Talk:Michael Burnham

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Michael Burnham article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Star Trek Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Star Trek, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to all Star Trek-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Star TrekWikipedia:WikiProject Star TrekTemplate:WikiProject Star TrekStar Trek articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Fictional characters

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fictional characters, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of fictional characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Fictional charactersWikipedia:WikiProject Fictional charactersTemplate:WikiProject Fictional charactersfictional character articles

Television Low‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Science Fiction Low‑importance

	Speculative fiction portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science FictionWikipedia:WikiProject Science FictionTemplate:WikiProject Science Fictionscience fiction articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: Television Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Television portal This article is supported by American television task force.

Diversity Backlash

I have removed the "Diversity Backlash" section. There was a single, poor citation from CinemaBlend using the "some people are saying..." trick to invent a controversy into existence, while providing no evidence. No other reliable sources report this "controversy". --2600:1700:9610:83B0:35F4:5BFC:AB54:C77F (talk) 07:28, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Michael

Isn't 'Michael' unusual as a woman's name? I've never heard it before, only 'Michaela'. Varnebank (talk) 20:54, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is the point. Not sure if that is discussed here, but it is at List of Star Trek: Discovery characters. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:40, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Varnebank and Adamstom.97: This is something Bryan Fuller always does: he names female leads after male names. Sonequa Martin-Green chose her father's name. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:46, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Similarity to Seven of Nine

@Koavf: Not sure exactly what you mean. It's self-published, but Sonnenburg is a well-regarded "expert" on matters Trek-related, unlike the authors of the other opinion pieces (primary sources all) cited in the section presently, most of whom appear to be staff writers at various entertainment magazines and websites. I would not say he is the best source possible for factual claims, but since the whole section is opinion anyway, and since self-published opinion is no more or less "reliable" than third-party-published opinion, the only difference appears to be in how relevant significant and noteworthy the opiner is. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:43, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Hijiri88: Self-published sources are usually out, as you can see. Do you have any references to Sonnenburg being a well-respected authority on the topic? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:13, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, self-published sources are normally considered unreliable for factual claims unless they come from well-respected authorities, but with personal opinions (which, again, are all that are presently cited in the section) they are no more or less "reliable" than those published by third parties.

Anyway, apart from equally self-published well-regarded video producers like Lewis Lovhaug and other Channel Awesome producers a quick Googling did not bring up anything to support my assertion Sonnenburg is a well-regarded "expert", but if you want other less "self-published" opinion pieces that noticed the Seven of Nine similarity, would this or this do?

I really feel like instead of summarizing the "thumbs up/down" opinions of people who happen to have columns in popular entertainment magazines, a better approach would be to gather together critical analyses of various aspects of the character (such as the similarity to Seven of Nine) that have been noted by multiple reviewers apparently independently. Maybe not naming inline any one of the three I've cited but rather a Several commentators noted a similarity to... approach like at The Dragon and the Wolf#Critical reception.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:36, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Hijiri88: Yes, a self-published blog is reliable just for saying what someone thinks of something but it's trivial as a source. If I publish a blog and say that I think this character is like Peter Pan, that could definitely show what I think reliably but it would be irrelevant, since I don't know anything about Star Trek and no one cares what I think. I'm with you in principle but I hope you understand my point here--you have to establish something more than just, "X says Y is like Z"—why should I care what X thinks about anything? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:05, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's not a blog so much as a weekly review and critical analysis show, but that's beside the point. The "reception" sections of fictional character articles should be more focused on critical analysis of the character, their role in the story, literary parallels, real-world/literary inspiration than on acolades the actor received for their portrayal of the character. The literary parallel to Seven is something several critics have noted (and I'm sure a more thorough search would show up many more, especially as more academic/scholarly retrospective sources begin to be written), and I think is probably more interesting to a Wikipedia reader than most of what's already in there, which is more about the actor (who has her own article) than the character. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:26, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Again, agreed--we just need reliable sources. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:26, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Xenoanthropology

There's no such thing as "Xenoanthropology". The correct term would be "Sophontology", the study of intelligent life forms, with all the attendant sub-categories (Linguistic, Physical, Cultural, etc. etc.).

To the best of my knowledge that is how the discipline is commonly refered to within the ST universe. DGtal (talk) 10:30, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]