![]() | USS Callister has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||
![]() | USS Callister is part of the Black Mirror series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
![]() | A
fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the "
Did you know?" column on
October 7, 2018. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that
Cristin Milioti describes her character Nanette Cole from the
Black Mirror episode "
USS Callister" as "a woman in charge [fighting] against a small-minded, misogynist bully"? | ||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Good job placing a "fuck white people" article in the analysis, this is what Wikipedia users need, self-flagellation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.179.100.215 ( talk • contribs) 16:58, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
I don't care at all that you're a white guy and you shouldn't care yourself. I very much hate when people say as a white guy or as a woman or as a gay dude. So what? That makes your opinion higher in caliber than mine just because you're gay, black, or white. Just care about being an editor because that's what you enjoy. You shouldn't make what you are who you are and you shouldn't disparage people just for being "white". That's what I hate about those articles as they very much "screw white guy" articles while putting ideologies and politics on something where it doesn't exist. They take the enjoyment out of everything. Just think if you said "black male's abuse of authority" that would be considered racist(which it is), but when replaced with "white male" it fine(though it is racist too). It shouldn't be fine on any account white, black, etc. I guess it would be fine if Charlie Brooker said that was the message of the episode, while I would very much disagree with it, I would still put it on the page because that is what it's about regardless.
I mean if the analysis were well-versed and put together, I would respect that. However, all those analyses come from "journalists" who try to put "mansplaining" on a Better Call Saul episode or Thomas the Tank Engine "fascist", which I very much hate those terms like "toxic masculinity" and "white privilege" as they're very much sexist and racist terms (though surprisingly excepted) and it takes the fun out of everything. They're not analysis, they're ideological rants. They're like "modern game journalists". Even worse, when people see the "fuck white people" analysis they're going to think that was the writer's true intention which is perhaps wasn't and people will say "oh the writers of this show are anti-white and anti-male". I'm very tired of hearing politics, gender, and race all the time on something that just wanted tell a story but got caught with progressives or modern feminists or SJWs. I'm just tired of seeing those words all the time these days on articles. Though, I'm probably just wasting my time here.
Though, I guess I should have been a bit more apprehensive on the Arkangel edit as I just don't care about what directed it (first[blank] to make something I don't care about what you are, I just care about what you made.) which is why I made the change, though I guess I should have been more thorough. I'll do better next time. - Franz Biberkopf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Franz biberkopf ( talk • contribs) 18:47, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
though there’s a romantic dimension to the Callister simulation, Robert never rapes the female voyagers; in a moment both hilarious and profoundly disturbing, Simpson reveals that they all have Barbie-doll-esque blank surfaces where their genitals should be. Still, the psychological foundation that has manifested in rape culture — the entitlement, the skewed dynamic of power, the erotics of unwillingness — is all right there. I believe the phrase "it's all right there" is too simplistic, and not justified in the review. In particular, it is not explained how Daly treats the women of the crew differently than the men. Especially, compared to the extent that the "white male nerd" subject is covered in other reviews. MOS:TVRECEPTION states that vague and non-descriptive claims should be avoided and if a review only contains such claims, without providing any rationale and examples to back up their opinions, then the review, in most circumstances, should not be used in the article. In the closing paragraph of Telegraph's review we read:
the script was co-written by Brooker and William Bridges long before the Weinstein scandal broke, though as the #metoo campaign grows, it couldn’t feel more timely. Cole’s victory over her creepy boss in the high-fiving finale might not feel very Black Mirror, but it’s the kind of story it would be good to hear more often, and this is the first mention to this subject in the review. Once again, it's not explained how the narrative of an attractive younger woman who falls for the "nice guy" is associated with sexual scandals and rape culture. -- Radiphus 21:43, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
One reviewer describes "USS Callister" as critical of sexism in ''Star Trek'' and its fandom,<ref name="inverse"/> though Brooker says that "I don't want it to be seen that we're attacking fans of classic sci-fi".<ref name="dog interview"/>
Daly is a man who abuses his position of power, leading one critic to call the episode "a sharp attack on an entire genre of male-driven narrative".<ref name="telegraph"/>
The episode begins with the Hollywood trope of a socially awkward man meeting a younger woman who appreciates his intelligence. Viewers initially side with Daly, but instead of the pair falling in love, we learn of Daly's true nature.<ref name="telegraph"/>
(difference from current bolded; also sentences restructured but that's minor)Though the episode was written before the [[Harvey Weinstein sexual abuse allegations|Weinstein scandal]] and [[Me Too (hashtag)|#metoo campaign]], the episode is evocative of it,<ref name="telegraph"/> with Daly exhibiting psychological traits associated with [[rape culture]] and white male nerd entitlement.<ref name="vulture"/><ref name="avclub"/><ref name="vox"/>
Similar to an internet bully, Daly does not seem to care about the pain he is inflicting to the virtual clones,<ref name="dog"/> treating them as action figures.<ref name="vulture"/>
each of his female compatriots rewards him with a chaste close-mouthed kisscontributes to the explanation, and part of the quote you pasted (
the entitlement, the skewed dynamic of power, the erotics of unwillingness) is also an explanation of why the reviewer thinks it is related to rape culture. It looks to me like MOS:TVRECEPTION is a very low threshold –
Non-descriptive claims do not provide the reader with the context necessary to understand why the reviewer liked or disliked an episode.– and the reviewer's opinion seems clear to me (they like the episode because of the moral about rape culture that they perceive to be there; they give three examples of traits allegedly shared by Daly and rape culture perpetrators). The rest of the sentence is "white male nerd entitlement", based on quotes " a particular kind of male nerd entitlement" and " even its depiction of white guy nerds’ toxic sense of entitlement". For the Telegraph, we have
It's not just Daly who's creating an sexist fantasy: half of Hollywood is, which I think links the two things very overtly. Daly created a sexist fantasy in the same way that Weinstein did, along with other sexual harassers that are the subject of #metoo, at least according to the reviewer. — Bilorv (talk) (c) (e) 22:48, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
The reviwers are all culture warriors who are pushing an agenda rather than reviewing the episode neutrally. Go look at their histories. There's no substance to any of their critiques. 67.248.239.224 ( talk) 20:51, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes, this, and every episode of Black Mirror should definitely have some politics about the color of skin shoe-horned in. There definitely can't be any meaning besides color of skin that I like I like is good, color of skin I don't like is bad. Hooray. I'm glad that what I read online is of lower quality and insight than the Sneetches. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:a601:1154:500:55b6:38c8:3f06:2d7f ( talk • contribs)
References
I'm concerned that the "TrekMovie" review entered by "Captcha47" may not be made in good faith. This is the only edit that "Captcha47" seems to have made to Wikipedia, and the review may have been included in order to direct traffic to the TrekMovie site, especially given its click-baity negative review. I know there's a policy against self-promotion, but how are pseudonymous accounts addressed in this respect? (In other words, do we know that Jared Whitley or an associate didn't add these multiple references to that review themselves? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shepazu ( talk • contribs) 19:08, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes, some opinions are a higher caliber than others... duh. Like how you're doctor's opinion of that weird mole is more valuable than your friend's. I believe to be relevant to a wikipedia article, the critiques have to be from a formal source with formal standards. Therefore, blogs without edited or formally distributed content such as "trek movie" should not be included and treated akin to original research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.221.133.251 ( talk) 07:21, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
I want to know if SOMA is worth being mentioned here - it's also a science fiction media property that explores the teletransportation paradox as a driving force in its plot, making it and this Black Mirror episode the only popular pieces of recent fiction that address the "personalities being duplicated exactly while the original personality still exists" concept in this kind of detail. -- Tutwater ( talk) 03:13, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
The "Plot" section currently states: "Walton repairs the thrusters manually, deathlessly incinerating himself, and the ship accelerates into the wormhole." How come it is "deathless" if Walton screams horrifically upon being burned, and he's never seen again for the remainder of the episode? Even when the crew passes the wormhole and is de-Spacefleetified, the only two people who return are Shania and Valdack, not Walton. Ericobnn ( talk) 01:14, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Is there any way that we can fix the engines?
That's only feasible manually, by climbing inside the jet fader.
So?
So you'd burn to a crisp when the jet came on.
We'd burn without dying.
The Lem story Non Serviam could very well have served as source material. It is one of the chapters of "A Perfect Vaccum" discussed here. Perhaps somebody knows more about this? 137.205.100.8 ( talk) 11:01, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Kingsif ( talk · contribs) 03:55, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
This review notes that
Nosedive, another episode of
Black Mirror with similar awards and notability, is already a Good article. As well as judging the article against Good article criteria, this review shall also compare it to the other article.
This is a single episode of a not-popular show that was played on an pay TV service most people cannot even watch.
Why is this here?
74.88.70.77 ( talk) 06:52, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedical has changed the occurrences of the episode title "USS Callister"
to "USS Callister"
, while keeping starship mentions to USS Callister
. It's not obvious to me which is correct at first glance—Wikipedical, can you explain fully why you think the latter is right? I understand that sometimes there are title-eponym distinctions (e.g. a film about Jane called Jane italicises title mentions but not character mentions) but why should that be the case here? —
Bilorv
(c)
(talk)
03:50, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
"Critic Alec Bojalad claims that Daly fits an archetype of white males who participate in prejudiced online echo chambers due to ostracisation in real life and a sense of entitlement.[43]" Legit racism, doesn't belong.
"Dana Schwartz links this to the "modern toxic masculinity" movements of Gamergate and the alt-right.[16] "
sexist rhetoric with poor handwaving conflating two different things.
Charles Bramesco of Vulture notes that despite the fact that Robert never actually rapes any of the female members of the crew, he exhibits psychological traits associated with rape culture.[47]"
Rape culture? Absolute scientific woo, what are these traits, why aren't they mentionable and sourced in an encyclopedia. Basically, there's too much fat in this section and trimming the bigotry would help a LOT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.7.28.113 ( talk) 01:35, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
what are these traits, Wikipedia is a summary of sources and the [47] that you copy contains a link that answers your question i.e. the source that you asked for. — Bilorv ( talk) 09:17, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
Where is the cast list? They have been standard for a very long time. Surely millions of people come to Wikipedia for the sole purpose of quickly finding out who plays what part. Instead we have a "Casting" section, which is a poor substitute for a list. 174.6.135.25 ( talk) 04:43, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
![]() | USS Callister has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||
![]() | USS Callister is part of the Black Mirror series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
![]() | A
fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the "
Did you know?" column on
October 7, 2018. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that
Cristin Milioti describes her character Nanette Cole from the
Black Mirror episode "
USS Callister" as "a woman in charge [fighting] against a small-minded, misogynist bully"? | ||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Good job placing a "fuck white people" article in the analysis, this is what Wikipedia users need, self-flagellation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.179.100.215 ( talk • contribs) 16:58, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
I don't care at all that you're a white guy and you shouldn't care yourself. I very much hate when people say as a white guy or as a woman or as a gay dude. So what? That makes your opinion higher in caliber than mine just because you're gay, black, or white. Just care about being an editor because that's what you enjoy. You shouldn't make what you are who you are and you shouldn't disparage people just for being "white". That's what I hate about those articles as they very much "screw white guy" articles while putting ideologies and politics on something where it doesn't exist. They take the enjoyment out of everything. Just think if you said "black male's abuse of authority" that would be considered racist(which it is), but when replaced with "white male" it fine(though it is racist too). It shouldn't be fine on any account white, black, etc. I guess it would be fine if Charlie Brooker said that was the message of the episode, while I would very much disagree with it, I would still put it on the page because that is what it's about regardless.
I mean if the analysis were well-versed and put together, I would respect that. However, all those analyses come from "journalists" who try to put "mansplaining" on a Better Call Saul episode or Thomas the Tank Engine "fascist", which I very much hate those terms like "toxic masculinity" and "white privilege" as they're very much sexist and racist terms (though surprisingly excepted) and it takes the fun out of everything. They're not analysis, they're ideological rants. They're like "modern game journalists". Even worse, when people see the "fuck white people" analysis they're going to think that was the writer's true intention which is perhaps wasn't and people will say "oh the writers of this show are anti-white and anti-male". I'm very tired of hearing politics, gender, and race all the time on something that just wanted tell a story but got caught with progressives or modern feminists or SJWs. I'm just tired of seeing those words all the time these days on articles. Though, I'm probably just wasting my time here.
Though, I guess I should have been a bit more apprehensive on the Arkangel edit as I just don't care about what directed it (first[blank] to make something I don't care about what you are, I just care about what you made.) which is why I made the change, though I guess I should have been more thorough. I'll do better next time. - Franz Biberkopf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Franz biberkopf ( talk • contribs) 18:47, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
though there’s a romantic dimension to the Callister simulation, Robert never rapes the female voyagers; in a moment both hilarious and profoundly disturbing, Simpson reveals that they all have Barbie-doll-esque blank surfaces where their genitals should be. Still, the psychological foundation that has manifested in rape culture — the entitlement, the skewed dynamic of power, the erotics of unwillingness — is all right there. I believe the phrase "it's all right there" is too simplistic, and not justified in the review. In particular, it is not explained how Daly treats the women of the crew differently than the men. Especially, compared to the extent that the "white male nerd" subject is covered in other reviews. MOS:TVRECEPTION states that vague and non-descriptive claims should be avoided and if a review only contains such claims, without providing any rationale and examples to back up their opinions, then the review, in most circumstances, should not be used in the article. In the closing paragraph of Telegraph's review we read:
the script was co-written by Brooker and William Bridges long before the Weinstein scandal broke, though as the #metoo campaign grows, it couldn’t feel more timely. Cole’s victory over her creepy boss in the high-fiving finale might not feel very Black Mirror, but it’s the kind of story it would be good to hear more often, and this is the first mention to this subject in the review. Once again, it's not explained how the narrative of an attractive younger woman who falls for the "nice guy" is associated with sexual scandals and rape culture. -- Radiphus 21:43, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
One reviewer describes "USS Callister" as critical of sexism in ''Star Trek'' and its fandom,<ref name="inverse"/> though Brooker says that "I don't want it to be seen that we're attacking fans of classic sci-fi".<ref name="dog interview"/>
Daly is a man who abuses his position of power, leading one critic to call the episode "a sharp attack on an entire genre of male-driven narrative".<ref name="telegraph"/>
The episode begins with the Hollywood trope of a socially awkward man meeting a younger woman who appreciates his intelligence. Viewers initially side with Daly, but instead of the pair falling in love, we learn of Daly's true nature.<ref name="telegraph"/>
(difference from current bolded; also sentences restructured but that's minor)Though the episode was written before the [[Harvey Weinstein sexual abuse allegations|Weinstein scandal]] and [[Me Too (hashtag)|#metoo campaign]], the episode is evocative of it,<ref name="telegraph"/> with Daly exhibiting psychological traits associated with [[rape culture]] and white male nerd entitlement.<ref name="vulture"/><ref name="avclub"/><ref name="vox"/>
Similar to an internet bully, Daly does not seem to care about the pain he is inflicting to the virtual clones,<ref name="dog"/> treating them as action figures.<ref name="vulture"/>
each of his female compatriots rewards him with a chaste close-mouthed kisscontributes to the explanation, and part of the quote you pasted (
the entitlement, the skewed dynamic of power, the erotics of unwillingness) is also an explanation of why the reviewer thinks it is related to rape culture. It looks to me like MOS:TVRECEPTION is a very low threshold –
Non-descriptive claims do not provide the reader with the context necessary to understand why the reviewer liked or disliked an episode.– and the reviewer's opinion seems clear to me (they like the episode because of the moral about rape culture that they perceive to be there; they give three examples of traits allegedly shared by Daly and rape culture perpetrators). The rest of the sentence is "white male nerd entitlement", based on quotes " a particular kind of male nerd entitlement" and " even its depiction of white guy nerds’ toxic sense of entitlement". For the Telegraph, we have
It's not just Daly who's creating an sexist fantasy: half of Hollywood is, which I think links the two things very overtly. Daly created a sexist fantasy in the same way that Weinstein did, along with other sexual harassers that are the subject of #metoo, at least according to the reviewer. — Bilorv (talk) (c) (e) 22:48, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
The reviwers are all culture warriors who are pushing an agenda rather than reviewing the episode neutrally. Go look at their histories. There's no substance to any of their critiques. 67.248.239.224 ( talk) 20:51, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes, this, and every episode of Black Mirror should definitely have some politics about the color of skin shoe-horned in. There definitely can't be any meaning besides color of skin that I like I like is good, color of skin I don't like is bad. Hooray. I'm glad that what I read online is of lower quality and insight than the Sneetches. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:a601:1154:500:55b6:38c8:3f06:2d7f ( talk • contribs)
References
I'm concerned that the "TrekMovie" review entered by "Captcha47" may not be made in good faith. This is the only edit that "Captcha47" seems to have made to Wikipedia, and the review may have been included in order to direct traffic to the TrekMovie site, especially given its click-baity negative review. I know there's a policy against self-promotion, but how are pseudonymous accounts addressed in this respect? (In other words, do we know that Jared Whitley or an associate didn't add these multiple references to that review themselves? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shepazu ( talk • contribs) 19:08, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes, some opinions are a higher caliber than others... duh. Like how you're doctor's opinion of that weird mole is more valuable than your friend's. I believe to be relevant to a wikipedia article, the critiques have to be from a formal source with formal standards. Therefore, blogs without edited or formally distributed content such as "trek movie" should not be included and treated akin to original research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.221.133.251 ( talk) 07:21, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
I want to know if SOMA is worth being mentioned here - it's also a science fiction media property that explores the teletransportation paradox as a driving force in its plot, making it and this Black Mirror episode the only popular pieces of recent fiction that address the "personalities being duplicated exactly while the original personality still exists" concept in this kind of detail. -- Tutwater ( talk) 03:13, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
The "Plot" section currently states: "Walton repairs the thrusters manually, deathlessly incinerating himself, and the ship accelerates into the wormhole." How come it is "deathless" if Walton screams horrifically upon being burned, and he's never seen again for the remainder of the episode? Even when the crew passes the wormhole and is de-Spacefleetified, the only two people who return are Shania and Valdack, not Walton. Ericobnn ( talk) 01:14, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Is there any way that we can fix the engines?
That's only feasible manually, by climbing inside the jet fader.
So?
So you'd burn to a crisp when the jet came on.
We'd burn without dying.
The Lem story Non Serviam could very well have served as source material. It is one of the chapters of "A Perfect Vaccum" discussed here. Perhaps somebody knows more about this? 137.205.100.8 ( talk) 11:01, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Kingsif ( talk · contribs) 03:55, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
This review notes that
Nosedive, another episode of
Black Mirror with similar awards and notability, is already a Good article. As well as judging the article against Good article criteria, this review shall also compare it to the other article.
This is a single episode of a not-popular show that was played on an pay TV service most people cannot even watch.
Why is this here?
74.88.70.77 ( talk) 06:52, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedical has changed the occurrences of the episode title "USS Callister"
to "USS Callister"
, while keeping starship mentions to USS Callister
. It's not obvious to me which is correct at first glance—Wikipedical, can you explain fully why you think the latter is right? I understand that sometimes there are title-eponym distinctions (e.g. a film about Jane called Jane italicises title mentions but not character mentions) but why should that be the case here? —
Bilorv
(c)
(talk)
03:50, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
"Critic Alec Bojalad claims that Daly fits an archetype of white males who participate in prejudiced online echo chambers due to ostracisation in real life and a sense of entitlement.[43]" Legit racism, doesn't belong.
"Dana Schwartz links this to the "modern toxic masculinity" movements of Gamergate and the alt-right.[16] "
sexist rhetoric with poor handwaving conflating two different things.
Charles Bramesco of Vulture notes that despite the fact that Robert never actually rapes any of the female members of the crew, he exhibits psychological traits associated with rape culture.[47]"
Rape culture? Absolute scientific woo, what are these traits, why aren't they mentionable and sourced in an encyclopedia. Basically, there's too much fat in this section and trimming the bigotry would help a LOT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.7.28.113 ( talk) 01:35, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
what are these traits, Wikipedia is a summary of sources and the [47] that you copy contains a link that answers your question i.e. the source that you asked for. — Bilorv ( talk) 09:17, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
Where is the cast list? They have been standard for a very long time. Surely millions of people come to Wikipedia for the sole purpose of quickly finding out who plays what part. Instead we have a "Casting" section, which is a poor substitute for a list. 174.6.135.25 ( talk) 04:43, 23 March 2024 (UTC)