Discusión:Shallan Davar

Radiant Order

There has been speculation that Shallan belongs to the Radiant order of the Herald Shalash. This would make sense as the the divine attributes of this order at Creative/Honest and the body focus is Blood (Shallan is definitely creative, and it seems she has bonded with "truthspren", and the first thing she Soulcasts without even knowing is a goblet to blood).

For more discussion see this forum thread.

While this is some evidence, we should not incorporate this into the main page until we have stronger evidence.

link/reference to the forum

I tried to add a reference to: http://www.17thshard.com/forum/topic/3099-reddit-info/#entry50695 but I didn't get it right. Please help. :) Meg (talk) 19:27, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

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. 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. -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. 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. --Shroom (talk) 23:12, 31 December 2016 (MST)