This is a page to discuss the suggestion to delete "Human philosophy, Bajoran philosophy, Borg philosophy, Dominion philosophy, Hirogen philosophy, Klingon philosophy, Romulan philosophy, Vulcan philosophy".

  • If you are suggesting a page for deletion, add your initial rationale to the section "Deletion rationale".
  • If you want to discuss this suggestion, add comments to the section "Discussion".
  • If a consensus has been reached, an administrator will explain the final decision in the section "Admin resolution".

In all cases, please make sure to read and understand the deletion policy before editing this page.

Deletion rationale Edit

These pages are generally subjective essays which analyze or draw conclusions, are in the wrong POV, and full of speculation. - Archduk3 20:48, August 14, 2010 (UTC)

Discussion Edit

  • I find myself in disagreement with Archduk3. Having read the article on Vulcan philosophy, I believe that it is in conformity to the established Star Trek canon and should be allowed to remain. Selek1 The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).
  • While the pages may have some essay-ish qualities, the broad information presented within is valid and they should be kept, but possibly rewritten (as required). -- sulfur 17:33, August 25, 2010 (UTC)

I think any rewrite would trim these down to the point that there wouldn't really be a reason for them to be separate articles anymore. There aren't that many incoming links, so it wouldn't be too hard to just merge these into subsections of their respected species articles. That said, I wonder how much of the canon information in these isn't already covered at the species article? - Archduk3 17:47, August 25, 2010 (UTC)

  • Keep: as long as everything that is claimed is cited by references to specific episodes/and or events (which seems to be the case in most of these), i dont see why these pages should be deleted or that they need to be reduced to a few lines. Fix the POV though. – Distantlycharmed 17:55, August 25, 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep articles, but repurpose to describe what the characters have said about the various cultures, if they aren't limited to that already. They shouldn't contain our conclusions.--31dot 19:58, August 25, 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep: Basically, the argument is against having specific articles on overall species-oriented philosophies themselves. Rather than remove them, they should actually be expanded to include even more references, to explain what a people (or group, in the case of the Dominion or Borg) believe, and, so far as it is explained within the stories themselves, why. --ChrisK 12:02, August 26, 2010 (UTC)
As a matter of fact I would suggest creating a page called "Star Trek Philosophy", based on what was said by the writers and producers of DS9 when they were doing "The Maquis, Part II" and for the first time began examining the somewhat darker nuances to be found in Star Trek:
Sisko's speech "It's easy to be a saint in paradise", [expresses] a much less optimistic view of humanity than had ever before been presented in Star Trek. Behr has said he always wanted to dig deeper into Starfleet, to see what Earth was really like, and to examine the paradise that Gene Roddenberry had envisioned. Indeed, he wanted to do this on The Next Generation but was never allowed; "I'd been waiting to say that line in Star Trek for a long time. We need to dig deeper and find out what, indeed, life is like in the twenty-fourth century. Is it this paradise, or are there, as Harold Pinter said, "Weasels under the coffee table." Sisko's speech in this episode was the beginning of our really starting to question some of the basic tenets of Star Trek philosophy.Distantlycharmed 02:28, August 28, 2010 (UTC)

RE:ChrisK and others - We have pages for that already, the species and history pages. All this information is already covered between those two, without delving into essay. RE:DC - That is exactly what MA is not. - Archduk3 02:42, August 28, 2010 (UTC)

Why? If it can be cited with evidence from canon? Why not have such a page? Regarding the overall argument for the proposed deletions: as a reference guide, I think a page describing/focusing on their philosophy, as opposed to their history or species alone, is useful. A quick reference so to say. Yes there might be some overlap, but that happens on MA a lot and as mentioned above, if it can be referenced, why get rid of it? – Distantlycharmed 03:24, August 28, 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep. Maybe amateurish in writing, and could use some cleaning up, but clearly in accordance with the canon established in the series and an interesting addition to the Wiki. Some speculation on how the worldview of certain groups interconnects with their described actions may be overstepping; user should draw their own conclusions. L Marchese Ph.D. D.Pharm.Sci. 18:41, September 30, 2010 (UTC)--

Admin resolution Edit

Consensus seems to be to keep these pages, and rewrite as needed. Specific issues can be addressed on the relevant talk pages.31dot 23:44, September 30, 2010 (UTC)