Board Thread:Wiki-Related Discussion/@comment-1894786-20151119234514/@comment-1916997-20151127145929

Lady Junky wrote: CoolDudeAl wrote: Lady Junky wrote: Except as far as I counted, more people agree to say that there is no allusion to Jasmine. All allusions are open to inturpetation, as they are infered by the viewer. I'd say as long as several people see it, and they have reasoning behind it, we shouldn't discount it. If only one person is seeing it, or if there is no reasoning, then we shouldn't add it, but otherwise we should. Like I said, we can't have it both ways, either some people see it (they do) or they don't. That's just an excuse to add it on the page. The people who see the allusion could be wrong, even if they are several people, they can be all wrong.

That's my point, you can't be "wrong" about an allusion, if you see it, and have reasoning behind it, the allusion is there. If it was intentional or not can be debated, but the fact that it is there remains.