Forum:Can we say River is the little girl?

I debated as to whether put this in the Howling or whether to put this in the Panopticon... but I decided here, because this is a wiki issue... speculation... do we go with interpretation? Or do we wait for absolute concrete evidence? Can we really say that the little girl is River? Yes... that's what the Doctor thought about... but there hasn't actually been anything concrete saying that the little girl is most definitely River/Melody... is there? So why are we speculating at all and putting the little girl's information on the River Song page until we have absolute proof? --The Thirteenth Doctor 01:23, June 5, 2011 (UTC)

I say wait as:

1. We have little evidence to go on namely the photo of Amy holding Melody, both River and the girl been part Time Lady and the flashbacks to the girl when Melody been part Time Lady is revealed.

2. The flashback was only what the Doctor was thinking. He has no proof.

3.The photo could easily be a red herring (would not be the first time the writers did somehing like that) and could be explained in universe as the Silence putting it there by mistake.

4. Say the Doctor saves Melody as soon as he lands. I dought he is going to lose her again. Korvain can easily make another hybrid the same way useing the data she already has and a pure human (with some slight amendments). 82.11.57.232 14:38, June 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with the IP user. We must wait.  We don't have narrative proof of anything, and likely won't until episode 13.  See my comments at Talk:Little Girl (The Impossible Astronaut).  The information is trending that she's River, but there are still things in the narrative that argue against that possibility.  Most obviously, why is River so clueless in Day of the Moon as to the identity of the occupant of the astronaut suit.  If it were her, surely we'd have got some kind of look of recognition.  Instead, she's in there, CSI style, trying to deduce things.  If it were her, she wouldn't need the Sherlock Holmes business.


 * Patience, as always, should be our watchword. 15:52:12 Sun 05 Jun 2011


 * I agree we should wait.
 * We need evidence to say one way or the other, currently we don't have anything that outright says one way or the other.
 * At the moment we still have far too many questions, not just about Melody / River, but all of the other questions that have been posed so far that we would really be guessing in trying answer all of those.
 * It doesn't cost us anything to wait (except rollbacks and undos) but if we go we start putting in speculation it pretty much undoes the accuracy of the wiki. --Tangerineduel / talk 15:15, June 6, 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't think "proof" really works as the standard; we have to trust the narrative techniques. The use of a narrative device to connect Melody with the girl, and by extension River, is pretty straightforward. Using a flashback as a narrative device to mislead the audience into making the connection would be extraordinarily poor storytelling.
 * Excessive skepticism about what we have been shown is more speculative than simply following the story as presented, in my opinion. For example, we have no proof that Rory really is the father (the Doctor could have been lying!), but it's simply not what the show conveyed.--BBCXI 00:27, June 8, 2011 (UTC)
 * People will just have be patient and see how the story pans out - its all well and good, saying we have enough proof... We don't! One we don't even know if the River can regenerate. The Doctor just said it could be possible...then a flash back to the little girl regenerating (which by the way The Doctor didn't see, so that wasn't what he was thinking) just something for the narrative - was it there to throw us off and think it is river? Possibly, probably not though... watch this http://www.bbc.co.uk/doctorwho/dw/news/bulletin_110604_02/Coming_Soon and while Moffat speaks in the past tense, he still doesn't confirm the mystery solved. As someone has said Its costs us nothing to wait and to be sure. If we rush now and are wrong its just a lot of edits, redo's and undos. This wiki is supposed to be based on fact! Not speculation...as to the above comment regarding Rory not being her father.. we have had proof Amy even said so in her speech at the beginning when she gave the baby the talk of her father... it seems people see what they want to see --95.145.221.134 16:01, June 8, 2011 (UTC)