Memory Alpha
Advertisement
Memory Alpha

Science officer AND Chief Engineer?

DIS: "The Butcher's Knife Cares Not for the Lamb's Cry" explained that Discovery was custom built around Stamets's own research for a spore drive system, and when they're on intercom they refer to his work station as "Engineering" - not a science lab.

Is he the Science officer? Or the Chief Engineer, or both? He's there because he designed it. Spock could be both First Officer and Science Officer. I don't know.--The Dragon Demands (talk) 17:46, October 9, 2017 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, there's been no mention of him as the chief engineer. --Defiant (talk) 22:24, November 12, 2017 (UTC)
Actually, as his uniform attests, he's in the sciences division, but I agree that his place of work is clearly engineering. So yeah, he's a mix of both... but not the chief engineer. --Defiant (talk) 22:28, November 12, 2017 (UTC)
I don't have the image handy but I think a display in one episode indicated that he was the chief engineer. 31dot (talk) 22:35, November 12, 2017 (UTC)
Ah. You're right. However, it seems that was a mistake (which makes sense to me, considering his uniform). [1] --Defiant (talk) 00:04, November 13, 2017 (UTC)
Here's the tweet itself: [2] --Defiant (talk) 00:22, November 13, 2017 (UTC)

According to writer Ted Sullivan, Stamets is not Chief Engineer, and we haven't met the Chief or seen Main Engineering yet [3] --- Jaz 00:35, January 28, 2018 (UTC)

Shouldn't the article be edited so he isn't called Chief Engineer then?--Tuskin38 (talk) 16:54, July 7, 2018 (UTC)
I don't think so. The image is clear and it makes sense that at least at one point he was the Chief Engineer as he primarily designed the starship. We can and should note what Sullivan stated as background. 31dot (talk) 19:42, July 7, 2018 (UTC)

Married?

I'd have to watch it again, but was it said that Stamets and Culber were married? Clearly they are in a relationship, but I didn't recall hearing "married". 31dot (talk) 10:19, October 16, 2017 (UTC)

It hasn't been stated whether they are married yet. JagoAndLitefoot (talk) 10:20, October 16, 2017 (UTC)

When was Stamets described as widowed? 31dot (talk) 15:42, February 25, 2019 (UTC)

The marriage was implied in "Saints of Imperfection"/Season 2, Episode 5 - Burnham's voice-over mentions how words define people; Stamets was described as a "widower", meaning that he was married and lost his spouse/husband (or at least, at the time they believed that) Csljr1 (talk) 15:46, February 25, 2019 (UTC)

I don't know if that's enough to claim that they were married. I believe TPTB were deliberately leaving that ambiguous. Burnham could have been speaking metaphorically. 31dot (talk) 19:29, February 25, 2019 (UTC)

Burnham said that words defined who a person is. First word - officer (Stamets) Second word - orphan (Burnham) widower (Stamets) shipmate (Burnham). I interpret this at its surface level, the literal.--Memphis77 (talk) 19:53, February 25, 2019 (UT
There is too much thinking getting in the way and cluttering up what can be solved with basic common sense. Direct or indirect, the statement still provides enough supporting evidence to establish a marriage (widower=formerly married man). It's not necessary to question everything. It's not necessary to act like all of this was carefully planned out. It obviously wasn't, so we have to use what information we have without weaving this huge web of nonsense, about what "is" is. --Alan (talk) 20:39, February 25, 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I'll edit without thinking from now on. I mean, Wilson Cruz himself said that they were not married but I guess my question is out of line. Sorry I asked. 31dot (talk) 21:38, February 25, 2019 (UTC)

Oh good God. So, then that's where background information comes into play. On-screen evidence has always superseded background sources. This isn't a new concept, and again... it's not necessary to act like all of this was carefully planned out. It obviously wasn't...--Alan (talk) 21:42, February 25, 2019 (UTC)

I am well aware of policies here, really, but what I am annoyed about more is my simple comment being shot down in flames as totally unreasonable when I don't think that it was given what else we know. I expected better. I was wrong, I'll know next time and keep it to myself. All of that said, then a background note is warranted that Wilson Cruz has been told the characters are not married/he plays the character as not married/whatever the best way to say it is. 31dot (talk) 21:56, February 25, 2019 (UTC)

So stating on-screen facts is shooting you down your belief that background information is more-valid? So now, widower doesn't mean widower unless is means widower, because they said so? --Alan (talk) 22:03, February 25, 2019 (UTC)

I never said such a belief. I asked a question, which I very much regret. I don't have anything else to add. I again only state that a background note is needed if we are claiming they are married. 31dot (talk) 22:11, February 25, 2019 (UTC)

"widower" in Merriam-Webster dictionary: " a man who has lost his spouse or partner by death"; this shows that the word is nowadays used also in a wider meaning and it is being noted by dictionaries. JagoAndLitefoot (talk) 03:25, February 26, 2019 (UTC)
That dictionary. Others - Free Dictionary, Wiktionary, Dictionary.com, Cambridge Dictionary, Visuwords, Collins Dictionary, et al. have the traditional, narrower meaning.--Memphis77 (talk) 05:17, February 26, 2019 (UTC)
Sure, but even one major dictionary having a wider meaning is a sign that the meaning is shifting nowadays, and might shift even more by the 23rd century. JagoAndLitefoot (talk) 09:06, February 26, 2019 (UTC)
Maybe, maybe not. We have 21st century writers writing about a fictional 23rd century universe using the cultural values and definitions of the world they live in, not some theoritical 23rd century world.--Memphis77 (talk) 10:11, February 26, 2019 (UTC)

I guess this is not as clear cut an issue as is claimed. JagoAndLitefoot is basically articulating what I was getting at. Wilson Cruz has said the characters are not married, it is possible that widower does not just refer to a married spouse; there is plenty of reason to leave marital status ambiguous and note all of this until it is cleared up later. But at a bare minimum if we are claiming they are married we should note the reasons they might not be as background. 31dot (talk) 11:02, February 26, 2019 (UTC)

I apologize if I am out of order; this is my first contribution to a talk. I am surprised that statements from Wilson Cruz on this issue are being completely disregarded. The in-universe conflict isn't really that complicated. Stamets, himself, described his relationship with Culber as "partner," season one, episode seven, "Magic to Make the Sanest Man Go Mad" at around 6:47. If they were married, he would have referred to him as "husband." The source of confusion seems to be from Burnham's monologue at the beginning of season two, episode five, "Saints of Imperfection." Burnham states the word "widower" while the screen displays Stamets' image. Clearly, since Stamets had already described Culber as "partner," DIS includes partnerships that are not marriages under the definition of "widower." Based on in-universe information, the marital status should be left ambiguous, at least. --Culber Fan (talk) 03:38, February 27, 2019 (UTC)
The Merriam-Webster definition of "widower" should be used, as we know that the Webster's 24th Century Dictionary is canon and supersedes theories that other dictionaries should be used. --Culber Fan (talk) 05:20, March 2, 2019 (UTC)
That's not how canon works; neither the contents of the 24th century Webster nor the 2018 one, which is undoubtedly different from the latter in many ways, are canon. Also, if I may make an observation: the disagreement in this discussion likely stems from the fact that we are all from different places, and this just happens to be one of those things on which different communities might have different views. This means the participants here are unlikely to reach a consensus, and even just going by a majority would miss the point. What's needed here is a consensus: a way to represent the fact that Stamets was called a widower that is acceptable to both sides. -- Capricorn (talk) 07:09, March 6, 2019 (UTC)

Aside from my suggestion earlier, we could just state that he was described as widowed in a log entry(I think that's what the comment was?) in the article text and leave it out of the box. I'm okay with either of those approaches. 31dot (talk) 11:04, March 6, 2019 (UTC)

Addressing the gay elephant in the room

Is it notable enough to mention that Paul Stamets, and his partner Hugh Culber, are the first explicitly non-heterosexual regular characters portrayed in televised Trek? 💜 🖖 T'Phall The Spicy Vulcan (open hailing frequencies) 🖖 16:13, October 22, 2017 (UTC)

More a mouse than an elephant, methinks. But worth a mention, I guess. Darth Duranium (talk) 02:33, October 23, 2017 (UTC)
I've added a note, because this has been noted in interviews etc.--Cleanse ( talk ) 09:31, November 2, 2017 (UTC)
Advertisement