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.
A minor point, but do we know for a fact that he was a human? They only said his name in the episode, not his species.--31dot 21:09, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
- His name is a common Human one. If there were a character named "Smith" whose species was not identified, I doubt it would inspire the same question. And, another point: Nobody who's not Human has ever been identified as being associated with the Daystrom Institute. --TribbleFurSuit 22:36, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure how much weight the assumption that only humans would be working at the Daystrom Institute should carry. If people living on Earth are not just humans, why would any other institution be exclusive to humans?--31dot 00:06, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
- I love how we ignore the strong answer in favor of arguing the weaker suggestion, no matter how observantly accurate it may be... --Alan 00:17, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Show me where I said that I thought it wasn't accurate. I simply said I didn't think it carried a lot of weight. I thought that we went by facts here, not assumptions. There is no fact which says nonhumans don't or can't work at the Daystrom Institute.
It wasn't my intention to ignore anything, I thought I would address one point at a time. I'm not sure I agree that it is the 'stronger' answer. Just because something sounds like a duck doesn't mean it's a duck. Again, I thought we used facts here, not assumptions.--31dot 01:46, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Which was essentially my point- can't go by the name alone in determining species. Changing it now unless there is a major objection.--31dot 11:23, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
- Uh, Daniel Kwan's father was Human, making him part Human, hence the Human name. And it seems all the major objections were made before and ignored in favor of the weaker one. 50/50 vote does not equal a win. --Alan 16:38, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Last time I checked, it wasn't written in stone.
Since a negative can't be proven, it shouldn't be up to me to prove that he wasn't human, it should be up to the other side to prove that he was. I haven't seen that.
I didn't "ignore" any objections, major or otherwise. But to clarify, here's the ones I see-
- 1) His name sounds human, so he must be human. Suggestive, but not definitive. There are many human-sounding names of aliens in Star Trek, notably Kira Nerys(her first name, at least) As pointed out already, one person with a Human sounding name is half-alien, which you wouldn't know if only going by his name.
- 2) Only Humans work at the Daystrom Institute, so he must be human. This has never been stated in Star Trek, and it seems unlikely. In a multispecies/cultural Federation this is unlikely, especially when numerous aliens make their home on Earth and aliens make up other Federation organizations (Starfleet, the Federation Archaeology Council)
If I missed something, please point it out.--31dot 22:49, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
- I don't think bringing up the Daystrom Institute is a valid argument on either side. It really only limits an individual from being a Romulan or Delta Quadrant species. It's the equivalent of a Woo working at Starfleet Academy or a Woo working on Starbase 133.
- As for the main "sounds human, must be human" point. It should be (and has been) pointed out that a relative few characters have been "revealed" to be Human or Homo sapiens or whatever. By categorizing people under "Humans" based on appearance, name, or most importantly, writers' intent (and we have to make logical, common sense assumptions in most cases), we limit the amount of unknowns in the "Individuals." Placing any "Woos" (a common romanization of several Eastern names, including Hu, Oh, Wu, Ho) in the category is probably more correct than placing the much-less common surname "Carstairs" in that category.--Tim Thomason 22:40, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree with what you are saying, but I think that this case is a little different because this character is only talked about and never seen. Obviously if he had been seen and appeared human, we wouldn't be here.
If we're going to leave the category on Humans, shouldn't we at least note that he was unseen and was not identified as Human?--31dot 22:52, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
- This case is the exact same thing as Carstairs, Lee, Olafson, Hahn, Chapman, or Nogura, all of which are unseen Humans who are categorized based on their name and general activity. I believe strongly in the opening statement that this is a "minor point," but I do feel there should be some consensus across all these articles (and then some).--Tim Thomason 23:43, 25 August 2008 (UTC)