User talk:Alyeska/ST vs SW

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

• Keep 28 Mar 2004, VfD
• Keep 22 Oct 2004, VfD
• Keep 3 Mar 2005, AfD
• Delete 29 August 2007, 4th VFD

I have a mini millinneum falcon and a NCC-1701 side by side on my desk, so which side I am on anyway? =)

---

Contents 1 VfD 2 Discussion 3 The AOTC:ICS and the Decline of the Debate 4 Move? 5 POV 6 st-v-sw.net removal 7 Another opinion 8 Revprez's edits 9 Anonymous edits to ICS:AOTC section 10 Cleaning up the links section 11 New History section, restructure 12 The Horror of All This... 13 Pro-wars and pro-trek labels on external sites 14 Biased content 15 Problems 16 Transporters and such 17 Futile debate - add that to article? 18 Website descriptions and NPOV problems 19 Star Destroyer VS. Enterprise-D 20 videogame 21 let's get this deleted 22 Site labels 23 Question

[edit] VfD

• Nonsense. RickK | Talk 05:37, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Nonsense.
• Marginal keep. Not nonsense. I've seen this ridiculous but legitimate phenomenon before. Needs a different title, though...and cleanup. RADICALBENDER★ 05:44, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• I believe this sort of thing would fall under "no original research". Maximus Rex 05:46, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• Keep - admittedly ridiculous, but a real (if sad) phenomenon. --Rlandmann 06:33, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• Number of usenet posts makes a strong case. This article is currently lousy, but I think with more specifics it might possibly be a good article. What other common social debates can this be compared to, and are they in wiki? It's certainly silly, but it is undeniably a very common discussion topic. Keep, but needs serious improvement. Sort of my field, perhaps I'll make it a solid article if it's kept. MarcusAurelius
• If this is deleted, and Nazism and socialism is kept, I have lost all faith in the logical processes of those involved in the decisions. - Hephaestos|§ 15:50, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• Keep - The argument is nonsense, but the article is not. -- Cyrius | Talk 19:14, Mar 28, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, this is an interesting SF phenomenon which deserves to be well covered, like the generations-long scuffles between the classicists and the moderns in the 19th century. Those 19th scuffles had their share of juvenile nonsense too. AlainV 22:15, 2004 Mar 28 (UTC)
• Comment. Maybe have this, and Pokemon vs digimon, and anything similar that exists or is created get redirected to a more generic 'arguments over fiction' (can't think of a better title at the moment) article? It seems like they all have a lot in common: "My fiction's better than your fiction". Niteowlneils 04:22, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • A significant difference though - very nearly all Pokémon vs Digimon arguments are over which series/franchise is better. There seems to be little effort devoted to hypothetical speculations like "If Pikachu were fighting Agumon, who would win?", which is the heart of the Star Trek vs Star Wars stuff. Pikachu vs Agumon should be the most frequent "pairing", yet it googles only 4 hits on the web and none at all on usenet... --Rlandmann 23:07, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Well written article on a real (if ridiculous) phenomenon. This debate has its own newsgroup, fercryinoutloud. Jgm 15:09, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Ambivalenthysteria 02:17, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. It's a pointless debate, but it's out there and it's definitely a known phenomenon of the two fanboy cultures. I will admit to having spent a good deal of time a few months ago reading through one of the sites it links to. Isomorphic 21:07, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Anyone remember this? Wiwaxia 02:55, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
• Sorry I am headed out the door and forgot to login, personaly we should keep this. It seems any of these ST Vs. SW always are getting closed or trouble in them. If you ask me I say its SD.NET people because they are mad about the removal of their page on here. Yeah this one isn't amazing but at least its something so people can read about it! Better then nothing.
• Keep, this is real T-1 20:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

---

This article has survived VfD a second time. The archived debate can be found here. --Slowking Man 00:31, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)

---

On 25 Feb 2005, this article was nominated for deletion a third time. The result was keep. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Star Trek versus Star Wars (recount) for a record of the discussion.

[edit] Discussion

Hmm. Interesting, but too focused on the one newsgroup. Needs more stuff about the general debate and the reasons behind the Trek/Wars split. I'm a combine-and-conquer man myself. -- Kizor 06:25, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• With the apparent switching, more often to the pro-wars side, how are we gonna keep the text neutral and cleaned up?

[edit] The AOTC:ICS and the Decline of the Debate

Um... I've never been involved in one of these online debates, so I feel very much like an outsider here, but the AOTC:ICS section of the article seems to be bordering on POV. Some of the phrases used need to be either toned-down or somehow qualified, (italic is mine):

• "loved by pro-Wars"
• "hated by pro-Trek"
• "factors combine to wipe out most of the already"
• "came to accept the book and continue on with the debate as best as they could"
• "AOTC:ICS not come to dash their hopes"
• "a complete picture that shattered the illusions"

My problem here is that, given that nearly all "science" in both Universes is science-fictional pseudo-science, I find it hard to believe that the one side would have had their "hopes dashed" and their "illustions shattered" because the other side created a new pseudo-scientific canon document. Was this absolutely the case, or was someone writing their pro-SW POV here?

func(talk) 16:29, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

As an third party onlooker (though a bit embarrassed to admit it) and poster at Spacebattles forums and lurker among the Stardestroyer.net forums for several years now. The general consensus about the Star Wars firepower superiority over Trek is more or less correct at those two places. Every once and while however a flamewar will start over the ICS, but a general consensus has emerged that Star Wars would win at this current juncture. ScottM 03:50, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Some further thoughts: The External Links section also has some clear POV, (statements such as "..only about two competent pro-Trek..."). Also, it occurs to me that we might want to change the name of the section altogether, to something to the effect of "Notable Debate-Related Sites", or something like that. In other articles, we provide external links to users so that they may learn additional information. What we should actually be doing here is simply describing the most notable locations on the Internet where the debate has taken place. Also, by not calling the section "external links", we would be discouraging web spammers from added their non-notable web forums. Any thoughts? func(talk) 17:03, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The current list seems to have a good survery of notable sites, I recongized all of them, and seen them discussed about in the community. But we should stay way from the POV statements such as competent and such. ScottM 00:35, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Move?

I think this page should be moved to Star Wars vs. Star Trek debate, as the article is about a specific (or perhaps general) debate, not some potential battle or showdown. That alone would somehow make the whole thing seem a bit less silly. Objections? -R. fiend 03:18, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps a more specific title such as Star Wars vs. Star Trek fan controversies might be necessary. The idea being that the article should be a place for learned exposition on the debate and its nature instead of a place to score points for one side or another in a debating process. A title like Star Wars vs. Star Trek debate could give the impression that the page is meant for debating. Which reminds me, does anybody have a metric for the relative number of fans involved in the dispute? Does anybody have rough numbers for ST ot SW fans? And for the numbers involved in the tussle? And what about some info on the battlefields, hum, sorry I mean the locales for the debates? Is it only an Internet phenomenon, for sure? Are there things like bookstores (or book distribution outfits) where the employees in charge of book selection give more shelf space to the Star Wars books than the Star Trek ones, or vice versa? Do the fans of either camp watch things like bookstore shelf space (and other physical manifestations) or are they concentrated mainly on what appears on their screens? --AlainV 06:59, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] POV

I am really beginning to regret having voted to keep this article. There is an anon who continues to add/restore content written in an obviously POV (pro-Wars) manner. This really needs to be discussed, here, on the talk page. func(talk) 03:31, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

What bothers me is not so much the pro-Wars taint but the lack of context of those additions or restorations. How representative are those forums he (or she) is mentioning? Are there others for his/her age group and are there still others for other age groups? Are there other media, such as blogs, where those matters are relatively irrelevant compared to discussions on script qualities and formats? --AlainV 03:14, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The forums of SD.net and SB.com listed seem to bear the brunt of debating community, along with the ASVS newsgroups. These communties seem to have attracted members for a large spectrum of the age range. ScottM 00:35, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I used to be rather active in some of the "debating" communities such as Stardestroyer.net, Spacebattles.com and alt.startrek.vs.starwars. I still do a bit of debating but not as much as I once did. The tenor of these debates, especially on SDN and ASVS could be very heated and this may have spilled over onto the contents of this page. Certain posters probably are unable to keep an NPOV regarding these articles (elsewhere I've attempted to clean up various other SW-related pages). Unfortunately, despite some discussions with some of the posters they seem unable to grasp the differences between writing/editing a Wikipedia article and debating SWvST. --Phongn 04:06, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The entire article needs substantial overhauls for POV junk. It is beyond any doubt in my mind that the debate has spilled over into the construction of this article. Balancer 2 Jun 2005

Well, that's nice, Balancer. I don't see a need, but I can't try and accomodate your desires either, because I hadn't even seen your idea of a "balanced" article. Why don't you actually do the edits you want and I come again next morning? I might revert most of them, but at least I might be able to answer your concerns if I get a clear picture of them. --Kazuaki Shimazaki 11:39, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I see you have made the changes already, Balancer. Unfortunately, I will simply have to revert the article. It is definitely not a "majority" of pro-Trek people who doubt the authenticity of the ICS (except maybe in STvsSW.Net). They don't want it to exist, of course, but they are already living around it instead of against it. And calling RSA a controversial man is already generous. And while there are purists, their position is not canon "policy". Canon policy is not supposed to be decided by fans at all. Positions on canon might be, but "positions" risk more POV problems, while "policy" is merely facts as published by the two companies and is undeniable. The rest are mere nits, so I see no value in specifically retaining them. --Kazuaki Shimazaki 11:50 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

A majority of current - i.e., active - pro-Trek debaters do dismiss the ICS. You can figure out that from reading through the main pages of Stardestroyer.net, or by examining all the links in the related links section. Most of the Pro-Trek debaters who accepted it seem to have then left the debate arenas; this leaves what you may refer to as controversial, and in practice seems the current mainstream of the pro-Trek debate side. In general, most debaters are considered controversial and severely incorrect by their opposition; neither Michael Wong nor Robert Anderson are exceptions to this; most of the website authors on the links section consider either one, or the other, a brilliant analyst, and the other a trollish idiot. The article prior to revision clearly was not written in NPOV, and regardless of what personal distastes you may hold, we should be trying to meet NPOV standards. I see your point about not mentioning the creator-purist branches in the debate article, however. --Balancer 2 Jun 2005

OK, let's look at your proposed changes. Let's head to your "Line 26". Again, I've seen many Trekkies eventually come to accept the book, most famously Alyeska. The personal attacks are sadly historical, so they should be kept. Do you want a link to a page showing some of the nastiness (mostly on SB.com) when the book first came out? As for the authenticity debate bringing things to a halt, I doubt it. It definitely wasn't in SDN. SB.com seems to have accepted reality as well. STvsSW.Net by RSA takes "canon purist" positions, so it can't have a problem either (they already decided not to accept it). As for "higher canon" versus "other canon", typically, the latter is closer to the truth.

In my experience, the debate stopped not because they are arguing over whether to accept the book, but because even the Trekkies can see no real debate is possible with the book accepted. Like I said, it disintegrated into debating esoteria.

The SD.Net changes are nitpicky and inconsequential. As for the ST-vs-SW.Net. It is undeniable that RSA uses a film canon purist view. In fact, he is proud of it. Ergo, it is a fact, not an opinion, that he uses non-mainstream canon criteria and evidence. As for him being "controversial", any person that tries to make conclusions in defiance of the canon criteria and evidence standards is almost by definition "controversial". And a site that purports to only use a film-canon feed cannot objectively be considered "comprehensive" in the conventional sense.--Kazuaki Shimazaki 07:40 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The "nastiness," as you call it, is far from over. Take another look at SB.com. Outside of the pro-Wars contingent, acceptance of the ICS seems pretty thin on the ground. For example, read through this thread on SB.com and you'll note quite a few who don't. And that's from a forum that's more accepting of the ICS. Now, go over to ditl.org and read the fanfic there - the only VS component of the site. It's as if the ICS doesn't even exist. Then go over to strek-v-swars.net. Somewhere around half the population of their forums views the ICS as roughly on par with toilet paper - that is to say, the Pro-Trek half. Alyeska seems quite the exception on the ground as someone who still argues in favor of Trek while not disputing either. And stardestroyer.net's forums? Well, if you sit around, you'll notice very occasionally a pro-Trek debater show up, and quite often they don't accept the ICS, at which point threads start getting chucked into the HOS. There don't seem to really be many pro-Trek debaters on that board these days; as you described, it's down to quibbling. Largely quibbling among the pro-Wars debaters there, for that matter. --Balancer 3 Jun 2005

Good one on the SB.com, though I was referring mostly to the ST-SW debate (which means firepower and the like). People hating the term Star Dreadnaught is still an ongoing problem, for instance on TFN. Someday, I'm going to expand the local SWTC description page to include all the beefs people have with Saxton, with links (and I'd try to remember this one). But whether the Executor is a Star Dreadnaught or not has little consequence in terms of ST vs. SW. APPEND (1329): Also, many members of SDN were themselves from SB.com.

On DITL.org: Both Portal and SDN's Conquest predate the ICS.

Considering that strek-v-swars.net is supposed to have a consistency similar to ST-vs-SW.Net, I can't say I'm surprised they don't like Saxton. And for SDN, that's the point ... very occasionally.--Kazuaki Shimazaki 12:50 3 Jun 2005

As if this weren't enough, we could go to where the VS debate chronically stirs up among the "normal" fans. On the chronic debate threads that show up on starwars.com and startrek.com, you may notice the native Trekkies on startrek.com tend to very often dismiss or ignore the arguments made from the ICS... and then start pulling out citations from ST-v-SW.net to justify why. Over on the Furry Conflict page, they link to ST-v-SW.net, but not stardestroyer.net, and host a guest article by the author of ST-v-SW.net. Doesn't seem like he's truly controversial there, either. You are very right, however, in that the personal attacks rampant in this debate should be covered as being part of this history. --User:Balancer 3 Jun 2005

Appealing to a singe site's authority is not a great judge of whether something is controversial. RSA's positions are fundamentally flawed due to his not using the mainstream canonical stance, which makes all the calculations unreliable. Never mind his actual methods (you would notice in the copy you edited, there was no comments about his methods of analyzing evidence, only his standards for accepting evidence). ----Kazuaki Shimazaki 13:11 3 Jun 2005

Now, look at what you've said. "Even the Trekkies can see no real debate is possible with the book accepted." This does tell me one reason why the article has POV problems, but just look at what you said and 'think' about it for a minute. If no real debate is possible with the book accepted... then either real debate grinds to a screeching halt, or the book is not accepted. Retired Pro-Trek debaters aren't part of the debate anymore. Although I do see some point there; "brought real debate to a screeching halt" is a more accurate depiction, or reduced debate to quibbling about small details, and that should be more clear - but, to be strictly accurate, only in some sections of the community. Now, with regard to the site descriptions, it's plainly clear that the most highly regarded and comprehensive VS sites on the two sides are, respectively, Stardestroyer.net and ST-v-SW.net, as well as the most often cited. It behooves us to indicate the most prominent representative from each side in the links as such, for any reader interested in learning more about the culture of the debate. --User:Balancer 3 Jun 2005

The former is what generally happened in my observation. The latter is according to you, is what happens to those that are left. I guess ST-vs-SW is considered a panacea for Trekkies. All right, I'd concede on allowing the "highly regarded" part, but you must retain the part about ST-vs-SW.Net not following normal evidentiary standards. --User:Kazuaki Shimazaki 13:25 3 Jun 2005.

To your above, it's not a single site I'm looking at - it's the gamut of 'em. You don't get that much PageRank without being linked to a great deal. Now, as to the "evidentiary standards," I'm not interested in having the Wikipedia article take a stand on what's actually a topic in the debate - RSA will swear up and down, along some of his supporters, that his policy does really follow what LucasFilm means. If you can think of a way to tag the link that doesn't sound POV, feel free to. It's a tricky thing. While you're doing that, you might want to note on TFC's link description something about their unique canon policy as well - once you come up with a NPOV way of putting it for STVSW, you may as well recycle and adapt it. I don't know if you've reviewed it, but it's truly unique, and they don't even claim it's officially backed. Balancer 19:40, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

TFC does have a weird canon policy, but it is acceptable because the site's emphasis is in story telling rather than debating. They are fully aware their solution is not fully based on canon data. They emphasize telling the story, which I can sympathize with. SDN FanFic writers also make compromises to canon evidence so a crossover story can be told at all. RSA is in a completely different category. I can't think of words immediately that would satisfy your sense of NPOV balance, but some mention has to be made about his different (and non-standard) canon standards. Provisionally, I'd put "canon purist", even though most purists understand this is a personal option. User:Kazuaki Shimazaki 06:51, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hm. That's very much not an NPOV way of putting that. I'm reverting the links revisions. You might also examine the "ST-v-SW.net Removal" section above. Similar reasons. I see progress on the ICS section, but there's only one side of the detail there, and it's a bit awkward. I'll be adjusting it slightly and adding more detail momentarily. Tell me what you think. Balancer 21:52, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Your ICS section is within limits. I don't see any reason at present to change it. (APPEND6:47: Though I will re-add the link about the intial screaming). User:Kazuaki Shimazaki 06:33, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Looks good. "Canon purist" (or "movie purist" is a much more NPOV way of putting it. Balancer 09:52, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] st-v-sw.net removal

Because st-v-sw.net is completely worthless as a resource (what little information it holds is available in other formats and on other websites, and its maintainer has such a heavy anti-Star Wars bias as to make his interpretations of canon completely unreliable), it has been deleted from the links section entirely. Any re-additions of it to the links section WILL BE redeleted, so do not re-add it. This is the only compromise I can think of between denoting Robert Scott Anderson's troll nature (which the people editing the page will apparently not let anybody do) and letting new participants in the st-vs-sw debate wander onto his site completely unawares (which my conscience will not let me do). Iceberg3k 13:47, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)

Michael Wong deserves the troll title just as much as the ST-v-SW author, and many have claimed that his heavy bias (anti-Star Trek) makes him unreliable. Several boards have also been invaded by StarDestroyer.Net members who joined to troll when a Star Wars vs. Star Trek discussion would get going. No one has bothered with those petty squabbles on this wiki except Iceberg3k, who is a member of the StarDestroyer.net forums.

That's all very inappropriate. NPOV should exist here, please. You have deleted the POV opposite your own. Even the Holocaust entry contains reference to holocaust revisionists and a mention of both side's POV, so there is no excuse for you to claim an attack of conscience in exercising your bias.

I suggest that either the reverted version stand, or else all external links be removed. --65.77.247.33 19:36, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Of for crying outloud. Will you peopel F-ing grow up? I am putting the ST-v-SW link back in the article. If anyone removes it (glares at Iceberg), I will put it back in and report that person. Alyeska 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree. I think listing RSA's page is pretty valid. It can be mentioned that his views of the evidence and conclusions he draws from them are in the definate minority even among those on his "side". I think this is a factual point to make, and should inform the reader following the link the currency he gets in the groups where this debate is taken seriously, but there is no reason the article shouldn't link to it and let the reader decide. No need to throw the dread "troll" label around. Threatening to revert any changes not unilaterally approved by a single individual seems to be counter to the wiki-spirit. Akerkhof 20:01, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Oh yeah, nice appeal to motive fallacy, Mr. Anderson. Iceberg3k 20:06, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)

• This verbiage for the link is lousy: "(and in the case of Star Wars, not accepted by the copyright holders)." Number one, it really tips the writeup for the link from walking the razor's edge to definite POV-land. Number two, the wording and parenthetical nature is awkward. Number three, the objection is already handled in the article body itself, which discusses canon for both franchises. Iceburg3k, is it really your intention to bludgeon the reader with how out of mainstream the author's canon interpretations of a fictional universe are? I'm putting this up for discussion first, but I'd like to see that wording either be removed or substantially changed. Akerkhof 20:58, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It's not POV. It's a simple fact that ST-v-SW.net has a definition of canon which, for Star Wars, is at odds with accepted canon from LucasFilm Ltd. and their subsidiary companies. Iceberg3k 23:23, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)

• Which has already been noted. Starwars.com would certainly be a mainstream site. Akerkhof 14:55, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

How is this relevant? --AlainV 13:18, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

To be precise, if this is a canon question why not move elements to the general canon question article (and its discussion page) or to the specific article on Star Wars canon? (and its dscussion page) --AlainV 13:31, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• That is also my opinion. Sticking an ad hoc canon dispute right in a link to a pro-trek link which has already been mentioned as being out of mainstream is over the top, and redundant as well. It's got to be re-worded, moved, or deleted. Akerkhof 14:55, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I see we have a new editor who believes in removing ST-v-SW.net as biased. I direct attention to the above discussion, as well as the discussion included in the above section on POV. ST-v-SW.net is one of the more notable pro-Trek sites; prior consenses of editors on this article have come to the conclusion that its inclusion is warranted. I also note that the "Openly pro-Star Wars" and "Openly pro-Star Trek labels" are accurate, and - in the case of this inflammatory topic - highly useful for readers looking to learn more on the topic. Balancer 04:25, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, they're not accurate. Graham Kennedy's site has no label despite being highly pro-Trek, and only st-v-sw.net actually proclaims itself to be pro-Trek: having read SD.net Michael Wong largely claims his conclusions to be the result of analysis of evidence, ie that being pro-Wars is inevitable.

st-v-sw is not one of the more notable pro-Trek sites; last I checked, it's held in low regard even by many pro-Trek debaters, and is a poor source of information due to some extremely questionable interpretations of events in Star Wars and Star Trek. There are enough links on both 'sides' [Graham Kennedy's site, David Brin's criticism of theme and Trekwars on ST are all the 'pro-Trek' one article needs]. In addition, st.v.sw is actually linked on several of the linked sites including SD.net and Trekwars.

If st-v-sw.net is included, might I suggest we also include a link to Mike Blackburn's critique of it to maintain objectivity? Hrimfaxi 04:35, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Graham Kennedy's site (as well as Curtis Saxton's site) are not labelled as "openly pro-Trek" and "openly pro-Wars" because - as a simple matter of fact - they do not purport to be "Star Trek vs Star Wars" sites, although extensively involved in these matters. They are resources, respectively, for ST technical info and SW technical info.

"TrekWars: The Furry Conflict" does not purport to be pro-Wars or pro-Trek, and in fact suggests a balance between the two universes for the purpose of furthering a storyline - i.e., neither Trek beating Wars, nor Wars beating Trek. There are an extensive number of websites not linked to as not being notable; stardestroyer.net and st-v-sw.net are the two most notable of any side. There is, as a matter of fact, no direct link to st-v-sw.net from stardestroyer.net (the link claiming such is an internal link to the Hate Mail page), and a redirecting link from st-v-sw.net to stardestroyer.net through a third party domain. Notability, NPOV requirements, and the requirement that this article represent an encyclopedic overview of the matter dictates that - if we include external site links - that st-v-sw.net be one of these links.

I am unfamiliar with Blackburn's "critique." A quick Google of the topic (mike blackburn st-v-sw.net) picks up hits only in the st-v-sw.net domain, stardestroyer.net domain, spacebattles.com domain, and strek-v-swars.net domain. As all those sites are either already on the links list (or, as in the case of strek-v-swars.net, not functional) I see no driving urge to link to it. Ample criticism of the st-v-sw.net site is already found on stardestroyer.net, much as ample criticism of stardestroyer.net is already found on st-v-sw.net. Balancer 05:54, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

This doesn't change that Saxton and Kennedy are respectively known to produce figures slanted towards their respective 'side' [Saxton's multi-gigaton figures, Kennedy's Genesis Device figures] and would hardly qualify as neutral sources of information. Indeed, since there is no middle ground, all of the links should have such a tag somewhere in them except the official sources.

The tags are unnecessary, and only serve to add accusations of bias to the sites they link to. If the sites are biased so much as to require 'openly pro-(side)' stamped on them, they should not be linked to at all. NPOV requires both sides be presented, which is done perfectly well by the existing set of links without the need for labels; the st-v-sw link is unnecessary to maintain NPOV in the article, and only serves to link to a source of extremely dubious information. An overview of the matter does not require the inclusion of information almost universally rejected by both sides, much as the Holocaust article doesn't require inclusion of David Icke's theories that it was planned by Jewish bankers and involved ridiculous giant lizards.

The fact the a view exists isn't in itself justification for inclusion.Hrimfaxi 06:29, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Hrimfaxi -- Please justify this opinion. Its one thing to apply it to the hard sciences or history, where you don't give flat earth theory equal time on the geology page. But please note that there is a flat earth theory entry. But this is a different matter. There is no "truth" in this debate, there are different standards of evidence and methods of analysis that give different results. As far as the history of the arguments, it has went from dialog based examination of evidence to documentary style to scientific fetish. Who knows what the next step will be? The rejection and rewriting of canon evidence might be the latest evolution of the debate. Why supress its existance? We are documenting the actual debate here, not who is winning or who is correct.

However, Kennedy's site not being labeled as "pro-Trek" is rediculous. Forget his long and storied history in ASVS and RAST, so long as he has that over the top fanfic posted up there, he's wearing the colors. I agree with Hrimfaxi in this area. The labels need to go. They are purely subjective. The pro-Wars hardcore would deny Mike Wong's site as being biased, and the pro-Trek hardcore would passionately deny that RSA's site is biased, indeed, they hold the One True Objective Truth.

If labels must stay (and I don't think they do) they should be categorized to something less POV, such as "Sites favored by the Wars faction" listing stardestroyer.net and the technical commentaries, and "Sites favoring Trek" containing Mr. Anderson and Kennedy's sites. This avoids accusations of bias, and merely states facts, that these sites are references for superiority by each series respective fans. Akerkhof 15:14, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I think I like the new edit of the links section by Akerhof, necessary or not... Balancer 19:04, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

And? They still don't set forth comparative claims through their technical era. The entire article is about this bias. In case you haven't noticed, the article is about a debate with two major sides to it.

Both sides must be represented in the links list for the article to be NPOV. St-v-sw.net is, objectively, no more dubious than stardestroyer.net or USVSD. Unlike Icke's theories, st-v-sw.net enjoys a significant following among the "experts" (debaters).

While I can see the logic of not linking to sites based on their bias, this particular article is very well served by external links... and very poorly by only representing one side. Even the Holocaust includes a section on Holocaust deniers, and that's nowhere nearly as accepted as the contention that Star Trek would beat Star Wars, which you would appear to like removed from the listings entirely. Balancer 14:53, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Were I to desire to only present one side of the issue I would have removed the links to Kennedy's site, David Brin's article and possibly Trekwars too. The issue is not that st-v-sw.net supports a particular side of the debate, it's that it's an extremely poor source of information with several extremely dubious sections [for example, using the AT-ST as an example of an Imperial armoured vehicle, which is like evaluating modern US armour based on the Humvee, and the infamous 'mysterious chain reaction' theory of Death Star operation]. There's got to be better sites out there that can be linked to on the Trek side.

Again, my point is not that the article should have no counterpoint, just that st-v-sw is a very poor example of a pro-Trek website and makes the entire 'side' look unreasonable. Hrimfaxi 08:08, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Also, changed the labels on some of the links from 'ST-v-SW website' to 'Versus Website;' the previous had the odd effect of making St-v-SW.net look somehow official. Hrimfaxi 08:25, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Ah, and worked through a bit of a rewrite to remove a lot of rhetorical questions and overuse of the word 'many.' Hrimfaxi 09:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's a lot of edit to mull over. I like most of it, just need to rework some awkwardness in places. Nice job. I agree with you, actually, that Anderson's site is generally a poor reference source, but like old Ben said, that depends greatly on your POV.  :-) If you are a downtrodden trekker who isn't a slavish devotee of the scientific analysis crowd and canon purist, that stuff probably goes down like tonic. Akerkhof 15:01, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Per the 3RR, I will refrain from reverting the link list myself for at least one day. I would appreciate it if you fixed it back yourself, or if another editor did. Balancer 05:56, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Good idea to pull all the "st-v-sw" terms out of the links list. It does make ST-v-SW.net look special... and the many manys are distasteful.

When the author of ST-v-SW.net recently suggested that he's more moderate than stardestroyer.net [1], it promptly brought out an enormous amount of argument between supporters and detractors. That link should make it entirely clear how both sides feel about the other sides' websites.

Sites linking to ST-v-SW.net generally use glowing terms to describe it:

EAS - probably the best regarded ST technical site on the net - links to ST-v-SW.net with (emphasis added): "This site by DarkStar aka G2k is listed here because of its well-researched Trek articles, rather than for discussing inter-universe battles." [2]

DITL - linked to on this page, which you don't seem to be decrying as a horrorific source - links with this description: "I havenn't been involved much in the Trek vs. Wars stuff myself for many years now, but even if you've never heard of Star Wars, G2k's site is a great resource for the tech-minded Trek fan. There's a ton of extremely well researched and thought out articles here on many aspects of Trek technology." [3]

Starfleetjedi.net - another pro-Trek website of considerably less note, which you probably wouldn't like any better - uses positively glowing terms: "ST-v-SW.net is the most comprehensive and well-maintained Star Trek vs Star Wars websites on the net, updating several times per month. It is particularly notable for an in-depth look at the Death Star and a very useful page on Star Wars and Star Trek ship volumes, as well as in-depth discussion on the place of the "Expanded Universe" within VS debate." [4]

I guess whether or not you think the "superlaser effect" is pure bunk depends on which side of the debate you're favoring, eh? Heck, this morning, when I googled the search (Star Trek vs Star Wars), ST-v-SW.net came up as the number one hit, with stardestroyer.net right behind it; when I search (Star Wars vs Star Trek), stardestroyer.net comes up as the #1 hit, while ST-v-SW.net is #2. Can we safely call the case closed? Balancer 15:25, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Not to sound cavalier, but who cares? Pro-trek websites gush about Anderson and say he's well researched and professional. Pro-wars guys lambast him for his curious canon policy, lack of context, and inability to use occam's razor. None of this matters, is not the point of the article, and last I looked, G2K's link is still up. I for one, even though I think he's a blowhard and have been personally (and laughably) legally threatened on numerous occasions by Mr. Anderson, will fight to keep his link up there. I think its safe to say the inclusionists outnumber the ones who want to supress the link, and I feel we have the wiki spirit and policy on our side, so let's put this one to bed. Sheesh. If we start justifying which versus sites to include in the link section on some besides notoriety we're asking for trouble. Akerkhof 18:53, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

His site dose use a lot of out of context quotes for example on this page [[5]] he quotes Leland Chee,

"2. Leland Chee, Lucas Licensing, who said the quote "makes it sound like the EU is separate from George's vision of the Star Wars universe."

In support of his argument. This is total out of context which he knows (since the quote was directed at him) the full quote is "George Lucas said in the Starlog magazine... GL is certainly not bound by the EU, though he's certainly open to using things created in it (Aayla Secura and the Coruscant name, for example). On the other hand, the quote you provide makes it sound like the EU is separate from George's vision of the Star Wars universe. It is not. The EU must follow certain tenets set by George through the films and other guidelines that he provides outside of the films."

Notice how he levees of the “the quote you provide” and more importantly “It is not.” from his quote. However I am not sure it could be removed with out a suitable replacement site.--Elfwood 16:17, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Another opinion

This is just my opinion, going by pure intuition and not scientific fact. I'm a devoted Star Trek fan and I like Star Trek better than Star Wars, but still... An Imperial Star Destroyer would wipe the floor with the USS Enterprise. The ISD is so much bigger and has better weaponry. It even carries 72 TIE fighters while the Enterprise only carries shuttlecraft.

That's what you get for pitting an exploration ship against a huge cruiser specifically designed for battle. The moral of the story is that the ships are largely mismatched. 193.167.132.66 13:59, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Um... that's great, really... but we are trying to write an encyclopedia here. This isn't an appropriate forum for such discussions. This article exists to explain a particular Internet phenomenon, and not to engage in that phenomenon. func(talk) 17:53, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Engaging in such a discussion would merit as original research... and original research isn't permitted on the Wikipedia. On a side note, Spock versus Chewbacca? Just kidding. -- AllyUnion (talk) 03:22, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Besides which, everyone knows that Spock could clean up the floor with Chewbacca. ;-) func(talk) 06:49, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

The title and description of the ships is irrelevent. I could pit an Imperial Star Destroyer against a General Systems Vehicle. One is a colony ship, the other is a dedicated warship. The GSV would destroy the ISD in less then a nano second. Concrete information on the ships is needed to define who would win, not "well warships always beat explorers" type comments. Alyeska 03:36, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Revprez's edits

This article has some serious NPOV and structure issues. The opening hook was atrociously informal, uninformative, and negative. There's a lot of historical stuff sprinkled throughout the whole piece. The "value of the debate" is advocacy and utter rationalization. Instead of concentrating on RSA, why don't you guys try bringing the rest of this crap up to standard. Revprez

I think the answer was not to torch the entire article, but to fix the parts that you personally don't like. I'm reverting the article back, because what was there, while not perfect, is quite a bit better than the clean slate you've left in your wake. Akerkhof

Agreed, but this article needs some serious revision. As is, it's barely worth keeping, which is a shame since STvSW in terms of the sheer amount of content generated is an appreciably significant subject in Internet culture. I'll leave it as is, but I'm replacing the opening hook with the revised one. Revprez

That's fine, and I wouldn't even mind seeing it retrofitted into the format you started out. But, I'd like to keep a lot of the content from the old article. Also, while I'd like to keep the links, it might be best to perhaps dispense with the commentary for each and divide them into "Discussion Sites", "Pro-Trek" and "Pro-Wars" links. I think the links section is probably the worst of the NPOV stuff. Akerkhof

The "value of the debate" section inherently invokes a self-serving POV, that and it's complete BS. It asserts social theory where there is none. My only problem with the external links section is that it's overly long. Surely there's a handful of sites on which all relevant points of view are represented or at least linked. The canon section is superfluous; there are entries on Star Wars and Star Trek canon. In general, the entire article reads like it was written by participants--the least articulate of the bunch--rather than dispassionate observers. That said, I think there should be an STvSW article for reasons expressed above. Revprez

Do you mean that the debate has no value? If it has, how do you make a "value of debate" section or some other section giving historical social context which might not be self-serving? --AlainV 05:01, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

I've removed the "value of debate" section. It's self-serving in that it attempts to aggrandize the discussion, and the participants, to historical significance through ridiculous comparisons to an undocumented, irrelevant literary dispute over a century and a half ago. In short, its fanboyish jibberish. Interesting as STvSW is, the interaction between online personalities belongs in a general, researched and documented discussion touching on more general themes in Internet and fan culture. Wikipedia isn't a Yahoo Group, a directory, or an ad. Revprez

I have reverted your edit because you have placed nothing in its place to establish historical and social context. You have just destroyed. I am not sure if the concept of "value of the debate" is the correct one in which to place a survey of its context, but I am sure that eliminating totally any form of context is really not encyclopedic. --AlainV 19:10, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

I kind-of/sort-of agree with Revprez on this one, though I could go either way. The section on "value of the debate" runs dangerously close to original research, and was I think a kind of tongue-in-cheek response to one of the earlier VFD's criticisms, to pad out the article beyond stubishness. Now that there is quite a bit of information to the article, I think this section could go away. Its just an unsupported theory that may or may not have historical parallels. You could tack that section onto any heated discussion of literature or pop culture entertainment, and have it be just as valid. I really liked Revprez's idea of dividing the history into pre-usenet, usenet, and post-usenet, a neatly divided scope of debate section, and a links section categorized and stripped of POV. But again, lets fit the existing content into that mold, instead of discarding in favor of a barren article until someone gets around to adding the information back. I'm too busy at the moment, but if there is nothing but reverts going on here after the three day weekend, I'll take a stab at it. Akerkhof 19:55, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

I'll also take a stab at it tomorrow, but for now I'm removing "Value of the Debate." Also, if you feel the need to revert, at least keep the new opening hook. Revprez

Okay, I'm going to try and briefly scare up some information about the ASVS period after I get back from NYC. Does anyone actually know anything about STvSW before Usenet? Revprez

Okay, RDalton has a site with some FAQs that might be of historical interest Dalton's FUQs. There is also the | ASVS Headline News. Of course, neither offers much in the way of NPOV (if we're going to be picky about it). --Rev Prez 08:48, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Just thought this would interest you. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Stardestroyer.net Revprez is currently waging a vendetta against SD.net, and it has spilled into the STvsSW page as well. He is doing nothing but trying to discredit those who have rejected him. He has been banned from both SD.net and SB.com (the two primary VS debate locations). Alyeska 20:16, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

"Trying to discredit those who have rejected him..." Who would these people be? And what sort of rejection are you talking about? More importantly, why are you so worked up? --Rev Prez 06:20, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Stardestroyer.net page has been modified. No longer necessary to merge. Reverting external link blurb. --Rev Prez 06:47, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm sure this will be reverted by tomorrow, but somebody's torched most of the article. I've gone through the pared-down revision and removed some glaring POV problems. --Rev Prez 10:33, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Why shouldn't the ICS books be reduced to a paragraph explaining the effects of each on the debate? Why do we need to be wordy about this? The bandwith isn't cheap.

I've just reverted it to 15:14 May 29. I agree that there is probably some extraneous content in there, and the NPOV has to be corrected ("fanatical") for example, has no place. Nevertheless, I see no reason to delete the AOTC:ICS section, since that did have a great effect for at least technologically-related debaters. Besides, the article continues to reference the AOTC:ICS, which is rather ridiculous if you took out the entire section on the book. So I've reverted it pending a sweep, which I'd start by myself. --Kazuaki Shimazaki 11:26, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Just did a few edits on the article. I took the newer version of the weblist becuase it seemed more concise, did a NPOV (removed "prowars", because that itself is a POV taken by its opposition). If some consider the ICS section to be too long, I propose moving some of it into a dedicated page. We, after all, have stub pages for many Star Wars novels

Update: I created the ICS section, and transferred some of the material into the new page. As such, the ICS section has been shortened. I hope this compromise satisfies everyone. --Kazuaki Shimazaki 14:42, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm considering doing something about the canon policy section. I don't think its Wikipedia's place to say what is canon and what is not, and the Lucasfilm and Paramount subsections should be collapsed into one paragraph. --Rev Prez 19:00, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

As things stand there is now absolutely no historical or social context, no link of any form to relevant articles such as netiquette. Also, all reference to the fact that AOTC:ICS is in fact a picture book meant for children has been removed, giving the illusion that this is some kind of referecne volume. By the way the canon questions are in other separate articles. --AlainV 20:06, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Have you actually read it, or done any technical debating on the subject? As far as Star Wars technical debating is concerned, the technical information that's stored in the book means that it is one of the most valuable references. There is a reason it alone out of all the countless books used as reference during the debate was brought for special attention. I transferred the 'Library Journal's' opinion into the new dedicated AOTC:ICS page, but personally I seriously doubt the suitability of the rating. How many 4 to 8 years old, after all, can read scientific notation that's used extensively in the book? How many understand the concept of joules and watts, and their difference? Even the term "gigaton" might be a little out of their reach. --Kazuaki Shimazaki 13:32, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes I have looked at it, and read some of its text. It is something to look at for it is richly illustrated and has relatively little text in it. It is a picture publication, an illustrated publication with a few figures in it. In bibliographical adult terms it is not even considered a book or more precisely a monograph since it is less than 100 pages long and according to international bibliographical standards a monograph is publication which is at least 100 pages long. The intented audience is not children from 4 to 8 by the way but children in grades 4 to 8. --AlainV 11:52, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

And while these canon issues may be important for those invested in the discussion, why are we taking them up in a Wikipedia article? I say get rid of the section, tighten up the canon block and link copiously to other articles discussing the issue from an NPOV. --Rev Prez 14:10, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

To a STvsSW debater, what determines its value as a source is not its length or its format, but the content it retains, for which it is invaluable. To the debaters, the pictures are also invaluable because they show us the innards - which are sometimes scaled for various esoteria. Complaining that it is less than 100 pages long is considered style-over-substance, which will get you flamed in debate boards like ASVS and SDN (which are mentioned on the page I believe). I'm sure if you can't reference it as a book, you can reference it as a pamphlet or something (there has to be some provision in referencing for useful sources under 100 pages long).

The most important factor for specifically including it, however, is that there is no denying what happened to the discussion boards after it came out, a decisive effect that is not matched by any other single book source, and arguably even more decisive than some of the films. And that's what made me decide to add special mention in the first place. Its length, quantity of pictures, or the "The Library Journal's" opinion was plain not in consideration - only its special effect on the debate.

As for grades 4-8, American school education systems must be more advanced than I thought, for I was pretty sure that most 4th graders (which is about 9 years old) won't understand scientific notation, and many still don't comprehend joules or watts, or what they mean.

Finally, one should consider what Lucasfilm thinks. The ICS series, written by two Ph.Ds (gee, what a big waste for a children's book, don't you think?), have an inordinate amount of influence.

For the canon policy, deciding what data is admissible and what is not is the most fundamental part of any debate. Thus, a brief rundown of the official canon policy (which is followed by most people) is very important. Thusi, it is inadvisable to delete it --Kazuaki Shimazaki 14:36, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm concerned about the POV of this article. It really reads like it was written by and through the eyes of participants. This is especially true when we're talking about canon; instead of reporting the views of interested parties there is an declarative statement as to what qualifies as canon and what doesn't. Regardless of where you stand, I don't think that's an appropriate tone for Wikipedia and it detracts the scholarly voice. --Rev Prez 14:57, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Anonymous edits to ICS:AOTC section

Who ever keeps adding stuff like Especially in light of what we see in Revenge of the Sith and more recently A few on the Star Trek side, however, are willing to accept the ICS, if the high yields shown in Star Trek Deep Space Nine's episode "The Die is Cast" are allowed as well, citing similar support and contradictions for the two sources, to the tail end of this section: The problem is not the wording length of your edit. The problem is that by adding these lines, you are starting to actually debate STvsSW and violate NPOV. If we let your latest edit in, next the Wars guys will come and add And a few from the Star Wars side, however, are willing to tell the Trekkies too bad, nyah nyah, they aren't remotely the same circumstances. The Cardassians and Romulans were delusional! It was a trap! False sensor signals! Etc! That would not be good. We are not debating STvsSW here, we are describing the debate.

[edit] Cleaning up the links section

Is it really necessary to have a pissing contest here? --Rev Prez 04:39, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Nope. I actually fully agree and support with the superlative-ectomy you've done on the links section. Nice work. Akerkhof 16:51, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] New History section, restructure

Awhile back somebody torched the article and reformatted it. I liked the new formatting idea, with its historical divisions, but thought blowing the thing up the wrong way to go about it. I've now started hammering this article into a better, and hopefully less biased version of the topics discussed and history of the debate. Please feel free to edit and tweak it, but please, PLEASE try to avoid actually rehashing the various debates.Akerkhof 20:39, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

You could at least take the trouble to check your text in a word processor with a spell checker. It is filled with typos and/or ortho errors and/or grammar errors.--AlainV 03:28, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

That is incorrect. The least I could do is nothing at all. Good grief, man. This article has been in squalor for months, so I wrote this up on lunch break with ultraedit, and used its primitive spellchecker. Surprisingly for a code editor, it doesn't have a grammar check. I posted it under the premise that its better than what was there before, and was being bold. I will surely refine it as I go. Or, others can do it for me. Or revert and wait a few more months for a better article. Akerkhof 05:11, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Kazuaki, I think we should really try to avoid stating with any certainty SW or ST power figures. I agree that this is the prevailing (and in my viewpoint correct) view of the pro-Wars tribe, BUT! This delves into NPOV land since there are many people who disagree for reasons good and bad. Also, I think your note about Spacebattles belongs in the WWW-era section, and have edited and moved it there. From a historical basis, we have pre-usenet, which is 1977-1997, ASVS, which is 1997-2002, and the WWW-era, which is roughly 2000-on. From traffic stand point, its hard to argue that ASVS wasn't the most popular site until 2002, maybe 2001. In general, let's try to follow the guidelines for avoiding POV and steering clear of peacock terms.

I must say I appreciate the new depth of the article, which goes into much greater detail. We have once again some more POV problems to shake out, but it's not too bad at the moment. I'll be back with suggestions later after checking over the matter in greater detail and doing a few more fact-checks. Balancer 04:38, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

A question to all - are there really so many active boards that we could characterize the pro-wars boards as "smash-mouth" (and therefore, by contract, pro-Trek boards as more polite)? I suspect that that division may not be worth discussing except specifically in the links section. Balancer 04:57, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't participate much anymore, but I do lurk from time to time, and my impression has always been that the more pro-Trek you are, the more hesitant you are to engage in foul mouth swearing and personal attacks. Where as pro-Wars debators seem to take delight in being non-PC and over the top, often disdaining those who try to promote civility as attempts to put "form over function". Much like the differences in Star Trek (well, from TNG on, anyway) and Star Wars itself.

Also, do we really need the David Brin thing in there? The debates over politics and racism etc pre-date him, and he's not really part of the "vs" debate. I feel that including this specific argument will tempt others to include other specific arguments in other subjects, and we'll be back to POV-land again. What do you guys think? Akerkhof 21:20, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

The importance of Brin and his contribution to the ST-SW debate is that he got the debate out of its original, smaller base of usenet and WWW discussion group participants to a larger science fiction reading audience who was not aware of it, or only vaguely aware of it. There is also the matter of the coherence and structure of his argument, and his status as a recognized SF author. Brin is often cited as one of the three or four major science fiction authors in science fiction literature so the fact that he made his views public is significant. Before bringing him back into the article I carefully re-read his original Salon article and also the answers he gave (on his Web site and elsewhere) to those who had objected to his criticism of SW and/or his praise for ST. He is certainly not part of the usenet and www groups debate in the sense that he does not participate within those precise forums, so if this were an article only on the usenet and WWW aspects of the ST- SW debate and there were another article on the larger aspect of the debate, then he should certainly be moved to that "larger" article. If there are other authors of Brin's literary stature (or public figures who, like him, have their own articles in Wikipedia) who have stated their views on the ST-SW debate repeatedly and coherently in a logical argument then they should also be in this article.--AlainV 02:44, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

That makes sense, though I think its asking for trouble. What if we created a section specifically for this event, since it is a "first"? The way it is now, it just seems to point/counter-point to me, especially with citing Wong's rebuttle. I feel that if you treat this as a brin vs wong matchup, it will bring out the faithful. What if we put it in its own section, perhaps under history, and put it in its historical context? Akerkhof 05:21, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, we could simply mention Brin as having brought this up and state that the existing pro-Wars community felt miffed or whatsoever rather than saying "Wong wrote an article in response." Wong not being notable outside the VS community, he doesn't really qualify for a special mention for the sort of reasons Brin is worth mentioning in particular (as falling outside of the VS community and being notable otherwise.) Balancer 06:13, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

And a small content note on the last revision: The very depiction of ST as being a "mostly peaceful" democratic society is one of the many things that VS debaters (on both sides) dispute about. Some would say that the Federation has been constantly at war, while the Galactic Empire/Republic was mostly at peace with the exception of the occasional noted civil wars. Etc. Balancer 06:15, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

One could say that, but it would be hard to support that with evidence. Yes, there are nearly 10,000 years of peace in the Old Republic. However, Star Wars opens up with Civil War, has a little bit of War in the middle, and concludes with Civil War. The EU continues the tradition with a decades long war with the Imperial Remenant, then a massive war with the Vong. Contrast to Star Trek, which starts with a continuing mission for peaceful exploration, with a near-war prevented by a race of super-beings, goes on another mission of peaceful exploration that almost gets them in a war because of the meddling of a super-being, DS9, which is admittedly centered on conflict, and features the first true Federation warship, Voyager which for many reasons is all but useless in the debates, and Enterprise, which because of its retro nature is also of limited use. Believe it or not, this is usually a pro-Trek argument, along the lines of "this is how powerful we are with a mission of peace. If the Federation had been more combat oriented, we'd clean the Empire's clocks no problem." But, if its problematic, I'd rather strip it out then devolve into apologetics about the premise of the two series. Or if you wanted to go for a route that is mildly humorous and reveals the nature of the debate tack on a "not surprisingly, there are those who dispute this characterisation of the two series." Akerkhof 16:16, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with you, this is becoming in itself a debate within the article on a specific point within the point of military encounters. Might as well take it out completely. The interesting thing about this question of a universe maybe relatively preoccupied with war and another universe maybe more or less preoccupied with war is that it shows another aspect of the debate touching usually forgotten social issues instead of weapons power again and again and again. But right now reporting seems to be resting on original research and a Wikipedia article is not supposed to rest on original research. It is supposed to rest on published research (on paper or on the Web) and on other articles in Wikipedia. --AlainV 22:26, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Horror of All This...

All these arguments completely shatter the original purpose of Star Trek and Star Wars. If Gene Roddenberry was alive and both he and George Lucas saw all these attacks by both sides of this conflict (granted, I prefer Star Trek but still...), both would probably have trouble sleeping every night. Those who make arguments to stereotype and accuses the other side of being nazis or communists(glares especially at sd.net members) should be ashamed of themselves for essentially demonizing the other side's fans. Star Trek was about the views of people who want equality and tolerance, while Star Wars is about good vs. evil. Those two pieces of science fiction are now turned in weapons of verbal and internet destruction that wreaks havoc on those who are simply trying to watch either ST or SW for entertainment. P.S.: Bear in mind, i'm a 14 year old Canadian

First off, myself, I prefer Star Wars. Now, I feel the same way you do on this. To argue to the extreme these people do, over the subjects they do, is rediculous. I think it's a part of being the kinds of extreme fans they are. They overanalyze their obsessiopn, and forget what they are obsessing over. They find arguing over petty details like "Would the Enterprise or the Death Star win if they went aginst each other?" reason to call each other communists and nazis and such, as you said. I'm sure that would be interesting to see, but, why argue what the outcome of two fictional spaceships from two totally different time periods and locations in space going against each other, just to be able to yell and accuse each other. It's crazy. I mean, they could at least be more constructive, and argue within their own sci-fi universe of things like: "Would the rebel ships really have the power to defeat the Death Star in an attack?" or something like that. The Wookieepedian 04:00, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

This is an encyclopaedia NOT A DEABATE. And there is nothing wrong with communism in a utopian setting. It just happens to be the political system that matches the federation the best. And you also seemed to have missed the point. It’s who would win in a military conflict not which is better or which you or anyone else prefers. Elfwood 22:08, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Know what? I refuse to be "ashamed" of the fact that the Imperial Starfleet would kick the Federation in it's ass. It doesn't make either franchise better or worse; it's just interesting trivia. Rogue 9 07:59, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I concur. The Wookieepedian 17:28, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pro-wars and pro-trek labels on external sites

It is my opinion that these labels do not improve the article. First, if the sites are that openly biased in one way or the other, why is there a need to note it? Are we concerned the readers might be confused or tricked? The external sites section has always been problematic, with fans and detractors of sites inserting passages asserting that one is biased and the other is the sole perveyor of Truth, so avoiding POV in the descriptions is important. Second, the trailing sentance fragment method of this labeling is clunky. If this must be done, and I argue that should not, it should be done by creating "General interest", "Pro-wars" and "Pro-trek" subheadings for the external links. Akerkhof 03:33, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Whether a site is pro this or pro that seems to be a completely subjective statement. Why not add the goal of the site or the relative content of the site (as subheadings or other format) or some other subjective data , if the goal is to guide readers into clicking the right choice. --AlainV 03:30, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Biased content

Usenet era: ASVS

From 1997 until roughly 2002, the highest-traffic site to engage in battle with other Star Trek and Star Wars fans was the group alt.startrek.vs.starwars, or ASVS. Unlike many groups, ASVS prided itself on the level of hostility and general chaos that it promoted and encouraged. Attempts from outside agents to troll and disrupt the group were either co-opted by the participants or greeted as welcome diversions. During this time many of the cultural aspects of the debate that remain to this day, such as speculative fan fiction, the ascendancy of the more technological, scientific, and documentary-style approach to evidence, and smash-mouth style of "discussion" was established.

In the beginning of the usenet era many pro-Trek arguments based on examination of dialog and technical manual stats held sway. As the documentary-style approach began to gain favor, many Wars proponents with backgrounds in mathematics and physics were able to put together calculations derived from the film evidence pointing to lower-level power estimates of Star Wars capabilities that were far greater than had been previously accepted. They adopted apologetic arguments for uncomfortable facts about the Star Wars universe, such as why the supposedly elite Stormtroopers seemed to be sub-par marksmen, or how hyperspace could be faster than warp drive even though its speeds were described with terms like "point five past lightspeed."

In less than five years the group went from a solid pro-Trek majority to a clear pro-Wars majority. The group also worked to promote the prevailing approach to analyzing evidence by passing various rules that were enforced by means of peer pressure and shaming tactics. The pro-Wars advocates' general success in debate and politicing was a Pyrrhic victory, as once the majority of remaining debaters agreed that the debate was decided in their favor, and developed rules cementing this consensus, there were not many topics left for discussion. [edit]

WWW discussion boards era

Starting in 2000, ASVS's status as leader of the versus debate was threatened from other online communities such as Spacebattles.com that employed World Wide Web-based bulletin boards. Declining levels of access to and familiarity with usenet and the increase in availability of free and open source implementations of bulletin board software lead to more traffic driven to these sites while ASVS participation dwindled. Many long-time veterans of the debate disliked these new web boards, citing the moderators power to unilaterally ban opposing viewpoints and crack down on trollish and abusive behavior as being contrary to the spirit of the debate. There was less stigma attached to free-wheeling less serious and analytical arguments at many of these communities, which was another cause of friction. Many also disliked the format of the web boards, seeing them as slower and more difficult to navigate and keep track of than the interface provided by their favorite news reader.

Many "invasions" of the populace from one community to another took place during this transitional time. The ensuing personality conflicts and flamewars provided many with an amusing diversion from the basic problem of stagnation that faced ASVS. Despite this, the changeover was nevertheless irreversible. Where once ASVS received thousands of posts per week, as of 2005 it has slowed to a few dozen or less, while the various web-based communities have thousands of participants and hundreds of messages per day. The various web-based communities have divided into two camps.

The more smash-mouth boards are populated almost exclusively by pro-Wars advocates, while more polite boards are frequented by the Trek side. A few long-suffering "moderates" sometimes visit both.

Why hasn't anybody done anything about this blatant bias? And why isn't there any mention of stardestroyer.net? Most of the ASVS regulars ended up there.

Why do you think there is bias? I believe it is both neutral and factual. It 'is' a commonly held belief that stormtroopers have lousy aim, and that star wars ships move at one and a half times the speed of light. The pro-wars side 'did' develop effective apologetic arguments to explain this part of the canon. And they 'did' take over the group and establish rules of conduct that they enforced with peer pressure (the only real mechanism that can work in a newsgroup), as is outlined in the groups' FAQ. I believe there is a noted difference in the style of debate promoted by wars versus trek fans, and although I think thats a factual statement, its also weakly supported and subjective, so I wouldn't cry to see it go.

As for why no SD.N, its because wiki purged its article and I never added it back when I re-wrote the history section. It came after ASVS started dying though, and its mentioned in the links section. If you'd like to include it in the write-up, feel free. Akerkhof 20:28, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Problems

The STrek-v-SWars.Net link no longer works and I think I read that the site and board closed down. It should be removed unless I was wrong and it just moved somewhere, or there is just something wrong with the link. --Elfwood 15:42, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, if that's the case. I'll check the link and see. The Wookieepedian 15:45, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

The news is that it got closed down, but will re-open in the next few days at a new URL under a new admin, with the same content (and presumably most of the same attached community). There may be a couple spinoffs showing up in the next couple weeks as well.Balancer 19:43, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Transporters and such

How do Star Wars fans counter the Star Trek canon existance of transporter beams, the Borg, the Q continuum, Species 8472, the Scimitar (with its thayleron(spelling?) weaponry), time travel (you all know how good of a weapon that is), the Genesis Missle, V-Ger, that supership thing from star trek 4, the fact that Star Trek has faster sublight drives (It only takes Star Trek a few hours to cross a solar system on impulse drive (In the Star Wars Corellian Trilogy it takes months for them to cross a system where hyperdrive doesn't work), the fact that phasers are ftl (they are frequently used during warp), photon torpedoes in Star Trek far outnumbering Star Wars' quantum torpedoes, warp being faster than hyperdrive, wormholes used in Star Trek for faster travel, cloaking devices used by many species in Star Trek, perfect cloaks, etc. I am just wondering what arguments they use. I am not trying to argue with anyone (though I would enjoy it!), but if you could give me some info or a link or something, that would be cool. Oh, and though a Star Destroyer could probably take down the Enterprise NCC 1701-D, what about the Enterprise NCC 1701-E, or the Voyager at the end of its series with the increased weaponry and armor and all that? Scourgeofsmallishinsects 15:36, 30 January 2006 (UTC) The details given above simply prove(though common sense can prove that as well)that Star Trek is space fantasy as oppossed to Star Wars which is science fiction.In regards to which is actually "better" is simply POVNadirali 16:09, 24 November 2006 (UTC)Nadirali

The "best" site for the pro-Wars argument is this one: http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Tech/index.html. It is probably the most comprehensive technical analysis, and has other pages contrasting tactical and strategic ones. Just skimming your list, many, if not all of these have been considered before, you've got some factual errors, such as believing phasers work while at warp, etc. Then browse the external links for the other side of the argument, and if you have some fire in your belly, join a few forums and enter the fray. I always found the debates fascinating from a technical and social studies standpoint. Akerkhof 16:39, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

This is not the place to go debating about it, Scourge and Aker. Stardestroyer.net says phasers don't work at warp; st-v-sw.net says they do. Etc etc etc. Reading the various links will give you a good idea how the two sides argue. Balancer 15:57, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't planning on debating with him, he asked a question, and got an answer. I probably shouldn't have bit on the phasers at warp issue, but alas, I did. Akerkhof 17:04, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry. I'll try and behave. Scourgeofsmallishinsects 14:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Futile debate - add that to article?

I know it's slightly POV, but shouldn't the article mention the ridicule that the debate is viewed with from the outside? To call the dispute futile is not really POV if you think about it, it is almost a fact. In any case, the opinion that most Trek/SW-Fans hold - that the debate distracts from the original visions of the franchises and that it is silly fanboy behavior - should at least be prominently mentioned. The way the article looks now, the debate is presented far too importantly and relevantly. 84.139.44.75 12:52, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Do you have any Web or print references to support that? --AlainV 16:56, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Is it really any more futile that debating which football team will win before the game begins, or whether the 1980s Soviet military would be able to defeat the modern US Army? For that matter, can anything you just said not be applied to, say, Capitalism vs. Communism or Athiesm vs. Religion debates? It's a hobby for some people, and, as hobbies go, not nearly ridiculed enough to deserve mention of such. Hrimfaxi 15:35, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

The football analogy is no good, cause once the game is over you know who won. The USSR/USA showdown is better since they're at least in the same Universe with the same laws of physics. Anyone still debating Capitalism vs. Communism hasn't been paying attention. So you should probably stick with the religion debate -- but everyone knows not to discuss religion (or politics) in polite company! Ewlyahoocom 17:38, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I was just thinking: has no one put together a computer simulation? No one has any WOPR code laying around you might be able to adapt? Maybe organize a STvSW@home project? Ewlyahoocom 17:52, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

• The football analogy is no good, cause once the game is over you know who won.

Yes, my point was that before the game people will debate who's going to win, and that's very much like this debate; George Lucas and Paramount might decide to make a Star Wars vs Star Trek movie tommorrow for all we know, in which case this debate would end up just as settled as the debate over which team would win would be settled after the game.

• Hey, I was just thinking: has no one put together a computer simulation?

It wouldn't really solve anything; since most of the numbers you'd need for such a simulation are disputed between the two sides of the debate, you'd have a hard time getting hold of any data anyone actually agreed on. Hrimfaxi 03:09, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Website descriptions and NPOV problems

This article is not the place to be putting forth your position in debate, MartinMcCann, and your additional tag is neither stylistically nor NPOVly warranted. Examine the addition you want on there, clause by clause:

Site includes Anderson's opinionated and flawed analysis of Star Wars canon,

Here we have a clearly POV description that could be applied just as equally to most of the other websites by their opponents. It is not NPOV; it is not encyclopedic. It is not even special. All of the websites listed on both sides come under fire for their claims about what is and is not canon.

Incidentally, checking the site news for ST-v-SW.net, Mr. Anderson is in the process of publicizing a new website[6] dedicated to canon, so if you really feel that talking about Mr. Anderson's analysis of canon is warranted, we should probably add a whole new entry in that list of external links for his new CanonWars website.

which has been disproved by official sources.

Here we have an "official" link offered to justify including the POV descriptors you want to attach to it. Both sides claim to conclusively disprove everything the other says about Star Wars canon, and both trot out an array of such official quotes with links or cited publications on their websites. This article chronically has NPOV problems relating to editors trying to claim that one side or the other is correct or sneak their arguments into the article.

The accuracy of some of Mr Anderson's analysis isdisputed

And if that was worth putting on there, we would have tags on each of the website descriptors linking to pages where their rivals say they're worthless. Down that path lies cruft; this article has quite enough external links already, and a fair and complete listing at that. Balancer 16:21, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Star Destroyer VS. Enterprise-D

Wouldn't the class of the star destroyer effect the outcome of the battle? Also, any modifications made by the (rather creative) Enterprise crew would effect the battle. Hmm. Request arguments for both.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 199.247.235.10 (talk) 01:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] videogame

Was there ever any plan to do a videogame? Scourgeofsmallishinsects 22:18, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

It'd be cool, but I think not.

Paramount and LucasArts are unlikely to authorise any such venture, for the initial fact that any royalties would need to be split between the two companies.

[edit] let's get this deleted

This page's existence is absurd. It contains nothing that would be of any use to anyone outside the fanbases of these two series. Are we really going to have a page for every popular chat-room topic of debate? Will we create a page for the Office (UK) vs Office (USA) debate? Since we're dealing with the realm of fantasy the topic is obviously a endless source of debate, but that alone does not make it noteworthy. As Krusty would say "that really passes the time," - but just because geeks like us enjoy something does not mean that we should hold it up as something worthwhile for the rest of the wiki world. Come on! We have sites where we can take this debate, but Wikipedia should not be one of them. At the very most this page should contain a single paragraph and some links to other pages. We do not need to list the capabilities of this or that made-up spacecraft.DiggyG 04:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

This article doesn't list the capabilities of this or that made-up spacecraft. (You might consider deleting Star Destroyer on those grounds.) The simple fact of the matter is that this is notable first as the most widely publicized and enduring such rivalry in fandom, and second as a subject of the writings of numerous articles. The topic has been covered in Salon.com and Forbes; it's been YouTubed, created and divided numerous communities within fandom; it's even the subject of a collection of essays compiled by David Brin as a follow-up to his writings on Salon.com.

At one point (see the old VfD discussion) this article was basically an extension of the debate, but I and other editors have since cleaned it up to be about the raging phenomenon. It's not quite as notable as Holocaust denial as what is essentially a "frequent topic of discussion," but it's fairly clearly notable. Balancer 06:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

This article went through the vfd-afd process not once, not twice, but three times. Anyone suggesting deletion would be advised to first go through all of these discussions, and then read this article again, and then come up with something new which hasn't been already brought up in the previous afd-vfd discussions. --AlainV 23:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey thats a good idea, we should have The Office (UK) vs. The Office (USA).

(75.51.87.140 03:33, 4 August 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Site labels

I think they are bunk, and have been for a long time, and even if neutral to begin with, they are still sort of shamelessly advertising in nature. Also, they tend to attract POV flavor over time like a hard wood floor attracts dustbunnies. Do people really need to know which site is Kennedy's and which site is Wong's? If you know the personalities involved, you already know the sites. Denoting which are favored by the various factions is more than enough. Thus, I have removed them. Akerkhof 15:33, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question

So is the discussion going to get deleted too? That would be the perfect way to end this Kangaroo court. Gotta love mob rule. Who cares about the little guy, lets just let the deletionists swarm and delete anything they don't like. Alyeska 21:36, 30 August 2007 (UTC)