Talk:Temporal Cold War

Procyon V

The Federation is present at Procyon V, because the NCC-1701J was there. Therefore, the Federation had at least one ship there. --68.158.113.96 02:00, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

Defiant/Mirror Universe?

It's not clear what is being referenced in the note about the Tholians, Suluban, and Earth fighting over a future ship, but to the best of my knowledge the Tholians were only seen in the mirror universe, in In The Mirror, Darkly. Can a mirror universe event really factor in to the Temporal Cold War? In fact, I don't remember the Suluban being involved in that episode, and since the interspace was never identified as an effect of the Temporal Cold War, I can't see how this would be involved at all. --The reverend 03:08, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

The Tholians are definately in the "regular" Star Trek universe. Of Enterprise, see episode No.42 of Future Tense of the Second Season, wherein which Suliban and Tholian alike are fighting for this one Time-travel pod and then there's always the classic first appearance, obviously.

So... It's Future Tense they're referring to..

Feel free to change it since alot of these articles pale in comparison to alot of Memory Alpha's stuff. DrWho42 04:30, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Post-Federation Humanity

A note on the recent edits said "They never say the Federation ceases to exist; just that it expands to include more members. And it's not "humanity" alone; that's quite a human-centric view; there's a lot of interbreeding etc."

I dispute this statement. In "Shockwave, Part II", Daniels shows Archer an area on Earth where a statue in memory of the Federation once stood. This would seem to strongly imply that the UFP no longer exists in Daniels' time. As for "humanity", I agree; what is a good alternative? "Alpha & Beta Quadrant post-Federation authorities"?--StAkAr Karnak 02:01, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hey, if "the United Federation of Planets" dissovled in favor of some larger "Galactic Federation of Planets", that doesn't mean the Federation "ceased to exist" it means it expanded beyond its current form. Besides, there are many "monuments" to the United States, etc.---Ricimer, April 21, 2005

I believe that the Earth Daniels shows Archer is a result of Archer being suspended because of the explosion Enterprise caused in "Shockwaves" and not the future Daniels comes from. Why should Daniels have trouble getting Archer back if it was Daniels future. Correct me if i'm wrong.--Nexusu

Sphere Builders

Wait... The Sphere Builders are *outside* the Temporal Cold War. Daniels didn't know about them, and they're outside the universe. IT's an invasion, not part of the Temporal Cold War. 132.205.15.43 01:52, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Daniels did not know all of the details of the TCW; he didn't even know the identity of the Suliban Cabal's leader. I think the relevent issue is how the TCW is defined. Has Daniels given a definition in any episode? Do the Sphere Builders fit within the scope of this? Since Future Guy and Daniels both knew about the Xindi, there may be a TCW connection.--StAkAr Karnak 23:37, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

They really did a poor job of pulling all of the plot threads together, i.e. they never explained why Silik and Future Guy helped Archer in "The Expanse", etc. They really just threw this mess together. However, it was clear that the Sphere Builders/Guardians couldn't time travel, but could make predictions about the future, seeing alternate future timelines. The reason they tricked the Xindi to attack Earth was because they knew that their own people would lose an invasion in the 26th century. ---Ricimer, May 5, 2005

Didn't they send some reptilian Xindi back in time to expose a virus to earth? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.163.73.100 (talk • contribs) 21:07 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes. — nathanrdotcom ^{(Got something to say? Say it.)} 07:51, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

UPN forcing thereof thereon....

From what I read from a forum, UPN forced this storyline on Star Trek: Enterprise, since they felt a prequel of Star Trek simply wasn't enough in their light-sensitive organs...

Oh, and bring up a personal note.. I liked the idea of Time War or Wars, but this story-arc definitely wasn't done justice. DrWho42 00:02, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Controversy

An anon insists on adding the following text at the end of the Controversy section:

In addition, for example Yesterday's Enterprise (TNG) has been rated as one of the best episodes ever. Apparently fans have no problem with time travel episodes, especially if they are sophisticated or touch on deep philosophical issues, but even if they have various "holes" or could have been better written. In fact the real potential of really smart time travel episodes has hardly even been scratched yet, even though for example Storm Front (especially part II) touches indeed on some very sophisticated and deep philosophical points and is actually one of the best so far.

It's my opinion that this is clearly editorial commentary and POV. I've now removed it twice, but since it's likely that it will be restored again and I don't want to get into a revert war, I've copied it here for discussion and I am asking other editors to weigh in. I don't know how heavily this page is trafficked by the general populace, so if the text is restored and there's no commentary here, I will most likely leave the text and just slap an NPOV-section template on it until some other interested editors can take a look. Comments, concerns, criticism, etc. are welcome. --MikeJ9919 08:21, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Quite frankly, I'd rather remove or reword it.. It makes an assumption on what fans like or dislike, being a bit repetitive, and obviously POV when the writer states that they think Storm Front is among the best (especially pointing out Part II). DrWho42 02:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Alright, with some help from Nathan I've made a pass at NPOV. It's important to note that that there are really three separate problems with the section: POV, cited sources, and original research. That's just as a matter of policy...it's also relatively poorly written. In addition to the original line I had retained, I've retained and cited the Storm Front line. I think the "Apparently fans..." line is unsalvageable unless someone can find a source, because it appears to be original research. The Yesterday's Enterprise line might be worth retaining. It's relatively easy to cite its ranking. However, considering that episode included the return of Tasha Yar, that complicates its ranking, and I'm wondering if including the line wouldn't tilt the whole thing in favor of an argument not necessarily supported by the sources, which would in my opinion be original research. That said, I would not have a huge objection to restoring a cited version of the Yesterday's Enterprise line.--MikeJ9919 06:20, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Just as a note, the anon has now blindly reverted, removing all the revisions and the NPOV tag in the process.--MikeJ9919 18:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Response: I have not blindly reverted - I added the words "This shows that" before "Apparently fans", since it is a conclusion based on the quoted data and apparently this was not clear before. Anyway, this paragraph is excellent and informative and well balanced – both giving credit for the good stuff and at the same time also pointing out what still needs to be improved, and it also balances the previous two paragraphs, which would otherwise show only a one-sided view of the Cold Temporal War theme. It is much more exact and informative than the castrated single sentence that you tried to convert it into. I challenge anyone who really understands deeply the philosophical complexities of time travel to prove me wrong. In addition, this paragraph is based on facts, and in fact the previous two paragraphs make assumptions without showing the references that support their view or indicating what percent of the fans felt that way, for example in the words “Large segments of the fanbase was [<-grammatical error] disgruntled at the entire storyline when its ad hoc story development started to become apparent”, and “the unpopularity among fans of the Temporal Cold War…". Also, by the way, the fact that Yesterday's Enterprise brought back Tasha Yar certainly does not explain the high ranking of this episode or indicate any skewing of the rank. If it were so, other episodes with her would also have to get much higher ranks. -- Yaron

A point must be clarified. Encyclopedias do not include commentary on their content. After "cite needed" you added "and exact numbers are needed and what exactly did they say". That is appropriate to this Discussion page, not the article. I've reverted it. I don't disagree with you on that first "Controversy" paragraph...it should be revised, as well. However, you also include editorial commentary on Storm Front, citing it as "one of the best so far". This is not a fan discussion board. At the very least, there needs to be some kind of published review or ranking to bolster your characterization. I attempted to do at least that, but you removed that citation. The ONLY evidence you provide for your opinion of the fan response to time travel stories is one set of questionable rankings (rated by roughly 100 people) that you then tie together to make a grand argument. Verifiable evidence would consist of an article in a major (though, given the narrow nature of the topic, even minor would suffice) publication making the assertion that fans did not reject the Temporal Cold War, and are in fact hungry for more, given reasons X, Y, and Z. In short, facts are welcome, but they must be verifiable, as a matter of policy. Your uncited opinion is not verifiable evidence. (Oh, and though the Tasha thing is minor, I tend to think that when a major character returns in what would be her only further appearance in the series as Tasha, it raises interest...but that would be an opinion on my part, which is why it won't go in the article.)--MikeJ9919 08:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Response: if it is a rating by a 100 people it is enough for a strong statistical value with a very small error margin, whereas the previous two paragraphs don't give any evidence at all. Perhaps it was just 2 or 3 loud people who did not like the Temporal Cold War and expressed their opinion in some fan discussion board and on this whoever wrote the previous 2 paragraphs based his or her opinion? In short, whatever you have to say about my paragraph it is much better supported than any support shown for the previous two paragraphs. As I said, the previous two paragraphs should indeed quote whatever references they have, and should indeed indicate the percent of fans who felt like that and explain more exactly what they actually said, otherwise these two paragraphs might be very misleading. As for my characterization of Storm Front, it is very easy to measure its level of sophistication objectively, for example by counting the number of deep philosophical points that are raised there and counting various other easily quantify-able factors, which make it outstanding compared to almost any other time travel episode seen so far. --Yaron —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.94.86.115 (talk • contribs) 17:36 31 May 2006 (UTC)

You seem once again to be under the belief that I don't agree with you regarding the previous two paragraphs. They are weakly supported, and should be referenced. However, the ONE reference you provide does not constitute "well-referenced", especially since it is not verifiable (before you argue that it is, see the policy page for the established criteria) and your argument as a whole is original research, both of which are against policy. Therefore, regardless of your feelings on the previous two paragraphs, yours must be cited or removed. I will not object if you feel it necessary to remove the two paragraphs to which you object.--MikeJ9919 00:53, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Now I would object. After some relatively easy research, I found support for almost the entire first paragraph and have cited it, mostly from interviews with Coto and Braga themselves. I've also (in my opinion) vastly improved the citations in "your" paragraph, but cut out your editorial theorizing. The opinion of other editors would be welcome.--MikeJ9919 04:55, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

The interviews with Coto and Braga for which you added the links don't say anything about any fanbase "recjection" of the temporal cold war, so my above criticism of that statement still stands. This claimed fanbase "rejection" does not show any refrence and without indicating the actual precentage of fans who felt that way it might have been indeed just a few loud fans. And quoting a single opinion of one guy about "Storm front" has no weight for showing that fans did not like it, which is exactly my point. -- Yaron

Have you looked at the no original research policy? I think you're still not understanding a fundamental point, which is that the argument you're making (assertions about various episodes and Dr. Who and Yesterday's Enterprise, etc., etc.), when used to put forward a grand theory that is not directly stated, is original research. Compare the following:

"If Jones's claim that he always consulted the original sources is false, this would be contrary to the practice recommended in the Chicago Manual of Style as well as Harvard's student writing manual, both of which require citation of the source actually consulted. Neither manual calls violations of this rule on citing original sources "plagiarism." Instead, plagiarism is defined as using a source's information, ideas, words, or structure without citing them."

"This shows that apparently fans have no problem with time travel episodes, especially if they are sophisticated or touch on deep philosophical issues, but even if they have various "holes" or could have been better written."

The first is directly from the policy as an example of original research, which is banned in Wikipedia. The second is your original research. Let's take this to the extreme....this means that even if you're right you may NOT include that conclusion in the article unless it has been published in a forum that meets the verifiability guidelines. I've now made a good-faith effort to incorporate your arguments and include your rankings, even though I think them incredibly subject to small-sample bias. I just added the Nielsen ratings, which (though they have their own problems) are far more widely accepted than the tv.com online viewer poll. They show a drop in viewership of more than 26%. Your response is to remove all my changes except those that don't challenge your theory, and then add more editorial commentary. I've tried bringing in outside editors, and they've generally agreed (see DrWho42 above) that your version is unacceptable. If you revert again, my only recourse is an RFC.--MikeJ9919 14:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Mike. First of all, you still have not dealt with the main point, that no evidence and no numbers have been given to justify the statement that the fanbase supposedly rejected the Temporal Cold War. Secondly, looking at the Nielsen numbers in the new link that you added, all I see is a general cumulative decline in the number of viewers of Enterprise in general over time. There is no general indication that the Temporal Cold War episodes had a lower number of viewers than other episodes at around the same time, and in fact for example the Nielsen numbers in episodes after Cold Front are considerably lower than the number who viewed Cold Front, and for example the number of people who viewed Shockwave I & II was significantly larger than the episodes immediately before or after it, and it can be said as well that a few episodes AFTER the Temporal Cold War theme has ended at the beginning of season 4, the number of viewers went down even lower to a low of 1.4-1.5. So the Nielsen numbers in this case cannot be used for the argument you are trying to make. --Yaron .

And yet you, once again, have forgotten that I am not arguing for that point. I have made no attempt to directly address fan unpopularity because I have found no evidence for it. I stumbled on this page, and your edit was the most blatantly questionable material I found. If you want to remove the statement that the fanbase hated the TCW, FINE. But it would be a moot point since I just did. Since it's become clear that you cannot compartmentalize arguments, and insist on dealing with the whole thing at once, I've removed the statements that the fanbase hated the TCW. I've restricted myself to verifiable statements, like Coto thought it was unpopular among fans, and wanted to boost ratings. I've provided critical reviews of the Cold War. WITHOUT reverting the whole thing, please feel free to add some positive reviews. I've provided a balanced (pro and con) view of Storm Front, though the ratings issue persists. I do not directly link the drop in ratings with the TCW, just state that it happened during the episodes they were ending the arc, and persisted throughout the season. In short, I've spent way, way too much time on such a minor article. I've removed the object of your argument. If you still insist on arguing or directly restoring your text or editorializing further, I'll take this to RFC for original research.--MikeJ9919 16:36, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

So on what do you base the conclusion that: "The perceived unpopularity of the Temporal Cold War arc led to changes" and "It is believed that Coto ended the arc because he felt it unpopular among fans"? -- Yaron

You are correct. I was under the impression those were verifiable, I was wrong. They have been removed and replaced with direct Coto quotes. Personally, I think he was just sparing Berman and Braga's feelings, but my opinions are not welcome in this article. Are we done now?--MikeJ9919 17:55, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

This article's been RFCed. My last revision was my last attempt at consensus, and you've since mostly reverted that. I hate to give up on trying with a fellow editor, but if I concede anymore, this article would become a blatant violation of at least three policies: verifiability,original research, and neutral point of view. That I cannot concede. No matter how much I bend, you absolutely insist on pushing your POV. I object to two things. First, your addition of "...but there is no indication that the drop in number of viewers had anything to do with...". You are trying to say that the absence of evidence proves something. That is a violation of neutral point of view. If there is an absence of evidence, there should be exactly that...an absence of evidence. No comment one way or the other. Anything else is editorializing. If other editors feel differently, I could possibly be persuaded to drop this objection. However, I cannot believe that the following addition --

In addition, for example Star Trek: The Next Generation's Yesterday's Enterprise has been rated as one of the best episodes of that series, according to both TV.com polling and the selection of viewer favorites for the TNN marathon of popular episodes [1]. This shows that apparently fans have no problem with time travel episodes, especially if they are sophisticated or touch on deep philosophical issues, but even if they have various "holes" or could have been better written. In fact the real potential of really smart time travel episodes has hardly even been scratched yet, eventhough for example Storm Front (especially part II) touches indeed on some very sophisticated and deep philosophical points and is actually one of the best so far.

-- does not qualify as original research. No matter how much I move things around and attempt to appease you, you will not let this section drop. As I've previously demonstrated, your assertions follow the precise "synthesis" pattern outlined as a violation on the no original research policy page. I cannot be convinced that they are not original research. That said, I will always abide by editor consensus, and if several others commenting here as a result of the RFC disagree with me, I will of course allow this version to stand. However, I recommend for editor comment and consensus a permanent reversion of this section to this diff: [2]. I believe it to be the most neutrally balanced, the most verifiable, and the one with a minimum of editorial commentary. Thank you, all.--MikeJ9919 22:54, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Mike. "No indication" means that the number of viewers data does not show that the drop in viewers is related to the Temporal Cold War. Would you rather say "No evidence"? It is the same semantically. Anyway, adding this is in fact quite balanced, otherwise people who read this without seeing the actual data might get the wrong impression that mentioning the drop in the number of viewers in this context is because it is somehow related to the Temporal Cold War storyline. As for the 3 sentences I restored: The first one - about Yesterday's Enterprise - is exactly as you yourself phrased it earlier, and you had no problem with it that way. The next sentence is a valid simple logical conclusion from the data quoted in this paragraph, and the third sentence can be easily verified by objective analysis of the episode's content. Altogether this paragraph is well balanced and balances the entire controversy section. You have done a great job in considerably improving the Controversy section compared to what it was before, but there is no reason to be obsessed with the few well justified words that I added. -- Yaron

Do you not understand the meaning of "original research"? The reasons you gave for the validity of your second and third sentences VIOLATE wikipedia policy.--This unsigned comment was added by 138.47.42.4.

These sentences are objective and based on the citations given and are verifiable and there is no reason to remove the paragraph.

If you are using statistics to bolster an argument for audience reception of a television show, only the television ratings from Nielsen Media Research should do. A link to a complete listing of these has been posted by me within the Star Trek discussion area (because someone claimed Seven of Nine increased Voyager's ratings). I can tell you right now, in terms of audience popularity -there was nothing special about Storm Front.--Nephandus 19:21, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Outside comment (RfC)

I've read the above and this version of the article, and checked the sources quoted in the disputed paragraph. My opinion (without commenting on the technical quality of the paragraph):

• The quoted information is not at all notable, representing a grand total of 68 voters/contributors at tv.com. As such the entire paragraph constitutes original research. Reliability and verifiability do not come into play here since the information is not notable/representative.
• But even if the basic information were fully sourced, the reasoning of the disputed paragraph would remain quite shaky. I suspect it may be impossible to find notable quotes from reliable/verifiable sources in support of this line of reasoning.

(The shaky reasoning is this: the tv.com ratings, if at all notable and representative, or attributable to a notable "entity", roughly represent the opinion of the remaining viewers. The paragraph ignores this basic fact, and simply attributes the same opinion to the part of the audience that is no longer there.)

This is called statistics. 68 voters are a fairly representative sample with a small margin of error. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.68.62.121 (talk • contribs) .

This is an appeal to authority. Just assume for a sec that other editors here don't know statistics from static - how are they going to judge your expertise? For that reason, Wikipedia articles must cite verifiable, reliable sources. AvB ÷ talk 15:14, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

This kind of argument is unbelievable - you are ignoring here basic principles of statistics. So you would regard any web page written by anybody as a verifiable source but ignore a sample of 68 viewers from a respectable source such as tv.com???! As I said, 68 is typically considered quite a reliable sample with a small margin of error. Certainly better than quoting two or three random web pages written by anybody -- Yaron, June 18 2006.

Yaron is correct - the above argument is ridiculuous. --Gen99 07:48, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

First, Yaron has been putting forward the tv.com ranking as if they are the Holy Grail. If that's so, then they say Storm Front sucked...it's 8.1 and 8.2 don't even garner it a spot in the top 50 of Enterprise episodes. Secondly, Yaron is not correct, seeing as 68 is by no means a reliable sample size. With the caveat that this could be a grossly skewed sample and therefore any analysis is questionable (but a warning, Yaron...if you jump on that, you have to admit that we should throw out the tv.com rankings entirely for being a skewed sample), we do a quick-and-dirty confidence interval calculation using the applet here. We don't actually know the standard deviation, but given the apparent distribution of scores given on the page (good, great, superb, and perfect are 1 point from each other), 1 is not unreasonable. This gives us a margin of error of .26 and 8.1 - .26 puts us well into "good" territory. Once again, any statistical analysis is dependent on a random sample, and this is anything but.--MikeJ9919 19:45, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

You have no indication that the tv.com sample is not representative! And now for a little correct calculation. I was less lazy and ran the actual statistical analysis on the 98 tv.com vote scores: So we DO know the Standard Deviation and it is 0.662. And now let's look at the meaning of the scores of the main Temporal Cold War episodes (these are the only episodes where Daniels appears):

Cold Front (8.6) is top 34%

Shockwave I (9.1) is top 9%

Shockwave II (8.6) is top 34%

Future Tense (9.2) is top 3%

The Expanse (9.1) is top 9%

Carpenter Street (7.9) is top 73%

Azati Prime (9.3) and Zero Hour (9.3) are the two episodes with the HIGHEST scores out of the 98 episodes.

Storm Front I (8.2) is top 53%

Storm Front II (8.1) is top 58%

So altogether on average the main Temporal Cold War episodes are way above average, and certainly this does not support the assumption that fans have rejected the Temporal Cold War storyline. -- Yaron, June 20, 2006

and you have no indication that it IS representative! Clearly some editors (myself and Avb at least) feel it is not. Also, it's not possible to calculate the standard deviation, as (like the true mean) that is an unknown value. It's likely you calculated the sample variance. How did you do that, btw? I was unable to find a breakdown of votes by the exact value each person assigned. Notably, in the small pie chart that I did find, everything besides the most frequent votes was grouped into "Other".--MikeJ9919 06:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I recommend to re-insert the disputed paragraph and tag it as in need of sources. This allows other editors to look up sources and helps RfC respondents assess the claims. Consensus can determine for how long the paragraph can remain unsourced. Personally I would say a week or so in view of its implausibility. If, however, better sources are provided, the paragraph will still have to be edited so that it does not make assertions not supported by the sources. AvB ÷ talk 21:48, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I concur...I have no problem with letting the paragraph stay for about a week, allowing editors time to dig up sources supporting the actual arguments supplied.--MikeJ9919 18:34, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

June 18:

No justified new arguments have been given for this violent removal of almost all of the controversy section. --Yaron, June 18, 2006

No new arguments are needed, Yaron. This has always been a matter about policy, not content. To your credit, you pointed out a number of important POV and verifiability issues. However, you absolutely refuse to budge where your personal point of view is concerned. Despite numerous breaches of verifiability, original research, and NPOV, you insist on restoring unacceptable text. With respect to your point of view, policy does not require us to convince you. It requires consensus, which does not allow the stubborn resistance of one editor to override the opinion of a supermajority of editors on the article. I say one editor because, though I am open to rebuttal, your identical contribution histories seem to indicate that you and Gen99 are the same person.--MikeJ9919 19:45, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

How do you come to the conclusion that Gen99 and I have identical contribution histories? --Yaron, June 20, 2006

From here and here, we can see that your accounts had their first edit within one day of each other (obviously, you were editing anonymously before that, but the accounts were created at roughly the same time). You both have under 30 edits (Gen99 has only 6). You have both edited the same articles and ONLY those articles. Gen99, with no prior knowledge (unless he has been lurking extensively), no prior participation in the discussion, and no actual editing of the article itself, used this opportunity to proffer his opinion on a long-ongoing discussion, one which just happened to be entirely in support of you. Though this does not rise to the high bar required for Checkuser, there can really be no stronger evidence short of that. In fact, given the strong evidence, I've submitted this to the admins for review.--MikeJ9919 06:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

A sockpuppet case has been opened against Yaron. All interested users may comment here. If I'm wrong, Yaron, then I'm very sorry, but the evidence is (in my opinion) very strong, so we'll see how it pans out.--MikeJ9919 07:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I just checked what came of your RfC-plus-editwar here. Guys, calling arguments by someone nice enough to respond to an RfC "ridiculous" is bordering on a personal attack.

Whatever gave you the idea that I would consider just any web page a reliable source? Far from it, if you would check the links I gave, you would discover the policies I adhere to, policies you seem to find ridiculous. Anyway, if my policy-based arguments are as ridiculous as you say they are, it should be easy for you to cite reliable, verifiable sources that support your view. So far you haven't and I am increasingly of the opinion that you are trolling.

Apart from being an unprovoked attack, the above also looks like bait to get the statistician in me out of hiding. But I won't bite and make the same mistake you do: you won't see me argue from authority here. Just reread what I wrote. Also note that the burden of proof is squarely on the shoulders of those who want to keep the disputed text. Those who want it deleted do not have to prove or disprove anything. You, on the other hand, need to provied acceptable citations, otherwise this is the end of the disputed text no matter how much original research you post on this talk page, no matter how ridiculous you find policy, no matter how deeply you believe you know more about statistics than I do. AvB ÷ talk 23:34, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Forgive me if I find again what is going on here as unbelievable or at least distorted. Here you (as a group) are attacking me personally again and again (making various statements about me personally)(The Wikipedia Instructions in the above reference to personal attack state: "Comment on content, not on the contributor"), while my arguments were based entirely on content and not on specific contributors. What I found as absurd in the entire line of the above argument ( - and especially in the sentence "The shaky reasoning is this: the tv.com ratings, if at all notable and representative, or attributable to a notable "entity", roughly represent the opinion of the remaining viewers. The paragraph ignores this basic fact, and simply attributes the same opinion to the part of the audience that is no longer there" - ) is that it seemed to indicate that polling results from dozens of viewers in a respectable site such as tv.com (which eventhough limited, are still a sufficiently large sample and carry statistically much more weight than single web pages written by anybody) are not good enough for a Wikipedia article, but harsh statements which had no basis at all whatsoever were there before and nobody seemed to care, and later single web pages written by anybody were apparently considered to carry more weight than the tv.com polling.

When I first saw this Wikipedia article the controversy section was filled with totally unsupported assertions (such as the fun base supposed “rejection” of the Temporal Cold War, the "fact" that Storm Front was widely ridiculed, etc.), and I was amazed that this totally contradicted the tv.com ratings and didn't seem to make sense. After we started this discussion MikeJ9919's corrections indeed threw away some of the unsupported stuff, but MikeJ9919 usually added to each new sentence a single reference to a normal web page which could have been written by anybody as a support for that sentence (except the interview with the producers which was apparently a more reliable source and except the Nielsen numbers of viewers of course). And yet you (and I don't mean AvB specifically) ignored all that and continued attacking the only paragraph that was based on much more than just a few normal web pages - i.e. on polling of dozens of fans. And even then for example the sentence that said that Storm Front was widely ridiculed remained there without any reference and nobody seemed to care. So I assumed that whoever left it there must have known something. But later I decided to check that too through Google search and I found again no support. So If I hadn’t interfered this article would have remained much worse. You sure make one feel welcome for trying to make contributions to Wikipedia… -- Yaron, June 24, 2006

• First of all, I have given an outside opinion, which counts heavily in what should at some point grow into a WP:CONSENSUS here on this talk page. This is one of the goals of the Wikipedia RfC process: enlarge the pool of editors to help build a consensus. My input does not count heavily because I am a senior scientist with research level statistical knowledge and skills, or any other reason that would count outside of Wikipedia. It counts heavily because it's how we do things here on Wikipedia. You clearly want to contribute, so you are most welcome to stick around and help build the encyclopedia, our gift to the world. However, in view of the opposition to some of your edits here, I encourage you to check out what I'm saying. You can read all about it on the various policy pages and get an appreciation of Wikipedia practice by observing more experienced editors at work or by also editing articles where you do not have a strong personal opinion. Also see the Welcome notice on your talk page. By the way, I don't have to give an opinion, and frankly the subject does not interest me at all. All I'm interested in is helping build the encyclopedia, which also involves explaining things to newbies without hurting their feelings too much. It does not involve accepting ridicule.
• Secondly, the reason why I find 68 opinions hopelessly non-notable in Wikipedia terms is not a statistical one. If you want to use statistics to support your viewpoint, viewing the 65 + 3 opinions as a sample, you cannot use your own calculations. You need to quote one or more good sources for that. The fact that tv.com has published 68 opinions posted by an unknown number of people (68 or less), probably means that the information is reliable enough, but it is not notable and cannot even be mentioned in the article, let alone quoted as a source to support the disputed editorializing text.
• Thirdly, repeating one's original research over and over, using terms like "ridiculous", Wikilawyering without any visible attempt to gain a proper understanding of Wikipedia's policies and community processes, or apparently failing to consider the possibility that experienced editors may know a couple of things you don't, is clearly not the way to get some serious discussion going. The fact that I am spending so much of my time explaining things to you means that I believe you want to be a good editor and have what it takes to become one.
• One more attempt. It's true that it does not take a genius to see that a sample size of 68 is not all that bad. However, tv.com offers us no interpretation of these posts (a primary source), or a way to assess whether this constitutes a representative, unskewed sample. So we cannot use it as a sample. Any attempt to assess its validity on the part of Wikipedia editors would be original research and cannot be used, even if you could prove on this talk page that the sample is not skewed. The use of an editor's calculations and predictions based on a sample whose validity is unknown would take the original research one level deeper and would be totally unacceptable.
• Having said all that, please go back to my first note where I said: if this were a representative sample, it still roughly represents "the opinion of the remaining viewers. The paragraph ignores this basic fact, and simply attributes the same opinion to the part of the audience that is no longer there." Even if everyone who has ever seen that episode would have posted their opinion, making it massively notable, it still does not say anything about why so many people had walked away and did not watch this episode. AvB ÷ talk 13:36, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, first of all, whatever criticisms you may have about tv.com's polling having a limited weight, You still have not shown why totally unsupported sentences or sentences that rely on single web pages written by anyone were apparently considered more acceptable or more reliable than this. It is still better to rely on TV.com polling than on nothing at all or on single web pages. As for why people walked away from the show, I already showed from the available data that there is no indication whatsoever that the decline in number of viewers had anything to do with the Temporal Cold War storyline, and in fact on average the main Temporal Cold War episodes have rankings much higher than average. So apparently without the Temporal Cold War storyline things would have been worse. --Yaron, June 24, 2006

• Arguing that another text has similar problems does not save this text. Other text with similar problems has to go as well as should be clear from my previous comments.
• I have given an RfC comment on the addition of some specific text. I have explained why it has to go (summary: disputed, no consensus, heavily editorialized, totally unsourced, tv.com source does not support it). Nothing you have said has changed my opinion: this text cannot be included. This ends my comments regarding the disputed text. AvB ÷ talk 14:21, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

If you apply this principle consistently then ANY sentence in ANY Wikipedia article that is not referenced or relies on a single web page written by anybody should also go. What percentage of Wikipedia texts would remain after that, according to your estimate? --Yaron, June 24, 2006

"A single web page written by anybody" does not necessarily have to go...we apply the same rules and standards we do for other sources like newspaper or magazine. For factual information, how reliable is their track record? For opinion information (which, when included, should be noted as the opinion of that individual), how big is their audience? For example, quoting Siskel and Ebert would be considered a reliable source, assuming it is an accurate quote and attributed to them. There are many highly-trafficked websites that have built up a reputation for reliability over the years, and can thus be cited. Nonetheless, the construction that was built up in this article with those opinions was, as a whole, original research. In fairness to a relatively new editor and in an effort to not bite the newcomers, I was willing to bend the rules somewhat and allow in some commentary on fan acceptance of the Temporal Cold War storyline, subject to support from the producers, reliable critics, etc. At the same time, I couldn't be unfair to editors who had gone before and were simply no longer following the page, so I tried to cite their work as well. But something you have to realize is that even if that cited information was verifiable (and I'm not entirely sure it was), the entire construction constituted original research...a digression into a discussion not directly raised by any of the sources. I'm sorry if you feel slighted or if you feel that your opinion is being blithely brushed aside. More than once, I've had to swallow my own opinion on Wikipedia in deference to other editors. Something you have to realize about working here is that consensus rules all...we strive to produce a whole that all editors can agree is at least acceptable. Sometimes that's impossible, and we ignore small minority opinions in the interest of the opinion of a supermajority of editors. All of these procedures, though, are governed by policies and guidelines which have been painstakingly constructed and found to work again and again. As Avb said, I hope you'll acquaint yourself with them. Though we seem to disagree on this article, I would be happy to work with you on one in the future, since you seem to have a genuine desire to contribute.--MikeJ9919 16:35, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, Mike, thank you for your comment. But, for one thing, apparently the rules are not being systematically applied, since as I said, before I edited the controversy section it was filled with unsupported assertions, which turned out indeed to be baseless. So how many similar Wikipedia articles are out there? Secondly, assuming that you know your work and (since you are a much more experienced editor) that the single page references you quoted were sufficient, and since at least you should agree that the tv.com polling by dozens of fans (however limited) still carries much more weight than the opinions of the few web pages that you quoted, so actually both my paragraph and your paragraph should stay. Thirdly, if this RFC brought in editors who have no specific expertise or knowledge or interest in this particular subject, this can lead to mediocre results. The Encyclopedia will be much better off if everyone sticks to what he knows best. -- Yaron, June. 24, 2006

"If you apply this principle consistently": Yes, unsourced material has to go sooner or later. I don't have the percentage for you but it must be substantial. But it isn't as bad as it seems. We leave unsourced material (if not too negative or libelous if untrue) in place until someone challenges it, and then often leave it in place somewhat longer (with a "citation needed" tag) so that those who wish to keep it have an opportunity to source it. If the material is encyclopedic, it should be easy to find good sources. But if it isn't... as our illustrious (co-)founder puts it: "We are a massively powerful text generation engine. People have to drop the idea that every little tidbit is precious. Crap is crap. Yank it." But in general a single source will suffice, as long as it supports the material in the encyclopedia and, among other things, satisfies WP:V, WP:RS.

As to RfC commenters: the idea is to bring in more editors to enable the building of a WP:CONSENSUS. The consensus process safeguards the correct application of policies. In some cases expert knowledge of a subject or dispute is necessary to be able to comment. This is not one of those. You are still trying to marginalize my input here. Please understand that there is currently no way for you to reinsert the disputed text. AvB ÷ talk 20:42, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

PS Don't be fooled by the fact that experienced Wikipedia editors rarely argue from authority. AvB ÷ talk 20:51, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

As I was trying to say, I don't necessarily feel that the single pages I gave were sufficient. I was trying to show deference to you and previous editors by giving some support for arguments already established on the page. I was wrong in that sense...if things are original research or unverifiable, they should be yanked, not supported by spurious citations that don't address the issue directly. That applies to the citations I used, as well. Ultimately, Avb is correct...both should be excluded, not included. Since it's impossible to get past the original research problem, I don't know what the ultimate verdict on verifiability would be for either the tv.com polling or the page citations...both seem supported in some ways and dubious in some others.--MikeJ9919 21:17, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I still think that both paragraphs were sufficiently substantiated, and even if not perfect they were verifiable, informative, interesting and helpful. Removing them did not improve the article but simply made it more shallow and less informative. And if the same amount of nitpicking had been applied systematically and consistently to every paragraph in every Wikipedia article, I think that a large percent of the texts would have to "go". -- Yaron, June 24, 2006 23:40

There's an interesting related discussion going on here. Especially the examples given by veteran Wikipedian SlimVirgin should be helpful. I hope this helps. AvB ÷ talk 23:05, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Too in-universe tone

This sounds like it was cribbed from Memory Alpha as it is too in-universe. What prompted the show writers to create this story arc? Was it fully planned out (I'm guessing not from TV Guide interviews)? Why was the storyline wrapped up so quickly? What was fan reaction? There needs to be more outside perspective viewing this as a story line of a sci-fi show, not as a real event within the sci-fi show. --24.249.108.133 02:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

---This article should resemble the Dominion War article. The same attitudes applied there should apply here. I only reference the Dominion War because it is the best example of this type of article. There should be a template for Star Trek wars. 124.197.3.246 (talk) 13:35, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Why delete?

This article resembles the dominion war article. I'm going to continue editing it a little more so that it resembles the Dominion war page slightly. No reason has been given for deletion but tbh i haven't read the huge texts above so. I nominate no. There are plenty of articles like this one on wiki it just needs to be tidied up and real-world information pertaining to the show and storyline needs to be added thats all. Savre (talk) 14:04, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Discrepancy in Storm Front Storyline

I recently added a sentence to the paragraph about Lenin's 1916 assassination and the resultant change in the course of World War II, noting the discrepancy between the storyline (i.e., the Germans never attacked Russia, focused on all their forces on the West, and, as a result, made it all the way to Ohio) and the German commander's statement early in Part One about the Russians attempting to re-take Moscow. This was removed as "original research." I'm re-inserting it because it's not original research.

It's said at the 3:01 mark: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ib6ZQKsKtBo Battleax86 (talk) 00:38, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Redirect

I've redirected to the ST:E article. That destination sufficiently covers the overall plot of aliens messing with the timeline without delving into the in-universe trivia/minutiae present here. --EEMIV (talk) 13:47, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Here we go again. I just spent much of a week and a half cleaning up links broken by deletionism, and now we have another 150 links to nowhere. I think I'll find something else to do. Art LaPella (talk) 14:30, 19 May 2014 (UTC)