Talk:Star Trek: Enterprise
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
![]() |
Archive 1: 2003.02.01-2006.06.17 Archive 2: 2005.02.21-2006.09.24 Archive 3: 2006.06.18- (current archive) |
[edit] Weasel Words
The page as it stands is absolutely saturated with weasel words and unsourced statements. I started added necessary cite tags but eventually lost the will to live, there are so many instances where the supposed opinions of unspecified and unreferenced people like "Some fans..." or "Many critics..." are used to make points. Reliable sources, which do not include message board postings, must be found or much of the article should be culled. Yikes.--Nalvage 12:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
- {{sofixit}} thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 12:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
- I don't have anywhere near the knowledge of Star Trek required to know where any of these assertions may have been made by people we can cite. I'm certainly endeavouring to find out. Presumably those who added the opinions of "critics" are aware of who they meant, which is why flagging up the need for that extra detail is useful.--Nalvage 13:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
- I agree. If those people who added the info can't provide a source, your (very unhelpful) suggestiong of "so fix it" will involve deletion of the material. thanks. CPitt76 16:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
- I don't have anywhere near the knowledge of Star Trek required to know where any of these assertions may have been made by people we can cite. I'm certainly endeavouring to find out. Presumably those who added the opinions of "critics" are aware of who they meant, which is why flagging up the need for that extra detail is useful.--Nalvage 13:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree, there are too many weasel words. And I think the whole section titled 'Controversy' can be deleted too. The apparent opinions of anonymous individuals on some chat room are totally irrelevant to an encyclopedia. Vince 02:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Citation Needed?
Here's an example: "...indicating a desire by the producers to leave behind the stigma that Star Trek had accrued[citation needed]."
Can't an author make such a mild and reasonable assumption without being called to task for a citation? I think most people would agree that this is an "indication" not a clear statement of intention. You have to grant contributors a small measure of personal observation, otherwise these pages will become as dry and sterile as a scientific paper. Landroo 17:24, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
- Perhaps if it were mild or reasonable, or something other than the editors opinion, something had been discussed elsewhere previously to this article being written, then it could be reworded to:
- "... indicating to some a desire by the producers to leave behind the stigma that Star Trek had accrued."
- In such cases, however, it would then be possible to cite the sources. I also think that the reference to "the stigma" is something that is unclear, referring perhaps to some feeling that the editor is feeling personally towards the show, and not explained in any way. Of course it doesn't have to be dry, but it does have to be more than just the editors opinion. Mvandemar 16:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
- I took the who "stigma" thing out. For one thing it doesn't jive with Berman and Braga's comments that they wanted the show to stand out from the eyewash of other Trek series. I can find nothing to support that "stigma" had anything to do with it. Adding such a statement could be seen by some as pushing the anti-Berman agenda. They wanted the show to stand out from the others, and the idea backfired. That's pretty much it. I have, however, left the "citation needed" tag as one of the interviews needs to be cited and I don't have time to go hunting for it right now. If someone else wants to, I recommend checking the archives of TrekToday or Startrek.com. 23skidoo 17:49, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Star Trek Enterprise on Itunes Okay was I the only one who saw Star Trek Enterprise on Itunes? I can't find it now.Camsg12 17:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)