Talk:Trekkie

AS connection?

"it is widely believed that Trekkies experience a high incidence of Asperger's Syndrome."

• I'd love to see this documented - or even a citation for this! It seems like utter nonsense, as Asperger's Syndrome is widely unknown. John Elder 05:45, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree. The claim is very dubious. I'm taking it out until there is a source.--198.93.113.49 17:07, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Okay, it's still there, and I'm not seeing a source. unsigned

Its called a forum troll. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.94.128.10 (talk) 14:15, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Asperger speculation citation provided. Davidkevin 22:54, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

The source provided doesn't provide any sort of statistical data to show why Trekkies would be more prone to Asperger's, or even that they are more prone to Asperger's in the first place. It mentions Star Trek once in a side bar and states clearly that Attwood's comment was "speculation" and was "half in jest." Does this "controversy" really belong in the article? It seems to be making too much of a fuss out of an insignificant comment that can only be verified by a newspaper from a small tourist town in Maine... I personally feel the entire topic should be removed unless some scientific reasoning and evidence can be procured... RufusX 04:42, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not a Trekkie, but I don't see why that belongs. People seem to think that any subject which touches another should be mentioned in both articles. That's not necessarily so. Let's imagine a minor band, "Band X". They have just about enough notability to warrant a Wikipedia article. Band X record a cover version of the Beatles song Yesterday. Band X's article will now reference The Beatles, of course it will. But do we need to mention Band X in the Beatles article? A lot of editors - especially those with POV issues or who are on the fandom trail - will mistakenly think yes, whereas of course the answer should be an obvious "no".

Coming back to this case, Trekkies may be relevant to Attwood's argument, but I don't think Attwood is hugely relevant to Star Trek. It's probably a little more so than my cover version example, however, which is why I would look at putting the bare minimum in - perhaps a See Also link, or one sentence only. We have wiki links; we don't need to duplicate content across articles. If the reader is interested in Attwood's ideas they can click on the link. --kingboyk 10:06, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

List of Celebrity Trekkies

How long should the list be? Here's a link upon my Trekkie message board pertaining thereto...

• StarTrekFans.net's List of Known or Suspected Trekkies/Trekkers

Here's Takara's latest...

   * Colin Powell
   * Dahlai Lama
   * Tom Hanks
   * Dr. Mae Jamieson
   * Neil Armstrong
   * Jean Simmons (actress)
   * Paul Sorvino
   * Mira Sorvino
   * Berkeley Breathed (cartoonist - Opus, Bloom County)
   * Bill Amend (cartoonist - Fox Trot)
   * Seth McFarlane (creator of Family Guy)
   * Bill Gates
   * Al Gore
   * Eddie Murphy
   * Jason Alexander
   * Dr. Stephen Hawking
   * Scott Adams (cartoonist - Dilbert)
   * Isaac Asimov
   * Laurell K. Hamilton
   * Douglas Adams
   * Carol Moseley Braun
   * Christan Slater
   * Whoopi Goldberg
   * Most, if not all, of NASA
   * Most, if not all, of Microsoft
   * George Noory
   * Art Bell
   * Marc Scott Zicree
   * Ben Browder
   * Rockne S. O'Bannon
   * Charles M. Schulz
   * King Abdullah of Jordan
   * Vin Diesel
   * John Glenn
   * Mel Gibson
   * Sally Ride
   * Mick Fleetwood
   * James Worthy
   * Bebe Neuworth
   * Kelsey Grammer
   * Tom Morello
   * Martin Luther King Jr.
   * Arthur C. Clarke
   * Rod Serling
   * Trey Parker
   * Matt Stone
   * Howard Stern
   * Will Smith
   * Iggy Pop
   * Ben Stiller
   * Conan O'Brien
   * Kirstie Alley
   * Tom Bergeron
   * Beastie Boys
   * Kevin Newman
   * Richard Dean Anderson
   * Drew Carey
   * Eric McCormack
   * Weird Al Yankovic
   * Joss Whedon
   * Mel Brooks
   * Robert Atkins
   * Kathy Lee Gifford
   * Paul "Big Show" Wight
   * George Lucas
   * Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson
   * Tim Allen
   * Neal McDonough
   * Barry Manilow
   * Robin Williams
   * Paul McGillion
   * Jim Meddick (cartoonist - Monty)
   * Dave Foley
   * David Hewlett
   * Number of people at Pixar Animation
   * late Douglas Adams
   * Alan Keyes (Repulican Senate candidate, Illinois)
   * Dennis Haysbert
   * Brad Paisley
   * Jim Davidson
   * Jonathan Ross
   * The Wiggles
   * Someone working on the kids' series Big Comfy Couch
   * Jane Wiedlin (formerly of the GoGo's)
   * David Reddick (cartoonist)
   * Kevin Sorbo
   * Tony Danza
   * Bryan Singer
   * David X. Cohen
   * Alec Newman
   * Someone in charge at Beavis and Butthead
   * Jon Stewart
   * Rick Rashid
   * Steven Harper

DrWho42 04:26, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Mmm, sorry that I didn't know about this article before posting the above. DrWho42 04:41, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

TREKFAN

I don't want to be known as a Trekkie OR a Trekker!! I don't care where Lt. Barclay was born or Spock's last name. I just enjoy the great stories in the shows. They are fine drama that happen to take place in the 'sci-fi' future. So---I want to anounce here and now that I AM A TREKFAN!! T`sitra Yel Darb 19:46, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Spock is his last name.. =P Although his first name is nearly unpronounceable to humans, but I get your drift.DrWho42 00:11, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Here's the way I've always described it...I'm not a Trekkie....I'm a Trekker -- meaning I actually have a life outside of ST. (Of course, the fact that I met my wife of, so far, 15 years through a Rrek writing club weakens the argument, but you get the idea! You could tell how our real-world relationship was going by reading how our characters interacted!)

Nobody cares. The discussion board is to discuss the article, not your insecurities about what other people think of you and not your life story. Go find a fan site for that.129.139.1.69 (talk) 17:23, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Deleted list of well-known Trekkies

This already has its own article and therefore does not belong here, except in a 'see also' section. Furthermore, as illustrated above on this talk page, there is no good way to determine how long it should be or who should or should not be included in this list. Therefore I have removed the list. As of 2/20/06, it read like this:

==Well-known Trekkies==

:Main article: List of notable Star Trek fans

Well-known trekkies include:
*Bjo Trimble, who helped spearhead the letter writing campaign that convinced NBC to continue Star Trek for a third season
*Gabriel Köerner, who was also a profilee on Trekkies; he went on to guest star on The Drew Carey Show and as the "Star Trek Geek" on the game show Beat the Geeks
*Bob Rajic, who had cosmetic surgery to look like William Shatner and was the subject of the film Auto Destruct: One Man's Obsession with William Shatner

Celebrity Star Trek fans include:
*Isaac Asimov
*Tom Bergeron, host of Hollywood Squares and America's Funniest Home Videos, guest star on Enterprise
*Phillip J. Fry, fictitious character on Futurama
*Bill Gates, who dressed up as Spock one Halloween
*Whoopi Goldberg, who played the role of Guinan in Star Trek: The Next Generation
*Al Gore, former Vice President of the United States
*Kelsey Grammer, who guest starred in the Next Generation epidode "Cause and Effect" and performed an uncredited voiceover in Star Trek: First Contact
*Tom Hanks, who was considered for the role of Zefram Cochrane in Star Trek: First Contact, but had to turn it down due to a conflict
*Stephen Hawking, who played himself on the Next Generation episode "Descent"
*Dennis Haysbert, actor on 24
*Seth MacFarlane, creator of and voices on Family Guy, and two-time guest star on Enterprise
*Eddie Murphy, who nearly starred in Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home
*Richard Rashid
*Ben Stiller, actor, writer, and comedian
*Bryan Singer, director of The Usual Suspects, the first two X-Men films and Superman Returns. Singer actually had a brief cameo as a bridge officer in Star Trek: Nemesis.

Instead, let's add a "See also" section and put the reference there. Makaristos 01:24, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

-- It appears even the separate article has been deleted. What gives? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.36.177.44 (talk • contribs) 04:27, 20 October 2006

I reinstated a section, with a quote about one such fan (with reference). I leave it to others to cite sources for others who might merit a mention. 72.244.206.119 13:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC).

citations needed, citation style off

okay, tons of stuff in here was obviously made working from a book or article, but that article doesn't have it's place in the references section. Needs to be fixed. Lotusduck 22:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

among other ridiculous assertions

More as a comment in the approach to Trek documentation [and undoubtedly most fictional works documented on Wikipedia], these kinds of statements not only fall under "OR," but it does the term "research" a bad turn:

"They probably own, or perhaps have helped create, the blueprints for various Federation starships, have explanations for all apparent contradictions, such as why in Next Generation episode 5.24, "The Next Phase," in which some characters were incorporeal beings, they could still breathe and were affected by artificial gravity and floors."

And the idea of "notable star trek fans" in an article that mentions at length the pejorative aspect of the phrase seems little more than an attempt at glorification, seeing as I'm sure there are "notable" fans for a lot of the fictional works here on wikipedia and yet those lists do not exist; not to say that the absence in itself does all the telling, but I imagine there'd be quite some resistance if one were to, say, add a list of "notable shakespeare fans," or, perhaps more relevant to "pop" culture, "notable star wars fans," or batman, or [insert whatever the hell].russ. 12:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Trekkie vs. Trekker

I have moved this material here:

For adherents to Star Trek canon, the case that "Trekkie" is the correct term was settled once and for all by Roger Nygard, the director of the 1997 documentary film Trekkies. In a post on the official website for the documentary, Nygard cited Gene Roddenberry's former assistant and Star Trek researcher as the source for the following:

Gene (Roddenberry) didn't recognize the term "Trekker" however. Somebody once corrected him when he used "Trekkie" on stage. He responded, "Excuse me, did you say 'TrekkER?' The word is 'TrekkIE.' I should know, I created them."

...until such time as a second, separate source can be found for this statement. There have been assertions that this person cited by Mr. Nygard frequently put his own words into Gene Roddenberry's mouth, as it were, especially during Mr. Roddenberry's last years of declining health and memory, using Roddenberry's name to foster his own agenda with regard to Star Trek.

-- Davidkevin 20:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

There appears to be vandalism on the page - the exchange between Gene Roddenberry saying "trekkie" and a fan correcting him to "trekker" has been reversed. 19:08, 7 February 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:600:A17F:B4B5:215E:B777:1AFC:7B2 (talk)

PARAGRAPH SEPARATOR -- IGNORE EXCEPT FOR THAT PURPOSE. -- Davidkevin 20:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Trekphiler added this:

""Trekker" is usually used as a term for the dedicated Star Trek fan with considerable knowledge of the show. The obsessive fan (so considered even amongst Trekkers) with encyclopedic knowledge of show lore, who can identify episodes by the color of the sky, is known as a "Trekist"."

based on the book by the two women who organized the first Trek con. Unfortunately, I haven't got it in front of me, so I can't cite it. Can somebody credit it? Trekphiler 09:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Well that's just scary :) Avt tor 09:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I've been an active Star Trek fan for 35 years, and not once have I ever heard or seen anyone use the term "Trekist" until reading Trekphiler's paragraph. -- Davidkevin 20:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

AMParker: I am working on a linguistics project currently and found this article that may be relevent to the wiki article: Star "Trek Lives: Trekker Slang" by Patricia Byrd. American Speech, Vol. 53, No. 1 (Spring, 1978), pp. 52-58. You can find it in JSTOR but I'll post the link to the article that I have: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0003-1283(197821)53%3A1%3C52%3ASTLTS%3E2.0.CO%3B2-A This talks about trekkie vs. trekker, and may be helpful in this discussion concerning the verifiability problems for the wiki trekkie article.

---

I've known many fans in over 35 years of convention work and dated a big-time fan in the late '70s (she had put out several fanzines and had put on the first Trek-related convention in her native state). She defined the terms roughly as (I"m paraphrazing, but this is the basic concept):

• A 'Trekker' goes to the conventions, dresses up in costumes, etc., but has a normal life outsside of cons;
• A 'Trekkie' lives, breathes, and dreams Star Trek in their normal life;
• and a 'Trekkist' goes to a con, won't dress up (maybe Spock ears), but sits in the Hospitality Suite and discusses why Spock smiled in 'The Cage', or the ramifications of warp-drive technology on 23rd century economics.

The often-cited example of a trekkie is the fellow who legally changed his name to 'James T. Kirk'. (This was in the '70s, and I never heard if he actually used 'Tiberius'). I did know a lady who quit her (well-paying) job because she could not get the vacation time she wanted, so she could go to New York for the premiere of Invasion of the Body Snatchers with Leonard Nimoy. CFLeon 09:05, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Someone who goes on a Hike is a "Hiker" and not a "Hikie" are they not? So it could be said that someone who goes on a trek would be a "trekker" and not a "trekkie" Never the less, it could also be argued that since the fans aren't actually the ones on the "trek" that they could not accurately be called "trekkers" since they are not in fact trekking. The actual treking is done by the fictional individuals on the fictional starship. Therefore, despite my own preference for the word "Trekker", it probably isn't grammatically correct. "Trekkie" would probably be more accurate although another alternative, Trek Fan, might be more pleasing to those of us who despise the media hyped "Trekkie". Dmoorefield68 (talk) 03:34, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Good point that one who goes on a Trek is a trekker. Which brings me to why I am here. Trekker redirects to this page. Trekker being a legitimate word meaning - One who treks; thus, a hiker, led me to the assumption that the wikilink trekker would link to the page trek. I caught it in time before blindly placing the link in a new article I had created, but I was wondering if the destination Trekkie was the best redirect. I have heard of this use of the term, but not aware of how common it was. Racerx11 (talk) 03:15, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

References

Copy-vio

Some major parts of this article seem to be lifted from [1] Particularly the parts on Origins. If someone has the time to weed through the article... RichMac (Talk) 06:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

My bad, the entire blog entry was lifted from here without giving any credit. RichMac (Talk) 08:00, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Timothy McVeigh

Seems to be ref'd as a big fan. Should he be added to list? - SimonLyall (talk) 10:06, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely NOT. There is nothing in Star Trek to justify being a mass murderer and hater of his own democratic government. McVeigh was a terrorist! Star Trek was anti-terrorist in nature. I'm removing the McVeigh reference.Dale Husband 04:17, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I've added him back. His Star Trek fandom is better documented than many on this list (who seem to often be one-off remarks) and shouldn't be removed just because he is a negative figure. Star Trek delt with terrorism as a matter of course, eg episodes like Chosen Realm. - SimonLyall (talk) 09:45, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

If it is documented, then were is the link? Show us a link that provides proof that it is true. Otherwise, what's to keep anyone from claiming that anyone is a Star Trek fan? "Son of Sam, Star Trek fan. The Unibomber, Star Trek fan. Osama bin Laden, Star Trek fan. Where's the proof? Well, it's been documented." See how easy that is?

Read his bio, will this link do ? - SimonLyall (talk) 11:25, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I believe it is deplorable and reprehensible to include Timothy McVeigh. This is a popular culture entry and there is absolutely no need to include him or to remember him in any other way--unless you knew him personally--than for his murderous and terrorist actions. This is an affront to the people he killed, their families, and to any civil human being.107.221.229.121 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:15, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Parodies

Family Guy season seven: Peter takes the family to a Star Trek convention, Stewie kidnaps the cast of TNG using his Transporter made from bluprints aquired at the convention etc. All voiced by the main cast of TNG: Stewart, Frakes, Spiner, Burton, Dorn, Sirtis, McFaden, Weaton, and even Denise Crosby. The fact that the cast were in the FG ep is surley grounds for adding it? Poll? ZellDenver (talk) 11:36, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Trekkies In The News (clarified info)

In the Sci-Fi Channel's information program of "SCI-FI BUZZ", host Mike Jerrick interviewed Babara Adams by phone. He asked:

Mike Jerrick: "You weren't kicked off the Whitewater Trial for just wearing your Star Trek uniform?"

B. Adams: "No I was not kicked off for wearing my Star Trek uniform...A TV news reporter from another network kept asking me about my uniform and nothing else about the trial....Although, there was not a violation and any trial disclosure. The trial judge said he was supported of me. Still the rules said no jury member could talk to the media about anything." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spaceman42 (talk • contribs) 20:41, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

New stuff goes at the bottom. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:35, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Child porn?

First one user, then several anon IP addresses keep editing in a section on "child porn links to Star Trek fans". The "citations" are bogus at best. Opening discussion after removing the section. If anyone feels strongly about vetting the sources and keeping the material in we would need a neutrality tag on this one.

Liblarva (talk)

Sorry, just because you don't like something in Wikipedia doesn't mean you can arbitrarily delete it, if the text in question is cited and relevant. And, in this case, it is; the citations are from 1) The Los Angeles Times, 2) Macleans, and 3) a blog run by an academic associated with Yale Law School who did his own followup research. The text does not claim that all Trekkies are into child porn, but the Toronto Police sex crimes unit was pretty unambiguous in its determination that an unusually high number of its child porn suspects are Trekkies. Also, you're misreading the edit history; the only IP editors involved with the section (and one unregistered user) have all been vandals who've removed it without discussion or an edit summary. Ylee (talk) 07:57, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

So you discuss it without edit warring. The material should stay out until it's discussed, not slapped back in because you think it should be. It has nothing to do with disagreement, if those are the findings then it should be presented as such, that one PD in Toronto has this "finding". Liblarva (talk)

Actually take the time to read the articles cited. It's selective quoting at it's worst presented in the wiki. Some relevant but left out lines from the Maclean's article include:

"It's the type of oddball coincidence that's difficult to ignore."

""We've had suspects from age 18 to 82. People who live in housing projects and in Forest Hill mansions," he says. "If there's a common thread, we're missing it.""

"When it comes to pedophiles, there's more myth and anecdote than hard facts. And after more than 100 years of study, the task of separating the science from the fiction has only just begun."

The cherry picked quote is the worst kind of selective quotation. The research mentioned that Seto and Eke will continue (from 2005), I found their article "Examining the Criminal History and Future Offending of Child Pornography Offenders: An Extended Prospective Follow-up Study" which doesn't mention the "Star Trek" connection.

The quote "The fascination with Star Trek—and not a general interest in science fiction or fantasy subjects like Star Wars or Harry Potter[54]—is however, according to the Child Exploitation Section, the only common characteristic it has found among pedophiles, who otherwise come from many professions, incomes, and educational backgrounds. Pedophiles may use Star Trek collections to groom potential targets.[51]" is directly contradicted by the article cited as the source. The "If there's a common thread, we're missing it." line specifically. The wiki citation cites this article as declaring a connection when the article actually says there's none. I'm leaving the discussion up but will remove that section of the wiki unless there's objection from any who've read the articles cited.

"Seto hypothesizes that the pedophiles might be using their toys and memorabilia to groom victims" is what the Maclean's article states, while the wiki article presents it as fact: "Pedophiles may use Star Trek collections to groom potential targets.[51]" The research hasn't been conducted, it's a hypothesis of one person presented as fact without accurate writing presenting it as an unfounded opinion without support. Liblarva (talk) 18:59, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I didn't revert you; another editor did. Regarding previous reverts by me and others, there is no requirement to discuss reverting editors who remove cited sections without even edit summaries; that's the definition of vandalism. You're the first to bring it up in Talk. Regarding the cites:

• The "oddball coincedence" line in Maclean's is followed by "Even more so when you realize there's virtually nothing else, beyond their shared perversion, that links the new generation of child sex offenders." In other words, Star Trek is the single commonality.
• The "common thread" line must be read in the context of the article; Detective Lamond is clearly talking about the lack of a commonality other than Trek. He also says "But it's mostly Star Trek".
• Same with "100 years of study." The takeaway from the sentence, and the article, is that there is still very little known about what is different about child porn freaks. However, fascination with Trek, according to the article and the Los Angeles Times piece, is one thing University of Toronto researchers and Toronto police have identified as a commonality; as the introduction to the Maclean's article says, "A surprising number of child sex abusers appear to be Trekkies. Trying to figure out what that means, however, shows how little we really know about pedophiles". That the second sentence acknowledges an uncertainty does not affect the relative certainty in the first among both law enforcement and academics, for the Toronto area at least.
• My alumni library privileges don't give me access to the Seto/Eke 2010 paper so I'll have to take your word on it. However, Dr. Seto specifically links to the Maclean's' article as an example of his communications with the press, so must feel comfortable with its representation of his research.
• Ernest Miller's 28 April 2005 blog post, which is cited in the relevant text, specifically deals with whether we are talking about a fascination with fantasy/sci-fi in general, or Star Trek in particular. His findings from his communication with the Toronto police are broadly consistent with the news articles' (much to his surprise, mind you; he began his research because he was skeptical of the child porn-Trek connection the Los Angeles Times claimed).
• The Wikipedia text states that Trek-related grooming "may" be the case, and cites the source. In any case, you are incorrect about stating that the hypothesis is only one expert's; you omitted the conclusion of the sentence, "-- a view that Blanchard shares." Blanchard is then quoted further on the topic.

I invite other editors to judge for themselves whether the disputed section accurately represents the cites, and whether Liblarva is, in fact, the one who is engaging in "selective quoting as its worst" above. Ylee (talk) 21:07, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay, so we're at a bit of an impasse here, you're using the LA Times article so support keeping Maclean's, but the blog posts specifically refute the LA Times piece. Seto's theory is "supported" by one other expert, but there's no science here. There's no follow up article, which reduces this to a throwaway line in Maclean's without support / confirmation. The quoted section from the Maclean's is also specifically refuted in the blog posts cited. So your position is that despite the cited articles having been refuted, they somehow are worthy of inclusion here. That makes no sense.

The blog posts specifically refute both the LA Times and Maclean's articles, which is noted in the wiki, granted, but the block quote from Maclean's is also specifically refuted in those same blog posts. Check verifiability, "that directly supports the material". The LA Times and Maclean's articles are explicitly refuted via the blog, yet there's still a block quote included. That these officers claim a connection is supported by Maclean's, and repeated in LA Times, both of which are directly refuted by the blog posts. It's a house of cards one boot strapping the other despite them both being refuted. At the least the section should be edited to reflect this and the block quote removed as it's specifically refuted. Liblarva (talk) 03:05, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

The only thing Ernest Miller's Corante blog posts contradict from either article is the Los Angeles Times' claim that "all but one" child porn suspect the Toronto police have caught in the past several years was a Trekkie; the police officer the author spoke to said that was an exaggeration, something the disputed section acknowledges. (The Times stood by its claim, though.) However, the broader point--that the Toronto police have noticed a consistent link between child porn suspects and their interest in Star Trek (and not Star Wars, Harry Potter, or other SF/fantasy subjects)--has absolutely not been contradicted. Certainly nothing in the blockquote, which is from the Maclean's, article, was contradicted. Rather, the Toronto police Miller spoke to reiterated this stance, and so did the authors of both the Maclean's' and Times articles. Again, I ask other editors to read the cites and judge for themselves whether the disputed text accurately represents them, and whether Liblarva is doing so in this discussion. Ylee (talk) 03:19, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

This seems like a clear case of undue weight being placed on a singular datum from a singular source. I don't see any reason to include this "factoid" in the article until it garners wider support from the media and from the criminal justice community. Powers ^T 13:36, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

But it's not a singular source; as reporters there are two reliable news sources, and a Yale Law-affiliated legal expert who was initially skeptical about the news sources' findings. They spoke to both the Toronto Police's sex crimes unit and experts at the University of Toronto's Centre for Addiction and Mental Health. Maybe the Trekkie-child porn link only exists with Canadian perverts, or Toronto perverts, but RS clearly indicate that Toronto police and psychologists accept the link's existence. Again, please read the cited articles and blog posts if you haven't already. Does the disputed section misrepresent them? Ylee (talk) 19:08, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

By "one source", I mean the Toronto Police. Right now, it's just one organization making this accusation, and given the depth and breadth of the larger topic of "Trekkies", having three paragraphs on the topic is unquestionably undue weight. The question of whether the section is accurate or not is irrelevant to me. Powers ^T 00:33, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

This section clearly does not belong on this article. Anyone arguing for it or adding the information to the page is most likely a troll. LogicalFinance33 (talk) 00:39, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

That's going a bit far, don't you think. I'm sure Ylee is arguing in good faith. Powers ^T 01:47, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate the support. Regarding the WP:UNDUE argument, I can see a case for shortening the section, perhaps by removing or abridging the blockquote. However, given the repeated attempts at vandalism regarding this section--and Liblarva and LogicalFinance33's blatant WP:IDONTLIKEIT-based claims above--anything else, without clear consensus to do so, would be inappropriate. In an article that attempts to cover all aspects of Star Trek fandom including history, stereotypes, and sociological/religious/anthropological aspects, I don't see how a possible link to abnormal behavior that is backed by reliable sources and credible experts is out of place.Ylee (talk) 06:21, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I disagree; without a clear consensus to include this content, it should be removed. Powers ^T 11:48, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

That's not how consensus works on Wikipedia. The text is properly sourced and is relevant to the article. Because WP:BLP is not relevant, there is no automatic preemption; the onus is the text's detractors to demonstrate that it is inappropriate in some other way. Let me save you some time:

• I have already acknowledged that WP:UNDUE may be applicable here in the sense that the section could perhaps be abridged, but given the article's length and breadth of discussion WP:UNDUE simply won't apply to the entire section without a consensus for doing so. (You stated that WP:UNDUE was your only concern, that "The question of whether the section is accurate or not is irrelevant to me". Have you changed your mind?)
• WP:TRIVIA? Nope. Again, this is a worthwhile (if unpleasant and gross) topic that is relevant to the article. The lengthy list of "celebrity Trekkies" would go first were TRIVIA applied on the article.

Bottom line: WP:IDONTLIKEIT exists for a reason. Ylee (talk) 12:16, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:JDLI is an argument to avoid in deletion discussions. That doesn't obviate the need for a consensus for inclusion of bare material such as this. Powers ^T 14:09, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

While WP:IDONTLIKEIT is primarily meant for deletion discussions, true--because those diputes are the most severe--its underlying point is one of Wikipedia's fundamentals when dealing with any kind of content. As it states, "while some editors may dislike certain kinds of information, that alone isn't enough by itself for something to be deleted." Consider the converse, WP:ILIKEIT. Is there anything in there that applies to my defense of the section? In particular, does it fail the verifiability test, probably the single most important test for Wikipedia content? No, it does not. Let me repeat: Text that passes certain basic tests like WP:V/WP:RS/WP:UNDUE (again, I am willing to trim the section if necessary), and does not violate WP:BLP (which doesn't apply here), does not need consensus for inclusion (Otherwise every single edit on Wikipedia would require prior consensus first, which of course is nonsensical given that as it stands anyone is allowed to, in most cases, create and edit articles without even registering.)Ylee (talk) 18:24, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Well either way you parse it, you're the only one defending this content, and at least four people have objected to it. I'm going to remove it, and we can continue discussing it here to see if a consensus develops to include it. Powers ^T 20:53, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I only count three objectors (the numerous IP editors who vandalized the section don't count), and you are the only one who has bothered to debate in any meaningful way; the others have 1) claimed nothing more than WP:IDONTLIKEIT, or 2) blatantly lied about the contents of the cites in course of arguing WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I reiterate that removing otherwise-compliant text without consensus is improper, but will not revert you for now, and will seek moderation through appropriate channels. Ylee (talk) 21:26, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I know you're really fond of tossing that WP:IDONTLIKEIT thing around, but at some point you should recognize it for the ad hominem that it is. I'm not as versed in wiki politics as you, granted. But that's no reason to get personal. I've stayed out of this as Powers is much better at speaking to you in a way you'll listen to and respond well to. The content doesn't belong in the article, not because I personally object to it, but for all the reasons cited by me and others. Powers and Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs are correct, the content should be pulled. Liblarva (talk) 07:03, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

You didn't made a single valid argument; instead, you repeatedly misrepresented cites and failed to back up your claims when challenged. LtPowers has made reasonable arguments, and I've asked for clarification for Fuchs' rather vague statement. Ylee (talk) 07:32, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I have asked for feedback at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Star Trek#Content dispute in Trekkie article. Ylee (talk) 21:47, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

In the absence of the fact that no one is actually trying to prove that "if you are a Star Trek fan, you are a pedophile" or the inverse, I really don't see this section as anything but undue weight and out of place (noting the section it's in, I would also say the "one Star Trek fan on a jury" mention isn't worth including either.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 22:42, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand your point about "actually trying to prove"; Wikipedia articles aren't supposed to "prove" anything. I agree about the Whitewater juror, but that can be easily turned into a sentence or two elsewhere in the article, perhaps in Anthropology. Maybe the solution for the disputed section is to turn it into a brief mention elsewhere, in this case in Stereotypes (which already discusses Trekkies' other aberrent behavior)? Ylee (talk) 23:08, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I think David Fuch's point about "proof" is that this connection hasn't been the subject of concerted research; rather, this is a correlation discussed by a single crime unit. If this spawned broader research into correlations between folks' sexual and entertainment proclivities and/or this correlation came directly from some meaningful research (and not just a quote from a few cops), then perhaps it would warrant some more attention. As it stands, though, this specific moment (along with, BTW, the Trekkie juror) are snapshots of isolated (in so far as media and research have presented) moments. A big ol' block quote and separate section seem inappropriate for both. <jest>Perhaps best merely to say in the lead that, "Star Trek fans include world leaders, jurists, pedophiles, and Wikipedia editors."</jest> --EEMIV (talk) 21:26, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Guys, the statement that many pedophiles in Toranto are into Star Trek only applies to pedophiles in Toranto, it doesn't apply to Trekkies at large, which is what this article is about. Many of the Trekkies I know here in South Carolina are conservative Christians. Is that a fair sample? No. Is this a reason to add a section about Trekkies in the Christianity article? I'm sure I could find reliable sources, but that still wouldn't make it due weight. One of the sources also says "The higher rate of left-handedness is important because it strongly suggests that pedophilia may have more to do with nature than nurture." Should I add this to the left-handedness article? Because that statement was made universally, unlike the Toranto statement. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:29, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

If Toronto were primarily comprised of child porn sickos/pedophiles, of course this wouldn't be notable. That Torontonians are, presumably, people much like those anywhere else in North America is what arguably makes the finding encyclopedic. And yes, there would be nothing wrong with discussing a possible connection between left-handedness and child porn in other articles, if appropriate; both left-handedness and pedophilia already discuss other correlative factors. Ylee (talk) 15:45, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Unless your study claims that this constitutes a norm beyond Toronto, any claim of notability by your part that this should be like normal society because Toronto should be no different constitutes either synthesis or original research. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 15:58, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I phrased that badly. We don't know whether child porn freaks outside Toronto show the same correlation with Trek as Toronto's do. It's possible the correlation exists in Chicago and New York and LA too, and the cops have noticed it, but it just hasn't shown up in the press yet. It's also possible there's something unique to Toronto's water that causes this correlation there but not elsewhere. Since we don't know either way, we can't talk about other cities. All we can do is to lay out the bare facts regarding what Toronto police and local researchers have found, period. That's what the section currently does. Ylee (talk) 16:49, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree that me using the word troll was going too far and I take that back. However, in regards to claiming WP:IDONTLIKEIT, I am not a trekkie, nor do I know any trekkies. I didn't make my comment because I don't like the section. I just felt that it was unfair to trekkies, and seems like an attempt to create a stereotype that, "if you're a trekkie, you're more likely to be a pedofile", which seems very unfair. LogicalFinance33 (talk) 05:33, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

In other words you didn't bother, despite my repeated appeals, to read the cites to judge their credibility or see how accurately I had used them; instead, you saw the words "Trek" and "child porn" in the same paragraph, thought to yourself "That's obviously wrong!" and thus called me a troll. All the section says is that Toronto police and researchers have found that over a period of several years an unusually high percentage of those the sex crimes unit arrests for child porn are also Trekkies. As mentioned I am willing to compromise regarding the text itself, but I am not willing to agree to a blanket removal without better reasons than what you and others have raised. Ylee (talk) 15:45, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I for one question its notability to the topic of Trekkies. While unique percentage of Toronto pedophiles may be Trekkies, that's notable to the topic of Toronto sex offenders. Is there an unusual occurrence of pedophiles among Trekkies claimed in this study, or an unusual occurrence of Trekkies among pedophiles? --OuroborosCobra (talk) 15:58, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

The latter. If the Toronto police found that an unusual occurrence of general sci-fi/fantasy fandom occurred among child-porn perverts, discussion of this wouldn't belong in this article; it would belong in child pornography and/or pedophilia. (I don't think there is an article that discusses the history, culture, and characteristics of SF/fantasy fandom in general the way Trekkie does for Trek fans.) That it is specifically interst in Star Trek and not Star Wars, Harry Potter, or other topics is what makes it relevant to this article (and, I suppose, to an article on Toronto sex offenders were one to exist). Ylee (talk) 16:58, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I've finally read the whole discussion and it looks like the local consensus is that the Toronto police unit's observations don't warrant their own section, and really can be sufficiently covered in a sentence or two. Ylee, if you disagree with the consensus or think the groupthink is missing something, your best avenue would probably be to find academic research sources or coverage of this aspect some fans' behavior in other contexts. --EEMIV (talk) 17:53, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I am happy to compromise. I only disliked the blatant knee-jerk WP:IDONTLIKEitis and and misrepresentation of the cites displayed by several opponents of the section, and the accompanying quasi-condoning of the repeated vandalism the text saw before this discussion began. I will work up some way to briefly mention the findings elsewhere in the article. Ylee (talk) 19:35, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's notable enough to merit a mention at all. We are not obligated to include information just because it appeared in a news item somewhere. Powers ^T 18:14, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

If the article were much shorter, sure. Not so, given the article's current length and breadth of coverage over Trekkies' behavior and characteristics. Ylee (talk) 18:50, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Article length is not an argument for notability. As it stands, you have stated that this is an unusual occurrence of Trekkies among Toronto pedophiles, which makes it possibly notable to an article about Toronto pedophiles, but not to an article about the worldwide Trekkie phenomena. There is nothing notable here to the larger Trekkie topic. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 21:21, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Article length isn't by itself an argument for notability, but that's irrelevant anyway because WP:NOTABLE determines whether topics have their own articles, not articles' content themselves. Length certainly is, however, a consideration when evaluating WP:UNDUE claims of the type made here. Ylee (talk) 21:29, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

As it stands, you have stated that this is an unusual occurrence of Trekkies among Toronto pedophiles, which makes it possibly notable to an article about Toronto pedophiles, but not to an article about the worldwide Trekkie phenomena. There is nothing of note here to the larger Trekkie topic to justify the weight given to it by putting it in the article. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 21:34, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Ylee, you're right that I did jump to the conclusion that a section about pedophiles on the trekkie page didn't belong. It instinctively seemed implausible that out of all trekkies in the world, a significant percentage of them were pedophiles. However, it seems that that instinct was correct, since it isn't out of all the trekkies in the world (which is the scope of the article); it is a percentage of trekkies in a specific location, Toronto. Which is why I have to agree with OuroborosCobra that it could be "possibly notable to an article about Toronto pedophiles". LogicalFinance33 (talk) 21:46, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of renaming this section to no longer question whether the addition is vandalism. That may have gotten the debate off on the wrong foot to begin with and those raising concern with Ylee's additions should have assumed good faith first and tried to discuss the content in question rather than simply calling it vandalism. That is especially true considering that it is reliably sourced. That said, in the language of WP:UNDUE:

"An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic."

No measure of significance to the article topic has been established. Toronto is not anywhere near the entirety of the global Trekkie community. Even within Toronto, it would seem that these studies do not make a conclusion of a significant portion of the local Trekkie population being pedophiles. Therefore, the addition of this material would be giving it undo weight. With theme as charged as pedophilia, we should take extra care to make sure that any addition to the article actually represents something significant to the topic as a whole, especially since that topic is a group of people. We do not need to risk people concluding that Trekkies are more likely to be pedophiles when that claim may not be supported even within Toronto, let alone among the global community. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 22:41, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate LogicalFinance33's retraction, and OuroborosCobra's retraction of Liblarva's slander; I still await an apology for Liblarva for blatantly lying about the accuracy of the disputed section relative to the cites.

That said, nowhere is the claim made that Trekkies are more likely to be pedophiles. There is verifiable evidence, according to the Toronto police and local researchers, that pedophiles they have dealt with are more likely to be Trekkies than the general populace. We do not know whether this is true of pedophiles in general; this may be so or may not. The absence of data should not be interpreted as a negative or a positive, which means we are just as unjustified in concluding that this is a Toronto-only phenomenon as in concluding that this is true of pedophiles worldwide. Thus, all we can do is present the facts as established by reliable sources, say nothing else, and let readers draw their own conclusions. In any case, Toronto is one of the world's largest cities, and the cites establish that over a period of several years a large number of pedophile Trekkies have been arrested; we are not talking about one or two found in Nowheresville, Arkansas. In an article that discusses the history, behavior, and positive and negative characteristics of Trekkies (both collectively and that of individual members) in great detail, to exclude any mention of such a significant, unusual behavior pattern that has been reliably reported would be unencyclopedic.

Once again: Since WP:BLP is not involved, the only determinants of whether certain content should be included are the likes of WP:TRIVIA (this is not a list of random, miscellaneous factoids), WP:NPOV (I feel comfortable in saying that the section passes this), WP:OR/WP:V/WP:RS (clear passes), and WP:UNDUE (resolvable by making the content's length appropriate to its importance and the size of the rest of the article). As icky as all non-perverts find the topic of pedophilia/child pornography, there is no WP:SQUEAMISH or WP:UNPLEASANT in Wikipedia; WP:IDONTLIKEIT does exist for a reason. Ylee (talk) 04:53, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

The question is, why are you (and only you, as far as I can see) so adamant that this information be included? In what way is it relevant to understanding the topic of "Trekkies"? You yourself admit that we can't draw any conclusions from this single data point, but the mere act of including it in the article indicates to the reader that we find it significant. Yes, a few news sources picked up on the factoid, but that doesn't make it automatically relevant to any particular encyclopedia topic. Powers ^T 12:41, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Unusual, significant, documented behavior that is related to Trekkies is relevant to Trekkies, an article about the behavior and characteristics of Trekkies. No need to "draw any conclusions" about it. Period.

I've been very patient here. I didn't revert you despite your remarkable claim that text that does not otherwise violate basic Wikirules needs consensus to be added and not deleted, which is totally backwards; requested third-party opinions; seen the text vandalized many times before the current dispute; and repeatedly offered to compromise on the location and length of the disputed text. What have I received in return? Flat-out lies about the text's accuracy, claims of vandalism against me, repeated mistaken claims like "The disputed text says most Toronto Trekkies are pedophiles!", and repeated arguments that are explicitly or implicitly variations of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. It's quite frustrating. Bottom line: The burden of proof is up to you, not me, to show that the text violates a basic Wikirule. Ylee (talk) 14:03, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

First, drop the "IDONTLIKEIT" line. The arguments against you have not been based on personal wishes or dislikes for quite some time now. I am tempted to consider your continued use of that line in ignorance of actual arguments being made against you to be ad hominem.

Second, you claim we cannot treat this as a Toronto-only phenomena, that the absence of further data cannot be treated negatively or positively. You seem to be forgetting the "positive" part of that sentence. We cannot claim that this is only true for Toronto (no one here has, by the way), but you cannot claim that it extends beyond Toronto either. The only thing that can be said is of an occurrence of Trekkies among pedophiles in Toronto. No more, no less. That does not on its own carry weight worth mentioning in an article that is about the world Trekkie population, and not only about Toronto. No one is saying that it is impossible for it to extend beyond Toronto, only that we have no source or information stating that it extends beyond Toronto. We don't even have a source claiming that Trekkies within Toronto are more likely to be pedophiles than the general population, so even among Toronto Trekkies we do not necessarily have weight for inclusion. Your study says something characteristic for Toronto pedophiles, not Toronto Trekkies. There is no information on behaviors characteristic of Trekkies. The burden of proof is on you to defend the significance of this content for the article, and you have failed to do so.

Third, do not take your repeated offers for "compromise" as putting you on higher moral ground. While compromise is often a goal and avenue to reach consensus, compromise should not be used to force inclusion of material that is of undo weight for the article or violates any other policies. Compromise is not always possible within disputes. In this case, you have a nearly unanimous group of other editors saying that your content is of unduly low weight or importance or significance to the topic to merit inclusion in this article. You are the only one still hoping to include it. You are not going to reach consensus for supporting of including your content, particularly if you continue with this kind of attack on other editors with "IDONTLIKEIT" and playing the victim.

Fourth, as the section of WP:UNDUE I quoted states, the solution to weight in article content is not only length. Sometimes it is lack of inclusion of disputed material at all.

Fifth, in the interest of coming to any sort of positive end to this dispute, you need to drop any demands of Liblarva apologizing. Be the bigger person and move on, especially considering that Liblarva hasn't even been involved in this conversation for about four days now. Don't hold a grudge, and don't let events from an editor that is seemingly no longer involved in the dispute cloud your willingness to discuss this with the rest of us. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 17:00, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

1) How/why did the arguments against this section get based on personal wishes/dislikes in the first place? Doesn't your acknowledgement say something sad about what I've had to deal with here since the dispute opened? I hate playing the victim but, dang it, I have been here. If I hadn't been around long enough on Wikipedia to know how things (ought to) work, I might've been bullied away by the start of this dispute.

2) Hypothetical: If reliable sources stated that a significantly higher-than-average percentage of Chicago high school valedictorians over the past several years were Star Trek fans (not the likes of Harry Potter or Star Wars, but Star Trek), and Northwestern University researchers stated that there might be something about interest in Star Trek that was linked to unusually strong performance in school, would this be appropriate for mention in the article in some way? Why or why not? How does your answer apply to this dispute?

5) You are right. I will do so, with the one caveat of noting here that he, the one who began this discussion, is a prime example of what I was talking about in 1).

3)/4) I have always acknowledged that WP:UNDUE is the one standard Wikitest the disputed section really might fail, and I can't argue that, even aside from the unfair attacks, consensus here has been against me regarding the worthiness of the content. I am prepared to drop the dispute if I can get satisfactory answers to 2). Ylee (talk) 19:44, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Your hypothetical seems like a comparable trivium that would need wider coverage or evidence of significance to merit a mention in an encyclopedia article on "Trekkies". Perhaps in a section that discussed potential merits of being a Trekkie, it would not be out of place, but absent that kind of context, it probably should not be included. Powers ^T 21:05, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Well...nice to see at some point in the past 9 years this section was removed. Sounds like irrelevant bogus crap to me. Alexandermoir (talk) 22:50, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Preempted

Hi

I just changed preempted to cancelled (History section, end para. 1)

The body of text states "a Canadian TV station" and had "preempted".

• The ref used has the first report about a TV station, and says "replacement"
• The next report talks about the CBC network calls and says "preempted"

Changed to match the specific TV station report mentioned in the article. Chaosdruid (talk) 13:58, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Star Trek fandom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110223185442/http://www.hulu.com:80/watch/72444/saturday-night-live-update-feature-star-trek to http://www.hulu.com/watch/72444/saturday-night-live-update-feature-star-trek
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071017200621/http://after-darkness.com:80/showthread.php?t=5706 to http://www.after-darkness.com/showthread.php?t=5706

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:50, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Bill Gates's Entry

This entry is confusing Bill Gates for Les Solomon, the one who named the Altair 8800. Someone needs to provide information about Bill Gates himself being a fan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.168.151.40 (talk) 18:41, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Notable fans, recommend truncation or removal

My two cents. I see there has been conflict over the notable fans sections for many years. Can someone high up just deliver a verdict? I think the section is not only silly and flippant but also poorly written. Whoever sat there and wrote it said everyone “is a huge fan.” That’s sophomoric language for what purports to be an encyclopedia. Alexandermoir (talk) 22:48, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Other Names sections (the one that talks about DS9 fans being called niners)

Hi all, While I understand the humor of the section "other names," I feel that it is not really relevant to the article. Before I delete it, I would like to reach a consensus. A quick google search revealed no source that seems to pass WP:NOR for the information provided. NANPLover47 (talk) 04:47, 11 November 2021 (UTC)NANPLover47

thats what I stumbled over, too, and brought me here. The article is full of small-detail non-information, but this "niner" nonsense tops is all. please remove! 47.71.34.207 (talk) 10:04, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Rename to Star Trek fandom?

Should this be renamed to Star Trek fandom (currently a redirect here)? It seems like a more apt framing of the discussed phenomenon. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:35, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

That would be ideal. Trekkie is the demonym that refers to a Star Trek fan. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 23:57, 17 July 2022 (UTC)