text:
Talk:Coagulation

Resident Evil
in the movie Resident Evil (2002), Matt Adison points out that a woman's blood has coagulated, pointing out it's impossible because blood only coagulates after death. One; blood coagulates all the time, not only after death. And two, how can you tell by looking at blood to see if it coagulated? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blindy me (talk • contribs) 23:33, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

 * Sometimes people experience clotting due to a disease process that triggers the cascade. So, yes, there is a medical emergency called Disseminated Intravascular Coagulation, which signifies blood clots throughout the body which may be localized or so severe that it triggers organ dysfunction. Wikipedia has a page on it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disseminated_intravascular_coagulation 74.12.125.129 (talk) 16:35, 30 March 2016 (UTC)!

.

A question
In the event of copmlete integumentary deprivation, assuming you lived, would your skin scab over, or would something else happen? Razor Rozar7 (talk) 19:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Exposure to air
As a non-biologist, what this article doesn't tell me is how exposure to air makes platelets stick together, which is perhaps what coagulation is all about.

What it needs is something like "when factor blah on the surface of the platelet or in the blood comes into contact with air/oxygen/nitrogen/knives/blunt_objects is it suppressed/enhanced/confused/enlightened which triggers the cycle". I'm guessing that all these factors are also expressed on the surface of the platelet? Or are they inside? A chatty intro to the subject before the factor X does whatever to factor XI would help. - (unsigned)

 * We recognize the problem that different audiences require different presentations. We haven't quite worked out if separate articles are needed or if it can all be included in one place.

 * In the meantime, though: exposure to air doesn't make platelets stick together, exposure to collagen does. Collagen is found in the connective tissue that is found outside of blood vessels.
 * Primary clot formation has three basic steps
 * Platelets aren't normally exposed to collagen: when they are exposed to it (for example, when a blood vessel is cut), they stick to it: that's platelet adhesion
 * The platelets then secrete the chemicals they store: that's granule release
 * The granule's contents enable fibrinogen to link between platelets (platelet aggregation)
 * That's primary hemostasis. Coagulation (secondary hemostasis) happens after that, as a way of firming up the initial clot through the formation of thrombin, which converts fibrinogen to fibrin. - Nunh-huh 02:19, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

 * Nunh-huh answered the question well but I think that one point to clarify to a lay-person is that you can't get to air without passing by the connective tissue (CT) that surrounds all blood vessels. Because a major component of CT is collagen then collagen will be exposed upon any blood vessel rupture, even those that are open to "air". As you can see, you must first cross collage to get to air. In the case of a gapping wound that is wide open, the bleeding cannot stop itself and stitches or some other controlling factor is needed to seal off the exit point and give the exposed collagen a chance to induce hemostasis.Orlandoturner (talk) 20:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

 * to the OP, you can also imagine that a lot of internal bleeding occurs where there is little to no "air" and people don't die from bruises and such, further implicating collagen. Anyway, I thought the article was well written.  I especially liked how in the intro it explains how the platelet activation and coagulation pathways intertwine.  But here's some food for thought: how does blood stasis lead to coagulation?  For example, it's known that blood stasis is one of the factors that can lead to thrombus formation, hence the whole DVT on the airplane thing.  Assuming that my blood vessels aren't being damaged while I'm just sitting down, it would seem that blood seems to want to clot by default, perhaps due to collagen particles being deposited in the deep veins? -- Bubbachuck (talk) 20:41, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Term
I know the wikipedia's not a dictionary; but I still feel it's important not to suggest to a user who stumbles onto the page that coagulation is a technical term. Clearly it is in a medical context, but it's also just a plain old word in the English language. Hence the little disclaimer I added at the top of the page. I also specified that the article is about human blood, since it makes reference to specific clotting factors, genetic diseases, etc. I assume that the coagulation of blood in other animals follows a similar process — indeed, I'd bet my shirt on it — but I feel a little weird adding my own uninformed assumptions to a medical article so I'll just put this sentence here, which was once the last sentence of my disclaimer: The blood of other animals clots in similar ways. Please, somebody who can actually say this based on personal knowledge, add it back in again! Doops 21:43, 30 May 2004

title
it appears to me that this page is improperly titled. i suggest:

1) we make coagulation a disambig page with links to human blood coag as well as other types of coag like eggs + chinese food.

2) we move the material on this page to Coagulation of human blood.

Thoughts? Ungtss 16:42, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I'm more in favour of coagulation (disambiguation). Blood coagulation is by far the most important form. JFW | T@lk  23:11, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

HEY, WHAT ABOUT CONSENSUS FOR A MOVE? JFW | T@lk  23:19, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've reversed your move (which affects 100s of links). If you are unhappy with the present results, please allow a bit more time for consensus. JFW | T@lk  23:26, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * apologies. since the bold title in the intro already said coagulation of human blood, i thought it was an intuitive move.  sorry i jumped the gun.  Ungtss 23:40, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Can you agree to the present arrangement? JFW | T@lk  01:11, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * It certainly seems less intuitive to me than the other, but the present arrangement is clearly very important to you, and it certainly does no harm -- I'll agree. Ungtss 01:17, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Well, I do not agree. I think that the coagulation article should discuss the concept of coagulation and then there should be more specific articles for eg. coagulation of human blood, water purifying, egg-cooking and other examples. Now there is actually no article on the concept of coagulation, which I think should definitely be included in any encyclopedia. If there is 100s of links affected then let's change them.--Qtea 21:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Do you have material that would be useful in a general way? Coagulation is not a phase in the way freezing or thawing is. It means widely different things in widely different contexts. Show us how you would generalise the entire concept of coagulation. JFW | T@lk  16:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I haven't been actively involved with Wikipedia logistics in a while, but what is the criteria between showing a disambig page first vs. going to a default article? Is blood coagulation being "the most important form" one of the criteria? In that case, it would seem that Cricket should direct to the insect, which I'm pretty sure is indispensable to the ecosystem, rather than the sport. -- Bubbachuck (talk) 20:46, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

disclaimers
Since the moving of this article from the specific "coagulation of human blood" to the general "coagulation" it has become important to include disclaimers and disambiguations. Two thoughts about these: (In general, indeed, this article — like so many scientific ones — assumes too much of the reader.) Doops 16:48, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I was under the impression that all editorial comments which are not really part of an article but serve as aids-to-readers are italicized. That would seem sensible, certainly.
 * Mammals aren't the only blooded animals! Birds have blood — how do they clot? etc. You have to cover every possibility, leaving no cracks for a confused reader to slip through.

 * I agree. ideally, we'd have articles on the coagulation of many types of animal blood.  in the meantime, it's important to clarify in the note at the top, in italics, that is article, tho titled coagulation generally, is quite counterintuitively only about one very specific type of coagulation, and only one type of blood coagulation.  Ungtss 18:29, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Most studies on coagulation of blood have been done in humans and small rodents. It is a highly conserved process in evolution, so there is a lot to be said about coagulation in other species. I suspect we'll need a separate paragraph on it, which identifies the exceptions rather than the similarities. JFW | T@lk  16:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Chromosomes
Would be great to have written which chromosomes code for different factors. --Eleassar777 13:49, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Follow the links, Eleassar. When I wrote all the articles, I put the chromosome data there. If I have the time I may do it myself. JFW | T@lk  20:13, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Coagulation cascade vs cell-mediated model
as i recently have learned, the coagulation cascade is somewhat misleading in how the reactions occour. also im under the impression that the current scientist are commonly accepting this model instead of the old one from 1964.

more specifically, the order in which these reactions occour. i suggest interested ppl to read reviews by M hoffman and som from Nature to get a detailed description of how it works:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=16131441&query_hl=22 http://www.nature.com/nrd/journal/v3/n8/abs/nrd1443_fs.html

Anyway the coagulation cascade fails to explain why for instance people with FXII deficiency do not have any bleeding disorders whatsoever, although it lies at the top of the cascade. Furthermore, the cascade fails to explain why FVIII from the intrinsic pathway causes heavy bleading disorders when it clearly shows that Thrombin can be produced from the extrinsic pathway alone.

shortly the cell mediated model is divided in three parts: initiation, amplification and propagation.

comments anyone???

Broccolee-

 * Well, there are various theories about the relative importance of both systems. The system is so immensely complex that an overview is hard to present anyway. JFW | T@lk  23:18, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

hmmm... so does that mean that the cell-mediated model is not fully accepted among scientists, or that the system is not yet fully understood? because from what i have read the new model makes complete sense. anyway, yeah the system is complex. still, if the other one is more correct it ought to be changed?

 * I wasn't suggesting any such thing. I'm just concerned that the Hoffman et al view will suddenly be touted as the new gospel with no consideration for previous views. The coagulation cascade is much better understood that the cellular component; one learns new things about the role of platelets and endothelium vis a vis the coagulation cascade on a daily basis. Specifically the role of the extrinsic part is setting the "rate" of thrombin generation and the tissue factor part to initiate actual coagulative events is quite fascinating.

 * You are fully in your right to summarise the Hoffman et al paradigm in a short section. I have no access to the journal, so I would personally prefer something that is more accessible. JFW | T@lk  21:43, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Don't know if anyone cares but as of 2010 all medical students at one of the large London medical schools are taught that the old intrinsic/extrinsic model is an old fallacy and are only being taught the cell based model. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.145.241 (talk) 10:14, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

 * "Cell-based model"? Please do me a favour and find out which sources form the basis of your lecturers' model. I'm very keen to get this page up-to-date. JFW | T@lk  17:36, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

 * is the paper in question, and I shall need to look at it. JFW | T@lk  20:59, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

A cell based model is now used to explain the coagulation process in most of the standard Hematology textbooks. So I guess it is high time this gets updated on this page. Angunnu (talk) 06:48, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Thrombelastography
I just wikified and largely rewrote a stub article on thromboelastography (and learned a lot in the process), but I'm not sure where in this article it should be linked. Could those in the know please review my work, and add useful links to it from other articles? — Catherine\talk 18:44, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Cutting edge! I would put it in the diagnostic section. JFW | T@lk  21:41, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Important for research into those idiotic little platelets that pay attention only to themselves...!74.12.125.129 (talk) 16:41, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Coagulation cascade
Hi chaps,

Playing the random 10 articles game, I found this article. It appears to be nothing more than a copy and paste from Clotting_cascade (ie, this page). It would be great if someone could be bold and decide whether the section merits its own page. If so, the material should probably be removed from this page with a link to that one, and it should be seriously wikified and contextified.

If not, the other page should be replaced with a redirect to this one (and there is one page linking to that page - please fix its link).

Thanks, pfctdayelise 14:12, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Please review Redirect. You've traveled over a redirect to the same page. JFW | T@lk  03:05, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Introduction
I don't think the sentence "The use of adsorbent chemicals, such as zeolite, and other haemostatic agents is also being explored for use in sealing severe injuries quickly." really belongs in the intro. I am not sure if it even belongs to this page at all. Maybe we need a page Treatments for severe bleeding or something along those lines. I didn't make the edit since I didn't want to just remove the info without having anywhere else to put it.

Thanks, Azad 15:05, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

The coagulation cascade of secondary hemostasis has two pathways, the Contact Activation pathway (formally known as the Intrinsic Pathway) and the Tissue Factor pathway (formally known as the Extrinsic pathway) that lead to fibrin formation.

Do you mean formally as in 'the Contact Activation pathway is not an official term, it is informal', or actually 'formerly' as in 'used to be called'? Adam

 * I have Biochemistry now in Med School and I asked my BioChem professor regarding this sentence "contact activation pathway (formerly known as the intrinsic pathway), and the tissue factor pathway (formerly known as the extrinsic pathway)". He said that the "contact activation pathway" and "tissue factor pathway" are not correct and refer to something else entirely. Also the 2009 edition of Lehninger Principles of Biochemistry (ISBN: 071677108X) still refer to the pathways as intrinsic pathway and extrinisic pathway. Could we get an expert here to look into this, because this may be either (1) vandalism or (2)a mistake, since there is no reference after the above statement in the wiki article. Meishern (talk) 11:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Spelling
Hi ppl, just as a quick comment, i though it was spelt HOMEOSTASIS not haemostasis.

thanks

 * Not really. Haemostasis or hemostasis is the stasis (arresting flow) of haemos (blood). Homeostasis is homeo (equal). JFW | T@lk  20:55, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * To clarify the above comment, homeostasis is indeed not the same as hemostasis (or its equivalent "haemostasis"). Hemostasis is the stopping of the flow of blood.  The use of the word is not only appropriate when speaking about coagulation/clotting, one can also accomplish hemostasis by suturing, bandaging, or compression.  The spelling "haemostasis" is an older variant, probably more common in British parlance, similar to "orthopaedic" for orthopedic or "paediatrics" for pediatrics.  Homeostasis, however, has nothing to do with blood.  It refers to the tendency of a biological system to maintain internal metabolic and functional balance.  "Homeo-" does not refer to blood; it refers to equality, or sameness.  For example: homosexual is "same sex."

Primary hemostasis
I know that this page is about coagulation, which is not exactly the same thing as hemostasis, but the article does describe primary and secondary hemostasis (of which the coagulation cascade is a huge part). In that description, platelet aggregation is listed as the first step in primary hemostasis, but I was under the impression that vasoconstriction happens before that... LanceVictor 16:39, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

 * I learnt it that way in medical school, but would not change the article without a WP:RS. JFW | T@lk  16:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

 * Pick up any anatomy and physiology textbook and in the blood section it will say vasoconstriction is the first step of coagulation. --24.148.35.61 (talk) 02:31, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

 * So would that suggest that anyone with "stiff" vessels would have a tendency to bleed upon injury???74.12.125.129 (talk) 16:43, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Diagram
I think the diagram is misleading - in the coag cascade, Factor XIIa activates Factor XI to Factor XIa. If the arrows were flipped so that the middle curved bit was at Factor XIIa and the beginning of the arrow was at FXI and the end at FXIa, this would make more sense. Also this diagram is confusing as it mixes what happens in a test tube and what occurs in vivo. In vivo FXII is not part of coagulation, but is involved in fibrinolysis - the process by which the clot is removed.81.179.23.120 17:08, 5 July 2006 (UTC)CJ

 * Its effects on fibrinolysis are about as limited as those on coagulation - in vitro more than in vitro. It is probably more of a participant in the kinin-kallikrein system. Hageman died of a pulmonary embolism! (Source: Giangrande.) JFW | T@lk  16:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the diagram is drawn improperly. The activated factors should be placed near the middle of the arrow representing the next step in the cascade. AAMiller 07:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

 * Not by definition. The anticoagulants (e.g. protein C) don't slow down the conversion process. Rather, they inactivate already activated factors. I agree factor VII and prothrombin conversion should be made clearer. When I get to my own computer I will try to address this. JFW | T@lk  23:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

 * How about one of these as a replacement? I can make changes easily if anybody wants to suggest them:
 * Joe D (t) 11:05, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Joe D (t) 11:05, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I wish you'd waited for discussion before removing the diagram that took me a lot of time to draw (:-$). The new one has similar weaknesses to my original one. JFW | T@lk  23:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

 * E.g. thrombin-mediated factor V activiation is unclear, antithrombin also inactivates factor X. JFW | T@lk  23:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

 * Fixed. Joe D (t) 07:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

 * Incidently, I don't see how it's any less clear on the thrombin -> FV issue than the original. Joe D (t) 07:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Joe, you're correct. I was just somewhat peeved that my diagram had been replaced :-). I've reinserted yours, which is much better than the one I drew in 2004. In particular, your diagram indicates the new link between thrombin and factor XI, which is in accordance with new paradigms on continuous thrombin generation vs thrombin burst.

As you may have seen, I'm updating the article quite heavily. Your assistance is very much appreciated, particularly in finding the right sources for things that I haven't sourced well at present. JFW | T@lk  20:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Could there be a way to represent the magnitude of the clotting factors using broader arrow size and different font sizes. For example a particular factor might be present at low levels (small font) but can amplify greatly (represent with arrow that begins small but swells to its arrow head). This might provide an intuitive view of why some coagulation factors are indispensible while others can be compensated for. doctorwolfie 16:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

What software program was used in creating that coagulation cascade diagram? It looks great!! Ld99 (talk) 03:32, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

This diagram was recently replaced with a simplified version that lacks any of the feedback mechanisms. I think the previous graph was much more informative and should be restored. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.205.83.192 (talk) 18:18, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Historical source
Only today I discovered there is actually a comprehensive primary text about the history of coagulation. ISBN 1893005909 has a 400 page historical overview of all the characters. It is expensive (Amazon 2nd hand $250) but perhaps my library can order it from the British Library. JFW | T@lk  16:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

 * Any luck on this? I came to the Talk page kind of dissatisfied with the statement "Theories on the coagulation of blood have existed since antiquity" being followed by an early 1800s fact.  I'm curious myself what sort of earlier theories there were.  --mordicai. 21:28, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

No luck yet. I've found some more historical material (S.I. Rapaport's historical overview in West J Med 1993) but I have no access to earlier theories. What is interesting is that for practical purposes the ancient Jews knew that stirring blood kept it liquid, as done in the sacrificial service in the Temple in Jerusalem. JFW | T@lk  14:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Too technical for laymen
This is the first Wikipedia article I've ever tried to read that seemed difficult for non-experts to understand. The theories of special relativity and quantum mechanics are mind-bending for most educated people, however, I find their Wikipedia articles easier to follow than this.

This article appears to be a very extensively documented and carefully (even lovingly) composed and edited article. Perhaps the same editors could step back and try to either write a layman's section or else water the technical language down a bit for the rest of us. The "Make Technical Articles Accessible" guideline has good material on how to approach this issue. --A. B. (talk) 22:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I want to second the comment that this is too technical for the general audience of wikipedia. Personally, I think it's *WAAAAY* too technical. Cazort (talk) 01:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

- I was wondering whether it would be worth having a simple summary near the top for us laymen before diving into the details? I did take AS biology some years ago but the article is still a bit of a tough read...

What I understand from the article without a thorough reading (I was a little putoff but the sheer complexity of the process):

The first hemostasis is that the platelets are activated by and stick to collagen fibres. (They are found outside the blood vessel?) The platelets then release the granules inside them, which ativates other platelets. eerr... so the effect is that they clump together at the wound? (is this a 'haemeostatic plug'?

(this bit I recall from distant memory...) Then the second hemostasis: by a complex chemical process the fibrinogen (soluble) is transformed into fibrin (insoluble). So now the fibrin helps block up the remain gaps and dams the flow of blood.

I guess that at the end of all that, the water evaporates causing the wet squidgy mass on the skin/floor/outside of the body to 'harden' and contract - simple loss of volume. I am actually observing the blood as I write :)

Is this very very crude summary even vaguely correct? 141.2.215.190 11:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Copyedit
I'm editing the article to respond to concerns above. I've added some organisation and have expanded on topics such as pathology and pharmacology.

Any recommendations as to WP:RS? I found the Furie & Furie article, which looks pretty decent & may actually be counted as a source for many parts of the article. JFW | T@lk  01:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Clusters
This may become interesting: the plasma levels of clusters of coagulation factors seem to have a genetic basis: JFW |  T@lk  23:01, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Photo
Shouldn't we include a scab photo? --Digitalgadget 18:14, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Quite right. To be, an article without a picture is pretty useless to visual learners.Chimchar monferno (talk) 01:33, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Here's one I made earlier.... [[Image:Elbow_scab.jpg|thumb|left|200px]]. Courtesy of me falling off my bike. Public domain, feel free to crop etc then add to article.  - ARC Gritt TALK  21:39, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Plagiarism
This page is an exact copy of our article. I have asked the owners of the site to adhere to the GFDL when using Wikipedia content. JFW | T@lk  11:39, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Time
My dentist says clotting takes a quarter of an hour. True? There's nothing in the srticle about timing. --Guthrie (talk) 13:27, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

 * Depends what you measure. Formation of an early platelet plug takes seconds. The bleeding time is definitely shorter than 15 minutes (2-9 depending on method is quoted). More specific in vitro tests of clotting are 11.5-16.0 seconds for the prothrombin time and 26.0-38.0 for the partial thromboplastin time. JFW | T@lk  13:52, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * How about five hours? Damn platelets! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.125.129 (talk) 16:46, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

it requires modification
hi all

just a comment, although it has been mentioned correctly under (Physiology, The coagulation cascade) that the new pathways are in a 3 steps rather than as previously known intrensic and extrinsic pathways,but later on the explantion was in according to the old one..

thats why i think it should be modified.

thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.231.244.229 (talk) 11:18, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

 * I agree with you, the old model (extrinsic pathway + intrinsic pathway + common pathway) is no longer followed. The newer textbooks (and my lecturers) now teach the cell-surface model. Shall I attempt to revise this article? Td1wk (talk) 19:04, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

 * If you can provide adequate secondary sources, that would be a good endeavour. has recently made some important contributions, so it would be good if you could make sure that your changes do not contradict those made by him. JFW |  T@lk  19:18, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

 * "The cardiovascular system at a glance", Aaronson and Ward, 3rd edition (2007), Blackwell publishing. Page 22 is what I'm looking at now. This is one of the books on the reading list of my medical school. Td1wk (talk) 19:36, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

 * I have used Pallister CJ and Watson MS (2011). Haematology (2nd Ed.) Scion Publishing. p. 341 as a source for the diagram at the top. This book says that the the classical pathways reflect forms of activation of coagulation that occur in vitro but not in vivo, and that the separate pathways do not exist in vivo. But it goes on to say "The classical concept of blood coagulation has been exceptionally important as a means of understanding the results of laboratory screening tests of coagulation". I think the concept of the classic pathways is still useful to the understanding of haemostasis. Graham Colm (talk) 19:54, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

 * OK, as long as we've made the difference apparent I think it could be beneficial to have both. From another reading of the article it seems this is the case. I'll not make any changes. Td1wk (talk) 20:18, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I will draw another diagram this weekend that illustrates the currently accepted in vivo pathway. I think it will be useful to have both. You are right, we need to make the differences between the in vitro classical pathways, which remain useful in the interpretation of laboratory tests, and what actually goes on in damaged tissues clear. This will require some skilled writing. I see this as a little like glycolysis – the pathway many of us have had to memorise - which is more complex and convoluted than it first appears, but still provides, in its simplified, textbook form, a good introduction and understanding of metabolism. Please allow me a little time to work on the diagram, then I suggest we revisit this discussion. Graham Colm (talk) 21:05, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I have finally found the time to draw the diagram; any comments? Graham Colm (talk) 22:11, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

vWF
Article requires modification in this aspect. vWF is not in the subendothelian layer, but is present in plasma, endothelian cells and trombocytes. The present statement is:

Damage to blood vessel walls exposes subendothelium proteins, most notably von Willebrand factor (vWF), present under the endothelium

Also citation is needed for most of the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.243.248.155 (talk) 12:23, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

 * sofixit JFW | T@lk  13:36, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

- vWF is in fact secreted into the subendothelial layer by endothelial cells. Source 69.80.36.114 (talk) 03:09, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Page name?
I was surprised to find myself on this page when I searched for "coagulation", since this such a specific instance of a pervasive phenomenon and it isn't a term I ever hear used to refer to blood clotting. I think "Blood clotting" is more natural, common, and recognizable, leaving "coagulation" to redirect to the general colloidal phenomenon (Flocculation). Joja lozzo  02:44, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Coagulation Pathways Theory
Extrinsic and intrinsic pathways theory is outdated. It reflects only the in-vitro overview of coagulation. In-vivo theory is based on Initiation, Amplification, Propagation and Localization. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Franzbischoff (talk • contribs) 14:36, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

 * I agree that there is an issue here. Please help us by identifying good sources (compatible with WP:MEDRS). JFW | T@lk  15:07, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

 * There is an issue, but it is not correct to say the in vitro pathway theory is outdated. It is still taught in universities (at least in the UK) and my students are tested on their knowledge of it. So it is important to cover this in our article. We have three diagrams in the article; the first shows the pathways in vivo, the second shows the so-called classical pathway and the third is helpful to  understanding the regulators. What we need are acceptable sources to help expand the article to include a fuller discourse on the in vivo theory. Graham Colm (talk) 06:50, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Thrombogenesis in fist line of Intro
Thrombogenesis is not a synonym for coagulation: Coagulation is a normal, appropriate, homeostatic and physiological response to injury resulting in attempted repair; while thrombogenesis is the initiation of an abnormal, pathological, disease state within a vessel resulting in partial to complete obstruction of blood flow. Pardon the redundant adjectives.

I'm going to delete the word, and if there is an objection, we can discuss it here.

```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by IiKkEe (talk • contribs) 01:37, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

cascade chart
The chart is somewhat outdated, in that it doe snot include HMWK and PK on the arrow from XII to XIIa; or HMWK and Ca++ on the arrow from XI to XIa; or that XI feeds back to XII and XII feeds back to the HMWK-PK complex; or that kallikrein (KK)activates XII.

There are more up to date charts out there (google coagulation cascade images) but I'm not enough of a computer person to know if permission is needed to import, how to get it if it is needed, and how to import. Anyone interested in pursuing this?

```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by IiKkEe (talk • contribs) 03:00, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

 * We can't use images that are copyrighted, but if could provide a link to an up-to-date image, I will see if I can amend our current chart(s). Graham Colm (talk) 08:37, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Coagulation (water treatment)
The new article covers the same topic Arthistorian1977 (talk) 20:11, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It does not. This article is about the haemostasis - blood clotting - a physiological process generally called "coagulation". Graham Beards (talk) 20:28, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

 * Graham Beards is correct. The water treatment article would sooner be merged into precipitation (chemistry) than into blood coagulation. Although they share the abstraction of fractions of liquids transforming to solids, they are quite different at levels below that on the abstract-to-concrete spectrum, because blood coagulation is a biologically active process involving protein synthesis and proteinolysis directed by cell signaling (rather than just a process of chemical bonding alone, whereas chemical precipitation is just the latter). Quercus solaris (talk) 18:36, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Platelets → Coagulation Cascade
Could somebody please explain me this step? (And maybe esplain it better in the article) --Impériale (talk) 20:44, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I am going to make this very easy, not use medical terms and such. When there is a breach in your vessels you bleed. Obviously it has to be stopped. So there is a series of steps, much like a dance, which is swift and orderly if everything is in working order. In essence the coagulation cascade creates a "net" of fibrin. If all is working, the platelets do their bit - think of it as their developing protrusions on their exterior. The net catches on the protrusions, red cells get caught in the net, the final steps of the cascade take place and create a clot.

If anything is missing, too little, too much, out of step - disaster. Degree depending on what happens, at what point. Of course all is very much more complex and involves genetics as well as other aspects but you don't want to know any of that. Hope this helps.74.12.125.129 (talk)! —Preceding undated comment added 17:08, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Final common pathway subsection needs clarification
I'm having a difficult time understanding the transition in this paragraph after the second sentence. I am not sure why thrombin being present has to do with the separation of the coag cascade into two pathways. Is it saying that the classical separation into two pathways is not warranted since thrombin is already present? is it saying that one depends on the other one? I would like to see a better transition that unite the first and second paragraph. Thanks

Quote: The division of coagulation in two pathways is mainly artificial, it originates from laboratory tests in which clotting times were measured after the clotting was initiated by glass (intrinsic pathway) or by thromboplastin (a mix of tissue factor and phospholipids). In fact thrombin is present from the very beginning, already when platelets are making the plug. Thrombin has a large array of functions, not only the conversion of fibrinogen to fibrin, the building block of a hemostatic plug. In addition, it is the most impor...

Cleverwater (talk) 20:03, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Misleading page title
"Coagulation" is a more general term of colloid chemistry; though this page tells about only "Blood Coagulation", which is a specific sub-type of coagulation, and a complex process.

So please change the page name as Coagulation (Blood) or Coagulation of blood or Blood coagulation

Actually 2 alternative things could be done; however one of the following alternative will have massive side effects. So out of following two; I've chosen second one.

Option 1- Include the general aspect of coagulation of colloid chemistry. (And too, yet we don't have a single page on general aspect of coagulation; rather a lot of related fragmented page Flocculation,Particle aggregation,Syneresis (chemistry),Agglutination (biology) etc, lacking the whole picture about agglutination. The section Colloid (permalink) of page Colloid, containing the word coagulation, also gives very little place to elaborate about different aspects of coagulation)

Side effect- This will pressurize to reduce detailing on blood's Coagulation mechanism; that would be very bad. (So it is better to build a separate page for general aspects of coagulation without pressurizing this page)

Option-2- Let the page as it was- just change the name of the page as "Coagulation (Blood)" or "Coagulation of blood" or "blood coagulation".

Side effect- Pre-existing hyperlinks that was directed to page name "Coagulation", would become non-functional.

Solution- Not very difficult; building a new page with title "Coagulation (Blood)" (or "Coagulation of blood") and moving the content of this (currently "Coagulation" ) there; and thereafter leaving the page "Coagulation" as a redirect to new page "Coagulation (Blood)".

-

Now it depends on community.

RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 11:31, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Adding a more comprehensive coagulation cascade
Figure 1 from this article seems like a good addition: https://ascpt.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1038/clpt.2009.87

Guidelines on tests
UK BSH 10.1111/bjh.16776 JFW | T@lk  10:04, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Merge proposal
I propose merging Clotting factors into Coagulation, specifically in the 'List_of_coagulation_factors' section. The "Clotting Factors" page includes a table without additional context, and the information is mostly replicated on the "Coagulation" page, so there shouldn't be any issues. Significa liberdade (talk) 01:40, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

 * @Netha Hussain (WikiCred), I'd love to hear from you, given your work on the Clotting factors page. Significa liberdade (talk) 01:42, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Merge to Coagulation per nom. The new columns can be easily merged to the table present there. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 04:31, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Merge : Completely agree. I had not seen the list in the coagulation page wheen I created clotting factors. Now I see that the two tables could be merged --Netha Hussain (WikiCred) (talk) 09:34, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Agree and restore the redirect at Clotting factors. - Graham Beards (talk) 10:57, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Merge. I created the article in 2004 as a redirect, and the content is best merged. Clotting factor (singular) already redirects to coagulation. JFW | T@lk  12:35, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Agree – Understanding the coagulation cascade involves all of the different factors. The table gives the reader a source available at a glance, not a new page. – S. Rich (talk) 00:32, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ Klbrain (talk) 20:44, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Coagulation


text:
Kaohsiung International Airport

Kaohsiung International Airport  is a medium-sized international airport in Siaogang District, Kaohsiung, Taiwan, also known as Siaogang Airport. With nearly seven million passengers in 2018, it is the second busiest airport in Taiwan, after Taoyuan. The airport has a single east–west runway and two terminals: one international and one domestic.

Early years
Originally built as an Imperial Japanese Army Air Squadron base in 1942 during the Japanese rule era of Taiwan, Kaohsiung Airport retained its military purpose when the Republic of China government first took control of Taiwan in 1945. Due to the need for civil transportation in southern Taiwan, it was demilitarised and converted into a domestic civil airport in 1965, and further upgraded to the status an international airport in 1969, with regular international flights starting in 1972.

During the 1970s and 1980s, direct international flights were rare at the airport, with Hong Kong and Tokyo being the only two destinations. Since the early 1990s, dedicated connection flights to Taipei were inaugurated, bringing convenience to the south as Taipei had more international flights. These contributed to a steady growth in airport passenger and flight movements. A new terminal dedicated to international flights was opened in 1997.

In summer 1998, EVA Air opened a direct flight between Kaohsiung and Los Angeles, but it was discontinued only after six months. Northwest Airlines operated the Kaohsiung–Osaka route from 1999 to 2001, and the Tokyo route from 2002 to 2003. These two routes were separately suspended due to the low load caused by the September 11 attacks and SARS outbreak.

Development since the 2000s
After Taiwan High Speed Rail, the high speed rail line that runs between Taipei and Kaohsiung along Taiwan's western plains, began operation in January 2007, Kaohsiung Airport suffered large reduction in passenger and flight movements. The convenience of Taiwan High Speed Rail and record-high costs of jet fuel were eating up most load factors to Taipei, causing the eventual cessation of flights between cities on Taiwan's western plains. The last domestic flight between Taipei Songshan and Kaohsiung landed on 31 August 2012. The dedicated international connecting flight between Kaohsiung and Taoyuan stopped on 1 July 2017, after over thirty years of operation.

Kaohsiung Airport has added direct flights to China's Hangzhou Xiaoshan International Airport, and has since added flights to Shenzhen, Shanghai, Fuzhou, Changsha, Beijing, Kunming, Zhengzhou, Guilin, Qingdao and Chengdu.

Since 2009, the number of passengers has been recovering due to the opening of regular scheduled cross-strait flights to China, as well as the rise of low cost carriers.

Terminals
Kaohsiung International Airport has two terminals – domestic and international. They are connected by a corridor.

The domestic terminal was built in 1965 when the facility was first opened as a civilian airport. Through the years, it has undergone small expansions and improvements, but jet bridges have never been added. (The domestic terminal primarily serves smaller planes that do not require jet bridges.) The current domestic terminal building also served international flights before the opening of the new international terminal. The international terminal opened in 1997 and all gates have jet bridges. It serves all international and cross-strait flights to China. The floor area for the international terminal is three times more than that of the domestic one.

Accidents and incidents

 * On 15 February 1969, a Douglas C-47B B-241 of Far Eastern Air Transport was damaged beyond economic repair in an accident at Kaohsiung International Airport.

 * On 27 June 1989, a Cessna 404 Titan of Formosa Airlines on its way to Wang-an, Penghu crashed into nearby Cianjhen District streets shortly after takeoff. All 12 people on board were killed; there were no ground casualties.

 * On 23 July 2014, TransAsia Airways Flight 222 took off from Kaohsiung International Airport bound for Magong. The ATR 72-500 crashed into buildings during a second attempt to land in bad weather. Of the 58 people on board, only 10 survived. 5 people on the ground were injured and the crash caused a fire involving two homes.

Ground transportation

 * Rail: The airport is served by Kaohsiung Rapid Transit at, providing access to Taiwan Railway at  and Taiwan High Speed Rail at.
 * Coach: There is a one-way coach from Kaohsiung International Airport to Fangliao and Kenting.
 * Local bus: Both terminals are served by local buses
 * Car rental: a car rental centre is located between the terminals, near the airport bus stop.
 * Taxis: Yellow taxis are available. A roaming taxi stop is at right side of International Terminal. There are also 2 Queuing taxi stops at the airport, one is at left side of International Terminal, another one is at the left side of Domestic Terminal.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Kaohsiung International Airport


text: User talk:69.105.249.137

title: User talk:69.105.249.137


text:
Walhalla

Walhalla is the German form of Old Norse Valhöll, which is commonly anglicised as Valhalla. It may refer to:

 * Walhalla (memorial), a hall of fame in Donaustauf, Bavaria, Germany.

Australia

 * Walhalla, Victoria, Australia
 * Electoral district of Walhalla, a former electoral district of the Victorian Legislative Assembly

United States

 * Walhalla, California, former name of Gualala, California
 * Walhalla, Michigan
 * Walhalla Township, Lake of the Woods County, Minnesota
 * Walhalla, North Dakota
 * Walhalla Ravine, in the Clintonville neighborhood of Columbus, Ohio
 * Walhalla, South Carolina
 * Walhalla, Texas

Other uses

 * 1260 Walhalla, a minor planet
 * Hotel Walhalla, Osnabrück, Lower Saxony, Germany
 * Walhalla (film), a 1995 Dutch thriller
 * Walhalla IP, a former football stadium in Gothenburg, Sweden
 * Walhalla-orden, a Finnish secret society founded 1783
 * "Walhalla", a track by the Dutch trance act Gouryella
 * Walhalla (typeface)

title: Walhalla


text: User talk:68.232.197.111

title: User talk:68.232.197.111


text:
Broderie perse

Broderie perse (French for "Persian embroidery") is a style of appliqué which uses printed motifs from one fabric to create a design on a background fabric. It was popular in the late 18th century and early 19th centuries. The technique could be considered an early form of puzzle piecing.

Description
Broderie perse can be done with any printed fabric on any ground, but it originally was worked with Chintz type fabrics, often imported from India. Chintz typically has clearly defined, separated motifs, which were cut out and invisibly applied onto the ground fabric. Using motifs from the expensive, highly-prized fabric was a way to make the patterned fabric last longer. The typical intention was to create a scene from the motifs, but the decoration could also be random. Because the scale of the different motifs was not always considered, there might be a naive appearance to Broderie perse.

Process
Designs are cut out, leaving a small, even amount of fabric around the outside of the design. This is turned under and the whole design was tacked onto the background fabric. Final stitching would be done with a slipstitch, herringbone, or decorative blanket stitch.

Uses
The resulting fabric was often made into bedspreads, either unlined for summer or quilted for winter. They were typically saved for special occasions, such as guest beds.

Examples
A noted example of Broderie perse is the central panel of the Rajah Quilt which was made by women as they were transported to Tasmania in 1841. The quilt was rediscovered in 1989 and is now in Australia.

Books
"Broderie Perse: The Elegant Quilt" by Barbara W. Barber ISBN 0-89145-875-1

"Flowers In Applique: Fast and Simple Quilting with Printed-Motif Fabrics" by Judy Severson ISBN 0-8442-2658-0

title: Broderie perse


text:
Talk:Temporal Cold War

Procyon V
The Federation is present at Procyon V, because the NCC-1701J was there. Therefore, the Federation had at least one ship there. --68.158.113.96 02:00, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

Defiant/Mirror Universe?
It's not clear what is being referenced in the note about the Tholians, Suluban, and Earth fighting over a future ship, but to the best of my knowledge the Tholians were only seen in the mirror universe, in In The Mirror, Darkly. Can a mirror universe event really factor in to the Temporal Cold War? In fact, I don't remember the Suluban being involved in that episode, and since the interspace was never identified as an effect of the Temporal Cold War, I can't see how this would be involved at all. --The reverend 03:08, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

 * The Tholians are definately in the "regular" Star Trek universe. Of Enterprise, see episode No.42 of Future Tense of the Second Season, wherein which Suliban and Tholian alike are fighting for this one Time-travel pod and then there's always the classic first appearance, obviously.
 * So... It's Future Tense they're referring to..
 * Feel free to change it since alot of these articles pale in comparison to alot of Memory Alpha's stuff. DrWho42 04:30, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Post-Federation Humanity
A note on the recent edits said "They never say the Federation ceases to exist; just that it expands to include more members. And it's not "humanity" alone; that's quite a human-centric view; there's a lot of interbreeding etc."

 * I dispute this statement. In "Shockwave, Part II", Daniels shows Archer an area on Earth where a statue in memory of the Federation once stood.  This would seem to strongly imply that the UFP no longer exists in Daniels' time.  As for "humanity", I agree; what is a good alternative?  "Alpha & Beta Quadrant post-Federation authorities"?--StAkAr Karnak 02:01, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Hey, if "the United Federation of Planets" dissovled in favor of some larger "Galactic Federation of Planets", that doesn't mean the Federation "ceased to exist" it means it expanded beyond its current form. Besides, there are many "monuments" to the United States, etc.---Ricimer, April 21, 2005

 * I believe that the Earth Daniels shows Archer is a result of Archer being suspended because of the explosion Enterprise caused in "Shockwaves" and not the future Daniels comes from. Why should Daniels have trouble getting Archer back if it was Daniels future. Correct me if i'm wrong.--Nexusu

Sphere Builders
Wait... The Sphere Builders are *outside* the Temporal Cold War. Daniels didn't know about them, and they're outside the universe. IT's an invasion, not part of the Temporal Cold War. 132.205.15.43 01:52, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Daniels did not know all of the details of the TCW; he didn't even know the identity of the Suliban Cabal's leader. I think the relevent issue is how the TCW is defined.  Has Daniels given a definition in any episode?  Do the Sphere Builders fit within the scope of this?  Since Future Guy and Daniels both knew about the Xindi, there may be a TCW connection.--StAkAr Karnak 23:37, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

They really did a poor job of pulling all of the plot threads together, i.e. they never explained why Silik and Future Guy helped Archer in "The Expanse", etc. They really just threw this mess together. However, it was clear that the Sphere Builders/Guardians couldn't time travel, but could make predictions about the future, seeing alternate future timelines. The reason they tricked the Xindi to attack Earth was because they knew that their own people would lose an invasion in the 26th century. ---Ricimer, May 5, 2005

Didn't they send some reptilian Xindi back in time to expose a virus to earth? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.163.73.100 (talk • contribs) 21:07 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes. — [[Image:Flag_of_Ottawa%2C_Ontario.svg|20px]] [[Image:Flag of Ontario.svg|20px]] [[Image:Flag of Canada.svg|20px]] nathanrdotco m (Got something to say? Say it.) 07:51, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

UPN forcing thereof thereon....
From what I read from a forum, UPN forced this storyline on Star Trek: Enterprise, since they felt a prequel of Star Trek simply wasn't enough in their light-sensitive organs...

Oh, and bring up a personal note.. I liked the idea of Time War or Wars, but this story-arc definitely wasn't done justice. DrWho42 00:02, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Controversy
An anon insists on adding the following text at the end of the Controversy section:

"In addition, for example Yesterday's Enterprise (TNG) has been rated as one of the best episodes ever. Apparently fans have no problem with time travel episodes, especially if they are sophisticated or touch on deep philosophical issues, but even if they have various 'holes' or could have been better written. In fact the real potential of really smart time travel episodes has hardly even been scratched yet, even though for example Storm Front (especially part II) touches indeed on some very sophisticated and deep philosophical points and is actually one of the best so far."

It's my opinion that this is clearly editorial commentary and POV. I've now removed it twice, but since it's likely that it will be restored again and I don't want to get into a revert war, I've copied it here for discussion and I am asking other editors to weigh in. I don't know how heavily this page is trafficked by the general populace, so if the text is restored and there's no commentary here, I will most likely leave the text and just slap an NPOV-section template on it until some other interested editors can take a look. Comments, concerns, criticism, etc. are welcome. --MikeJ9919 08:21, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

 * Quite frankly, I'd rather remove or reword it.. It makes an assumption on what fans like or dislike, being a bit repetitive, and obviously POV when the writer states that they think Storm Front is among the best (especially pointing out Part II). DrWho42 02:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Alright, with some help from Nathan I've made a pass at NPOV. It's important to note that that there are really three separate problems with the section: POV, cited sources, and original research. That's just as a matter of policy...it's also relatively poorly written. In addition to the original line I had retained, I've retained and cited the Storm Front line. I think the "Apparently fans..." line is unsalvageable unless someone can find a source, because it appears to be original research. The Yesterday's Enterprise line might be worth retaining. It's relatively easy to cite its ranking. However, considering that episode included the return of Tasha Yar, that complicates its ranking, and I'm wondering if including the line wouldn't tilt the whole thing in favor of an argument not necessarily supported by the sources, which would in my opinion be original research. That said, I would not have a huge objection to restoring a cited version of the Yesterday's Enterprise line.--MikeJ9919 06:20, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Just as a note, the anon has now blindly reverted, removing all the revisions and the NPOV tag in the process.--MikeJ9919 18:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Response: I have not blindly reverted - I added the words "This shows that" before "Apparently fans", since it is a conclusion based on the quoted data and apparently this was not clear before. Anyway, this paragraph is excellent and informative and well balanced – both giving credit for the good stuff and at the same time also pointing out what still needs to be improved, and it also balances the previous two paragraphs, which would otherwise show only a one-sided view of the Cold Temporal War theme. It is much more exact and informative than the castrated single sentence that you tried to convert it into. I challenge anyone who really understands deeply the philosophical complexities of time travel to prove me wrong. In addition, this paragraph is based on facts, and in fact the previous two paragraphs make assumptions without showing the references that support their view or indicating what percent of the fans felt that way, for example in the words “Large segments of the fanbase was [<-grammatical error] disgruntled at the entire storyline when its ad hoc story development started to become apparent”, and “the unpopularity among fans of the Temporal Cold War…". Also, by the way, the fact that Yesterday's Enterprise brought back Tasha Yar certainly does not explain the high ranking of this episode or indicate any skewing of the rank. If it were so, other episodes with her would also have to get much higher ranks. -- Yaron
 * A point must be clarified. Encyclopedias do not include commentary on their content. After "cite needed" you added "and exact numbers are needed and what exactly did they say". That is appropriate to this Discussion page, not the article. I've reverted it. I don't disagree with you on that first "Controversy" paragraph...it should be revised, as well. However, you also include editorial commentary on Storm Front, citing it as "one of the best so far". This is not a fan discussion board. At the very least, there needs to be some kind of published review or ranking to bolster your characterization. I attempted to do at least that, but you removed that citation. The ONLY evidence you provide for your opinion of the fan response to time travel stories is one set of questionable rankings (rated by roughly 100 people) that you then tie together to make a grand argument. Verifiable evidence would consist of an article in a major (though, given the narrow nature of the topic, even minor would suffice) publication making the assertion that fans did not reject the Temporal Cold War, and are in fact hungry for more, given reasons X, Y, and Z. In short, facts are welcome, but they must be verifiable, as a matter of policy. Your uncited opinion is not verifiable evidence. (Oh, and though the Tasha thing is minor, I tend to think that when a major character returns in what would be her only further appearance in the series as Tasha, it raises interest...but that would be an opinion on my part, which is why it won't go in the article.)--MikeJ9919 08:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

 * Response: if it is a rating by a 100 people it is enough for a strong statistical value with a very small error margin, whereas the previous two paragraphs don't give any evidence at all. Perhaps it was just 2 or 3 loud people who did not like the Temporal Cold War and expressed their opinion in some fan discussion board and on this whoever wrote the previous 2 paragraphs based his or her opinion? In short, whatever you have to say about my paragraph it is much better supported than any support shown for the previous two paragraphs. As I said, the previous two paragraphs should indeed quote whatever references they have, and should indeed indicate the percent of fans who felt like that and explain more exactly what they actually said, otherwise these two paragraphs might be very misleading. As for my characterization of Storm Front, it is very easy to measure its level of sophistication objectively, for example by counting the number of deep philosophical points that are raised there and counting various other easily quantify-able factors, which make it outstanding compared to almost any other time travel episode seen so far. --Yaron —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.94.86.115 (talk • contribs) 17:36 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * You seem once again to be under the belief that I don't agree with you regarding the previous two paragraphs. They are weakly supported, and should be referenced. However, the ONE reference you provide does not constitute "well-referenced", especially since it is not verifiable (before you argue that it is, see the policy page for the established criteria) and your argument as a whole is original research, both of which are against policy. Therefore, regardless of your feelings on the previous two paragraphs, yours must be cited or removed. I will not object if you feel it necessary to remove the two paragraphs to which you object.--MikeJ9919 00:53, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Now I would object. After some relatively easy research, I found support for almost the entire first paragraph and have cited it, mostly from interviews with Coto and Braga themselves. I've also (in my opinion) vastly improved the citations in "your" paragraph, but cut out your editorial theorizing. The opinion of other editors would be welcome.--MikeJ9919 04:55, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The interviews with Coto and Braga for which you added the links don't say anything about any fanbase "recjection" of the temporal cold war, so my above criticism of that statement still stands. This claimed fanbase "rejection" does not show any refrence and without indicating the actual precentage of fans who felt that way it might have been indeed just a few loud fans. And quoting a single opinion of one guy about "Storm front" has no weight for showing that fans did not like it, which is exactly my point. -- Yaron

Have you looked at the no original research policy? I think you're still not understanding a fundamental point, which is that the argument you're making (assertions about various episodes and Dr. Who and Yesterday's Enterprise, etc., etc.), when used to put forward a grand theory that is not directly stated, is original research. Compare the following: "'If Jones's claim that he always consulted the original sources is false, this would be contrary to the practice recommended in the Chicago Manual of Style as well as Harvard's student writing manual, both of which require citation of the source actually consulted. Neither manual calls violations of this rule on citing original sources 'plagiarism.' Instead, plagiarism is defined as using a source's information, ideas, words, or structure without citing them.'" "'This shows that apparently fans have no problem with time travel episodes, especially if they are sophisticated or touch on deep philosophical issues, but even if they have various 'holes' or could have been better written.'"

The first is directly from the policy as an example of original research, which is banned in Wikipedia. The second is your original research. Let's take this to the extreme....this means that even if you're right you may NOT include that conclusion in the article unless it has been published in a forum that meets the verifiability guidelines. I've now made a good-faith effort to incorporate your arguments and include your rankings, even though I think them incredibly subject to small-sample bias. I just added the Nielsen ratings, which (though they have their own problems) are far more widely accepted than the tv.com online viewer poll. They show a drop in viewership of more than 26%. Your response is to remove all my changes except those that don't challenge your theory, and then add more editorial commentary. I've tried bringing in outside editors, and they've generally agreed (see DrWho42 above) that your version is unacceptable. If you revert again, my only recourse is an RFC.--MikeJ9919 14:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

 * Hi Mike. First of all, you still have not dealt with the main point, that no evidence and no numbers have been given to justify the statement that the fanbase supposedly rejected the Temporal Cold War. Secondly, looking at the Nielsen numbers in the new link that you added, all I see is a general cumulative decline in the number of viewers of Enterprise in general over time. There is no general indication that the Temporal Cold War episodes had a lower number of viewers than other episodes at around the same time, and in fact for example the Nielsen numbers in episodes after Cold Front are considerably lower than the number who viewed Cold Front, and for example the number of people who viewed Shockwave I & II was significantly larger than the episodes immediately before or after it, and it can be said as well that a few episodes AFTER the Temporal Cold War theme has ended at the beginning of season 4, the number of viewers went down even lower to a low of 1.4-1.5. So the Nielsen numbers in this case cannot be used for the argument you are trying to make. --Yaron.
 * And yet you, once again, have forgotten that I am not arguing for that point. I have made no attempt to directly address fan unpopularity because I have found no evidence for it. I stumbled on this page, and your edit was the most blatantly questionable material I found. If you want to remove the statement that the fanbase hated the TCW, FINE. But it would be a moot point since I just did. Since it's become clear that you cannot compartmentalize arguments, and insist on dealing with the whole thing at once, I've removed the statements that the fanbase hated the TCW. I've restricted myself to verifiable statements, like Coto thought it was unpopular among fans, and wanted to boost ratings. I've provided critical reviews of the Cold War. WITHOUT reverting the whole thing, please feel free to add some positive reviews. I've provided a balanced (pro and con) view of Storm Front, though the ratings issue persists. I do not directly link the drop in ratings with the TCW, just state that it happened during the episodes they were ending the arc, and persisted throughout the season. In short, I've spent way, way too much time on such a minor article. I've removed the object of your argument. If you still insist on arguing or directly restoring your text or editorializing further, I'll take this to RFC for original research.--MikeJ9919 16:36, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * So on what do you base the conclusion that: "The perceived unpopularity of the Temporal Cold War arc led to changes" and "It is believed that Coto ended the arc because he felt it unpopular among fans"? -- Yaron
 * You are correct. I was under the impression those were verifiable, I was wrong. They have been removed and replaced with direct Coto quotes. Personally, I think he was just sparing Berman and Braga's feelings, but my opinions are not welcome in this article. Are we done now?--MikeJ9919 17:55, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

This article's been RFCed. My last revision was my last attempt at consensus, and you've since mostly reverted that. I hate to give up on trying with a fellow editor, but if I concede anymore, this article would become a blatant violation of at least three policies: verifiability,original research, and neutral point of view. That I cannot concede. No matter how much I bend, you absolutely insist on pushing your POV. I object to two things. First, your addition of "...but there is no indication that the drop in number of viewers had anything to do with...". You are trying to say that the absence of evidence proves something. That is a violation of neutral point of view. If there is an absence of evidence, there should be exactly that...an absence of evidence. No comment one way or the other. Anything else is editorializing. If other editors feel differently, I could possibly be persuaded to drop this objection. However, I cannot believe that the following addition -- "In addition, for example Star Trek: The Next Generation's Yesterday's Enterprise has been rated as one of the best episodes of that series, according to both TV.com polling and the selection of viewer favorites for the TNN marathon of popular episodes . This shows that apparently fans have no problem with time travel episodes, especially if they are sophisticated or touch on deep philosophical issues, but even if they have various 'holes' or could have been better written. In fact the real potential of really smart time travel episodes has hardly even been scratched yet, eventhough for example Storm Front (especially part II) touches indeed on some very sophisticated and deep philosophical points and is actually one of the best so far." -- does not qualify as original research. No matter how much I move things around and attempt to appease you, you will not let this section drop. As I've previously demonstrated, your assertions follow the precise "synthesis" pattern outlined as a violation on the no original research policy page. I cannot be convinced that they are not original research. That said, I will always abide by editor consensus, and if several others commenting here as a result of the RFC disagree with me, I will of course allow this version to stand. However, I recommend for editor comment and consensus a permanent reversion of this section to this diff:. I believe it to be the most neutrally balanced, the most verifiable, and the one with a minimum of editorial commentary. Thank you, all.--MikeJ9919 22:54, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

 * Hi Mike. "No indication" means that the number of viewers data does not show that the drop in viewers is related to the Temporal Cold War. Would you rather say "No evidence"? It is the same semantically. Anyway, adding this is in fact quite balanced, otherwise people who read this without seeing the actual data might get the wrong impression that mentioning the drop in the number of viewers in this context is because it is somehow related to the Temporal Cold War storyline. As for the 3 sentences I restored: The first one - about Yesterday's Enterprise - is exactly as you yourself phrased it earlier, and you had no problem with it that way. The next sentence is a valid simple logical conclusion from the data quoted in this paragraph, and the third sentence can be easily verified by objective analysis of the episode's content. Altogether this paragraph is well balanced and balances the entire controversy section. You have done a great job in considerably improving the Controversy section compared to what it was before, but there is no reason to be obsessed with the few well justified words that I added. -- Yaron

Do you not understand the meaning of "original research"? The reasons you gave for the validity of your second and third sentences VIOLATE wikipedia policy.--This unsigned comment was added by 138.47.42.4.

 * These sentences are objective and based on the citations given and are verifiable and there is no reason to remove the paragraph.

If you are using statistics to bolster an argument for audience reception of a television show, only the television ratings from Nielsen Media Research should do. A link to a complete listing of these has been posted by me within the Star Trek discussion area (because someone claimed Seven of Nine increased Voyager's ratings). I can tell you right now, in terms of audience popularity -there was nothing special about Storm Front.--Nephandus 19:21, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Outside comment (RfC)
I've read the above and this version of the article, and checked the sources quoted in the disputed paragraph. My opinion (without commenting on the technical quality of the paragraph):
 * The quoted information is not at all notable, representing a grand total of 68 voters/contributors at tv.com. As such the entire paragraph constitutes original research. Reliability and verifiability do not come into play here since the information is not notable/representative.
 * But even if the basic information were fully sourced, the reasoning of the disputed paragraph would remain quite shaky. I suspect it may be impossible to find notable quotes from reliable/verifiable sources in support of this line of reasoning.

(The shaky reasoning is this: the tv.com ratings, if at all notable and representative, or attributable to a notable "entity", roughly represent the opinion of the remaining viewers. The paragraph ignores this basic fact, and simply attributes the same opinion to the part of the audience that is no longer there.)

 * This is called statistics. 68 voters are a fairly representative sample with a small margin of error. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.68.62.121 (talk • contribs).
 * This is an appeal to authority. Just assume for a sec that other editors here don't know statistics from static - how are they going to judge your expertise? For that reason, Wikipedia articles must cite verifiable, reliable sources. AvB ÷ talk  15:14, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * This kind of argument is unbelievable - you are ignoring here basic principles of statistics. So you would regard any web page written by anybody as a verifiable source but ignore a sample of 68 viewers from a respectable source such as tv.com???! As I said, 68 is typically considered quite a reliable sample with a small margin of error. Certainly better than quoting two or three random web pages written by anybody -- Yaron, June 18 2006.

 * Yaron is correct - the above argument is ridiculuous. --Gen99 07:48, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * First, Yaron has been putting forward the tv.com ranking as if they are the Holy Grail. If that's so, then they say Storm Front sucked...it's 8.1 and 8.2 don't even garner it a spot in the top 50 of Enterprise episodes. Secondly, Yaron is not correct, seeing as 68 is by no means a reliable sample size. With the caveat that this could be a grossly skewed sample and therefore any analysis is questionable (but a warning, Yaron...if you jump on that, you have to admit that we should throw out the tv.com rankings entirely for being a skewed sample), we do a quick-and-dirty confidence interval calculation using the applet here. We don't actually know the standard deviation, but given the apparent distribution of scores given on the page (good, great, superb, and perfect are 1 point from each other), 1 is not unreasonable. This gives us a margin of error of .26 and 8.1 - .26 puts us well into "good" territory. Once again, any statistical analysis is dependent on a random sample, and this is anything but.--MikeJ9919 19:45, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

 * You have no indication that the tv.com sample is not representative! And now for a little correct calculation. I was less lazy and ran the actual statistical analysis on the 98 tv.com vote scores: So we DO know the Standard Deviation and it is 0.662. And now let's look at the meaning of the scores of the main Temporal Cold War episodes (these are the only episodes where Daniels appears):
 * Cold Front (8.6) is top 34%
 * Shockwave I (9.1) is top 9%
 * Shockwave II (8.6) is top 34%
 * Future Tense (9.2) is top 3%
 * The Expanse (9.1) is top 9%
 * Carpenter Street (7.9) is top 73%
 * Azati Prime (9.3) and Zero Hour (9.3) are the two episodes with the HIGHEST scores out of the 98 episodes.
 * Storm Front I (8.2) is top 53%
 * Storm Front II (8.1) is top 58%
 * So altogether on average the main Temporal Cold War episodes are way above average, and certainly this does not support the assumption that fans have rejected the Temporal Cold War storyline. -- Yaron, June 20, 2006
 * and you have no indication that it IS representative! Clearly some editors (myself and Avb at least) feel it is not. Also, it's not possible to calculate the standard deviation, as (like the true mean) that is an unknown value. It's likely you calculated the sample variance. How did you do that, btw? I was unable to find a breakdown of votes by the exact value each person assigned. Notably, in the small pie chart that I did find, everything besides the most frequent votes was grouped into "Other".--MikeJ9919 06:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I recommend to re-insert the disputed paragraph and tag it as in need of sources. This allows other editors to look up sources and helps RfC respondents assess the claims. Consensus can determine for how long the paragraph can remain unsourced. Personally I would say a week or so in view of its implausibility. If, however, better sources are provided, the paragraph will still have to be edited so that it does not make assertions not supported by the sources. AvB ÷ talk  21:48, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I concur...I have no problem with letting the paragraph stay for about a week, allowing editors time to dig up sources supporting the actual arguments supplied.--MikeJ9919 18:34, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

June 18:
 * No justified new arguments have been given for this violent removal of almost all of the controversy section. --Yaron, June 18, 2006
 * No new arguments are needed, Yaron. This has always been a matter about policy, not content. To your credit, you pointed out a number of important POV and verifiability issues. However, you absolutely refuse to budge where your personal point of view is concerned. Despite numerous breaches of verifiability, original research, and NPOV, you insist on restoring unacceptable text. With respect to your point of view, policy does not require us to convince you. It requires consensus, which does not allow the stubborn resistance of one editor to override the opinion of a supermajority of editors on the article. I say one editor because, though I am open to rebuttal, your identical contribution histories seem to indicate that you and Gen99 are the same person.--MikeJ9919 19:45, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * How do you come to the conclusion that Gen99 and I have identical contribution histories? --Yaron, June 20, 2006
 * From here and here, we can see that your accounts had their first edit within one day of each other (obviously, you were editing anonymously before that, but the accounts were created at roughly the same time). You both have under 30 edits (Gen99 has only 6). You have both edited the same articles and ONLY those articles. Gen99, with no prior knowledge (unless he has been lurking extensively), no prior participation in the discussion, and no actual editing of the article itself, used this opportunity to proffer his opinion on a long-ongoing discussion, one which just happened to be entirely in support of you. Though this does not rise to the high bar required for Checkuser, there can really be no stronger evidence short of that. In fact, given the strong evidence, I've submitted this to the admins for review.--MikeJ9919 06:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * A sockpuppet case has been opened against Yaron. All interested users may comment here. If I'm wrong, Yaron, then I'm very sorry, but the evidence is (in my opinion) very strong, so we'll see how it pans out.--MikeJ9919 07:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I just checked what came of your RfC-plus-editwar here. Guys, calling arguments by someone nice enough to respond to an RfC "ridiculous" is bordering on a personal attack.

Whatever gave you the idea that I would consider just any web page a reliable source? Far from it, if you would check the links I gave, you would discover the policies I adhere to, policies you seem to find ridiculous. Anyway, if my policy-based arguments are as ridiculous as you say they are, it should be easy for you to cite reliable, verifiable sources that support your view. So far you haven't and I am increasingly of the opinion that you are trolling.

Apart from being an unprovoked attack, the above also looks like bait to get the statistician in me out of hiding. But I won't bite and make the same mistake you do: you won't see me argue from authority here. Just reread what I wrote. Also note that the burden of proof is squarely on the shoulders of those who want to keep the disputed text. Those who want it deleted do not have to prove or disprove anything. You, on the other hand, need to provied acceptable citations, otherwise this is the end of the disputed text no matter how much original research you post on this talk page, no matter how ridiculous you find policy, no matter how deeply you believe you know more about statistics than I do. AvB ÷ talk  23:34, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Forgive me if I find again what is going on here as unbelievable or at least distorted. Here you (as a group) are attacking me personally again and again (making various statements about me personally)(The Wikipedia Instructions in the above reference to personal attack state: "Comment on content, not on the contributor"), while my arguments were based entirely on content and not on specific contributors. What I found as absurd in the entire line of the above argument ( - and especially in the sentence "The shaky reasoning is this: the tv.com ratings, if at all notable and representative, or attributable to a notable "entity", roughly represent the opinion of the remaining viewers. The paragraph ignores this basic fact, and simply attributes the same opinion to the part of the audience that is no longer there" - ) is that it seemed to indicate that polling results from dozens of viewers in a respectable site such as tv.com (which eventhough limited, are still a sufficiently large sample and carry statistically much more weight than single web pages written by anybody) are not good enough for a Wikipedia article, but harsh statements which had no basis at all whatsoever were there before and nobody seemed to care, and later single web pages written by anybody were apparently considered to carry more weight than the tv.com polling.
 * When I first saw this Wikipedia article the controversy section was filled with totally unsupported assertions (such as the fun base supposed “rejection” of the Temporal Cold War, the "fact" that Storm Front was widely ridiculed, etc.), and I was amazed that this totally contradicted the tv.com ratings and didn't seem to make sense. After we started this discussion MikeJ9919's corrections indeed threw away some of the unsupported stuff, but MikeJ9919 usually added to each new sentence a single reference to a normal web page which could have been written by anybody as a support for that sentence (except the interview with the producers which was apparently a more reliable source and except the Nielsen numbers of viewers of course). And yet you (and I don't mean AvB specifically) ignored all that and continued attacking the only paragraph that was based on much more than just a few normal web pages - i.e. on polling of dozens of fans. And even then for example the sentence that said that Storm Front was widely ridiculed remained there without any reference and nobody seemed to care. So I assumed that whoever left it there must have known something. But later I decided to check that too through Google search and I found again no support. So If I hadn’t interfered this article would have remained much worse. You sure make one feel welcome for trying to make contributions to Wikipedia…  -- Yaron, June 24, 2006

 * First of all, I have given an outside opinion, which counts heavily in what should at some point grow into a WP:CONSENSUS here on this talk page. This is one of the goals of the Wikipedia RfC process: enlarge the pool of editors to help build a consensus. My input does not count heavily because I am a senior scientist with research level statistical knowledge and skills, or any other reason that would count outside of Wikipedia. It counts heavily because it's how we do things here on Wikipedia. You clearly want to contribute, so you are most welcome to stick around and help build the encyclopedia, our gift to the world. However, in view of the opposition to some of your edits here, I encourage you to check out what I'm saying. You can read all about it on the various policy pages and get an appreciation of Wikipedia practice by observing more experienced editors at work or by also editing articles where you do not have a strong personal opinion. Also see the Welcome notice on your talk page. By the way, I don't have to give an opinion, and frankly the subject does not interest me at all. All I'm interested in is helping build the encyclopedia, which also involves explaining things to newbies without hurting their feelings too much. It does not involve accepting ridicule.
 * Secondly, the reason why I find 68 opinions hopelessly non-notable in Wikipedia terms is not a statistical one. If you want to use statistics to support your viewpoint, viewing the 65 + 3 opinions as a sample, you cannot use your own calculations. You need to quote one or more good sources for that. The fact that tv.com has published 68 opinions posted by an unknown number of people (68 or less), probably means that the information is reliable enough, but it is not notable and cannot even be mentioned in the article, let alone quoted as a source to support the disputed editorializing text.
 * Thirdly, repeating one's original research over and over, using terms like "ridiculous", Wikilawyering without any visible attempt to gain a proper understanding of Wikipedia's policies and community processes, or apparently failing to consider the possibility that experienced editors may know a couple of things you don't, is clearly not the way to get some serious discussion going. The fact that I am spending so much of my time explaining things to you means that I believe you want to be a good editor and have what it takes to become one.
 * One more attempt. It's true that it does not take a genius to see that a sample size of 68 is not all that bad. However, tv.com offers us no interpretation of these posts (a primary source), or a way to assess whether this constitutes a representative, unskewed sample. So we cannot use it as a sample. Any attempt to assess its validity on the part of Wikipedia editors would be original research and cannot be used, even if you could prove on this talk page that the sample is not skewed. The use of an editor's calculations and predictions based on a sample whose validity is unknown would take the original research one level deeper and would be totally unacceptable.
 * Having said all that, please go back to my first note where I said: if this were a representative sample, it still roughly represents "the opinion of the remaining viewers. The paragraph ignores this basic fact, and simply attributes the same opinion to the part of the audience that is no longer there." Even if everyone who has ever seen that episode would have posted their opinion, making it massively notable, it still does not say anything about why so many people had walked away and did not watch this episode. AvB ÷ talk  13:36, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

 * Well, first of all, whatever criticisms you may have about tv.com's polling having a limited weight, You still have not shown why totally unsupported sentences or sentences that rely on single web pages written by anyone were apparently considered more acceptable or more reliable than this. It is still better to rely on TV.com polling than on nothing at all or on single web pages. As for why people walked away from the show, I already showed from the available data that there is no indication whatsoever that the decline in number of viewers had anything to do with the Temporal Cold War storyline, and in fact on average the main Temporal Cold War episodes have rankings much higher than average. So apparently without the Temporal Cold War storyline things would have been worse. --Yaron, June 24, 2006

 * Arguing that another text has similar problems does not save this text. Other text with similar problems has to go as well as should be clear from my previous comments.
 * I have given an RfC comment on the addition of some specific text. I have explained why it has to go (summary: disputed, no consensus, heavily editorialized, totally unsourced, tv.com source does not support it). Nothing you have said has changed my opinion: this text cannot be included. This ends my comments regarding the disputed text. AvB ÷ talk  14:21, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

 * If you apply this principle consistently then ANY sentence in ANY Wikipedia article that is not referenced or relies on a single web page written by anybody should also go. What percentage of Wikipedia texts would remain after that, according to your estimate? --Yaron, June 24, 2006

"A single web page written by anybody" does not necessarily have to go...we apply the same rules and standards we do for other sources like newspaper or magazine. For factual information, how reliable is their track record? For opinion information (which, when included, should be noted as the opinion of that individual), how big is their audience? For example, quoting Siskel and Ebert would be considered a reliable source, assuming it is an accurate quote and attributed to them. There are many highly-trafficked websites that have built up a reputation for reliability over the years, and can thus be cited. Nonetheless, the construction that was built up in this article with those opinions was, as a whole, original research. In fairness to a relatively new editor and in an effort to not bite the newcomers, I was willing to bend the rules somewhat and allow in some commentary on fan acceptance of the Temporal Cold War storyline, subject to support from the producers, reliable critics, etc. At the same time, I couldn't be unfair to editors who had gone before and were simply no longer following the page, so I tried to cite their work as well. But something you have to realize is that even if that cited information was verifiable (and I'm not entirely sure it was), the entire construction constituted original research...a digression into a discussion not directly raised by any of the sources. I'm sorry if you feel slighted or if you feel that your opinion is being blithely brushed aside. More than once, I've had to swallow my own opinion on Wikipedia in deference to other editors. Something you have to realize about working here is that consensus rules all...we strive to produce a whole that all editors can agree is at least acceptable. Sometimes that's impossible, and we ignore small minority opinions in the interest of the opinion of a supermajority of editors. All of these procedures, though, are governed by policies and guidelines which have been painstakingly constructed and found to work again and again. As Avb said, I hope you'll acquaint yourself with them. Though we seem to disagree on this article, I would be happy to work with you on one in the future, since you seem to have a genuine desire to contribute.--MikeJ9919 16:35, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

 * Well, Mike, thank you for your comment. But, for one thing, apparently the rules are not being systematically applied, since as I said, before I edited the controversy section it was filled with unsupported assertions, which turned out indeed to be baseless. So how many similar Wikipedia articles are out there? Secondly, assuming that you know your work and (since you are a much more experienced editor) that the single page references you quoted were sufficient, and since at least you should agree that the tv.com polling by dozens of fans (however limited) still carries much more weight than the opinions of the few web pages that you quoted, so actually both my paragraph and your paragraph should stay. Thirdly, if this RFC brought in editors who have no specific expertise or knowledge or interest in this particular subject, this can lead to mediocre results. The Encyclopedia will be much better off if everyone sticks to what he knows best. -- Yaron, June. 24, 2006

 * "If you apply this principle consistently": Yes, unsourced material has to go sooner or later. I don't have the percentage for you but it must be substantial. But it isn't as bad as it seems. We leave unsourced material (if not too negative or libelous if untrue) in place until someone challenges it, and then often leave it in place somewhat longer (with a "citation needed" tag) so that those who wish to keep it have an opportunity to source it. If the material is encyclopedic, it should be easy to find good sources. But if it isn't... as our illustrious (co-)founder puts it: "We are a massively powerful text generation engine. People have to drop the idea that every little tidbit is precious.  Crap is crap.  Yank it." But in general a single source will suffice, as long as it supports the material in the encyclopedia and, among other things, satisfies WP:V, WP:RS.

 * As to RfC commenters: the idea is to bring in more editors to enable the building of a WP:CONSENSUS. The consensus process safeguards the correct application of policies. In some cases expert knowledge of a subject or dispute is necessary to be able to comment. This is not one of those. You are still trying to marginalize my input here. Please understand that there is currently no way for you to reinsert the disputed text. AvB ÷  talk  20:42, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

 * PS Don't be fooled by the fact that experienced Wikipedia editors rarely argue from authority. AvB ÷ talk  20:51, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

 * As I was trying to say, I don't necessarily feel that the single pages I gave were sufficient. I was trying to show deference to you and previous editors by giving some support for arguments already established on the page. I was wrong in that sense...if things are original research or unverifiable, they should be yanked, not supported by spurious citations that don't address the issue directly. That applies to the citations I used, as well. Ultimately, Avb is correct...both should be excluded, not included. Since it's impossible to get past the original research problem, I don't know what the ultimate verdict on verifiability would be for either the tv.com polling or the page citations...both seem supported in some ways and dubious in some others.--MikeJ9919 21:17, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I still think that both paragraphs were sufficiently substantiated, and even if not perfect they were verifiable, informative, interesting and helpful. Removing them did not improve the article but simply made it more shallow and less informative. And if the same amount of nitpicking had been applied systematically and consistently to every paragraph in every Wikipedia article, I think that a large percent of the texts would have to "go". -- Yaron, June 24, 2006 23:40

There's an interesting related discussion going on here. Especially the examples given by veteran Wikipedian SlimVirgin should be helpful. I hope this helps. AvB ÷ talk  23:05, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Too in-universe tone
This sounds like it was cribbed from Memory Alpha as it is too in-universe. What prompted the show writers to create this story arc? Was it fully planned out (I'm guessing not from TV Guide interviews)? Why was the storyline wrapped up so quickly? What was fan reaction? There needs to be more outside perspective viewing this as a story line of a sci-fi show, not as a real event within the sci-fi show. --24.249.108.133 02:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

---This article should resemble the Dominion War article. The same attitudes applied there should apply here. I only reference the Dominion War because it is the best example of this type of article. There should be a template for Star Trek wars. 124.197.3.246 (talk) 13:35, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Why delete?
This article resembles the dominion war article. I'm going to continue editing it a little more so that it resembles the Dominion war page slightly. No reason has been given for deletion but tbh i haven't read the huge texts above so. I nominate no. There are plenty of articles like this one on wiki it just needs to be tidied up and real-world information pertaining to the show and storyline needs to be added thats all. Savre (talk) 14:04, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Discrepancy in Storm Front Storyline
I recently added a sentence to the paragraph about Lenin's 1916 assassination and the resultant change in the course of World War II, noting the discrepancy between the storyline (i.e., the Germans never attacked Russia, focused on all their forces on the West, and, as a result, made it all the way to Ohio) and the German commander's statement early in Part One about the Russians attempting to re-take Moscow. This was removed as "original research." I'm re-inserting it because it's not original research.

It's said at the 3:01 mark: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ib6ZQKsKtBo Battleax86 (talk) 00:38, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Redirect
I've redirected to the ST:E article. That destination sufficiently covers the overall plot of aliens messing with the timeline without delving into the in-universe trivia/minutiae present here. --EEMIV (talk) 13:47, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

 * Here we go again. I just spent much of a week and a half cleaning up links broken by deletionism, and now we have another 150 links to nowhere. I think I'll find something else to do. Art LaPella (talk) 14:30, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:Temporal Cold War


text:
Talk:Cognitive Research Trust

This page survived vfd. See: Talk:Cognitive Research Trust/Delete -- Wile E. Heresiarch 02:03, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

CoRT Tools
CoRT lessons consist of six different sets of ten thinking tools each.

CoRT 1: Breadth CoRT 2: Organization CoRT 3: Interaction CoRT 4: Creativity CoRT 5: Information and Feeling CoRT 6: Action —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kerfuffle53 (talk • contribs) 15:05, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cognitive Research Trust. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110226031022/http://www.cortthinkingtools.com/ to http://www.cortthinkingtools.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:15, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Cognitive Research Trust