Talk:Star Trek/Archive 4

(Note this page's history is found at Talk:Star_Trek/Archive4)

DS9 Bajoran or Fed outpost?
A recent update changed the wording of Deep Space 9's description from a "Federation outpost" to a "Bajoran outpost under Federation control". Even though that sounds right to me (though I'm not absolutely sure), it raises an interesting question. Why would a Bajoran outpost adopt the name "Deep Space 9"? The "Deep Space" nomenclature comes from Starfleet; i.e., the Federation. (Witness the occasional mention of other Deep Space # stations throughout ST:TNG and the other series and movies.) Wouldn't the Bajorans change its old Cardassian name of Terok Nor (sp?) to a Bajoran one? The station certainly isn't in "deep space" relative to Bajor! -- Jeff Q 10:01, 24 May 2004 (UTC)


 * The station was established as officially Bajoran early and often, and this fact was also used as a plot point several times. Some Bajorans on the show were quite upset that the Federation was running their station--these characters saw it as a change from one evil regime to another not-quite-as-evil regime!  The name of Deep Space 9 certainly doesn't fit in with all the other Federation "Deep Space #" stations.  Perhaps one could rationalize that the Federation gave it a name when the Bajorans failed to do so?  The station was constructed by Cardassians, so it is likely that the Bajorans called it nothing but "Terok Nor" previously.   Thanks for the comment!  --PSzalapski 20:50, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Characters
These lists of characters should be in the articles for the respective series' and films. They remain here for reference. Characters common to many of the "regions" of characters, like Q, still belong in this article.

Star Trek characters
Original crew of the USS Enterprise NCC 1701
 * Captain Christopher Pike
 * Mr. Spock

Regular crew of the USS Enterprise NCC 1701


 * Captain James T. Kirk, played by William Shatner (with rank Admiral in four films)
 * Mr. Spock, played by Leonard Nimoy (with ranks Lieutenant Commander in the series up to Captain in films)
 * Doctor Leonard "Bones" McCoy, played by DeForest Kelley
 * Lieutenant Uhura, played by Nichelle Nichols (portrayed with rank up to Commander in films)
 * Chief Engineer Montgomery "Scotty" Scott, played by James Doohan (with ranks from Lt. Commander in the series to Captain in the later films)
 * Ensign Pavel Chekov, played by Walter Koenig (with rank up to Commander in films)
 * Lieutenant Sulu, played by George Takei (with rank up to Captain in films)
 * Ensign Christine Chapel, played by Majel Barrett (portrayed as an M.D. in films)
 * Yeoman Janice Rand, played by Grace Lee Whitney (1966-1967) (as an officer with rank Lieutenant in later films)

Regular crew of the USS Enterprise NCC 1701-D


 * Captain Jean-Luc Picard, played by Patrick Stewart
 * Commander William T. Riker, played by Jonathan Frakes
 * Lieutenant Commander Data, played by Brent Spiner
 * Chief Medical Officer Beverly Crusher, played by Gates McFadden (with rank Commander)
 * Chief Medical Officer Katherine Pulaski, played by Diana Muldaur (with rank Commander)
 * Chief Engineer Geordi La Forge, played by LeVar Burton (with rank Lieutenant Commander)
 * Lieutenant Tasha Yar, played by Denise Crosby
 * Counselor Deanna Troi, played by Marina Sirtis (with ranks Lieutenant Commander up to Commander in later episodes)
 * Lieutenant Worf, played by Michael Dorn (with rank of Lieutenant Commander in films)
 * Transporter Chief Miles O'Brien, played by Colm Meaney (unclear rank)
 * Guinan, played by Whoopi Goldberg
 * Ensign Wesley Crusher, played by Wil Wheaton
 * Ensign Ro Laren, played by Michelle Forbes (with rank of Lieutenant Junior Grade in later episodes)
 * Lieutenant Reginald Barclay, played by Dwight Schultz
 * Spot (Data's pet cat)

Regular crew and civilians of the Federation Station Deep Space Nine


 * Commander/Captain Benjamin Sisko, played by Avery Brooks
 * Major Kira Nerys, played by Nana Visitor (with rank Lieutenant Colonel in later episodes)
 * Lieutenant Jadzia Dax, played by Terry Farrell (with rank Lieutenant Commander in mid-series episodes)
 * Lieutenant Commander Worf, played by Michael Dorn
 * Chief Constable Odo, played by Rene Auberjonois
 * Chief Medical Officer Julian Bashir, played by Alexander Siddig (with rank Lieutenant J.G. up to Lieutenant in later episodes)
 * Chief Engineer Miles O'Brien, played by Colm Meaney
 * Lieutenant J.G. Ezri Dax, played by Nicole deBoer
 * Ensign Nog, played by Aron Eisenberg (portrayed as civilian, Cadet Ensign, and Lieutenant Junior grade)
 * Crewman Rom, played by Max Grodenchik
 * Quark, played by Armin Shimerman
 * Garak, played by Andrew Robinson
 * Kassidy Yates, played by Penny Johnson
 * Morn, played by Mark Allen Shepherd

Regular crew of the USS Voyager NCC-74656


 * Captain Kathryn Janeway, played by Kate Mulgrew
 * Commander Chakotay, played by Robert Beltran
 * Lieutenant Commander Tuvok, played by Tim Russ (with rank Lieutenant in early episodes)
 * Chief Engineer B`Elanna Torres, played by Roxann Dawson
 * Lieutenant Tom Paris, played by Robert Duncan McNeill
 * EMH Program AK-1 (The Doctor), played by Robert Picardo
 * Seven of Nine, played by Jeri Ryan
 * Ensign Harry Kim, played by Garrett Wang
 * Kes, played by Jennifer Lien
 * Neelix, played by Ethan Phillips

Regular crew of Enterprise NX-01


 * Captain Jonathan Archer, played by Scott Bakula
 * Subcommander T'Pol, played by Jolene Blalock
 * Commander Charles "Trip" Tucker III, played by Connor Trinneer
 * Lieutenant Malcolm Reed, played by Dominic Keating
 * Ensign Travis Mayweather, played by Anthony Montgomery
 * Ensign Hoshi Sato, played by Linda Park
 * Chief Medical Officer Phlox, played by John Billingsley
 * Porthos (Captain Archer's pet beagle)

Other Recurring Characters
 * Duras
 * The Guardian of Forever
 * Martok
 * Mogh
 * Q, played by John de Lancie
 * Sybok
 * The Traveller

Star Trek computer/video games producers
In section Games, "subsection" Computer/video games, I would very much like to see the year of release and the producing company's name, for each game, instead of a list of producers on top. I have started doing this for a few games (listed the producers at least) but could do with some help. Also, in the future, we should perhaps list the games' platforms, so readers might get a picture of which computers/video game consoles have been 'supported by Star Trek' at various times. --Wernher 21:42, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Comparisons: alien races vs. real world ethnical groups
How can you seriously mean that Bajorans have anything to do with Israel or Jews? Their great pride is art and culture, and it's quite obvious that this planet (read country) is Greece. Greeks were also under occupation for a long time, treated badly....read: cardassians are probably Turks. :-)


 * I feel that the section at the end of the "Star Trek and society" part is quite vulnerable to POV. People have a lot of different interpretations, and different aspects of an alien race could be interpreted different ways. Take a look at the bajorans. I noticed that somebody just changed their affiliation from "jews" to "greek". When it comes to the work/internation camps, I agree that one would compare it to the jews in Europe during WW2. But when it comes to religion, it would probably be closer to the greek. Living in occupied land, I think about the palestinians.
 * A similar approach could be taken on the Federation. "Socialism" is mention as the represented ideology. I don't think everybody agree to that. As a social-liberal, I would claim that it's just as much (and maybe more) social-liberalism being represented. Somebody told me that Roddenberry was an objectivist. That could well be, considering Picard protecting the prime directive's isolationism (not interfere with other species interal affairs etc.).
 * The point is, there is not one correct interpretation, so if we are going to have a list like that, we must be open to allow different views, and ADD to the list, instead of REPLACING entries. Mendalus 03:48, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Removed list
"Alien species and political powers in Star Trek often have iconic properties. In some cases these have been directly envisioned by writers, and in others perceived such by fandom.  Some examples:

"
 * Earth = United States of America
 * United Federation of Planets = United Nations, socialism
 * Vulcans = British, logic, Jews
 * Andorians = Germans, pride
 * Klingons = Cold War Russians/Feudal Japanese, Sparta, Mongols, Vikings
 * Romulans = Chinese/Romans
 * Ferengi = Capitalism (or a parody thereof), Jews
 * Q = God
 * the Borg = the Devil, Communism and other forms of collectivism
 * Cardassians = Nazis/fascism, totalitarianism
 * Bajorans = Palestinians, Jews, Greeks
 * Suliban = Taliban
 * Xindi = Al-Qaeda, terrorism

I removed the above because it looks suspiciously like offensive, racist crap based on nothing but someone's stupid perceptions. If Earth had been intended to represent the USA then wouldn't it have been called 'USA' and Enterprise not given a multiracial crew? DJ Clayworth 15:27, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * A few of the above are pretty well substantiated. The Romulan-Romans association, for example, has been obvious since "Balance of Terror".  I think the connection between Earth (or the UFP) and the United States has some merit, too.  Many of the internal problems the UFP faces are those of living in a democracy&mdash;the best government, except for all the others.  In Insurrection, our heroes face evil machinery set in motion by the government which must be overturned using the democratic process.  (Remember Ru'afu's rant about "Federation opinion polls"?)  This resembles a present-day America, expanded to Galactic scale to make its problems more evident (perhaps the classic trick of science fiction).  At other times, the UFP resembles what its creators think Earth and the USA should be.  I trust everyone remembers "Let That Be Your Last Battlefield", where Lokai and Bele chase each other across the Galaxy, the last two survivors of apocalyptic racial hatred.  Spock overhears Lokai haranguing the crew in the cafeteria, and Chekhov delivers the immortal line, "But there was prejudice on Earth once.  I read about it in history textbooks."  In The Undiscovered Country, the President claims to be "not above the law"; we certainly hope this to be the case in America.
 * I've heard that the powers-that-be cooked up the name "Suliban" to follow "Taliban"; this sounds so corny it just might be true. (Anyone have any Paramount memoranda to back this up?)  Rather than merely listing the correspondence, it may instead be more useful to give the historical basis&mdash;i.e., the writers made it that way&mdash;and then describe how their portrayal has changed in the following years.  (Had there been no 11/9, wouldn't the United Statesians see the Taliban rather differently?  I can see an alternative history where the producers never needed a new set of baddies, and the Xindi were never invented.)  Similarly, the rationale for comparing Bajorans to Greeks is interesting, and I find it quite titillating to see the same group joined with both Palestinians and Jews.  Wouldn't it be better to make the comparison a paragraph, instead of a bullet point?
 * OK, OK, I should have researched before yapping my mouth off. Berman and Braga reveal their dark secrets in an interview, linked from the ST:ENT page.Anville 13:48, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * The list contains Jews in three places, linked with Vulcans, Ferengi, and Bajorans, as if three different aspects of the stereotype were being parodied. (Talmudic logic, lending money at interest, and suffering persecution, I suppose.) Historically, of course, none of these traits are unique to the Jewish diaspora, and a Star Trek article is probably not the proper place to investigate whether we more commonly associate Jews to those characteristics than any other groups.  If Trekkers have made substantial speculation on this matter, we should report the speculation, but otherwise I don't see the point.  Whoever first invented the Ferengi, for example, may have wanted to satirize capitalism in general; if we then turn around and say that the Ferengi were built out of Ashkenazi stereotypes, we are not only being prejudiced, we are committing a logical fallacy.  (Worse than a crime, it's a blunder.)
 * If there is a solid historical reason for linking Bajor to Palestine, say&mdash;if the writers admit to it&mdash;or if the fan community has discussed long and hard about it, then the article should report that, and indicate which way it is. Being even-handed Wikipedians, we should naturally report all sides to these debates: any statement that Bajorans resemble Jews for being persecuted should be paired with the note that the same logic joins them to the Palestinians.  (Sorry historical commentary, isn't it?  But this isn't the place. . .) I'm sure that fannish discussions bring up one such argument right after the other, in true Trekker fashion.  (This might be a special case of a general trait; compare the cultural portrait drawn in the Jargon File.  I've been a party to many SFnal debates, and most of them delve into&mdash;sorry to say it&mdash;almost Talmudic reasoning.)
 * The United States is pretty damn "multiracial"; I can only assume the "races" mentioned above are different humanoid species. Well, again, expanding Terran problems to a wider scope is one of the canonical ways science fiction addresses modern society and makes itself relevant.  (This is one reason I love Asimov's human-only Galaxy, since it avoids the Trekkish problem of giving entire species the same personality type.  Oh, sure, the best Trek stories rise above this, but we all know what Klingons are like, and when one isn't a war machine we certainly make a grand occsion out of it.  But anyway. . .) Cyberpunk SF does the same thing by expanding human issues into societies of cyborgs and AIs, but having been born before Neuromancer, the Original Series had to include Vulcans, Romulans, Andorians and the lot.
 * I suggest taking the best-supported items from this list and expanding them into (brief) paragraphs. As such, they may be better suited in the articles on the respective races, but they would certainly be easier to discuss and clarify.  I'll attempt to do this; someone had better beat me to it.
 * Anville 18:03, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The subject needs to be dealt with. Star Trek is famous for taking real-world ideological/political/ethinic groups and then thinly disguising them, and dealing with their issues in storylines. Sometimes 'Trek' didn't even disguise the allegory, and bluntly hit you over the head with it, as with "Let That Be Your Last Battlefield" on race relations, and "Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country" with its oh-so-subtle (NOT!) take on the collapse of the Soviet Union. Whether or not anyone agrees with the list's presence in the article - and I agree with Mendalus that it is vulnerable to POV - the overall fact that Trek has always used human and alien races to present perspectives on real-world issues needs to be addressed in an encyclopedic article about 'Trek.'

If the list is not the right way to do it, fine, then we need suggestions. A paragraph might cover it, though I think it might be possible to write a whole article about the subject. How do we tackle the subject here in a sensitive, NPOV manner? Kevyn 22:13, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm the one that added this section to the page. I expected it to be controversial, but am surprised at how long it took.


 * I'm sure that most of the stuff I posted has been substantiated in books/magazines. When I get a chance, I'll go through and see, unless someone else does first.


 * This is the list as I originally stated:


 * "Alien species and political powers in Star Trek often have iconic properties. In some cases these have been directly envisioned by writers, and in others perceived such by fandom.  Some examples:


 * Earth = United States of America
 * United Federation of Planets = United Nations
 * Vulcans = British
 * Klingons = Cold War Russians/Feudal Japanese
 * Romulans = Chinese/Romans
 * Ferengi = American capitalism
 * Q = God
 * the Borg = the Devil, the Roman Catholic Church, Microsoft
 * Cardassians = Nazis/fascism
 * Bajorans = Jews
 * Suliban = Taliban"


 * This info is based in part on a thread from rec.arts.startrek.tech


 * There's plenty of material there for discussion.


 * As for the Suliban/Taliban (who someone changed to Al-Qaeda), the link someone posted here says that they only have the name in common, with no thematic connection, so I'd remove that.


 * Regarding DJ Clayworth's comment "the above [...] looks suspiciously like offensive, racist crap based on nothing but someone's stupid perceptions," I think a lot of philosophy is garbage, but I still acknowledge that other believe in it. The article did not state that these comparisons were facts; only that "in some cases these have been directly envisioned by writers, and in others perceived such by fandom."


 * Finally, I think this list belongs on the main Star Trek page, while explanations can be given on individual races' pages. (The above post was made by StAkAr Karnak) - Acegikmo1 03:20, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * IMO, some of the list should stay, some should go. Comparing the Ferengi to Jews may have a historical precedent, as Jews were moneylenders during the Middle Ages, but I think it's open to accusations of racism.  The Suliban-Taliban connection is documented in the Star Trek: Enterprise article, so it should stay.  I'm not really sure how the comparison of Vulcans to the British came about.


 * Acegikmo1 03:16, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

"There is indeed plenty of material for discussion, and rec.arts.startrek.tech is exatly the place for it. An encyclopedia should deal with facts. I think we should restrict our parallels to cases where the authors intended there to be such a parallel.

It looks to me as though there are several categories of association here. First there are ones clearly intended to be parallels by the authors, into which seem to fall the Romulans/Rome, Suliban/Taliban. Some are a bit more generic - for example the Cardassians are clearly intended to be Imperialist agressors, but is there really any reason to think they represent one particular apressor rather than another. Finally there are cases where someone has clearly just though "Hey these guys remind me a bit of....". Vulcans=British clearly falls into that category. What we really need to do is distinguish between these (and preferably eliminate the last one, since it's wildly subjective). DJ Clayworth 15:09, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC) DJ Clayworth 14:01, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

IMO, this page should steer a wide berth around parrallels between ST races and actual human groups unless Gene and crew actually documented such a relationship. If we start introducing non-factual parrallels, the possibility for sterotypes to creep into text increases and also increases the edit war risk. See the Israel and Yasser Arafat page... Revmachine21 05:07, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Bad rendering
Why is the following failing to render in bold?


 * Movies based on Star Trek: The Original Series :

Acegikmo1 04:18, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Because it sees a group of 3, then a group of 2, and a group of five, and gets confused. Put a space in the middle of the last group as I've done, to make it look like  ' instead of  . --Golbez 05:32, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Should Star Trek have it's own Stub page?
Just wondering... should we have a Star Trek stub page? Allyunion 14:14, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * You mean a list of Star Trek stubs, or what? --Golbez 14:26, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Ya, that's what I'm specifically referring to, with maybe a template to go with it. Something like trek-stub: This article is a Star Trek stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. Allyunion 13:18, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Moving to series articles
This article is far too long. It contains more information about TOS, TNG, DS9, and VOY than their individual pages do. I think a lot of information needs to be moved out of this article and into the pages about each specific series, but I'm not sure how to determine what should still remain here. Any ideas? - Brian Kendig 18:03, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I've taken the first step by merging the TOS section into Star Trek: The Original Series. I intend to work on merging data from here into the other series' articles as soon as I get a chance. I figure this Star Trek article has enough to do, summarizing the planets, characters, comics, undeveloped series, novels, fan fiction, pop culture, and future of the franchise; it doesn't need to duplicate too much info about the individual series. Though I'd still like to have more than just a link to the series articles - what do you think belongs here from 'em? - Brian Kendig 17:05, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * I propose a brief summary, maybe one paragraph and then link to an approprate lengthly article. I think we should keep the fan history here and the overall show history. --Allyunion 06:57, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I changed the "Star Trek: The Next Generation" and "Star Trek: Deep Space Nine" headers into links, that link to their obvious own section. It had already been done for Enterprise and Voyager, so I didn't see a reason for them not to be done. If TOS and the animated series have their own sections, I suggest doing it there too, for consistency. Spinboy 16:50, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Thanks for bringing this up. I was pondering this - I think it doesn't make sense for a section heading to be a link to another article. Especially since I put "For more information, see Star Trek: The Next Generation" in the section to make sure people know there's another article, and that links to the same place. I feel that the section headings shouldn't be links, and I was also considering removing the years from the section headings, because that's also redundant and IMHO the heading should just be a simple statement of what's in the section. What do you think? - Brian Kendig 18:00, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

wp WP:MOS


 * I think the Manual of Style agrees with you. "Avoid links within headings. Depending on settings, some users may not see them clearly. It is much better to put the appropriate link in the first sentence under the header." Common usage is " Main article: Main article " - David Gerard 18:18, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * I think even though they have their own sections, they should have a paragraph or two summary of the series, and I've seen the header's linked in other articles, so I see no reason it can't happen here. I also think the other articles should link back to the main one. Spinboy 18:19, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Star Trek Timeline or History
A thought came to me when I was exploring the Wikipedia and I ran into the World War III article. Is there some kind of Star Trek timeline or something regarding the events of the future in some kind of outline or something? Star Trek's history with the 20th century is slightly different from the actual history of our own. Perhaps it may be worthly to create an entry on the subject regarding the difference between actual history and Star Trek's fictional history -- along with any jumps and visits in time that should be included... obviously, the top of the page would require a spoiler warning. Kind of like a timeline of all the shows in a brief summary, using Stardates and real dates (whenever possible). --Allyunion 10:38, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Is Timeline of Star Trek along the lines of what you are considering? Right now it has only spotty coverage, without much indication of which series portrays or refers to any given event.
 * Anville 13:06, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)