This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of television on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope WikiProject Star Trek, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to all Star Trek-related topics. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
I have removed this section; it appears I am not the first. It is entirely inappropriate and irrelevant in this venue. This is not the place for someone to push their political agenda under the guise of literary analysis. Please do not revert without discussion. Trinadtsat Tomitsu (talk) 23:03, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Please do not remove cited material from an article without first discussing it on the article's talk page. Discuss first, then remove after consensus is achieved.THD3 (talk) 23:08, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
You must excuse me for not knowing standard protocol... it has been many years since I've made an edit here. I believe my latest action was acceptable. Now, please do something about it. The section is entirely unnecessary. Trinadtsat Tomitsu (talk) 23:13, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
I oppose removal: the analysis should stay, but some tweaking to the presentation could help things. Obviously, there's likely to not be a competing viewpoint to the analysis, if the other view doesn't think the matter worth commenting on—so the section will be inherently non-neutral. Additionally, the episode was subject to scholarly criticism, so that's worth noting in the article. I'm not sure Analysis is necessarily the best heading; Criticism, perhaps? —C.Fred (talk) 23:27, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
The fact that it is inherently non-neutral is the very reason it should be removed. It is fit for a rant on someone's personal blog, not on an encyclopedia. Literary analysis is inherently non-neutral in itself as the profession tends to have a cohesive opinion about things; those with differing opinions generally find it hard to graduate. There is not likely to be a competing viewpoint because the other view doesn't hold PHDs in literature - it's a paradox. Also, please refrain from removing the tag until a consensus has been reached - your one comment does not count as a consensus. Trinadtsat Tomitsu (talk) 00:21, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
I also oppose removal. First, it's not a rant from a blog, it's a book from a notable academic publisher. I agree that Criticism is a better heading than Analysis. For the record, I disagree with the author's thesis, but the bottom line is that Wikipedia is not censored. There are numerous Wiki articles that have cited, critical statements about their subject, but a counterpoint from another valid source is warranted.THD3 (talk) 00:27, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Best to leave the POV tag on until a counterpoint has been added.THD3 (talk) 00:31, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
I would concede if there was a counterpoint, but I still say the section is unnecessary - it's not a matter of censorship, it just doesn't belong in this particular article. Surely there must be some article on the criticism of Star Trek - its general lack of political correctness is widely known. Trinadtsat Tomitsu (talk) 02:59, 2 October 2011 (UTC)