Talk:Melinda Halliwell

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Melinda Halliwell article.

Contents

[edit] Problem

Only problem with this page is that it is never once stated on the series that Piper's third child is named Melinda. Fans are just speculating with no real basis. Artemisboy 16:00, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

No, the basis is that in spoilers, the scripts specifically called her Melinda, and the grandson Matthew.

However, spoilers change. Like in the original spoilers for Chris-Crossed, Wyatt was to reveal that Chris was his brother. The actual printed episode is what counts, and the episode never named her, nor even said she was Piper's daughter.

[edit] Fanfictionny nonsense

whitelighter and witch power such as: The whitelighter part of her is healing,sensing,orbing,telekinetic orbing,glamour,levitation,and cloaking that is ow she hid from piper when angery,her magical abilities from the witch part of her is telekineses,molecular combustion,temporal immoblilization,scrying,spellcasting,and potion making her powers are sometimes limited by her mother but she is a young free spirit that is caring and giving. User:70.114.243.120

[edit] Continuation: problem

Yes, it never was specifically said in the episode by Piper "This is my daughter, Melinda". Since there is no proof of her identity, I don't think that Wikipedia should allow the opening paragraph to automatically assume a theory as truth, stating that Melinda is, infact, Piper's daughter. I always thought this web site was used to show facts, not specualtions. Same goes for the theory that Melinda may be born under a prophesy. Nothing, not a simgle line in the show ever even hinted the possibility that another child would be born under a prophesy. It is one person's own theory, and has no place on here.

I think what we need here are sources stating what someone has said. For example, if someone has advanced the theory that Melinda is Piper's daughter, then link to that statement. —Mira 09:44, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Two words. Shooting scripts. Available on [1] (reworded version), TWoP[2] (in extracts) and [3] and [4]. Zythe 01:23, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Wonderful! Now if those could be added to appropriate place(s) in the article, that would be even better. I'd do it myself, but I'm not sure where they should go. —Mira 04:07, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
But the scripts changed, for whatever reason, and for that reason, it was never said that the girl is, without any doubt, Piper's daughter.
So find a reliable source where someone has stated the belief that she isn't Piper's daughter. —Mira 02:53, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


go to any message board; thecharmedsons.com, especially, and ask who Melinda is. It can't be proven beyond the shadow of a doubt either way, but I am most certainly not the only one who thinks so. Besides, you would think that, after each of her sisters made points of "introducing" their new children, that Piper wouldd introduce "Melinda" as well. But no. She explains about a new restaraunt, but says nothing of a daughter.


in fact, Brittania, Exaecutive Producer of TCS, reccently posted this argument:

"That's was one of Phoebe's kids. It was the same actress that was Phoebe's daughter in two of her premonitions. If Piper had another child, she would have mentioned it. She also would have included her in pictures with her brothers. She wouldn't have a picture of just two of her kids together and not include all of them. But mostly, she would have mentioned having another child. She mentioned having a restaurant, but no other children. That would be kind of important. The only reason why people believe that was Piper's child is because the summarized script posted at The Charmed Ones assumed that's who she was, but if you read the script for Witchness Protection, Phoebe's daughter's name was Melinda, same as the girl's name in the series finale script. It didn't mention she was Piper's daughter, either. Only that her name was Melinda. Piper said if she had a daughter she was going to name her Prudence Melinda. Hence, that was not Piper's daughter."

Had you guys read the rebuttals to all the arguments, including to the one above, to the "Phoebe's daughter" hypothesis on Talk:Charmed, you'd see why this explanation doesn't fit. Besides, The Charmed Sons is in no way affiliated with the series, not even if people call themselves executive producers. On another note, message boards are not official sources either. AdamDobay 20:34, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
You could have the most reputible site on Earth, and you could not prove, one way or another, that the girl is Piper's. As for TCS, Chris and Wyatt as Charmed charectors. Thus, the site IS affiliated with Charmed. AS for the Charmed Talk section, that article is one of the most biased I've seen. The author simply named the theories, then shot them down, without any real thinking as to the fact that it is very possible. Had it not been biased, the author would have named the theories, then listed facts to deny it, AND support it.
I've never heard of this "TCS" before, but it seems that what you are saying is that because the site is about Charmed, it is affiliated with the company that owns the rights to Charmed. Which is simply preposterous. Message boards are not reliable sources. —Mira 02:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Dear Unsigned, the "author" (that would be me) of that section thoroughly examined all the arguments and refuted them according to the rules of academic debate, verifying every claim with evidence -- something the pro-theory arguers haven't really done. If you have strong evidence against mine, go ahead and share it. But repeating what is not true, repeating unsourced, unverifiable claims will not make your version true just because you think it is.
Truly, I intended to include claims to support the theory, just like you said, but after spending multiple hours with examining the claims, it is clear that there is no argument there that stands, and I won't lie about that just to make theory supporters happy. For example, your main argument is based on when Piper says a sentence in question in her voiceover. If you go and watch the episode, you will see that she says it at a different time than what the argument is based on. You can't really do anything about that, because that basis for the theory is simply, factually, not true.
Or you can look at the two screencaps provided. Is there any match between the lunchbox scene girl and any the Phoebe scene girls? No, not only have they got entirely different types of hair (something you can't change in a day), they have entirely different facial features and even different skin colour. Only if Phoebe gave her daughter a complete plastic surgery for her birthday can the daughters be the same.
Just these two arguments above already shake the theory's grounds. You cannot refute my voicover argument because if you listen to the episode you can see that it simply doesn't match the theory, and you can't refute my visual argument because there is no way to prove that two of those three perfectly different little girls are the same. And then, there is nothing further to argue about, really.
By the way, the Charmed Sons has on it's main page the following texts: This site was created by fans and We are in no way connect (sic!) to The WB. It is pretty obvious that they are unaffiliated, even moreso they don't have real names just nicknames, which is problematic itself. AdamDobay 06:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
I did not mean that tcs is affiliated, as in helps produce or whatnot, I meant affiliated, as in it's Charmed-related. Sorry for the misinterpritation. What I meant, is that there are several other people who believe the child is Phoebes.

And really, there isn't a point to go on arguing about this, don't you agree? I mean, you arn't going to sway my beliefs, nor I, your. it was never said diffinitively, 100% on the show, and therefore, can't be diffinitively proven. I say we just drop this and walk away before we get really pissed, don't you think? All I'm asking is that, it is a theory that more than a few people accept, and therefore doesn't deserve to be continueously erased.

However, I have one comment. Going by what you said about claims not making something true just because you want it to be, then you must also agree that Melinda is in no way prophesized. After all, there isn't a shred of evidence to show that she may even possibly be. You bring our theory down because you believe that there is no evidence; there is even less to support Melinda being prophesized. I'm not saying you're the one posting it, but you must admit, if out theory keeps being erased from the site, surely that should be deleted as well. Really, to be neautral, if you have one, it seems only fair to have the other, not just "pick and choose" what you agree with.

Dear Continually Unsigned,
I would like to point out a few problems with what you return to say. I will try to break them down to you as simple as I can.
Problem #1: The basis of deleting "The Argument" from this article is not my belief of a theory. It is neither a belief of a number of people on Wikipedia. It is the consensus of two debates and one vote, all of which have ended in an absolute dominance of counterarguments over the Phoebe's daughter theory and an absolute dominance of facts from the series that point against the theory.
Problem #2: No one said anything about a prophecy. There is no such thing as prophecy in Charmed. There is, every time, a possible outcome for the future that the characters see or experience, but there is never a definite future set. Even that the three sisters will be the most powerful witches is not a prophecy (see the relevant episode for details).
Problem #3: Still, you continually posit a view that this is a clash of beliefs. It is not. An encyclopaedia cannot be written based on beliefs. An encyclopaedia's articles must be supported, the view of "some fans think" is not enough. The difference between what you are positing and what I have been positing is not a difference of belief, it's a difference between the number of facts and actual evidence that supports these opinions. Over the two debates and one voting on Talk:Charmed it was concluded that the strongest arguments of the Phoebe's daughter theory can very easily be proven wrong and counterargued with factual evidence.
Problem #4: Over two months, questions were posited to the posters of the theory, we asked them to clarify their statements by pointing at evidence. Could the theory's supporters provide evidence for their claims, I ask? If you check the logs, the answer is clearly no, supporters of the Phoebe's daughter theory could not provide evidence, they could only repeat their claims as absolute truth over and over again. This is not acceptable for an encyclopaedia.
Problem #5: The fact that a number of fans are convinced, despite all the evidence listed at the aforementioned tak page, that it is Phoebe's daughter, it is not notable enough for an encyclopaedia.
Everything above has been said before, and I feel irritated that a number of people cannot distinguish belief from facts supportable by evidence. I could say to you what you have said to me, it is not your belief that will make it true. You had as much as two months until this point to show your evidence and to provide explanation as to why your main arguments do not pass even the first probation. AdamDobay 23:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


I never said that Melinda was prophesized. Someone ==else== posted, on the Melinda Halliwell page, that Malinda may have been born under the same prophesy as Wyatt. There is no proof of that, so why is it in the encyclopedia? My point was, if our theory is debunked as that, then why is the "Melinda is prophesized" theory, which was never given any indication on the show, allowed a spot on the page?

2: I'm so sorry. I mean, how foolish of me. A fan (who already had made up her mind, by the way) writes an article. so of course, it must be true. You can post evidence and facts as much as you want, but you can not prove something that happened on a tv show that has since been cancelled It never said, right out, that the girl was Piper's, thus, it can not be proven that it is Piper's. You can prove that it is the most plausible outcome, but even using the best debate techniques, you can not go in to the episode and force Piper to reword her line, saying the girl was her's, which is the only way it could be proven beyond any shadow of a doubt 3: Melindas parentage is argued, and yes, theories do not belong on wikipedia. However, I never come out and say "These people are wrong, it's really Phoebe's" I say that some fans believe she is Phoebe's, which is a fact. Some fans do believe the child is Phoebe's. Just because Wikipedia users don't accept it as a possibility, doesn't mean every one else feels the same way. It doean't matter how many of our argiments you "prove" wrong; the fact is, until a public statement is made by Brad Kern, it can't be proven, there is doubt, which is all the proof we need.


So please, if our theory is not allowed on wikipedia, then a prophesized Melinda shouldn't be eaither.

If you don't want to agree with us, I really don't care. You arn't going to sway us. All I ask os that, is our theory isn't allowed, then neither should the trivia bit about Melinda being prophessized. You delete that, and I'll leave you alone. All I ask. It's just fair now, isn't it?

Wait, one more thing. We do not want a spin-off similar to Supernatural. If you did your research, you would see that the only similaity between SN and the show that we want is demon hunting and magical hapenings. That's similar to a score of shows that have aired over the yeats. you shouldn't jump to conclusions.

Since the Melinda-under-Wyatt-prophecy (though that refers not to this melinda but the Morality Bites one) is indeed a large heap of speculation, I have removed them according to standard procedure. I have also edited the other part to fit a more NPOV view. AdamDobay 11:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


Thank you. I don't think either of us intended to start a heated debate, and it was pointless any way, since we're still where we started. I think the NPOV is quite appropriate.


[edit] is this really needed?

OK, i really don't care one way or the other who Melinda belongs to. She's a Halliwell, whatever. But, I've been pondering this for a while, and I have to ask; does Melinda really warrent her own article?

Hear me out. The first Melinda, from season two, was only in one episode, and had a small part at that. Now, Charmed has pages for Main charectors, and recurring charectors, but one-time-only charectors? if so, then shouldn't charectors like Bianca have thier own article?

And Melinda number two had, what, 3 seconds of scren time? Most of her part of the article is just listing how she's related to everyone. Now, i know it's a bit unique, since she's technically 2 people. but Phoebe's children have been seen several ways; the one she was pregnant with in season 4, her preomition pregnancy in S6, her daughter in S7; should they have an article?

Perhaps there's something I'm missing, but it seems as though Melinda isn't a substantial enough charector for her own article. Syri 00:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)Syri —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Syri (talk • contribs) 00:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC).

I'm in complete agreement; this is a very minor character. Unfortunately, it seems that many minor characters from Charmed are getting their own articles these days. -- Huntster T • @ • C 01:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Like, Henry and Coop? I know they had thier parts in Charmed, but if we had articles for every charector like that, we'd have Rex and Hannah from season 1, every boyfriends they ever had; perhaps we could condesnse these articles into one, for Other Notable Charectors or something. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.39.249.163 (talk) 21:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC).
We have an article titled List of Charmed family and friends for those types of characters. I don't know why Coop has his own article; really, he should not. Their entries on the above page could easily be expanded to include all of the relevant information that would otherwise go into a stub article. -- Huntster T • @ • C 22:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


to me, it seems as thought the main charectors (ie the sisters, Leo, Chris...people who appeared in the opening credits)and frequently recurring charectors (Grams, Victor) have enough story to tell and had a major enough role to have an article; charectors like Coop and Melinda (Melinda especially) just don't have enough background and story to say more then "She is the daughtr of...the niece of...the sister of..."

Syri 22:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)SYRI

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/e/l/Talk%7EMelinda_Halliwell_b013.html"