a relationship of child to parent" so, regardless of whether the term is "misleading" or not, it is nevertheless accurate, for this precise reason. --84.64.103.67 (talk) 12:36, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Your use of "technically" is an assertion of personal opinion, and this isn't the place for that. As stated, if the characters consider him their son, it can be said that they consider him such, not that he is. "Regardless of whether the term is misleading"? No, we don't disregard what's misleading on this site. --James26 (talk) 09:30, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

text: But it is an opinion what is misleading, since not all people will be misled by the same things - use of words, in this case - and not always to the same degree, if they are misled! This is why I said "regardless of whether the term is misleading or not", yet this sentence has been quoted out of original context! My use of the word "technically" is not an assertion of personal opinion, but a remark to those who are misunderstanding the term "father" (I used "technically" in the same way that one might use "actually" or "really"). I still strongly believe that the use of the words "father" and/or "son", regarding Mulder & William's relationship, should not be discarded, as those terms are accurate for what they describe; my description of the word "son" as additionally meaning "A man considered as if in a relationship of child to parent" is an actual dictionary definition, not an opinion! --84.69.22.61 (talk) 19:21, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Without the use of "surrogate," "supposed," etc, the immediate connotation behind the bare terms "father and son" in an article is that there is a biological relationship. That is not verified and therefore it is not an acceptable statement here according to policy. As I've already mentioned, the terms have been included when complemented, as opposed to in bare form, so there's little point in complaining about it and getting angry. Just let it go and move on; there are far more worthwhile things. -- James26 (talk) 04:27, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

text: Actually, I have no qualms about "supposed father", etc. being used. I was arguing (without getting "angry", at any point) against the outright exclusion of terms like "father", as they're still appropriate. Complementing those by stating "supposed"/"suggested" or something along those lines is better than the familial terms alone, as doing so informs the reader more about the characters' actual relationship and adds more detail to the description. I therefore agree that this is a very good solution, but would still not be open to the complete exclusion of "father"/"son" and am pleased that this is not what you are now suggesting. Sorry for any misunderstanding of your motives previous, on my part. --81.79.225.225 (talk) 12:02, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Policy