Talk:Journey to Babel

Plot summary
I cut out a lot of unnecessary plot details, and then removed the "too long" tag. If it's still too long, feel free to put the tag back, or to do more editing, of course. Joule36e5 (talk) 09:36, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Issue of male authority
While the explanation in the article for why Ensign Chekhov takes over and not Lt. Uhura is probably correct from the writers' point of view. This episode was written by a woman, D.C. Fontana, and I think one line from Amanda about Sarek's commands as a Vulcan husband to his wife indicate some criticism of Vulcan male hierarchicalism. But the decision may not have been hers. Nevertheless, there is an explanation from within later Star Trek canon for why Chekhov could have been next in line. In TNG, an episode deals with Crusher and then Troi getting command training. Apparently they couldn't normally assume command without that as long as some officer with command training is present, even if it's a lower-ranked officer. So Uhura may simply not have had command training of any sort, while Chekhov may have had some. I don't consider it original research to point out that that later episode details that some officers who have not had command training do not typically assume command, although it might count as original research to make too much of a point of seeing it as an explanation for this within the Star Trek canon, so I wasn't sure whether to include it in the article and how to word it. Any suggestions? Parableman (talk) 18:35, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the incident itself is noteworthy even if the speculation was unencyclopedic, so I restored the factual part of it. I'll let other editors decide whether to discuss the reasoning within the article body.  Joule36e5 (talk) 06:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No original research please. If you can't find any sort of a cite to back up what you're suggesting above, then including the information is simple plot reiteration. I have removed it as per the linked guideline. Alastairward (talk) 10:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you're confusing me with one of the prior editors, but as far as I can see, everything in my version was factual, so I don't know what you mean by "what you're suggesting above". I would have preferred that the note stay around long enough to see whether anyone else could add to/recategorize/improve it, but I don't feel strongly enough about it to risk a revert war.  Joule36e5 (talk) 09:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I had aimed the OR warning at Parableman. With regards what you had added again, I would just reiterate the edit summary I left; "Removing again, information is now just part speculation/part reiteration of the plot". Alastairward (talk) 16:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Strange monitor
Again, the monitor screen on the bridge seems to have turned into a window. When the alien vessel explodes, everyone is holding his hands before his or her face.80.141.10.211 (talk) 18:15, 14 March 2014 (UTC)