Talk:USS Defiant (2375)

Before starting a new discussion about the title of the page or the registry number, please read the previous discussion on the topic.

Cloak
The article originally stated that the Defiant did not have a cloaking device, but has been changed (twice) to state that it is "unclear" if it had one or not. Unless there is some evidence that it did have one, I disagree with this- if it wasn't said to have one, then it doesn't have one. --31dot 22:54, April 19, 2011 (UTC)
 * Wrong, because that's speculative. If there's not enough evidence either way, there's not evidence either way! --Defiant 00:59, April 20, 2011 (UTC)

We can't prove a negative, so it is up to the affirmative side to prove that it did have one. What is the evidence that it did have one? This isn't an issue that can go "either way"- it either had one, or not.--31dot 01:02, April 20, 2011 (UTC)
 * True; Schroedinger's cat, it ain't! :) But we don't need to add real-world speculation of uncertain truthfulness. Instead, we can let the truth be known to readers by admitting that we don't know, either way, as the page currently reads. --Defiant 01:14, April 20, 2011 (UTC)

If that's the case, then I don't think we need a note at all- say nothing about it. It would be like saying "it is unclear if the Defiant has a shuttlebay" just because we didn't see it.--31dot 08:35, April 20, 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree on removing notes about cloaking device from canon and bg sections. cloaking device info is stated in the apocrypha section and that is all we know. a reader can make up his mind from those facts, me thinks. --Pseudohuman 08:55, April 20, 2011 (UTC)
 * Not having read the rest of the article (and having no time to), I'm inclined to agree with you. The only case I was making was the one I've stated! --Defiant 10:29, April 20, 2011 (UTC)