Talk:The Expanse (Star Trek: Enterprise episode)

Untitled

According to the article, "This the first episode in the Star Trek universe that shows an 9/11 style attack on Earth."

Last time I checked, the attacks on the 11th of september were three airplanes that crashed into buildings, rather than a huge probe in space using a massive destruct-o-beam to cut a trail of death and destruction along the american continents. What gives? Driam 08:31, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

There were no objections, so I edited the page. Driam 18:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Driam. That was silly. DavidPesta (talk) 15:47, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Xindi Attack

The Xindi Attack section was as original research by User:Jmg38 and expanded with more text.[1] This subsection was only created in 2019 by User:AllanHood [2]

This is supposed to be an encyclopaedia, and it is not supposed to include nit-picks contradictions or trivia. We shouldn't be trying to say "Despite the dialog" we should be trying to say what the sources actually do say and leave out the rest if reliable sources cannot be found.

The episode (at approximately 3 minutes 30 seconds) includes the dialog: "It fired a weapon that cut a swath 4,000 kilometres long. From Florida to Venezuela." Trip ask (at about 4 minutes 30) "did he say what part of Florida was hit?" and the answer is no. The claim that the beam hit Moore Haven, Florida specifically is not mentioned in this episode.

I think we need to trim the section back to what we can actually WP:VERIFY from the dialog or perhaps remove the section entirely. -- 109.76.146.37 (talk) 14:47, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

109.76.146.37, my mistake was trying to warn against original research from two years ago, underlined by adding the fact that the CGI does not match the dialogue anyway. Yours was nit-picking my effort rather than doing the right thing – delete the section as original research that does not add to the article. The plot already includes the episode's dialogue "from Florida to Venezuela", so this entire "Xindi Attack" section is moot, and adds someone's magnifying-glass guesswork of the screenshot, in order to try and pinpoint where in Florida the beam specifically touches down. Moore Haven, Florida? Really? Your nit-pick has cleared my head, realize the true underlying issue, and the section is now gone. Thanks for spurring me to the action I should have taken in the first place, and which you could have taken when finding the time to add your comment, as you were clearly three steps closer to this eventual outcome. Jmg38 (talk) 17:23, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

I didn't want to presume. I wasn't sure if maybe some other later episode or other source hadn't mentioned some detail about Elizabeth Tucker that I hadn't memorized. It's Trek, the minutae can be very minute, and the trivia oh so trivial, and all too often you find out the writer really did make a that reference intentionally and the fans didn't imagine the connection, and it's actually becomes a decent Production detail!

I prefer not to delete if I can avoid it. (There's too much of that already Talk:Rogue_Planet_(Star_Trek:_Enterprise).) The lack of sources in an article does not necessarily mean that no sources exist. Also some editors overreact to BOLD changes by IP editors and revert without reading the diffs.

I did ask User:AllanHood to clarify his sources[3] but I will admit I was getting the feeling I was probably going to have to delete it sooner or later. Anyhow, hopefully I can find some Production details to add instead, something background about those Emmy nominated effects would be ideal. -- 109.76.146.37 (talk) 21:10, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Response

I got my information from simply watching the beam hit the map. We don't have a lot of towns in that area, one specifically, and two other areas, Lakeport and Buckhead Ridge, which were also in the path. I should know; I work there. Anyone can check any map with ease and see exactly where it goes, it's right in the episode; they show it on TV. If you bring up the map from the episode, you'll see the beam's path. It didn't seem difficult to call. Reading maps is hardly nitpicking... -- unsigned comment by User:AllanHood (May 2021‎)

"simply watching the beam hit the map" arguably that's still original research, articles are generally supposed to be based on what reliable sourcs say, which does not necessarily include things people might be able to easily find out for themselves. Anyway User:Jmg38 already removed the section and no one has tried to add it back again so it seems as if the matter is settled and we don't need find excuses to try and include it. Production section could still do with expansion thought. -- 109.79.167.195 (talk) 04:33, 8 September 2022 (UTC)