Name(?) Edit

Shouldn't this article be located at "Spinoza", since only his last name is given in both the episode and its script?! --Defiant 23:55, July 21, 2011 (UTC)

Just my two cents, but since this Spinoza seems to be an actual historical person, I dont see the problem with using his name.The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kaziarl (talk • contribs).

Would anyone else like to add to this discussion, so we can get more of a sense of what the consensus is, rather than just one archivist who thinks the namespace should be only the last name and another who thinks it should be the whole name? --Defiant 07:38, July 22, 2011 (UTC)

I also think that common sense should tell us that it is a reference to the actual person; but I could understand having the title as being what was used on the show, but I don't think the rest of the article needs to be changed at all. We identify George W. Bush and Tony Blair only by their pictures; not exactly the same thing, but one could certainly argue that it isn't really them.--31dot 09:26, July 22, 2011 (UTC)

The canon policy page dictates, "The only exception to the exclusion of production or reference material not seen on-screen from the main body of an article is for naming items or people that were seen on-screen but not referred to by name." Both George W. Bush and Tony Blair fit into this exception (being unnamed on screen), whereas Spinoza (actually referred to as such, on screen) does not. --Defiant 10:05, July 22, 2011 (UTC)

Could someone please finally move this page to Spinoza, so that it's in compliance with our canon policy? --Defiant 23:32, July 23, 2011 (UTC)

I don't mind moving it(as I indicated above) but I think having his full name in the main body of the article is fine too. We all know that it was clearly intended to be a reference to the real historical figure and we shouldn't just ignore our common sense. It isn't just some random philosopher with the same name who wrote the same book as the historical figure. We include Lewis Carroll's real name in his article; I'm pretty sure John Milton was only referred to as "Milton"; we have H.G. Wells's full name in his article; etc. etc. --31dot 01:42, July 24, 2011 (UTC)
No. Common sense. This is his name. It should stay here. -- sulfur 02:35, July 24, 2011 (UTC)
While I agree with and ultimately support that position, I could see splitting the difference and having the title at what was verbally given in canon and have his full name in the article(not just background), as we do with the other authors.--31dot 02:39, July 24, 2011 (UTC)

Common sense tells me it should be moved. It would then be perfectly clear to the hordes of people who have not seen the episode what info is established therein and what info is from reality. As a rule, we should refer to how things and people, etc. are referred to in the episodes and films; this is the whole basis of canon policy. Keeping this article at a non-canonical namespace affects not only this page but also encourages misuse of a non-established name in numerous other articles and makes otherwise linking to this article that much more difficult; in order to stay true to canon, users have to write [[Benedict de Spinoza|Spinoza]] rather than just [[Spinoza]]. --Defiant 07:47, July 24, 2011 (UTC)

That, respectfully, is an overly strict interpretation of the canon policy. As you did by trying to state that this character was not a human, you are taking the canon policy too far. A specific work written by the historical figure is seen in canon- that is enough to identify him in canon. We all know who is being referred to- there is no issue with that- and we shouldn't pretend that we don't. It might be different if it was an offhand mention of a name without mentioning the work that he wrote, but it was mentioned. --31dot 10:53, July 24, 2011 (UTC)

I simply fail to see the logic in taking a course of action that has a good chance of confusing new users when an alternative method is easily available. Just because we know it's the same guy doesn't mean that everyone else will. It's clearly elitist to assume otherwise, and it doesn't hurt to make the distinction between what is actually established on screen and the real world info. On the contrary, an encyclopedia of such stature should strive to make such clarifications. --Defiant 11:06, July 24, 2011 (UTC)

Using that reasoning there is a lot of material here that would need to be thrown out. DistantlyCharmed already tried to argue that George H.W. Bush wasn't George H.W. Bush despite seeing his picture. You could argue that John Milton's article should simply be titled "Milton". There's a lot more examples out there. Again, we have the specific work that the historical figure wrote and it is, frankly, ludicrous to say "We don't know if he had the same first name in canon". His work, plus common sense tells us that he did.--31dot 11:16, July 24, 2011 (UTC)

Would you care to explain why you believe it to be "common sense", rather than just arguing "it is"? --Defiant 11:25, July 24, 2011 (UTC)

I already did; we have the work that the historical figure wrote. It wasn't written by some random philosopher named "Spinoza".--31dot 11:29, July 24, 2011 (UTC)

But we don't know that; that belief is only for those who base their interpretation of Star Trek on the faulty premise that its fictional universe is the same as our universe. I'm adhering to both the spirit and letter of MA's policies and guidelines: the canon policy (specifically, the aforementioned section) as well as the common sense policy (by remembering that the spirit of canon is not just to make stuff up or add your own little observations whenever you feel like it, but to actually follow what is established on screen). Despite your protestations, this is actually what the common sense policy is about; remembering the spirit of the policies and guidelines, rather than just following them to the letter. The one exception, as stated on the canon policy page (and above), is for naming things not designated a name on screen. I strongly suggest you also abide by what is actually in the policies and guidelines. The fact that I'm adhering to the spirit of canon policy frankly makes a nonsense of your argument that I'm following that policy too closely. If you don't like what is in the policies and guidelines, you can go through the regular routine of proving a consensus as to what you think it should be. Please don't just go around arbitrarily deciding that the Ps&Gs should be ignored whenever you feel like it! --Defiant 12:25, July 24, 2011 (UTC)

I am not "arbitrarily deciding" anything; that has been our practice all over this site. As someone who was an admin I would think you would be aware of that. Why is it that the existence of his actual work good enough to identify him as a human, but not use his full name? That makes no sense. If someone can be a Human without it being said that they were human, we can do the same thing with names. You are hyperinterpreting policies.--31dot 12:53, July 24, 2011 (UTC)

As I've explained, you are arbitrarily deciding to ignore the spirit of the canon policy; everything on the page outlining that policy states that real world info and production info is suitable for in-universe articles, but only when separated from the main body of the article (e.g. when formatted as bg info) or in the aforementioned exception, re: naming. As a current admin, I would think you would be aware of that. The common sense policy allows only for ignoring the letter of the Ps&Gs; not to ignore them in spirit. By making the connection that real world info "must" be true of the fictional Star Trek universe without any definitive proof rather than your own judgment and then centering the article around it by not only including real world info in an unnecessary in-universe context but also naming the article with such info... is to ignore the canon policy in spirit. This is a different case from the below "Human" one as this affects much more of the site, whereas the issue below is a much more minor infraction of the canon policy, affecting only this article (which, due to the common sense policy, I was willing to let slip by), but maybe you're right – they probably should both be vetoed, as they're both breaching the canon policy not only by the letter but also in spirit. --Defiant 13:31, July 24, 2011 (UTC)

Then I hope you're prepared to propose stripping out a good chunk of this site's content, for that is done on most of our articles. Star Trek was written by people from our "real" universe; unless they establish some aspect of the Trek universe as different, we should assume it is the same as ours. --31dot 13:46, July 24, 2011 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly disagree. Such discrepancies between our world and the obviously fictional one of Star Trek show them not to be the same; it's therefore highly illogical to assume the opposite. Such discrepancies will only build as our world moves closer and closer to the chronological setting of Star Trek; to anyone with common sense, that should be obvious. --Defiant 14:03, July 24, 2011 (UTC)

It's clear this is just going around in circles, so I will let others respond for a bit.--31dot 14:07, July 24, 2011 (UTC)

It's clear to me that we feel as strongly about our own belief(s) as one another and that the opinion of each is just as valid as the other. --Defiant 14:16, July 24, 2011 (UTC)

This is a really tough point to argue over - I've been trying to 'get a feel' for the arguments for a while and keep switching between the two sides. It reminds me a bit of the debate over whether to include 'Nyota' as the main Uhura's first name. I'm very interested to see how this turns out. AnonyQ 14:42, July 24, 2011 (UTC)

Just like that example, we shouldn't use a name for the title of any in-universe article (except for the exception stated – when the item or person is unnamed) unless it has been established in canon. Real world info is obviously not canon, nor should it be considered such. I'm wholeheartedly opposed to the idea that, in a few select cases (however many that may be), the two types of info should be treated as one and the same. That very concept goes against everything the canon policy stands for (or almost everything, at least). The sole exception has a fixed reason for its existence – decreasing the extreme amount of "unnamed" entries. There doesn't seem to be any reasons that are anywhere as strong for disregarding the canon policy as much as some have proposed. --Defiant 15:15, July 24, 2011 (UTC)

Removed "Human" Edit

I removed the real world information that Spinoza was Human from the portion of the article that should be entirely in-universe, according to this page. If anyone can cite where it is stated in a Star Trek episode or film that Spinoza was Human, the info can be re-added. --Defiant 10:49, July 22, 2011 (UTC)

You're pushing the Canon policy too far over the common sense policy now. The reference was obviously to the real world Earth philosopher (based on the book in question), so... he's Human, and it's the Earth guy. By common sense. -- sulfur 11:04, July 22, 2011 (UTC)

Okay. Point taken, especially in light of the book (whose discovery I was kinda forgetting). Sorry. --Defiant 11:10, July 22, 2011 (UTC)

Ad blocker interference detected!

Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers

Wikia is not accessible if you’ve made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected.