This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Star Trek Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Star Trek, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to all Star Trek-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Star TrekWikipedia:WikiProject Star TrekTemplate:WikiProject Star TrekStar Trek Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Fictional characters This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fictional characters, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of fictional characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Fictional charactersWikipedia:WikiProject Fictional charactersTemplate:WikiProject Fictional charactersfictional character

The statement "Despite all this, some fans feel that T'Pol was the heart and soul of the series, and its single most interesting character." sound more like opinon than fact. Dr Aaron 11:37, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This line dates back to when Enterprise was still on the air. It can probably be tweaked a bit now that the series is over. 23skidoo 17:24, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is true, the only characters that seemed trekky were the foxxy T'Pol, the sexually deviant Plox and Reed with his Klingon melee combat moves. Oh, and Shran, who thought he owed some sort of a Wookie life debt to hairy-chests. All the others were colourless (Mayweather), like it was a show about a sterile gray submarine. And if they weren't uninteresting enough (Sato), they'd be stupid (Archer) and proud of it (Tucker). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.60.236.254 (talk) 04:49, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's all use canon when it comes to exactly what happened. I recently read that Tucker and T'Pol had a relationship that people were gossiping about from "Home" onward. That's just not true. In United, Reed provides information to Tucker (and the engineer indicated he'd heard it for the first time) that T'Pol was again single. Thus no relationship, thus no gossip. Stick to the facts, please! Spock111 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.21.110.187 (talk) 18:11, 9 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Oh, geez. Okay - this is silly. Tucker and T'Pol never discussed marriage other than Trip wanting to in E2. They certainly didn't discuss it in season 4. Facts. Spock111

Same. I read some amazing inaccuracies in this: the reason she could pet Porthos in season 3's Zero Hour was she wasn't using nasal numbing agents, she was "letting down her guard" to be involved in a relationship with Tucker in season 3 when she took trellium and more. Spock111 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.105.223.138 (talk) 21:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Family (as part of relationships), it's fine to list novels, but please make it clear that is not established Trek canon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.196.156.105 (talk) 05:17, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A chick like T'Pol would never fall for some wrench-wielding hillbilly. It was all a cunning temporal war ploy by the Suliban. Or so i tell myself. They paired the show's best character, with the show's worst. The plumber got the scholar, unforgivable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.60.236.254 (talk) 04:58, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it's just me but I find it intrusive when I am editing a page and someone else comes along and starts making edits before I'm done. SD6-Agent 01:54, 14 Oct 2003 (UTC)

No one owns a Wikipedia page. Others can't expect to "know" you're through editing. RickK 01:56, 14 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Someone has been editing the information with a bias and opinion. I'd recommend sticking as closely as possible to fact. It might assist with disagreements in interpretation.

No bias here, simply a stating of on-screen facts, and or reasonable interpolation (although noted as speculation where applicable). Perhaps you could be more precise in what you feel is being edited with POV? Thanks! PS. Please sign your comments. 23skidoo 00:38, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sure! For example, you indicate since Home, T'Pol has grown closer to Commander Tucker. How? Closer in what way? We've seen limited screen time between the two and in fact, she's ended the relationship with him (seemingly twice) since the VCW. Instead, I took that comment out, since it's based in opinion. Again, if you don't know the facts, are thinking you're gravitating close to supposition, best not to include it. Spock111

Er, actually, I indicated that she grew closer to Tucker during the Xindi incident. I don't recall making any reference to them getting closer after "Home". And if you watch "Affliction", you will also see a mental bond has been created between them (which is apparently to be the subject of an upcoming episode). I'm going to put the comment back. 23skidoo 04:29, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

No, you had Home, you can check the history. I did watch Affliction. I don't think they've made it clear what exactly is between them yet. And if you're quoting spoilers, you may not have all the facts. I would suggest that you stick *only* to the facts, 23Skiddo. That's why Wikipedia is here -- to provide a resource. I know many scenes, in general, in Enterprise can be open for interpretation, but my suggestion to you is to stray from what can bne interpretation and stay with the facts themselves. Spock111

Because it was so long, organized information into logical sections. Sorry didn't denote that in the edits.

Good headers. I made a change to one since it implied T'Pol wasn't a Vulcan previously. Otherwise, they work for me. 23skidoo 16:23, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think things are going well with the revisions I and others have made to the Controversy section. By addressing both sides of the issue I think we're keeping it nicely NPOV.

After some deliberation, I removed a statement that says: "None of these are as emotional as T'Pol, who has proven to be the most emotional Vulcan (crying in episodes like "Azati Prime" and "Awakening")..." because it contradicts references earlier in the same paragraph to Saavik crying and Sybok being fully emotional (and therefore he, not T'Pol, is the most emotional Vulcan yet seen, though admittedly his emotions were mostly positive ones while T'Pol has tended to drift towards the negative). Also, Tuvok and Sarek have also been shown weeping due to outside influences, and T'Pol's crying jag in "Azati Prime" was a result of her addiction. Her weeping in "Awakening" is not a case of weakness in the character as we have yet to see another young Vulcan dealing directly with the death of a parent and T'Pau's attitude suggests that such reactions are acceptable. (Spock treats the death of Sarek without tears but then again he is much older than T'Pol). Just a few thoughts. Cheers! 23skidoo 00:59, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Your previous statement indicated that Sarek (not including his mental illness) showed just as much emotion as T'Pol, which wasn't true from possibly even the most objective of Trekker. I think your view if clouding your judgment slightly, but don't doubt mine is as well. By leaving it that there is controversy about T'Pol's emotions is probably best. Although, I think it's debatable whether T'Pol was only "weak" in Awakening. Her mother indicated with her own words T'Pol was more emotional than others by saying, "You've always struggled so with your emotions."

More emotional Vuclans: Sybok was part of the Vulcans without logic, an extreme group who make up a very small percentage of Vulcan society. As you correctly pointed out, non-canon sources (the comic books) indicated that Saavik was half-Romulan. Tuvok and Sarek were around a lot longer than four years and never willingly addicted themselves to a substance to show emotion. Sarek's tears only came with his mental illness near the end of his life. Thanks!

Re:Sarek. Just to be clear, I'm referring to his emotionalism in Star Trek III: The Search for Spock which garnered the same accusations of non-Vulcanism in the fanzines back in 1984. Although it's non-canon, we also heard Sarek cracking jokes on Gene Roddenberry's Inside Star Trek record in the 1970s when Mark Lenard participated in a mock interview in character. Cheers. 23skidoo 12:56, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Re: Sarek. Sarek performed a mind meld with Kirk where the admiral (then) was overcome with emotion over the loss of his son David. Sarek wasn't emotional, but he did make the comment his logic is clouded where his son is concerned. And parody I don't believe counts as non-fanon. Otherwise, "Kirk" has some explaining to do for telling the SNL people that the combination of the lock in episode 62 was .... ;-) Which is why I maintain that leaving comments about the controversy of her emotion is better than indicating Sarek and Tuvok were just as emotional. I think we're good, if you think we are.

Little is known of T'Pol's early years, save that she was born in the Earth year 2088. Approximately 16 years before joining the crew of Enterprise...

I assume "16" is wrong and not "2088". I haven't seen enough of the show to know when she was born. Cburnett 05:18, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The episode "Zero Hour" which takes place in 2154 established her age as "going to turn 66 on her next birthday". So 2088 is calculated based on the assumption that she turned 66 in 2154, however it could be 2089 if her 65th birthday had just passed, so I adjusted the birth year reference accordingly. "The Seventh" established T'Pol's intelligence activities as taking place 16 years prior to that episode. 23skidoo 15:22, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

So she's 66 not 16 then. Cburnett 19:17, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think we have our wires crossed. What I had written is that 16 years BEFORE the events of Enterprise she was a member of the Intelligence service. That had nothing to do with her age (65 going on 66) at the time of Zero Hour. It basically means she was a secret agent for the VHC when she was in her late 30s/early 40s. 23skidoo 19:58, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Bah, the only wires that are crossed are in my brain. I don't know why, but I was "reading" 16 to be her age. I added it elsewhere. Please do a sanity check for me. :) Cburnett 20:40, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

All present and correct. I've had days like that too! ;-) 23skidoo 21:15, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The ambiguity of T'Pol's age is additionally explored in the season two episode, "Carbon Creek". Its not mentioned that Jolene Blalock portrays T'Mir. That T'Pol has a 20th century handbag (and in excellent condition) only reinforces the idea that only the details, like the names in T'Pol's story are fictional. This episode, at this point in the series arc, makes several suggestions, many later to be disqualified, but at the time of the "Carbon Creek" initial showing, spawned substantial discussion about T'Pol's age. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.20.224.10 (talk) 17:26, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Should we include information about how there was a Vulcan named T'Pol in an episode of The Next Generation? The episode was called Gambit. It just seemed to me like the writers didn't pay attention to established canon before they named their characters and wrote the episodes...67.142.130.33 20:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't be so quick to bash the Trek creative team. I just checked and there is no such character by this name. The character's name is Tallera until her true nature is revealed at which point we learn her name is T'Paal. That's not the same as T'Pol. 23skidoo 20:41, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • My name is Sam and I know of plenty of other humans called Sam too :-P Xzamuel 15:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Canon itself is defined as anything viewed on television. Thus, canon can't be debated. Instead, it's more accurate to indicate that groups of fans wish to de-canonize the episode.

• Please sign your comments. Which episode are you referring to? 23skidoo 23:19, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa! Much as I like seeing a big picture of T'Pol, the infobox image is simply too big. I tried shrinking it down to a more reasonable size but it didn't work because of the template. Anyone know how to shrink it down. From experience with other infoboxes, 200px is considered more a norm, yet this image is a too-big 300px. 23skidoo 04:36, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The fair use police have struck again. I have deleted the two images I have uploaded to this article. Good luck trying to replace them. I will no longer contribute images to wikipedia. 23skidoo 19:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, now I don't have to watch any episodes since it looks like it is all transcribed here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.184.241.144 (talk) 00:14, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• This is an issue that needs to be addressed and is why it is tagged as such. The article needs to be rewritten in a real-world style. This means the focus should be on casting, critical acclaim, commentary, character development (writing), etc - things like that. Anyone feel free to edit the article, as several Trek articles are being worked on to be brought up to par - unfortunately, all the Enterprise characters still need reworking. Ejfetters (talk) 01:08, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the reason for their child not surviving. Initially, it was thought that incompatible DNA was the reason, but it was revealed later on to be a flaw in the cloning process.Jlujan69 (talk) 02:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"She severed her relationship with Tolaris after she asked him to stop the mind meld and he refused, attempting to continue the meld without her consent (essentially a form of mental rape)"

i have a large issue with this. t'pol most cirtanly agreed to the initiation of the meld, yet in series 2 ep 14 (stigma) and in a few eps after this, she claimed that tolaris forced himself on her and thus she was not responsible for contracting pnars syndrome. this is a blatant lie, and , to extend your analogy, analagous to crying rape. i feel this should be mentioned in the article as this is an extreamly serious issue that seems to have largley been ignored everywhere 86.21.229.21 (talk)

In the original series it is asserted multiple times that Spock was the first Vulcan to serve in Starfleet. Indeed, it was the reason for his original falling out with his father, Sarek. When we first meet Sarek in TOS we are told this falling out happened 18 years prior. As TOS begins roughly around 2265, this would put Spock's earliest date of service around 2247.

T'Pol could not possibly have served in Starfleet as far back as 2151 (as the article states) -- nearly 100 years earlier. The earliest she could have served would be after 2247. If, as the article states, she was born in 2088, even if she enlisted the year after Spock, that would make her close to 160 years old. Possible, for a Vulcan, but that still would have put her well into Vulcan middle age, and hardly the youth she appears to be.

Something is screwy here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.89.176.249 (talk) 00:30, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is not an in-universe issue of dates, it is a out of universe matter of sloppy continuity and phrasing. Technically the character is not an official member of Starfleet. YMMV. -- 109.76.202.211 (talk) 15:51, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There was a Vulcan in Star Trek: The Next Generation called T'Paal. https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/T%27Paal_(isolationist) Tallera aka T'Paal https://www.startrek.com/database_article/tallera

Someone misheard T'Paal as T'Pol and decided to add it to the article. I'm making a note here so that hopefully no one else will try and add it back to the article. -- 109.76.202.211 (talk) 02:07, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a some criticism from Blalock about her character acting in un-Vulcan ways but reviewers were saying a lot of the same things. While editing other articles I found a particularly strong example of criticism from Michelle Erica Green reviewing Similitude[1] said:

she's not a Vulcan by any standard of Vulcan of which I am familiar. Bottom line: when she's in love with Archer one week and Tucker two weeks later, I can't take either nascent relationship seriously. All I see are bad TV producers trying to have their sexual tension both ways.

Eventually season 4 did go some way to explaining why Vulcans in this era seemed so different from what viewers had come to expect (in short, the rediscovery of the teachings of Surak caused their society to undergo a massive Reformation) but the inconsistencies of T'Pol as a Vulcan was a recurring issue. If I find more insights like these from reviewers I'll add them here, maybe later they can be integrated into the article. -- 109.79.86.215 (talk) 19:16, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Starlog Interview with Blalock[2] -- 109.77.200.34 (talk) 01:11, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Found a reviewer at IGN criticising the character T'Pol (but not the performance) as an obvious retread, pandering to fanboys, and that it "showed how craven the producers could be and how little they thought of the audience as being anything more than hormone-enthralled nerds."[3] I will probably try to work it in to the Reception section sooner or later. -- 109.79.81.116 (talk) 04:09, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article for Seven of Nine also says that character of T'Pol was based on a combination of the Seven and Spock, referencing a book. If someone has access to Booker, M. Keith (2004). Science Fiction Television: A History. Westport, CT: Praeger. ISBN 978-0-313-05213-2. maybe they could check it and add something, but I don't have access to that source. It would be good to get that fact firmly established as Production information if possible. -- 109.76.143.155 (talk) 15:09, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For a lack of better place to put it I wanted to note that Michael Sussman had an idea for season 5 and wanted to "reveal that T’Pol’s father was a Romulan, but who knows how that would’ve played out. I think I could’ve sold Rick and Brannon on it."[4](Star Trek.com)[5](Archive Copy). I found this before but later could not remember which writer had suggested it, so I'm adding the link here. Nonetheless it is only a speculative idea from one writer that was never followed up on, so while it is interesting I cannot think of any reasonable excuse to include it in an encyclopedia article. Maybe someone else can find a suitable reason to add it. -- 109.79.66.132 (talk) 21:30, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]