Reception Section[]
Is it just me, or does a lot of it stink of personal biases? It doesn't feel very neutral. Though I wouldn't know how to reword it to sound better. Same can be said with the Season 2 Reception section --Tuskin38 (talk) 19:04, October 26, 2019 (UTC)
- I've attempted to remove personal bias. Hope that helps --Defiant (talk) 21:02, October 26, 2019 (UTC)
- The section is still very biased. Phrasing like "conveniently ignores" is highly problematic and there is no citation to prove that critics actually did ignore DS9 or VOY. The citations arguing DS9's and VOY's relative diversity compared to TOS and and TNG don't make sense as they refer to reception by people of color and/or women, who are hardly the audience that critics were thinking were off-put by a more diverse cast. And in fact the VOY article argues Janeway would have been more well received if she were a man - directly contradicting the idea they were well received. While I actually didn't much care for season one myself, I don't think we can just act like race and gender had nothing to do with the reception. I saw complaints about its lack of white heterosexual men all over the internet. I's prefer not to rewrite it myself, as I clearly have some feelings on the matter. But if on one else does, I'll give it a try. The tone is so dismissive of the voices of women and POC that it actually reinforces our argument that the Trek community is not welcoming to us. Simply state that was the position of some critics and that others disagreed. – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Degemination (talk • contribs)
Reception Section, continued[]
I am finding the "reception" sections of several series seasons includes that style of biased POV. I've removed the following as it seems largely external podcast-sourced and not about Season 1, but the section is hardly fixed:
- "In the same podcast, Burnett also expressed his reservations about the "bad science" employed in the series, likening it to "Alice in Wonderland" and coining the series a "maddening cartoonish, dumbed down" version of Star Trek, even though he did concede that it was well made where visual quality was concerned. In this, Meyer echoed the stance taken by astrophysicist and science communicator Neil deGrasse Tyson – one of the first real world scientists speaking out against the dodgy science employed in Discovery, already in a 25 November 2017 blog entry on his StarTalk podcast website – , particularly where the "absurdity" of spore drive was concerned, pitting it against the scientific theoretical plausibility of warp drive as employed in Roddenberry/Berman-era Star Trek (scientific plausibility had been a prerogative for Roddenberry when he conceived his creation). [1] Tyson was later quoted ad verbatim from his 2017 book Astrophysics for People in a Hurry when Spock entered the quote "The universe is under no obligation to make sense to me" in his personal log. (DIS: "Such Sweet Sorrow, Part 2") It has yet to be confirmed whether or not the Discovery writers included Tyson's quote in retaliation of his outspoken stance against the series. Incidentally, like all Star Trek series preceding it, Discovery does employ a science consultant, Anthony Maranville. Ironically, longserving Berman-era science consultant André Bormanis is as such employed by rival franchise The Orville."
- AJHalliwell (talk) 12:08, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
Shazad Latif as Voq[]
Shouldn't the "Starring" section specify that Shazad Latif starred in Season 1 as both Ash Tyler and Voq?
Yes, CBS tried to "get cute" and hide the fact that he was playing two characters, but I don't see why a Wiki like this shouldn't list his full credits for the season.--Daveyelmer (talk) 03:38, April 3, 2020 (UTC)
DIS Klingons[]
[2] Information about the Klingons. -LauraCC (talk) 21:30, 13 May 2025 (UTC)