Talk:Matriarch Aethyta

Improve this page as much as possible, this is good character!
 * Well, if you want it improved, get to work! Can't expect others to do it for you! :P SpartHawg948 23:09, February 9, 2010 (UTC)

I'm not that good at editing wikis, I'll put more info though.

I agree, she was a great character. Especially her comments about Conrad. :D Matt 2108 23:12, February 9, 2010 (UTC)


 * I didn't know she was named in the game; I always called her "the asari bartender". That's some good detective work. Ech0six 14:12, February 12, 2010 (UTC)

Liara's father?
So if she's Liara's father, does this mean it'll be a huge skewing of the people who like Liara when they figure that Liara is then technically part-krogan considering that her father's father was a krogan? :P Wouldn't that slightly turn off at least half the Liara fan-bois? Jaline 01:29, February 14, 2010 (UTC)
 * - *points at headline* More or less that. She acknowledges that her fathering a Pureblood daughter "didn't work out". Now it might be a coincidence - or even intended as a red herring by the writers, maybe? - or it might be a genuine bone thrown to the fans, given what Liara tells you in Mass Effect 1 about her father and Benezia's relationship (Possibly relating to Aethyta's opinions about Mass Relays?). The fact that Aethyta just happens to make a point about that she's a Matriarch (Thus presumably around the same age as Benezia) stands out as well. I'm just saying. HellbirdIV 01:20, February 14, 2010 (UTC)

You're suggesting that her being 1/4 krogan would be a turnoff? Seeing as how such ancestory would only have an effect on her personality (All asari look like asari regardless of their parentage), I would only assume this would make her that much more interesting =D Incrognito 18:38, March 1, 2010 (UTC)

I don't know...maybe she does mention Benezia rather scornfully, but this still doesn't have as much Strength as the Aria/Aleena theory

I have tried to boil the debate down to the pros and cons:

Pros: Cons: I am still on the fence. Whether or not she turns out to be Liara's 'father', I think Aethyta is a colorful and amusing character and Mass Effect 3 would be lesser if she doesn't make another appearance, however slight. Incrognito 08:50, March 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * Aethyta specifically used the word 'fathered', possibly intended by the writers to hint at such a connection to Liara
 * She said 'it didn't work out', ties in well with Shepard's conversation with Liara to explain her 'father's' abscense from her life (this occurred in Mass Effect 1).
 * Her radical (at least by asari standards) opinion of asari policy, would cause a significant political rift between her and Benezia, who we would assume is much more conservative (remember she had many followers), and would make sense as the perfect cause for it not 'working out'
 * There are many side conversations and a few asari characters on Illium and elsewhere have some connection to the pureblood social stigma and genetic disorders distinct to pureblooded asari (i.e. Ardat-Yakshi). This could merely be an attempt of the writers to bring pureblood into the spotlight. Even Samara and her daughters are tied into this subject.
 * Aethyta and Benezia would appear to represent utterly divergent personalities (although there is that age-old adage 'opposites attract')
 * Viewed from the point of realism, it is extremely unlikely you'd find Liara's long-lost 'father' working in a bar not one-hundred meters from her very office. However, just as in films every single event and line ties in some way or another.
 * Liara doesn't seem to share traits with Aethyta, neither on the surface nor in her character.


 * See that last con you wrote makes no sense, and i am not in the mood for a nature vs nurture debate, but i assume someone as intelligent as myself will eventualyl come along and agree with me, also not everyone looks like their parents, asari probably less since most dna is seemingly taken from the mother. ralok 08:54, April 4, 2010 (UTC)

Well Ralok, the Normandy has a bar now, all it needs is a bartender. You hear Bioware?--Fatherbrain30 05:03, April 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * It would be great if Aethyta tended bar on the Normandy. Imagine randomized entry-layouts during which she could be disciplining a rowdy crew member, telling Grunt about life growing up with a krogan father, or praising someone's butt. AnotherRho 19:22, August 19, 2010 (UTC)

Just finished the Lair of the Shadow Broker, and theres a terminal you can access that shows short videos of certain people, and for one it said "Matriarch Aethyta - Illium" and just showed Aethyta staring at a picture of Liara. Seems like pretty strong evidence. Byne 14:22, September 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. Either that or she has a creepy pedo-crush on Liara. --Ech0six 23:53, September 7, 2010 (UTC)


 * Right, I'm going to put my foot down on the subject; Wether or not you think Aethyta is Liara's father or not (I do, after all I posted the idea) IT REMAINS SPECULATION AND DOES NOT BELONG IN THE ARTICLE. Please stop trying to edit your theories into the article regardless of the "evidence" you say you have. --HellbirdIV 11:06, September 8, 2010 (UTC)

Indeed it is still very much speculation. We have a picture of Liara and that is it. We have nothing else. Maybe Aethyta and Liara became friends, maybe they just casual acquaintances. However no matter what, it is still speculation and as such don't warrant a place in the article. Either find devconfirmation on this one or more solid evidence. Lancer1289 12:52, September 8, 2010 (UTC)


 * I can see that has been discussed to death already, but still, while I agree there's nothing close to definitive proof, the developers' intent behind the hints is quite blatant so I think it'd be fair to include the hints themselves in the trivia section. In point of fact there's a good precedent in the Aria T'Loak article where a similar quality of "evidence" (though no proof) points to her being the Asari commando Wrex once battled with. I agree that there's no direct proof and pure speculation has no place, but I believe that the evidence is strong enough to at least be acknowledged, otherwise you're just going to either wear out the undo button or be forced to lock the article for all the people wanting to edit what is in all honesty, a very relevant piece of trivia. 86.4.177.115 18:49, September 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * And for trivia like that we NEED definitive proof. We don't include hints in our trivia sections, see our Style Guide on specualtion and trivia. We have a very low tolerance for speculation and even adding the hints is speculation, and by extension isn't allowed. The only reason the Aria trivia is there is because it was initially in the article, and then moved to the trivia section. The evidence there is flimsy at best, and so is this. Actually, I'd have to say this one is even more flimsy than Aria's. Hints aren't trivia and I don't see that changing anytime soon.
 * However since this has been debated on since ME2 as released, we need solid proof, proof that goes beyond a reasonable doubt. This one still has a lot of doubt about it, and we have gone as far as to admit the picture is Liara, but anything beyond that is SPECUALTION.
 * As to the article itself, I don't think protection will need to be implemented. We didn't on Kasumi's article and I don't see a need for that here. Everyone has to see the embedded text which asks them to look at the talk page first before they edit on this matter. Embedded text has had mixed results in the past, but I think this time may be different. Lancer1289 19:04, September 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * As I said, I'm not arguing the veracity of the so called evidence, but what applies to one article should apply to all. So in the interest of avoiding double standards, either include the Aethyta/Liara data here or delete "non-triva speculation" from Aria's article. It's really one or the other. Again though, I really don't see the harm when the developers' intent is so very clear. Including these various hinted connections won't cause the universe to implode or anything.
 * On the other hand, I understand the desire to keep the main articles from degenerating into a speculation free-for-all so perhaps there should be a separate article that just for cataloguing these implied connections without having them intrude elsewhere? 86.4.177.115 19:18, September 8, 2010 (UTC)

In the new shadow broker dlc it shows her looking at a picture of liara in the video archives. This seems like a very strong possibility of her being the "father" especially being backed up by the previous facts. Plus, why else would she be holding picture of liara? And don't come up with some out-of-the-blue bullcrap answer that's so vague it could mean anything..... Aleksandr the Great 20:21, September 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * Why can anyone abide by the language policy here. We have no solid evidence that Aethyta is Liara's ‘father’. Yes she is looking at a picture of Liara, but we don't know why. Until we have more solid evidence, anything is speculation. There are many explanations as to why Aethyta has a picture of Liara. There is more than one possible explanation. Lancer1289 20:32, September 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, here's one that's not out of the blue, nor does it violate the language policy. Liara is a very prominent asari on Illium. Matriarch Aethyta tends bar at an upscale establishment. They've likely run into each other before. They could very well be friends. Close friends. Remember that, like Aethyta, Liara has proposed some somewhat... radical theories or ideas that were not well received by her peers. They could very well have been kindred spirits. And we don't know when the video in that archive was taken. For all we know, Aethyta had just heard about the attempt on her dear friend Liara's life, and her subsequent disappearance, and grown worried about her. Well, I do declare! That there seems to be another plausible reason she could be holding a picture of Liara. And it's not at all out of the blue bullcrap. You see? When you don't have one preconceived notion locked in and clouding your judgment, it's not hard to see these things. SpartHawg948 21:03, September 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * Except none of that holds up in regards to the REST of the evidence.

Sorry didnt pay attention to the language policy. Also, based on the facts before it seems bioware is heavily implying that she is the "father". I know there can be other reasons but they have less facts to back them up and are not implied as much. Just look at it this way, If you had to speculate on a reason why which one seems the most likely? Aleksandr the Great 21:33, September 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * I dunno. You tell me. After all, there's plenty of speculation in your reason too. Neither of our theories is speculation-proof here. SpartHawg948 21:47, September 10, 2010 (UTC)

Well i think Matriarch Aethyta could be the aunt instead of this father that everyone keeps guessing... Shadowhawk27 13:26, September 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmmm... interesting. SpartHawg948 19:15, September 11, 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, on Aria T'Loak's page, it's mentioned that it is hinted (but not confirmed) that she and Aleena are the same person. Would a similar note that it's hinted that Aethyta may be Liara's father be improper, based on precedent? Rikoshi 02:22, September 12, 2010 (UTC)
 * If anything, I'm more inclined to delete that section on Aria's page based on precedent. It's as speculative as this is. SpartHawg948 02:32, September 12, 2010 (UTC)

Ultimately I think she is Liara's "father"; nothing in these games goes in without some method to the madness behind it. The clues and hints they drop cannot be mere coincidence. As to the improbability of them being so close to each other, the fact that Aethyta has a picture of Liara implies she knows Liara is her daughter and she could have easily relocated to Ilium to be close to Liara, or maybe Liara found out who she was and settled down there to be close to her and they are getting to know one another. There could be another reason Liara is unwilling to leave Ilium that she does not tell Shepard and getting to know her sire could be that reason, and considering how delicate a situation like that is it is understandable why she does not mention it to him/her.
 * Nice for you do dodge canon information there. First Liara says that she can't leave because she is hunting the Shadow Broker. She says that quire clearly and gives no other explanation. Also remember that Liara has only been there for a few years, two at the very most because of the time interval between ME and ME2. Aethyta was probably there long before Liara. Also since of you to also ditch a lot of equally valid theories, so here's a few of them. They know each other, Aethyta is taking Liara under her wing, they are close friends, Aethyta misses Liara, and that's just a few of them. More are described in this section and in the Lock Section below. We have no evidence that Aethyta is Liara's "father", all we have are theories, nothing more or less. Also things can go into games with no "method to the madness", and everything could simply be coincidence. Again there are a lot of other, equally valid and reasonable theories becuase we have no solid evidence. Also how does Aethyta having a picture of Liara imply that Liara is her daughter? See my comments about equally valid and logical explanations. And again, we don't know how long Aethyta has been on Illium, but I'm very willing to bet it has been a lot longer than Liara, who has been there two years, MAX. You dismiss a lot of valid theories, and having very little evidence to back it up apart from your interpretations, that also have to be considered because agian we have no solid evidence. Remember that other people can come to a much different conclusion than you based on the evidence at hand. Lancer1289 17:23, November 8, 2010 (UTC)

So, in a recent interview, Mac Walters was asked point blank if Aethyta is Liara's father. What was his answer? "The writers are keenly aware of the speculation and there are indeed discussions about how this plot line will resolve in Mass Effect 3. And that’s all I can say about that." This puts the kibosh on any talk of putting it in the article for now, as Walters himself states that it is pure speculation. That said, there appears to be a possibility that this will come up in ME3, so hopefully we'll learn more then. Hope this helps, and doesn't just reopen the whole can of worms. SpartHawg948 09:32, April 24, 2011 (UTC)
 * Well that's interesting isn't it. I guess for now that seals the deal on whether this is speculation or not. A dev, and the writer no less, says it's speculation. Lancer1289 13:57, April 24, 2011 (UTC)

at this point in time we don not have any SOLID evidence to say who her daughter is while her speech does seem to hint at liara we have to remember bioware likes to screw with us Lt. Col 18:11, April 30, 2011 (UTC)

I don't see what's the hold up really. We have reason to believe that she MAY be Liara's father. If it's speculation and there's some proof to hint to it, then it should be in the article - perhaps as trivia - that she MIGHT be connected to Liara in that way. Say that she MIGHT be Liara's father and list out the evidence. Otherwise, you're not really doing this wiki's job - and that's to inform people.

If I didn't already suspect it, and I came here to this wiki's page and it didn't even mention the possibility of such an important thing (and try to explain why she might have been looking at a vid of Liara) then I would be sorely disappointed. There's such a thing as being too cautious. I hope to see it added soon.

Just because it's speculation does not mean the reader shouldn't be aware of the fact that there IS speculation - otherwise, this wiki is just failing at doing it's job of informing people. I'm sorely disappointed at the fact this had not even been mentioned as a possibility. If it was added as a possibility, then people wouldn't be constantly editing the page saying for certain that it is true. The whole thing is just asinine. This shouldn't even be an issue. But if you people don't want your wiki to be as informative as possible, whatever - guess people can go find out the fact that this speculation even exists elsewhere, even though they shouldn't have to. Xelestial 13:03, September 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) So where is proof you speak of? We have nothing but interpretations, supposition, speculation, and opinions. None of that is grounds to get into the article. Read our Trivia Policies, and our Speculation Policy. We do not permit speculation in articles and don't tell us we aren't doing our job because we are. If we allowed speculation, fan opinions, and whatnot into articles, then the speculation would cloud the facts and that isn't a job. We do inform people of information, but we don't permit speculation into articles for the reasons I've listed. You claim this is an important thing, yet you have no solid evidence to back you up. None of us have any proof, all we have is what I listed above. Hints and interpretations of things are not grounds for inclusion. Until there is solid proof, we are doing our jobs and this will not be included. Under no circumstances it is included in articles, even if it is marked, and that is the way things work. We aren't leaving anything out except what I listed above. What you interoperated the evidence to say, is not what everyone else thinks. It isn't being mentioned because it is speculation, and this conversation is about a year old now and it hsn't been an issue since then. We know this has been discussed elsewhere, but until there is solid proof, we don't have anything yet, despite what you believe, it will not be added to the article, and that is final. Lancer1289 13:10, September 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * Believe it or not, the wiki is for everyone, every fan and no one person holds dominion over it. You can revert it as many times as you like, and decide to not add the info yourself, it doesn't matter. You have a say in how high of quality the wiki is, but so does everyone else. I came here to state my opinion on whether or not the speculation should be mentioned in the page, not argue whether or not it's true. Looks like you guys have done enough of that yourself anyway. And as I said if certain parties don't want the wiki to be as informative as possible, whatever -  people can go find out the fact that this speculation even exists elsewhere, even though they shouldn't have to if a wiki is doing it's job. Xelestial 13:26, September 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * And believe it or not, we have policies here, and we aren't going make an exception just because you want us to. We have policies about content, behavior, what goes into an article, and what can't, and speculation by its nature is subjective, subject to interpretation, and host of other factors. Because of this, opinions, supposition, speculation, and interpretations are not grounds to inclusion into an article. You again claim we aren't doing our job, and yet that is a biased opinion from someone who is uninformed about everything, and our opinions about not doing our jobs ic clearly different. Each wiki has policies and if we didn't, then this wiki wouldn’t be doing anything would it? Policies exist for a reason, and putting speculation into an article runs counter to that policy. The bottom line is that any mention of this "supposed connection" is speculation, and speculation has no place in articles. Lancer1289 13:32, September 2, 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not arguing that "you" aren't doing your job, I'm arguing that the wiki isn't completely fulfilling it's function. And now you have informed me that it was by design of the administrators, which doesn't change my opinion. I don't understand how my opinion is prejudiced, but OK, if you'd like to believe so, I'm certianly not going to try and change your mind. If the wiki's job is to inform me, the reader, and I feel that it's not doing it's job, I'm not allowed to leave my opinion on it? I have not tried to add the information because I understood there was a reason why it wasn't there, thus I left my opinion on the talk page. The point is, I disagree with the policy. End of story. Nothing else. It's not like I honestly expect the change to be made after a year of others arguing about this, but I feel if I want to leave my opinion about it, I can. And my opinion stands. I believe speculation falls under information. Whoever created the policy does not. Simple as that. Xelestial 13:54, September 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * Again you claim that we aren't doing our job, but that is from your perspective. We are doing our job, we are informing you of the facts behind Aethyta, while ignoring opinions and speculation about what she may, or may not be. That kind of information has no place in an article as it obscures the facts and distorts reality because it is subject to so many factors, the least of which is bias. Speculation has no place in an encyclopedic database, which is what this is. Speculation isn't information, it is supposition based on evidence and that picture may not be complete and is subject to factors including, but certainly not limited to, personal experiences, bias, and interpretation. Again if we permitted speculation, then we'd have more speculation than facts and the fact that are there would be distorted by it. Lancer1289 14:07, September 2, 2011 (UTC)

I do have to ask how this wiki isn't doing its job. Consider: This wiki is intended to serve as a comprehensive encyclopedia presenting factual information about the Mass Effect universe. How is the wiki failing in this mission by not including speculation about Aethyta? Is it a demonstrated fact that Aethyta is Liara's "father"? If so, then I agree, the Wiki isn't fulfilling its function. If not, then the wiki is, since the Wiki's goal is to present facts free of speculation, guesswork, and other misinformation. You can still get plenty of information about the conjecture that Aethyta is Liara's "father", it's just not included in any of the purely factual articles, as it isn't a fact, it's supposition. Consider also that this wiki has earned high praise from none other than the lead writer of Mass Effect 2, who states that this wiki is one of the best sources for information on Mass Effect. A pretty ringing endorsement, and an indicator of how well we're doing our job, and how well this wiki fulfills its function. When the writers themselves refer to this wiki while writing for the series (Mac Walters specifically mentions referring to the wiki to get info for Mass Effect: Inquisition), the wiki clearly is fulfilling its function. SpartHawg948 19:27, September 2, 2011 (UTC)

I have wondered about this topic before, and I just got to Illium on my latest replay of ME2, and I decided to come on here and see what you guys all thought about. The groundwork certainly seems to be laid out for this story line to play out in ME3. I would however be quite disappointed if this turns out to the be case. Feels way too much like a Star Wars prequel thing, if you catch my drift. Liara happens to mention she never knew her father, and you happen to run into her as she is getting harassed by Conrad, who annoyed you before. There is a bit of that already in ME2, where you just happen to meet alot of the people that you dealt with in ME. I get the reason for it, and I would say they took it right to the limit on it, but this is just a bit much in my opinion. Just hope we don't get some revelation like Ashley is really Shep's sister. CrasVox 20:15, February 2, 2012 (UTC)
 * This topic is long dead, and long lacking any evidence. Either start presenting evidence to back up claims or take speculation to the proper place. Lancer1289 20:18, February 2, 2012 (UTC)

Picture of the "prettier" Aethyta?
Should we put a pic up of Aethyta after Shepard gets drunk? or just rely on the youtube link? If desired, I could pull one together. AnotherRho 19:25, August 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see a problem with it as it is currenlty trivia. We'll just have to see what it looks like. Lancer1289 19:31, August 19, 2010 (UTC)

Lock
Seriously, this page needs to be locked. It seems nothing else will stop people adding 'you know what'. It's not like there's anything else that will need to be added anytime soon either. Just until the LotSB speculation dies down, or a dev confirms it.JakePT 12:00, September 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah Spart has stated that we rarely lock pages, and at this point I'd have to agree. We'll just have to roll with the punches on this one. We rode out the wave with Kasumi, and we came out fine. Lancer1289 12:25, September 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * But we've got to have something about her looking at that picture of Liara in the Shadow Broker's Intel Center Video Archive, it's obviously relevant. Bioware hasn't come out and said that Aethyta's Liara's father, but they're shouting that they have a connection.Kalaong 19:03, September 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * So she's looking at a picture of Liara. Maybe their friends, maybe they have good conversations, or any number of possible reasons. Putting a tiriva note there about it just seems like trying to go around the speuclation policy because it clearly stated that "[t]he context of this footage is as yet unknown." If it's unknown then why add it in the first place as it is speuclation. We don't have things like: "It is currenly unknown if Shepard's actions with Tali's trial and the outcome will have an effect in Mass Effect 3". Putting something there just seems like a way to get around the speuclation policy. We don't know the context and until we do, I'd have to say no. Lancer1289 19:12, September 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm still opposed to locking down pages, and comments like the one some random user left in an edit summary "Do we need to lock this page against further edits to make our point?" aren't helping. "We" who? Did I make you an admin one night and I just forgot about it? I'm so confused! protection of a page shouldn't be done as a blunt-force thing to discourage people from making edits, or to make a point, and I really don't see any more reason to protect this page than there was to protect the Kasumi page during the wave of G0-T0 "trivia" or the page for her loyalty mission during the whole Ogre fiasco. We muddled through then, and I'm convinced we can muddle through now. SpartHawg948 20:06, September 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * There were more than a few calls to lock Kasumi's page onec she had offically been announced. We muddled through, and still are, that one, the Dragon Age Statue thing, and we can get through this one. Also since the RTE has been disabled, people acutally have to read the embedded text. In the RTE it didn't even show up. Lancer1289 20:29, September 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, come on. The picture would certainly be enough, as would said footage, to convince a jury in a court case in regards to this. NOONE after seeing that footage (And recognising that that's Liara) would ever consider anything other than tha she's her father. This is not speculation.NickTyrong 00:54, September 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes it is. And funny story... this isn't a court of law. And even funnier story: Even if it were a court of law, jurors have to come to an agreement beyond a reasonable doubt. If the jurors cannot come to an agreement, it's deadlock. And I have reasonable doubts, as do others, which has been expressed here. Sorry to deflate your "NOONE" theory... but I can consider quite a few other possibilities, and without any concrete evidence (and the picture really is nothing more than circumstantial evidence), it's speculation. SpartHawg948 06:08, September 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * Before the footage you might have been able to say otherwise. At this point, however, your "doubts" are not reasonable. You have several clues, and now we have the footage. This is just mods being anal. If I put in something in the trivia section like, "There seems to be evidence that Aethta is Liara's father, based on the following evidence...." it would likely be removed. There is no reasonable doubt. If you can't put the evidence together that Bioware is saying she's her father, I don;t know what to say. Is there a chance they could change it in the future? Sure. There's also a chance we should be saying the Illusive man is a Reaper that wants to destroy the others so he can have power himself. The difference is one has quite a bit of evidence (And since this is Bioware, they like to have these things connected) and the other IS speculation. Then again, my Illusive man hypothesis has some interesting points too, if you think about it. He's at least partially technological, he wanted the Reaper base to survive, and he keeps trying to merge organic and cybernetic components using geth and reaper technoilogy. But in this case the evidence IS circumstantial, while the other is far too obvious. WHat I would like to know is why it's allowed that peopel are allowed to place that there's evidence Aria is the same asari Wrex fought when there's even LESS evidence for that. If people just aren;t wording it correctly, fine. Tell me, and I'llt ry to word it say that "There seems to be evidence, and here it is." NickTyrong 19:55, September 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) And again that is still very much speculation as you are INTERPERATING' something, which is the very basis of speculation. We have that rule on speculation, and this is nothing but speculation based on your interpretations, not based in canonical fact. There are many other reasons that Aethyta could have a picture of Liara, so what about those theories, are they just hot air, because you are considering one, and 'only one theory. I don't see how the speculation about the Illusive Man relates to this at all, and it is confusing to say the least. Especially the part about the eyes, we don't know they are cybernetic, or synthetic for that matter, so that is even further speculation. Back on topic, there is still reasonable doubt about this, and you saying there isn't is false. Remember that circumstantial evidence is not the basis for a fact, and usually you need a lot of it to prove something, especially in a court of law. We have only one piece of evidence, the photo, and the rest is just a very flimsy series of statements that are somewhat common in asari society about partners not staying together. At this point we have no solid evidence to say anything, only speculation, and speculation doesn't belong in articles. If I was on that jury mentioned earlier, I’d have to vote for the defense as the prosecution hasn’t proven their case beyond a reasonable doubt yet.Lancer1289 20:13, September 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not "hot air" when considering ALL the evidence. This is Bioware. This is not speculation. Either remove the Aria stuff, or allow this to be added. And the Aria stuff has been there for a LONG time. Game's been out for awhile, so why has that specultion been alowed all this time? Oh, and dude, look at the Issusive Man's eyes closely. They are not organic. Even his bio says they appear ot be prosthetic. Unless there's ALWAYS something blue shining in them with a very specific pattern. ALWAYS.NickTyrong 20:22, September 23, 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for deciding unilaterally and based solely on your own opinions that I must be unreasonable in my doubts. That's quite generous of you, dismissing the opinions of others so flippantly. Note that I did not dismiss what you were saying, merely pointed out my doubts. There is no solid proof. Ergo, it's speculation. Please learn to show others the same courtesy they have extended to you. It'll get you places. SpartHawg948 21:48, September 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Look, I've argued with Spart and Lancer about these on numerous occasions (although to be honest, on one occasion I was wholly denying that Aethyta could be Liara's 'father', and Spart was playing devil's advocate). You won't convince them (whether they be juries or duo-archs, or really, just concerned editors and admins).  But from my experience, I can tell you the reasons why (sentiments aside): in game, things like coincidences pertaining to parentage of Liara; and Aethyta looking at a photo (if it isn't in fact a telecom device) of Liara, when there is really no in-game reason for her to be doing so; etc.;--these are all at best "hints" or indications of the private thoughts of the developers.  Unless we become privy to those private thoughts (either by direct statement, or clear and distinct in-universe identification of Liara as her daughter [e.g. one of them claiming so, or a DNA test]), our reasoning on this and like matters are "speculations".  In the case of Aria, the speculations are based on numerous coincidences (although the argument just given still applies).   In the case of Aethyta, the speculations are based on only a few coincidences; hence there isn't sufficient reason to add anything speculative to the trivia.  (There is a low tolerance policy on speculation)  --AnotherRho 22:04, September 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * Thing is thier "theories" blatantly ignore several of these hints. Though it's good to see that after ALL the time that that trivia in Aria's section has been there it's been FINALY removed. I understand what they were saying, however if they were to allow much flimsier evidence into Aria's profile for so long, then they should also have allowed this evidence. And Spart, yes you were being unreasonable. As well as closed minded. If you wanted toignore the line of evidence, fine, but for so long Aria's profile had that info, which was just making you a hypocrite. Unless you never visited her page. our doubts were based on the fact that you were ignoring everything else. If it was just the picture, or just what she said, there would be more than doubt. But there is far more than enough for everyone but you and Lancer.NickTyrong 22:40, September 23, 2010 (UTC)

Wow. You just keep getting nicer, don't you? Thanks, once again, for determining that, since I expressed a clearly unreasonable doubt (i.e. If it's so certain, why can no one point to a proverbial smoking gun that simply states that they are related) I must be wrong. You sure are generous! And calling me a hypocrite, too! I suppose it never occurred to you that there are currently two active admins for nearly two thousand articles, and that if you have a question or issue with something, the best thing to do is to actually bring it to the attention of an admin, not simply keep quiet and expect it to fix itself. As for closed-minded, generally that term is reserved for a person who is simply unwilling to hear out opposing arguments of viewpoints. You know, like a person who, when presented with a valid and reasonable doubt, responds simply with "your "doubts" are not reasonable" and "There is no reasonable doubt." That would be closed-minded. Not, as I have done, listening to all the evidence raised, and simply pointing out that without actual confirmation, it's speculation. SpartHawg948 22:49, September 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * First off, you yourself have eben rude since step one, though I don;t expect you to recognise it. Second, there need not be a definite "smoking gun" if all the facts point to one thing. Third, I LIKED the Aria bit, since yeah, the eveidence points to her beeing Aleena, or whoever it was, too. I was calling you a hypocrite because it had been there for SO long. And then I gave the qualifier of "Unless you never visited her page." Fourth, close minded can also refer to someone who ignored evidence. And your reasonable doubt IGNROES THE REST OF THE EVIDENCE. As I have said, it IS speculation, but if you were alollowing Aria's for so ong without change, not only were you close minded but a hypocrite. And, ONCE MORE, I added the qualifier of "it you had even visitied her page", because I realised that there's a lot o articles. And don;t send me a threat of banning me for insulting you when you yourself have done so, just in a MUCH more overt way. "Calling another user closed-minded and a hypocrite for having the audacity to disagree" You don;t read what I actually type, do you? I didn;t call you a hypocrite for disagreeing with me, or close mined for disagreeing with me. I called you close minded because you're ignoring the other evidence, and a hypocrite for leaving the aria page alone for so bloody long, with the qualifier of whether or not you even visited it.NickTyrong 23:05, September 23, 2010 (UTC)

My reasonable doubt does not ignore the rest of the "evidence". It acknowledges it (if you will read what I actually type, you will see that not once do I ignore or deny it), while also acknowledging the fact that there is no confirmation. Simple as that. And again, if there is something you have an issue with, such as this being deemed speculation, but the stuff on Aria's page not being also deemed speculative, the onus is on you to bring it up. It isn't up to the admins to read your mind! We're human too, you know! We make lapses in judgment from time to time, and if you think you see one, but can't even be bothered to take five minutes to point it out, then you really have no leg to stand on in calling someone else a hypocrite. SpartHawg948 23:08, September 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * Why would I have brought it up? As far as I'm concerened, there's enough evidence to bring this out of the realm of speculation. Besides, Aria's page was done well. "It is impliued, and here is why." I suggested we put that on the matirarch's page. It made it clear it was speculative but that there was strong evidence to suppoort it. And true, you weren;t "ignoring" the evidence. I stand corrected. You were jst saying that all the stuff that we say makes her liara's father actually referred to someone else, and that the picture meant they were friends. I guess Bioware put all that in there for fun and had no intention of inferring kinship. Just like the picture meant they're just friends. That makes more sence.NickTyrong 23:19, September 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * If by "You were jst saying that all the stuff that we say makes her liara's father actually referred to someone else, and that the picture meant they were friends." you mean that I was just pointing out that there is no confirmation that Aethyta is Liara's "father" and that, as such, it is speculation, then yes. That is all I was doing. Calling a spade a spade, as it were. SpartHawg948 23:23, September 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * If by "I was just pointing out that there is no confirmation that Aethyta is Liara's "father" and that" you mean that you were going on other possiblities that were not allded to at all, when that's the only thing that it DOES allude to, then yes.NickTyrong 23:52, September 23, 2010 (UTC)

The bit you keep citing is a response cherry-picked by you in what appears to be an attempt to mischaracterize my actual position on the issue. It was a one-off response to a comment by another user - "Plus, why else would she be holding picture of liara? And don't come up with some out-of-the-blue bullcrap answer that's so vague it could mean anything....." If you will note, my actual objection to inclusion of the speculation into the article has nothing to do with this one-off response, but rather is based solely on the fact that there is no confirmation. This is why, in an apparent attempt to obfuscate the issue and make it look like I was arguing something other than I was, you must rely on one post, taken completely out of context. SpartHawg948 23:47, September 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * Except you have repeatedly said that you "have given other possibilities", or something to that effect. I'm not searching through all this to find what exactly you said. So no. not out of context. My question is, since all this evidence IS there and DOES POTENTIALLY refer to her being her father, much as the evidence pointed to Aria being Wrex's former partner, why can we not have it in there saying something akin to, "There is some evidence that Aria/ the Matriarch is Wrx's partner/Liara's father, absed on these things said and shown"?NickTyrong 23:52, September 23, 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry. I did your homework for you. Other than the one response that was clearly a response to another, and has been lifted out of context, I made one reference to other possibilities, but not, as you allege, to having given other possibilities. It was "Sorry to deflate your "NOONE" theory... but I can consider quite a few other possibilities", which was clearly in response to your comment that "NOONE after seeing that footage (And recognising that that's Liara) would ever consider anything other than tha she's her father." So yes/ Out of context. Burden of proof lies with you to demonstrate otherwise, and "I'm not searching through all this to find what exactly you said." doesn't cut it. It's a transparent cop-out. As for why we can't include this or the Aria stuff, simple. It's speculation. There isn't anything but a few bits of circumstantial evidence. Nothing more. SpartHawg948 23:58, September 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * I stand corrected. I accidentally mistook Lancer's for yours. That's where the other "possibility" came from. But the thing is, this evidence exists, and it does HEAVILLY suggest those links. Since this is a wiki, and should include as much information as possile, we should include all this, and the most likely conclusion, though that, the actualy conclusion, I am willing to capitulate on.NickTyrong 00:34, September 24, 2010 (UTC)

And all the information is included. None of the "evidence" is left out. The only thing not included is the conclusion reached. Whether it is the most likely conclusion or not is, of course, an extremely subjective question, as the most likely conclusion is not some monolithic fact that everyone shares. Each person concludes for themselves what is most likely, which is why speculative assumptions and conclusions are not permissible in articles. But literally every piece of the evidence is already present on the wiki. Every bit. SpartHawg948 00:40, September 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Well, it's unfortunate that yout (NT) made an ultimatum, comparing a few minor coincidences (admittedly including the larger coincidence of the photo) with the long list of them in Aria's case, resulting in the removal of the latter.  It's almost a shame that that tactic worked to get them removed; at any rate, I'm surprised Spart didn't stick to his guns and judge this as a separate case on the basis of a "low" but not zero tolerance.  Oh well.  --AnotherRho 22:56, September 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, come on. Aria's few little references are just as much as the matriatch's. Also, I liked Aria's. It's obvious Aria is Wrex's old partner.

Seriously? Not sticking to an earlier opinion that, upon further reflection appears to be flawed and inconsistent is me not "sticking to my guns"? Seriously? Thanks. I appreciate that. SpartHawg948 22:59, September 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * Woah. No offense intended Spart. I only meant that this case could have been refused on its own terms (or in other words, that the ultimatum made was unnecessary and tended to be hurtful).  If you read the text I wrote, you'll see that I supported your decision.  AnotherRho 23:05, September 23, 2010 (UTC)

This entire argument is ridiculous. The FACT that Aethyta is shown looking at Liara's portrait in LotSB should be reflected in Liara's Wiki entry, in context of the FACTS that Liara is a purebreed with an estranged "father" and Aethyta has an estranged purebreed daughter. The readers can then draw their own conclusions about whether Aethyta is indeed Liara's "father" (it seems to be absolutely SELF-EVIDENT in light of the FACTS). Attempts to CENSOR these FACTS from the Wiki entry just to satisfy some personal preferences are against encyclopaedic spirit which calls for UNBIASED PRESENTATION OF RELEVANT OBJECTIVE DATA, not tailoring information for someone's personal taste at the expense of objectivity (even going so far as demanding a lockdown just to curb facts which support an opposing viewpoint).
 * Right. Because, as you can see here, the demand to lock the page was seriously considered by the admins. Wait, no... it really wasn't. There is no attempt to "censor" anything. The fact of the matter is that, as an encyclopedia, we are tasked with presenting facts, not speculation and theory. There is some circumstantial evidence pointing to the possibility that Aethyta is Liara's mother, but nothing to confirm it as fact. As such, it is speculation, and we cannot insert speculation into a factual article based solely on the personal preferences of a few people that go against the encyclopedic spirit of unbiased presentation of fact. SpartHawg948 21:06, September 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Really, ridiculous is it? If you would check the style guide on speculation, you would find that we have a very low tolerance for speculation here, which is exactly, exactly what this is. We have no facts, only bits of circumstantial evidence, and it isn’t enough. Liara is a pureblood yes, however, are there other purebloods? Yes actually, Samara and her daughters are purbloods and her mate was one as well. So that is already shaky evidence. Aethyta says that she had estranged from her mate. Now is this uncommon in society, especially in a society where Liara states in ME that some asari mate then separate, probably not. Nothing if self evident in light of some very shaky facts that don’t meet our requirements. We present unbiased information and putting a mention that Aethyta is Liara’s “father” would be biased because we don’t know that she is. You say that the “readers can draw their own conclusions about whether Aethyta is indeed Liara’s ‘father’”, so saying that Aethyta is Liara’s father, especially when we don’t know, would be biased information wouldn’t it? Because I sure think it would be. It would bias readers towards one conclusion while ignoring other also reasonable conclusions. Bottom line, until we have more solid, concrete evidence, it is speculation and until we have hard evidence it will continue to be that way, and you yelling won’t change that.
 * As for putting a mention that Aethyta is looking at a picture of Liara, again there are many reasons why, and putting a mention would be a repeat of information and would also probably be biased information. Since we are presenting unbiased information, adding it isn’t an option for those two reasons. There are probably more that I can think of.
 * Also how are we censoring information? We don’t present speculation as fact, which is again what this would be. We have absolutely no solid evidence that Aethyta is Liara’s “father”. To say something like that, we need solid evidence, not random bits of information that can also lead to other, also logical conclusions, so thanks for dismissing all other claims as well. We haven’t locked down the article, a user asked that that we should, and both active admins said no on that matter so how are we attempting to curb facts? Also we are presenting an objective view by saying no to speculation and welcoming other conclusions. Your conclusions are biased and not objective as they dismiss all other, equally logical conclusions. There are no facts, there is only speculation, which isn’t allowed in articles. Lancer1289 21:07, September 25, 2010 (UTC)

Claudia Black? Really??
I knew she played one of the Admirals on the Migrant Fleet but i never would've geussed she was also the asari bartender. If this is true then she's a much better voice actor than I imagined. Jedted 12:18, September 13, 2010 (UTC)

She also did the voice of the Rachni envoy; I was surprised. I have watched Claudia Black on Farscape for years and was blown away when I read she did Aethyta's voice. When I first played the game I loved her so much I listened to her over and over and never realized who was doing the voice acting.

Announcement
I love this character. That is all. Ev0lve 12:43, October 4, 2010 (UTC)

Me too. That is also all. (TheMaddBadgerr) 21:12, October 14, 2010.

late to the party even latter to the argument.
I've read all the articles posted, an I'm glad to say that I understand where every bodies coming from. Although I'm unfortunately late to the argument. Sparthawg948 and lancer you guys just want to keep speculation off the site. Even with Bioware's hinting of a (maybe, but more than likely Paternal) connection between Liara and Aethyta. Sparthawg shots the point in the head, as there is no, quote "smoking gun" unquote. Yes there is enough substantial evidence to support the theory of the Liar father connection but without the, I hate to say clear evidence, I'm made to agree with leaving it out of the profile. However with the previous suggestion of putting the fact that in the DLC: Lair of the Shadow broker, Aethyta was staring at a picture of Liara as well as the aforementioned conversation from ME1 with Liara and the conversation with Aethyta in ME2(if not already up), in the respective character profiles. All of this being done without mentioning the paternal connection( 8( no smoking gun). This will let the reader gain his/her on theory/opion on the subject as at least these parts are fact. Have to say this was an awsome argument.
 * No that is not enough evidence, by a long shot. Thanks, again, for dismissing many equally valid theories and say that yours can be the only one that is correct. You do not know the context of why Aethyta has a picture of Liara, but you immediately assume that your theory, e.g. that she is Liara's "father", can be the only correct theory and no others can be considered. You have for evidence a picture out of context, and a bunch of comments that could apply to other asari. Also where is your source from a developer that says BioWare is hinting something? That is speculation and isn't allowed in articles. We will not post speculation in articles and if you had read the articles, you would have noticed that we already put in the fact that Aethyta had a pureblood daughter and the relationship didn't work out, and Liara's conversation from ME. You have no solid evidence, no "smoking gun", and once again thanks for dismissing equally valid theories. And I'm getting really tired of this argument.
 * Also what is this game called ME1? Did we all miss a game somewhere? Lancer1289 13:26, January 20, 2011 (UTC)

Speculation aside, the fact that we've got Aethyta looking at a picture of Liara is significant because at the very least its evidence that there is some connection between them, be it relation, friendship, or mere acquaintance. Since this is the only evidence of a link between two otherwise unconnected characters, it is significant enough to at least mention in the trivia section. Even though this little detail is repeated on another page, it is worth a single sentence for the reasons I just mentioned. Slothen 11:02, February 7, 2011 (UTC)
 * No because it is very redundant with the link to the Video Archive. We have the link there for a reason, to not unnecessarily repeat information that is already somewhere else. This is the same policy for anyone mentioned in the Video Archives and frankly I don't see a reason to change it. Lancer1289 14:41, February 7, 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you sure you're not just letting your disdain for the paternity speculation affect your judgment here? The connection to a main character seems head-and-shoulders more relevant than most of the videos for any character.  I would agree if this was a blurb about her headbutting the krogan.  This is more than just flavor.Slothen 01:34, February 8, 2011 (UTC)
 * No not in the slightest. It was decided that if a person has a SB Dossier, or a video in the archive, then they would just get a link to avoid unnecessarily repeating redundant information. The information is already present in one article and does not need to be repeated. This is the current policy and applies to all pages with SB Dossier and Video Archive links. Your opinion of what is more "flavor" or more relevant than something else is irrelevant in this situation because of that policy. No repeating information from the dossiers or the video archive on the main pages because of the link. Lancer1289 02:15, February 8, 2011 (UTC)
 * It's the same basic principle as the rule about dialogue in trivia sections. You can also quite easily confirm that this is a consistent rule and not "disdain for the paternity speculation" by checking the histories of other pages on which this has been an issue. (This being insertion of info from the SB dossiers as trivia.) For instance, check the histories of the Jack, Miranda Lawson, and Legion pages. I believe that you can also find some on the David Anderson page. In most, if not all, cases, you will find multiple editors who have made undos similar to the one Lancer made. There is no disdain here, unless you're talking disdain for a failure to adhere to site policy. SpartHawg948 06:02, February 8, 2011 (UTC)

If you look at the videos in the Shadow Broker base, there is also a video of Aethyta looking at a picture of an Asari that looks really like Liara.
 * Not this again. As stated in I don't know how many places by how many people, there isn't enough evidence or enough proof to say anything without further evidence. This argument either needs to stop coming up with no new evidence presented, or new evidence must be presented. So far, neither of the options has been taken, and the first needs to be as every time it comes up, no new evidence has been presented. Lancer1289 00:56, January 22, 2012 (UTC)

In the leaked script of Mass Effect 3 it is revealed that Athyta is, in fact, Liara's "father"
 * Leaked information huh? Well that's invalid. Leaked information is irreleavnt. Lancer1289 19:21, February 4, 2012 (UTC)


 * Ugh, I'd like to personally thank whoever left the unsigned comment with the spoiler. And by thank, I mean punch in the face. In any case, it should be left out until something OFFICIAL comes out stating their connection.--DeadDATA 19:34, February 4, 2012 (UTC)

Finally
I guess it's official now, eh? She is present in Apollo's Cafe on the Citadel in ME3, and she says it herself. She IS the "father" of Liara. --44 Magnum 12:08, March 6, 2012 (UTC)


 * Called it.NickTyrong 01:45, March 8, 2012 (UTC)


 * You and half the galaxy. But until a few days ago, it was still just speculation. :) Speculation heavily supported by multiple inferences, but still just speculation. PhoenixBlue 19:02, March 9, 2012 (UTC)


 * I probably should have clairified that you should read mine in a mocking, "I told you so" kind of tone. He he. Sorry.NickTyrong 21:09, March 9, 2012 (UTC)

Talking to Aethyta in ME3
I'm a tad new to the forums so am not sure if this is the right place to ask - how do you talk to Aethyta? I can't find her at the Cafe - there are only turian bartenders. I finished Sur-kesh, did the Shadow Broker DLC but I can't remember if I spoke to her during my uploaded run of ME2. Halp?


 * Experienced the same here. Never met Aethyta in ME3, but did in ME2. The main page says: "spoke to Liara at least once in Presidium Commons, possibly done some quest progress (Citadel-only quests seem to count too) and re-entered the Commons, she will be present in the Apollo's Cafe"
 * I continued her romance from ME1-ME2-ME3, and actually spoke with her several times, and made missions in between, but there is no Aethyta. I tried before and after the Cerberus raid on the Citadel, so either I miss something important or I have some sort of bug. So I had to watch a video with the whole conversation between Aethyta, Shep and Liara. Pft :(
 * Bubi7 20:02, March 14, 2012 (UTC)

After the citadel attack
She seems to disappear, and the other bartender (owner?) mentions that the cerberus soldiers just blasted one of his coworkers. Does it mean she is dead? Liara doesn't seem to react much of her absence.

Odd Aethyta line in Presicium Commons
Was I the only one who noticed how she seems to regard Shepard as Liara's boyfriend/girlfriend even if Shepard hasn't pursued a romance with Liara previously? I mean, I've made an edit to the trivia regarding this issue since I thought of it as a curiosity... But it was removed =(, anyways, I just think it would be interesting to mention this in the page.


 * The problem is it's not true, if Liara is not currently being romanced Aethyta says Commander in place of boyfriend/girlfriend--Twinbladewarrior 18:10, March 21, 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, I've imported a MaleShep romancing Ashley and a FemShep romancing Garrus and I've still got this line on both ocasions, could be bug that I don't know about then. RinaSC March 21, 2012 (UTC)
 * I've imported my save--femShep, romanced Kaidan in the first game, no one in the second (choices confirmed on the selection screen), and she calls me the "human girlfriend with Cerberus" or something like that. I've gone through this 3 times--I'm positive.  It's possible that it isn't a bug, though.  Since she seemed to be making the statement just to goad Shepard on (admitting immediately afterwards that she knows she isn't Cerberus).  So who knows?

Video Footage
When Shepard alludes to the matriarch being the father, she says something along the lines of "I've seen footage of you watching Liara." What footage is this? I'm holding off on talking to Aethyta for a while, just to see if something pops up, but I figured I'd ask. Other thought is that it could be something from the LotSB DLC, which I'm going to check in a little bit. Idiggory 02:40, March 22, 2012 (UTC)
 * It is indeed from the Lair of the Shadow Broker DLC. The Shadow Broker has video files and dossiers on a lot of characters, including video footage of Matriarch Aethyta. Arbington 02:43, March 22, 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification--I was so confused, haha. Though looking back at the page, I see that it's mentioned...  I really hope that was just edited in, and I'm not just blind. :P Idiggory 02:50, March 22, 2012 (UTC)

ME3: faulty romance with Liara
I'm currently playing a Vanguard who romanced Ash in ME1 before letting her die at Virmire, and Tali in ME2. He's been friendly with Liara throughout, but nothing more. I completed LotSB, and Liara asked about Shep's feelings for Tali, which he confirmed. Liara did not give any of the "jealous" dialog. BUT, in ME3, I just prompted the meeting between Aethyta and Liara. Aethyta called Shep the boyfriend, the renegade interrupt referred to Liara as "my girl," and she professed surprise that Liara's panties haven't caught fire from the way she looks at Shep. (unrelated note: I laughed.) Is anyone else having this issue? Is there a known cause? -Crush. 19:53, March 22, 2012 (UTC)