Talk:Kathryn Janeway

message: ===Steps to stop a possible edit war===
I think I am going to have to step in here and make a comment. I Have been following this artile for a little bit now. I'm not going to agree with the idea that the article was written with Gender Bias, as with most articles I give the benifit of the doubt and presume the editors POV isnt based on that. BUT there is a POV issue here. Petrus4, You have openly admitted to having an Axe to grind and thus should't be editing this article. BUT I must concurr that this hasn't been helped by inflamatory comments which have immediately presumed gender bias, AND posted comments/made changes without a signature/account name. Please, if you want to be taken seriously, let us know who you are, and don't make comments like "A woman in command might be threatening to teenage boys" it just makes things more heated!
To sum. Petrus4's additions, allthough welcome, suffer from serious bias against the character itself. Thus I have to support some change. The anonymous user who allthough says is for NPOV, makes changes such as
<Blockquote> "There is also some controversy as to whether the character of Janeway was harder to accept in a position of authority by male viewers"</blockquote>
should cease and disist as well. Thus I am supporting the revert but Removing the majority of the comments in the Controversy Section. --DennyCrane Talk 00:06, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: June 9, 2006

message: I think I am going to have to step in here and make a comment. I Have been following this artile for a little bit now. I'm not going to agree with the idea that the article was written with Gender Bias, as with most articles I give the benifit of the doubt and presume the editors POV isnt based on that. BUT there is a POV issue here. Petrus4, You have openly admitted to having an Axe to grind and thus should't be editing this article. BUT I must concurr that this hasn't been helped by inflamatory comments which have immediately presumed gender bias, AND posted comments/made changes without a signature/account name. Please, if you want to be taken seriously, let us know who you are, and don't make comments like "A woman in command might be threatening to teenage boys" it just makes things more heated!
To sum. Petrus4's additions, allthough welcome, suffer from serious bias against the character itself. Thus I have to support some change. The anonymous user who allthough says is for NPOV, makes changes such as
<Blockquote> "There is also some controversy as to whether the character of Janeway was harder to accept in a position of authority by male viewers"</blockquote>
should cease and disist as well. Thus I am supporting the revert but Removing the majority of the comments in the Controversy Section. --DennyCrane Talk 00:06, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Steps to stop a possible edit war

message: I *have* seen Shatner's acting, but I'm not sure what your implication is. A lot of people have said that Shatner's ability (or lack thereof) as an actor is simply attrocious, which is a position that I don't entirely disagree with myself. He has also been accused of narcissism on at least one occasion by people he has worked with.
In terms of me having an axe to grind, I'll admit it quite openly. I despised Janeway for the most part, and no, her gender was not relevant to the reason why. Abuse of authority is abuse of authority, regardless of which side of the gender line you're on. I've known any number of males who've behaved in a similar way.
As for offering examples of what I'm talking about, I've already done so. In numerous episodes she is shown putting the lives of subordinates on the line in order to persue her own agenda; it's actually one of the major themes of the series. Watch the pilot, and then disagree with me.
Your accusation of gender bias on my talk page to me says a lot more about your own area of focus, (gender equality) than it does about me...the gender issue wasn't something I was thinking about at all. I also actually consider your largely anonymous edit of my talk page cowardly...if it wasn't for Wikipedia's history feature, I wouldn't have been able to reply at all. I'm not making a sexist statement here either; cowardice or the lack thereof are also things I've seen exist on both sides of the gender line.
Petrus4 13:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: June 6,2006

message: I found this statement in the Janeway article this evening,
:::"Captain Kathryn Janeway is the foundation of the Voyager Crew and is the most generous and selfless person that there ever was"
As that's not a statement that conforms to principles of NPOV I removed it from the page.
JesseG 04:03, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)
::::It's just a fictional character :) - that sort of statement is the kind you might find in a casting call Dowew 20:21, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Earlier 

message: "How a captain known for her inconsistency and dis-regard for protocol during the seven years USS Voyager was missing was promoted to such a high level, bypassing several ranks, has never been explained."
Well I've got a pretty good idea.
JesseG 00:35, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
::I've added in Janeway's promotinos to RAdm (lower half), RAdm (upper half) and Vice Admiral, if anyone has any opinons on this move, please let me know. GoodDay 17:49, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Promotion

message: There seems to be a conflict about her birthdate: In ST:VOY episode Year of Hell, Part 1 it is day 65 which is on stardate 51268.4. That translates to August 30, 2374, however, it is mentioned in this episode that the date is May 20th!
SD6-Agent 00:08, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Stardates don't map exactly to real-world dates. They're a mathematical convenience created so the crew of a starship (from possibly hundreds of planets with as many different biologies and as many different systems for time) can all be on the same scale; there is no simple integer ratio for any of them. Or at least, that's how they handwave it away. Almafeta 21:56, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Birthdate conflict

message: Webishtar made a similar edit to the Benjamin Sisko article. In that article's edit summary, s/he said, "By definition, if you appear in the opening credits, you are a lead character, which the characters of Geordi and Uhura both did". Whose definition? Wikipedia'own definition of lead (which, granted, doesn't say TV series): "A leading actor, leading actress, or simply lead, plays the role of the protagonist in a film or play. The word lead may also refer to the largest role in the piece...". Janeway's role seems to fit this definition. But, anyway, I've already reverted that other article three times and don't feel like going back and forth on this one, too. If the hang-up is on the word "lead", then let's find another way to rephrase it, as Janeway being the first female [whateverthehellitis] is significant. --EEMeltonIV 14:58, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would explain my point further, but I did so in the Benjamin Sisco article, and this one seems to have been edited to a significant compromise. --Wabishtar 15:39, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead 

message: Can anyone offer any substantiation to the weasely claims in this section? The tag has been atop the article for a while now and no one's touched it. The most meaty part of that section -- the specific Tuvix example -- seems no more a shade of gray or controversial than Sisko's actions in In the Pale Moonlight, yet I don't see anyone hopping over on that article to point out those foibles. Ditto Archer jacking some aliens' warp drive in the Expanse. Certainly there's material to back up Moore's assertion -- I remember reading the interview at TGL and other sites after he left the Voyager staff -- but the rest of that content is...well, not really content. --EEMeltonIV 03:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you misread the tone or point of my earlier post -- it's more along the lines of "Well, nobody has put something like this in article A, so it's *not* okay in article B." Regardless, it's secondary to the fact that none of the nonsense in the controversy section was substantiated. I put the tags in as flags for anyone who wanted to offer some meat to back up the various claims; you just beat me to excising the whole section since no one has stepped up to the challenge.--EEMeltonIV 21:45, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy section 

message: I should like to note that during at least one ST:TNG episode (which I'm currently searching for), Janeway (played by Mulgrew) appears on a screen talking to Picard. At this point she has the rank of Admiral (of some sort at least). So I'm not sure how she went from Admiral to Captain to Admiral again. Once I find the episode I shall post it.
- Shipton
:Hey Shipton - that wasn't a TNG episode, it was the final (probably) TNG movie, Star Trek: Nemesis. Janeway gave orders to Picard to go to Romulus. Before Voyager, Mulgrew had never been on Trek before. --Mnemeson 21:52, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rank Inconsistencies 

message: I seems to me that identifying them as "key" is WP:OR -- can anyone cite a source that identifies these as key episodes? Is the term "key" itself non-npov? Certainly some of the entries seem superfluous and arbitrary. And if these episodes are so "key," why are they just listed rather than being integrated into the article text? Anyhow, I'm moving toward suggesting that this section be axed. --EEMeltonIV 02:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it just the term 'key' that you are unhappy with? In that case, perhaps we could think of a better heading. It is just meant to be a list of episodes and a brief description on their importance in relation to the character so a reader could glance at the list and if they wanted, could look up the episodes. If we integrated it into the main article text, it would still contain the same episodes, which then implies they are the key episodes, so how would that do away with any perceived POV? Marky1981 19:58, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Key" episodes 

message: I removed this from the article:
:During (Star Trek: Nemesis) Captain Picard is seen talking with Janeway who has been promoted to vice admiral. Her promotion was for political reasons. After Starfleet reviewed her records of Voyager's journey through the Delta quadrant they were appalled by what they had discovered. Janeway had on numerous occasions broken the Prime Directive in order to get her ship and crew home to the Alpha quadrant. This was unacceptable to Starfleet. Since Janeway was considered a hero in the Federation, Starfleet could not discharge her from service. To keep her from commanding a ship again, they instead promoted her to vice admiral. While it appeared to the public to be a promotion due to outstanding performance of duties, it was in fact a promotion to make sure Janeway never caused Starfleet any trouble ever again.
I don't remember a reason ever being given for Janeway's promotion, so this would be considered speculation and not allowed in Wikipedia articles. ~ Anya Prynn 23:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reasons for Promotion 

message: Before offering my 2¢ on whether or not the article should begin with, Captain Kathryn Janeway, I decided to see what Wikipedia articles used for the other members of the group known as the "Five Captains" of the Star Trek franchise (one for each TV series):
*James T. Kirk - no rank, known as Admiral (Star Trek) in all of the films
*Jean-Luc Picard - Captain (Star Trek), although seen as a retired Admiral in the series finale
*Benjamin Sisko - no rank, spent the first half of the series as a Commander (Star Trek)
*Jonathan Archer - no rank, infobox includes Admiral (reference to such rank during scene(s) set in his future)
As a sanity check, I looked at real historical figures of flag rank (Hyman G. Rickover, Elmo R. Zumwalt, Jr., "Bull" Halsey, "Amazing Grace" Hopper, Douglas MacArthur, Omar Bradley, Dwight D. Eisenhower) and found that "some have it and some don't"; "Hap" Arnold does not, even though he was the only General of the Air Force (five-star) in history.
Next, I read Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies), and it referred me to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people), neither of which discussed military ranks ... OTOH, MoS:NAMES#Honorific prefixes does say,
Note that in the case of some historic people, an honorific is so commonly attached to their names that it should be included. Thus, in the U.S. in the 1930s, "Father Coughlin" (Charles Coughlin). Likewise, include the honorific for Father Damien, the missionary in Hawaii; Father Divine, an American religious leader; Father Joseph, in 17th-century France; and Mother Teresa, a 20th-century humanitarian.
In other words, Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines neither forbids nor discourages the use of military ranks (unlike some honorifics and academics, e.g., "His Holiness" or "Her Majesty," and "Doctor" or "Professor") ... neither are they required or encouraged (like Sir or Dame for Mick Jagger, Anthony Hopkins, and Helen Mirren) ... consequently, their use is optional at the individual contributor's discretion.
IMHO, after reviewing the policies and precedents: "Either remove Captain from Jean-Luc Picard as well (for consistency), or else add it to both Kathryn Janeway and Jonathan Archer; all three will be promoted later in their careers, but this is their rank for the overwhelming majority of their on-screen presence ... James T. Kirk and Benjamin Sisko are both know through half of their canonical history as Admiral or Commander respectively (Kirk was even demoted back to Captain for a while), and should remain without rank because of this ambiguity in their popular identity."
Personally, I have neither the interest nor the inclination to do either, i.e., "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" ... but I wanted to leave this here as documentation to help avoid future revert wars over the subject.
On a slightly related note, "It should be the highest rank that they earned," is a specious argument; many Admirals and Generals are awarded their star on the day of their retirement as part of the severance package, so that their benefits will be based upon the higher rank ... for fictional characters, one should always use the rank by which they are most commonly know, or else avoid the use entirely, as with Kirk and Sisko.
Happy Editing! —72.75.70.147 16:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Beginning article with, "'''[[Captain (Star Trek)|Captain]] Kathryn Janeway'''" 

message: I have made a Major Re-write to the introduction of this article, based on the format of the articles for Benjamin Sisko, Jonathan Archer, Benjamin Sisko, and others … I was tempted to add something like,
She was Captain of Voyager from 2371 to 2378, after which she as promoted to Vice Admiral.
but decided to avoid the whole canon time-paradox conundrum, i.e., the series finale ("Endgame") asserts that "In the year 2404, Earth is celebrating Voyager's tenth anniversary of its 23 year journey home." However, the whole premise of that episode is that she went back in time in order to help get them home sixteen years sooner, which would make it 2378 (2304 - 10 - 16) … but that's all just too confusing, and way too much of a spoiler for the intro.
I also removed the reference to her appearance in the film, Star Trek: Nemesis from the intro, and cleaned up the reference to it later in the article.
Happy Editing! — 21:11, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes to introduction 

message: Before you remove images that were previously removed, you might want to see that the new image is not the same as the old promotional image. I see someone deleted the new image that I placed in lieu of the promotional image that got deleted. So does this mean if someone uploads a different image with the same name as the previously deleted image, no matter if they tag it or not, it is to get deleted? The new image I uploaded was not improper. Ejfetters 02:01, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Images

message: Kathryn Janeway is officially killed in the novel "Before Dishonor." The article should reflect that status until further notice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.28.91.127 (talk) 23:19, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Death

message: I feel that all non-canon information should be removed and at best should be relegated to a separate article. I am not familiar with any non-canon stories, but I can only assume that such storylines can be in conflict with one another and are at best works of fan fiction (despite being published, they are not sanctioned works by the show's creators).
I will remove this information in the coming days if no serious objections are raised. DKqwerty (talk) 03:14, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Ditto. Fan fiction is not authorized by Paramount. The licensed material is. Nightscream (talk) 17:37, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-canon information 

message: This is under "casting": ...was not prepared for a television schedules demanded by series television...
Who wrote that? What does it mean? I mean, can't we demand better english? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mtanic (talk • contribs) 01:48, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: We certainly should. The passage is fixed. Thanks for pointing that out. Nightscream (talk) 03:09, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bad english