Talk:Star Trek: Deep Space Nine/Archive 1

Braga and DS9

From the article:

"Think of it. Four years ago no one had ever heard of Bajor or Deep Space Nine. Now all our hopes rest here. Where the tides of fortune take us, no one can know." - Gowron, voicing Rick Berman and Brannon Braga's thoughts in "By Inferno's Light"

Braga and Berman didn't write this episode according to its credits. Hell, Braga didn't even write a word of DS9, so how can this be true? I was going to delete it, but thought I'd ask here just in case someone could come up with a source. Davhorn 22:15, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Old discussion

Sorry about the edit in triplicate. Wikipedia kept giving me a non-response error, and I thought the edit hadn't gone through. --Paula Sandusky 09:15, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to know about the space station itself. I can assume there are at least 8 other Deep Space stations? --Sketchee 20:22, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)

See Deep Space Nine, now prominently wikilinked from the article. --Mrwojo 20:38, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks!--Sketchee 00:05, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)

Isn't it "Terak Nor", not "Terok Nor"?

Nope, it's 'Terok Nor', using startrek.com (maintained by Paramount) as a reference. See link:[1]--Chairboy 15:21, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Abbreviations

While I know Deep Space Nine is often shortened to DS9, I don't think we need to explicitly state it. Or if we must have it, DS9 is fine on its own. Having ST:DS9 and STDS9 does seem a bit over the top. (We could be here all day: ST-DS9, DSN, STDSN, ST:DSN, ST-DSN...) It just seems pointless for an encyclopedia article. When we're listing episodes/characters etc., we use DS9 as a handy short code, but I don't think it should be part of an article text. An exception to this would be if we first put Star Trek: Deep Space Nine (DS9) then later on we could just refer to DS9, rather than typing the whole lot out again. Same goes for TNG (and yes I am using TNG here as it's an 'internal' comment ;-)), Voyager etc. Comments? Marky1981 22:39, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

How about "(ST:DS9 or DS9)" then? The two most used (the WP accepted TLA of "DS9" and then with and without the "ST:"). I think you're running down the slippery slope there with the list of abbreviations. :) Cburnett 00:18, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

We could just have ST:DS9, as just the "Deep Space Nine" bit would be shortened to "DS9" - I would put "Star Trek: Deep Space Nine (sometimes shortened to ST:DS9)"... Then we can talk about ST:DS9 to mean the series and DS9 to mean the station. Marky1981 15:08, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Images

I have created Category:Star Trek: DS9 images (would've made that a link, but it would just categorize this page), so from now on, please categorize accordingly. I was blindly uploading before and... well... there's a note on the category page about that. Oh well.

Also, on List of Star Trek: DS9 episodes season one is almost complete so maybe someone wants to contribute there. I missed four of the season one eps on Spike. Thanks. -Schrei 22:11, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Non-canon information

Where is the firstnames of for example Dukat and Damar coming from? They were never stated onscreen, so it seems dubious to have them stated on a page about the series. Or are they from scripts or something? -TheSisko (link added by Schrei)

Probably from the Star Trek Encyclopedia...Existentializer 15:12, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree with TheSisko in that this article has no source information. While that's understandable to an extent (unless you want to do it Memory Alpha style and cite every episode reference). If there is information added from books, someone needs to list them. -Schrei 08:23, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure even information from the Star Trek Encyclopedia belongs on this page, since the people writing it typically have nothing to do with the writers on the show. I know Star Trek is a franchise and all, but consider if there was a Friends Encyclopedia, claiming that Joey's middle name was Herbert, would that information be valid for the "Friends"-show page? I bet the writers of the Star encyclopedia made the names of Dukat and Damar up, I doubt Michael Piller and Hans Beimler were consulted. TheSisko 12:59, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Actually the Encyclopedia is officially recognized by Paramount, and was compiled by various writers and workers on the series (such as the Okudas). [2] Existentializer 14:03, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Though you are right about Paramount recognizing it, I doubt any of the writers had input on it (probably because they were uninterested). From what I've read in the DS9 Compantion, the writing staff didn't have much communication with technical staff. TheSisko 09:09, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Actually, that's a good point. Over at Talk:Cranky Kong there's been a dispute about canon vs. non-canon (I didn't know Donkey Kong had a canon...) and I think it's a good idea to limit the page to canon. However, as I haven't seen the whole series, I wouldn't know the difference (ie Dukat's first name). Schrei 12:39, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, I have seen the whole series and I can say with certainty that Dukat and Damar's first names never were mentioned or credited. I am also 99% certain that Kai Opaka's first name wasn't mentioned. If someone else can confirm this, I suggest we make the changes. TheSisko

I don't think there's that much info in here coming from books to justify taking it out. Existentializer appears to be right (thanks for backing it up with a link unlike people on a certain other talk page :P) but considering we're only talking about first names I think it only serves to benefit the page. -Schrei 18:48, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Maybe those first names can be found in the official ST:DS9 Companion (ISBN: 0671501062) which does include writer interviews and information taken from the scripts. Robert John Kaper 13:02, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

The first names of Dukat and Damar come from the DS9 Relaunch book "A Stitch in Time" writen by Andrew Robinson who played Garak. Kai Opaka's first name comes from the DS9 Relaunch book "Rising Son." Hope this helps. Willie 08:56, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

explanation of rewrite

"As the third installment in the Trek saga, DS9 disregarded many established formulae and was unabashedly original. It tackled many darker issues previous series had shied away from, such as religion, racism and politics, and relied heavily on continuing story arcs. In spite of its debut in the shadow of The Next Generation and direct competition from UPN flagship Voyager, DS9 remains the most critically acclaimed Trek to date."

I have quoted the second paragraph of the intro as it currently stands. I'm going to do a rewrite, and I wanted to explain my thinking. I love DS9, but there were plenty of episodes about religion, racism, and politics on TOS and on TNG, so to say that they shied away from those issues is misleading. Also, Voyager did not start until DS9 had already been on for a while, so the comment about "direct competition" is misleading. Finally, while a lot of critics loved DS9, many hated it, notably Slate's David Eddelstein. I don't think we can say it was the "most" critically acclaimed. Rick Norwood 21:34, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree with most of your changes to that and the rest of the article, although I do think it's safe to say DS9 tackled those issues in a different way, and it did disregard established traditions for better or for worse. The religion thing is the best example, because the Bajorans and the Prophets weren't seen as inferior or automatically wrong, and the Maquis as it notes were a big departure from previous attitudes. I'm going to restore the unabashedly original part because it's true, whether you want to say it was a breath of fresh air or it destroyed the Trek universe. Cheechie Chung 08:48, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I think it is important to mention in the intro that DS9 overlapped TNG, otherwise a reader will assume that they were sequential. I agree with "unabashedly original" but added a specific example. I've left your "worst episode" edit, but it needs a source. Rick Norwood 14:21, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually, that wasn't mine - I just added the note about the other episode because the review of Let He Who Is Without Sin was recently released when I checked that page. I could do without the worst episode part altogether but I haven't had time to really work on this. Good job with the intro, you're right about it being an important note. Cheechie Chung 05:08, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Maybe somebody could rewrite the first sentence of the last paragraph under Taboos. It begins with "Other pert issues..." Pert issues? I think somebody needs to look up the word "pert." From the Free Online Dictionary: pert (pûrt) adj. pert·er, pert·est. 1. Trim and stylish in appearance; jaunty: a pert hat. 2. High-spirited; vivacious. 3. Impudently bold; saucy. I don't think the issues are trim and stylish, I don't think they're vivacious, and, since the paragraph is about racism, I find the issue neither bold nor saucy. I would fix it myself, except that I suspect the author has a particular idea in mind to describe the issue, and I have no idea what that original idea was.Kjdamrau 00:17, 14 October 2007 (UTC)kjdamrau

The editor probably meant "pertinent", but since the phrase didn't really add anything, I took it out when I cleaned up the section. Clarityfiend 08:35, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Cast listing

In the Main Cast section, it lists the characters and the race (species technically), while the Recurring Characters section does not. Should it be added to the latter or removed from the former? On the one hand, it tends to look a little cluttered with an extra box, but on the other, diversity was one of the key elements of DS9. Yelgrun 21:08, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Rom and Nog are in the cast, but they were never in the actual starring list. Vegfarandi 08:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I find this offending.

"...intentionally portrayed as a powerful Holocaust allegory, though there are also striking comparisons to be made with the Serbian occupation of Bosnia or the Japanese occupation of Korea. The Cardassians had put the Bajorans to work in forced slave labor camps under terrible conditions, killed them with impunity, and now refuse to acknowledge the atrocities that occurred during their reign." So,Serbs occupied Bosnia,placed Bosnians to work in forced slave labor camps under terrible conditions, killed them with impunity, and now refuse to acknowledge the atrocities that occurred during their reign.I don't know what you ment by writing this but this is realy offending to every Serbian,not to mention that those "facts" have never been proved.I expect that those lines shall be changed soon.Thanx.

It HAS been proven. It HAS happened. Everyone in the world KNOWS it happened expect for the serbs who contiune to deny. Even after a VIDEO was realeased of prisoners in Srebrenica. They were thin and starving just like the jews in the the camps. There was also a second video showned where teenagers who were muslim bosnians were forced to dig their graves. The serbs killed a few of them and then forced the remaining to throw them in the grave and then shot them. Is that real enough for you?

Yes I agree with the person above. I therefore suggest we get rid of the Holocaust article as it may offend the pro-Nazis that refuse to believe it happened. People like you who refuse to believe things like this actually happened are incredibly ofensive to me. I therefore suggest you do not post your comments on a bloody star trek article again!

The Serbian "occupation" of Bosnia was a relatively recent occurence. Bosnia-Herzgovina was a region that 'belonged' within Serbia long before "Yugoslavia", long before the 1990s, and long before the Turkish/Muslim invasion of Serbia. one of Serbia's most historically potent eras (see, the War of Kosovo -- in which Serbia lost to and was occupied by Turkish rulers) is outlined in history as well as in verse as one of the low points in Serbian history. the Turks occupied Serbia and Bosnia for 500 years after that war. arguably, the Turks were fairly benevolent. however, the history of Turkish-occupied Serbia is not bereft of violence and injustice on the part of its Muslim rulers.

just tracing a bit of the history of the region here. when we think of Kosovo, Bosnia, Serbia, we might do well to remember that history and politics in most of Europe is a fluid occurence wherein "The Past" is not just that of this century and the previous one, but of thousands of years of perceived wrongs on BOTH sides of the given issue. thanks :) Indranee 15:20, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Babylon 5 additions

I have removed some Babylon 5 additions pertaining to the reports about the B5 bible and creator's opinion, but I would like to state that I have no trouble believing either of these things is true. The only problem is that, like the part where it mentions Worf's being brought on board for ratings, such claims need to cite a specific source in the article. Thanks. Jibbajabba 06:30, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I've found references to some of JMS' comments on the B5/DS9 similarities. I have added these links to the similarities article. I also modified the content of the paragraph in which these links appear. I considered modifying the relevant paragraph in this article, but couldn't come up with appropriate wording. I may make changes later when I do. Val42 05:36, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think the Critique and Plagiarism section is NPOV. It should at least be cleaned up, I'll fix the link to link to the 'similarities between B5 and DS9' page, and (if nobody objects or beats me to it in the next few days) reword this stuff. I'm thinking specifically of taking out the examples of similarities (they're all listed in the 'similarities' page anyway), and turning this section into a discussion of the JMS "bible" vs. artistic necessity leading to similar ideas (e.g if you're on a space station you need a ship if you want to go somewhere) vs. pre-existing ideas that predated, and inspired, both series. Kickaha 04:32, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Except that you're too late. The Similarities between Babylon 5 and Star Trek: Deep Space Nine article was deleted on Halloween. The vote was two keep (including mine) and nine delete. The place for the similarities is now the Babylon 5 or Star Trek: Deep Space Nine article. So the only alternative left is for you to clean up the information and leave it in this article. Val42 20:54, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Very Literal Space Western

DS9 can be interpreted as a very literal space western thus:

ds9 = frontier town/settlement quarks = the saloon (dabo = poker) odo = sherrif bajorans = native americans cardassians = spanish conquistador sisko = british commander and starfleet crew = his unit wormhold = mountain pass

though the spanish/english part could be contentious it's still an interesting theory, perhaps worthy of a stub page?

That's interesting, but a British commander in the Old West would've been beaten and hung. Probably even in that order depending on the day. Sisko is/was more like a Federal US Marshal and the rest of Starfleet act as Federal Deputies keeping the peace in the area. Or you can say he's the mayor, but that isn't really accurate either given his Federataion duties on the station. Also, the wormhole is more like a new trade road leading into the new frontier. Everything else looks categorically appropriate. Eluchil 11:35, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

yeah i was just lobbing the theory up here for discussion, another thing i realised is the nearby "badlands" cycloid 11:30, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

That sounds interesting, although it might be interpreted as POV-ish by some elements of the Wikipedia community. I remember the producers talking somewhere in the DVD extras about what they had intended the characters to represent and whatnot. Unless that's where you're getting this, a section on the series' Memory Alpha article might be more appropriate, as articles there are written by fans, for fans and have more leeway with representing fan POVs. MA articles often delve into similar issues, such as the historic parallels in the Occupation of Bajor. --Vedek Dukat ^Talk 03:34, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

"a British commander in the Old West would've been beaten and hung" Hardly. Even Oscar Wylde had a very successful tour of the American Old West. Many a British commander was made of sterner stuff - just look at the Indian Mutiny or Afghn Wars. You don't get any wilder or more extreme than the Northwest Frontier of India Rick Norwood 14:17, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

In one of the DVD featurettes, they discussed the fact that it was intended to be a space western. If I get time later I'll look up the info. Moulder 21:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

The Series "Firefly" actually takes the theme of Space Western to the extreme if any one is interested. Good show...just very, VERY enthusiastic on the space western side

Nearly every Sci-Fi can be interpreted as a western - why include it here? Reid 15:59, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Because it's not a theory. As Moulder noted above, it was part of the creative concept behind the show. I forget where, but I've also seen definite quotes from the folks who created DS9 saying "Gene Roddenberry envisaged Star Trek as Wagontrain-to-the-stars. We carried that idea across to DS9 being set in a frontier town. Odo's the sheriff," and so forth. If someone has a copy of the Deep Space Nine Companion or the documentaries on the DVD releases (I don't currently, or I'd provide the reference), it's probably in there. Kickaha 21:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Rom as Grand Nagus

Not sure if I agree with Centrx's reasoning behind not listing Grand Nagus as one of Rom's occupations. Dogs of War was in the current DS9 timeline, and for the last few seconds of the episode and all through the finale, Rom was de jure Grand Nagus, even if it wasn't acknowledged in the finale. Nog was only a Lieutenant for the last few minutes of the finale, but it wouldn't be argued that the rank is a look into Nog's future after the series, since the promotion occured during the series. Any other opinions? RexTraverse 05:53, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Rom is made Grand Nagus at the end of the second-to-last episode and is never seen again. The purpose of this and similar character stories is to state where the character is going after the series, to wrap him up before all is done (the writers could have just as well placed it at the very end of the last episode if he had been a more important character). While it is appropriate to state that Rom was made Grand Nagus or that Nog was made Lieutenant in a full section or article on the character, it does not make sense to say that the Role of Rom as a Recurring Character was as Grand Nagus, and the same for any other character in similar circumstances. - Centrx 02:48, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

References

There were a number of places where generalizations or "common knowledge" were discussed, but I'd like to see some (scholarly if possible) citations for things like the comparison between the Japanese, Serbian, etc situations and the Occupation of Bajor, the controversies section in general, and a few other places. I'm saying this because I love the show and want to see it at FA status, not because I'm a stickler for "fancruft". Moulder 09:02, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. These comparisons just look like speculations, especially when people keep adding to them, and without a quote from Rick Berman or some substantial comparison in some book or major magazine, they should be removed. —Centrx→talk • 07:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Questions

• Were the Vorta and the Jem Hadar created or just modified from existing species?
• The Vorta definitely worshipped the Changelings as gods, but I don't recall any Jem Hadar indicating they thought of them that way. Did I miss something? Clarityfiend 07:36, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

The Vorta and Jem'Hadar were brand-new species created as part of the "anti-Federation" (as Robert Hewitt Wolfe put it) that became the Dominion. The idea was that it wasn't just "the Romulans" or "the Klingons" but a power that like the Feds was comprised of different species (e.g. Karemma, later Cardassians and Breen).

As for the Jem'Hadar, they definitely believed the Founders were gods. Hippocratic Oath (DS9 episode) revolved around a group whose leader dared to question the Changelings, for example. I can't think of any other specific episodes but there are lots of references (maybe not as subtle as Jeffrey Combs' "the Founder knows all, the Vorta kisses butt" ;)) to it. Here's a quote from the aforementioned episode, courtesy of Memory Alpha:

"I have fought against races that believe in mythical beings that guide their destinies and await them after death. They call them gods ... The Founders are like gods to the Jem'Hadar. But our gods never talk to us, and they don't wait for us after death. They only want us to fight for them... and to die for them."

Moulder 08:45, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

As luck would have it, the Prophets sent me a vision (I saw an episode today on Spike), the one where one of the Weyouns defects to the Federation. In it, he tells Odo that long ago, the Vorta were much different. Then a family of primitive Vorta sheltered a changeling from angry solids. In gratitude, it promised to make them into an important species. Clarityfiend 22:21, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Weren't the Vorta originally small apelike creatures that were modified by the founders? --PiMaster3 ^talk 15:22, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's the backstory explained in the episode where there's a runaway Weyoun clone who actually talks to his 'successor' clone in one scene (but neither is apparently the one we saw before, as he was killed!). Can't remember which episode it was. Seems better left explained on the Vorta page though. Moulder 20:17, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

For the curious, the episode is "Treachery, Faith, and the Great River". BryanG^(talk) 01:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

"DS9" vs "Deep Space Nine"

The usage throughout the article needs to be standardized. Which one should it be? --PiMaster3 ^talk 15:26, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

It's used so much, DS9 gets my vote. Of course, there's always my favorite: Deep S IX. Just a thought... Clarityfiend 19:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

For those who aren't familiar with the show Deep Space Nine would probably be a better choice though. ––PiMaster3 ^talk 21:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

The way Star Trek: The Next Generation handles it is writing it out in full only in the first sentence, then using the acronym afterwards, so this is what I've done:

• standardized all references to the series, after the initial sentence, as DS9
• when the station itself is mentioned, I left it as Deep Space Nine
• formatted all references to other Star Trek series as follows: Star Trek: The Next Generation, etc. Unfortunately, this sometimes means a single sentence will have another series written out alongside DS9, but I can't think of a better way to handle it. I don't think using acronyms for the other series is reader-friendly.

I hope I fixed all the occurrences, but I may have missed a few.Clarityfiend 05:15, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, it may be fine for a star trek web site to use DS9, but is that appropo for wikipedia?

Apparently so. The wikipedia manual of style states "The standard writing style is to spell out the acronym or abbreviation on the first reference (wikilinked if appropriate) and then show the acronym or abbreviation after it." (bolding is mine) It then gives an example which pretty much matches what I've done. Clarityfiend 07:35, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I never found anything to confirm this - but, I thought there may have been some link in the choice of name DS9 or Deep Space Nine with the fact that the show was in syndication on WGN-TV Channel 9 Chicago, and I think though not as sure it was on WOR/WWOR-TV 9 New York market. Or just that the channel number matched and they could promote it that way, nothing to do with the name.????kidsheaven 23:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

GA Collaboration

Since this is the current GA Collaboration does anyone want to suggest how we can improve this article? Should we merge the "Awards and distinctions" section "Criticisms" section into a general "Reaction" section? Tarret 00:58, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Less a suggestion than a solicitation for further opinions, I mentioned in my peer review request (which I didn't intend to be going on simultaneously with the GA thing) that the references aren't standardized, which is my fault. The PR doesn't seem to have generated any responses on that issue though. Perhaps someone could weigh in on this here? Essentially the issue is that the style I did them in isn't consistent and, as Wikipedia doesn't have a set-in-stone policy, I wanted opinions on the best way to do it since I haven't been active in the WP community for a long time and am not up to date on the changing conventions being used. Moulder 20:24, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Recurring characters

it is amazing to me that Gul Dukat, played by Marc Alaimo, is not mentioned by name in this section. he and his character were an integral part of Deep Space Nine and its evolution. I've remedied this lack. if anyone wants to take it back out, there better be an explanation. ;) Indranee 14:57, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

He should be included, of course, but the entire "recurring characters" sections needs work. Jeffrey Combs and Marc Alaimo, for instance, have their own Wikipedia articles. The information on their background or other roles doesn't really belong in the DS9 characters section, IMO. What would serve the section best is for each entry to briefly describe the character's role on the series and link to the actor/character's main article. I've done some re-writing to the Dukat entry. I added some character background and removed the stuff that seemed either extraneous or POV. Some more brief stuff could be added on his later life, but I thought it was a good start. Feel free to polish it if you feel it's appropriate/necessary. -- Fru1tbat 17:57, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Titles...

If anyone is interested...

1. 03:07, 30 October 2006 Ned Scott (Talk | contribs) moved The Alternate (DS9 episode) to The Alternate (WP:TV-NAME) (revert)
2. 03:06, 30 October 2006 Ned Scott (Talk | contribs) moved The Adversary (DS9 episode) to The Adversary over redirect (WP:TV-NAME) (revert)
3. 03:06, 30 October 2006 Ned Scott (Talk | contribs) moved A Simple Investigation (DS9 episode) to A Simple Investigation (WP:TV-NAME) (revert)
4. 03:04, 30 October 2006 Ned Scott (Talk | contribs) moved Talk:Armageddon Game (DS9 episode) to Talk:Armageddon Game (WP:TV-NAME) (revert)
5. 03:04, 30 October 2006 Ned Scott (Talk | contribs) moved Armageddon Game (DS9 episode) to Armageddon Game (WP:TV-NAME) (revert)

also Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(television) .. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 08:23, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

BSkyB

Someone removed the Sky programme category which I've now put back, but I thought I would check to see if British Sky Broadcasting still has the rights to show DS9. It hasn't been on for a while. -- Tough Little Ship 16:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Good Article nominee at last!

This is such a great and informative article!

Lunakeet 14:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Eh? Look at the top of the page :-\ thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 14:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

References in popular culture section

At the top of that section someone added the "toomuchtrivia" template. What does this mean and what is needed? -- Tough Little Ship 14:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections in articles. As a side-note, mentioning DS9 things in other Star Trek production as part of a "DS9 in popular culture" section seems utterly bizarre. Morwen - Talk 14:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Possible image?

I think this image is of very good quality, and is relevant to the article. If someone can find a spot where it looks best, go ahead and add it.

File:Star trek voyager communicator pin.jpg

Starfleet Communicator Badge from Voyager and Deep Space 9

Steevven1 ^{(Talk) (Contributions)} 20:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I like it, nice blending and angle (-: thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 20:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:DS9 navigation

Template:DS9 navigation has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. --Illyria05 (Talk • Contributions) 23:08, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Deep Space Nine / Babylon 5

I seem to remember something about the two shows being related to each other after the Death of Gene Roddenberry. IN TV-Guide or some other TV column source at the time that the remaining writers wanted to go different directions with the series - and that Babylon 5 was done by some who did not like the direction DS9 was heading. The fact of similarities could be the only truth to this.

But somewhere I remember this and have often found I have eventually found the answer to these type of things at some point in the future. It may take a few years to find a source that I had read. IT has happened in the past with missing episodes or movies and such I remember, but can't find. Then one day I find it.

Would be interested in any comment, source, or views on if I am correct or not.......need to dig out my old TV guides preview issues and check...kidsheaven 00:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Babylon 5 was planned long before DS9 started, and was only delayed until after the other started due to a lack of funding --Mnemeson 09:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Genetically Modified Human?

Is it too spoilery to list Bashir as a genetically modified human? When I went through a few minutes ago and added a species listing for everyone on the chart of main characters (I couldn't believe it hadn't been done already!), I erred on the side of caution and left his as simply "human" with a link to the Human (Star Trek) page. I'm leaning towards leaving it off, opinions? CrashCart9 03:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

There are spoiler warnings throughout the article so if anyone is spoiled, it is their own fault. Wikipedia "strives first to inform, spoilers or not." See WP:SPOILER. Gdo01 03:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

You should omit the Genetically Modified part because it is too detailed for this particular article, regardless of it being a spoiler or not. His modification is a factor in one episode; aside from that he's a normal human. Koweja 04:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Category:1999 television program cancellations

Please do not remove this article from Category:1999 television program cancellations. That category holds all programs which ended their original series runs in 1999 regardless of reason. Some editors apparently are misreading the category to think that it is only for "network cancellation", which is not the case. Category:Television program cancellations by year houses all series articles sorted by year of series end.

Thanks, and if you have any questions please feel free to post them, but do not remove this category. Dugwiki 15:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Removed, do not give orders, k? -- "cancellations", the operative word - Wikipedia:Verifiability: "Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed.", the addition of said material category is challenged and has been removed, you may provide a verifiable source if you like to prove it was cancelled. A series coming to natural closure != cancellation. Matthew 15:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Again, please read the category description for the scheme before deleting this. The description reads "Television programs whose last original episodes were broadcast in the year 1999." It does not specify why the episode was last broadcast in 1999. The article already possesses ample references indicating that the last episode was broadcast in 1999 (or are you disputing those references?)

Reverting the change. Dugwiki 15:50, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Reverted, again. The title is "cancellations", not "finales". The show was not cancelled, unless you can prove otherwise, as stated a natural end is not a cancellation, it matters not if the category's creator set that at a goal, if anything its goal is disputed, yea? OK. So, conclusion: do not reinsert without consensus, yea, Good! Matthew 15:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Not good. You are clearly ignoring a fairly well established categorization scheme that is part of the broader scheme of including years of establishment and years of disestablishment of entities within articles. If you don't like the title of the category, take it up at WP:CFD. But the clear instructions and goals of the scheme are to provide the year of series end regardless of the reason. Dugwiki 16:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

February 2007, not very well established, in my opinion. I'm not very interested in categories, you may submit a renaming if you wish, I will not, as I believe it would be clutter at the end of the day, none the less I would not remove it. Matthew 16:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

So the issue here is the name of the category not the fact that DS9 should be included in the "categorical intent" which is to categorize shows by when they end which is indicated by the category description:

Television programs whose last original episodes were broadcast in the year 1999.

I suggest renaming the category to reflect what the intention is. Just because a show isn't renewed it doesn't mean the show was cancelled. Letting a contract lapse doesn't mean it was terminated. Additionally, a show could be cancelled at the end of a year but still have the remaining already-produced episodes aired into the next year (further showing the category name doesn't align with the intent). Cburnett 16:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

That said, I disagree with putting this category on this article until the category is renamed. Cburnett 16:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Tell you what, then. In the spirit of compromise, and so I don't get into an edit war, I will personally nominate these categories for renaming at CFD to "Category:Television program series ending by year". That should eliminate any ambiguity over what they're for. Sound ok? Dugwiki 16:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

FYI, the categories in question above have now officially been renamed to "series endings" instead of "cancellations" to eliminate any confusion over their use. Now that the rename is in place I have added Category:1999 television program series endings to the article to tag the year the series ended (again, without implying why it ended one way or another). Dugwiki 21:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Sexism/Mysogeny

Hi all. I just added (and cleaned up, a bit) a new sub-section in "Themes" that I entitled Sexism, Mysogeny and Women's Liberation. I saw this as one of the major themes in the DS-9 series, particularly against a backdrop of women being equal to men in almost all societies in the other Star Trek series. The several disjunct episodes that explore Ishka's gradual transformation from repressed "female" to major power broker and reformer I think deserve to be recognised. As it's my first foray into actually authoring a whole section, please feel free to comment/make changes as needed.

Actually, the relationship between Zek and Ishka has a minor sub-sub-theme within. Geriatric love, anyone? --Esseh 03:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

References in popular culture

Isn't it just a little bit stupid to list intra-Star Trek references to DS9 in this section? If they must be in the article at all, shouldn't they at least be somewhere else? Vegfarandi 08:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Themes

I cut this material as uncited WP:OR. Please return in part or in whole with citations. I left the bit about religion because I saw a citation somewhere in there, but I'll migrate other parts of that section that are uncited here once I have time to take a closer look. --EEMeltonIV 17:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

DS9 sheds some of the Utopian themes that permeated the previous versions of Star Trek, leading both to praise and criticism from both fans and general viewers. Some fans, in particular, hated how the show seemed to imply that the utopian society of the Federation was merely a sort of hypocritical disguise hiding its true "Borg-like" character. Its darker setting—being based on a station in a region of space recovering from sixty years of brutal occupation—focuses more on war, religion, political compromise, and similar issues.

Religion

The most prominent theme is that of the deeply religious Bajoran people attempting to rebuild their world and their economy after sixty years of Cardassian occupation and oppression. The relationship between the Bajorans and the Cardassians is intentionally portrayed as a powerful Holocaust allegory mixed with other themes such as Soviet-era Russia.<ref>Herman Zimmerman in the 1993 documentary ''Deep Space Nine: Behind the Scenes'' hosted by [[Terry Farrell (actress)|Terry Farrell]] said: "The Cardissians are a mix of German Nazis and Russians before [[Glasnost]].</ref> The Cardassians had put the Bajorans to work in forced slave labor camps under terrible conditions, killed them with impunity, and now refuse to acknowledge the atrocities that occurred during the Occupation, which is explored in episodes such as "Duet", "Necessary Evil", and "Waltz".

Religion plays a very important role in DS9's unveiling and plot structure. Initially individuals wish to associate Sisko with religious archetypes such as Jesus, Moses or Mohammed who were all speakers of a monotheistic deity. Sisko is neither religious nor does he believe "the prophets" to be gods. Sisko is recognized by the community as an emissary between the material world and "the prophets." He however does not actually maintain this too well. From time to time he gets visions from the prophets that are ambiguous and almost meaningless until put into a proper context. This however does not occur until he comes into contact with something that the prophets created. His relation to these gods is hands off and he does not believe in such a relation until the last season when he makes Bajor his home.

The nature of the Prophets varies considerably from the typical conception of gods. They care for the Bajorans, but do nothing about it but let them see the future. They know the past and the future, but do not understand them. They are omnipotent but have to be pushed to use that power. When Sisko is brought into non-material existence with them he finds the prophets speaking through his mind using the bodies of people he knows to communicate with him. In this form they ask very simple questions that people usually know a priori. How do you explain to someone that cannot experience time, what it is? How can you explain to someone what senses are, when they feel no sensations? These are the sorts of answers the prophets wanted from Sisko and questions that do not easily have answers. This reinforces early pragmatist thoughts on key epistemological questions, that is understanding comes from long experience, not from knowledge.

There are many unanswered issues with these prophets. Sisko was asked by the prophets to make leaps of faith in areas which would normally require explanation. The Pah-wraiths, a group of evil prophets challenged the authority and home of the prophets wherever possible. Yet the nature of this conflict and/or the purpose of it remains questionable. In a battle between the two they used human vessels to resolve their conflict. The internal workings of this conflict are very doubtable. How can beings that exist outside of time possible be killed in time? The unanswered questions add to the mystique of the prophets and allow the audience to feel the choice Sisko has to make between taking blind leaps of faith or resolving to rational Federation protocol.

Colonialism

The relationship between the Cardassians and the Bajorans is colonial in nature. The Cardassians believed themselves both technologically and culturally superior to the Bajorans they had subjugated. According to Dukat (in "Waltz"), at the time of first contact, Cardassia was at least a century ahead of Bajor "in every way", and the brutality of the occupation would not have happened "if [the Bajorans] had accepted their place in history." The Cardassians strip-mined Bajor for resources and set up forced labor camps under the guise of civilizing a backward people. Guerrilla tactics by Bajoran fighters led to their freedom in the same way that many colonies gained their independence in the 1960s and 1970s.

As with many former colonies, Bajor struggles to establish a stable democracy and is wary of the involvement of the "well-intentioned" United Federation of Planets. Kira Nerys in the pilot episode states "We finally drive the Cardassians out, and what do our new leaders do? They call up the Federation and invite them right in!" The planet, thrust into the galactic spotlight after languishing in obscurity, nearly plunges into civil war on several occasions, most notably the three-part arc of "The Homecoming", "The Circle" and "The Siege", and again in "Shakaar".

Politics

The universe portrayed in DS9 is one of power politics practiced by the galaxy’s great powers. Prior to the series, the Federation had been depicted as a near utopian society guided by human rights (or rather sentient rights). In contrast, as depicted in DS9, it tries to balance its high ideals with practical political realities. Episodes revolving around this theme include "Improbable Cause" and "The Die is Cast", where the major powers sit by while a joint Cardassian-Romulan fleet attempts to obliterate the Changeling homeworld; "The Way of the Warrior", a two-part tale of political intrigue and conflict between the Klingon Empire, Cardassian Union, and Federation; "Homefront" and "Paradise Lost", in which the Federation risks turning into a military dictatorship; and "In the Pale Moonlight", which focuses on Sisko, who, in his own words:

"I lied, I cheated, I bribed men to cover the crimes of other men. I am an accessory to murder. But the most damning thing of all... I think I can live with it. And if I had to do it all over again, I would. Garak was right about one thing: A guilty conscience is a small price to pay for the safety of the Alpha Quadrant."

Idealism

Another theme DS9 visits on several occasions, including Sisko's struggle in "In the Pale Moonlight", is the idea that the universe is not perfect and there is often no right or wrong answer to difficult situations. This theme is embodied by the Maquis storyline; members of the Maquis are neither enemies nor criminals; they take up arms against Cardassia in defense of their homes. A quote from Sisko in the second-season episode "The Maquis, Part II" embodies not only the Maquis but also the stark contrast between DS9 and its predecessors:

"On Earth there’s no poverty, no crime, no war. You look out the window of Starfleet headquarters and you see... paradise. Well, it’s easy to be a saint in paradise. But the Maquis do not live in paradise. Out there in the Demilitarized Zone, all the problems haven't been solved yet. Out there, there are no saints... Just people. Angry, scared, determined people who are going to do whatever it takes to survive. Whether it meets with Federation approval or not."

Sexism, misogyny, and women's liberation

Themes of sexism and female liberation are explored in several episodes with Ishka (Cecily Adams and Andrea Martin), Quark (Armin Shimerman) and Rom's (Max Grodénchik) "Moogi" (mother). In Ferengi society, women have strictly enforced roles as homemakers. Although the Ferengi take pride themselves as being shrewd businessmen, Ferengi females are forbidden to wear clothing and are strictly prohibited from engaging in commerce of any kind. Despite these strictures, Ishka in one episode is revealed to have been more successful in clandestine business dealings than Quark. Further, she revolts in smaller ways by not pre-chewing her sons' food and daring to wear clothing, albeit only within the family home on Ferenginar. In later episodes, she becomes lover and, more importantly, chief financial advisor to Grand Nagus Zek (Wallace Shawn), thus forcefully demonstrating that Ferengi females do, indeed, have the "lobes" for business. In this position of power, she takes to openly appearing wearing clothing and acts as a powerful source for female liberation and other reforms within the Ferengi Alliance.

Exile

Many of the characters on Deep Space Nine were outcast from their own societies for some or all of the show's run, and many issues dealt with the consequences of their exile:

• Garak was a disgraced operative living in exile on Deep Space Nine.
• Odo originally knew nothing about his origins, and his shape-changing nature separated him from others he interacted with. Once he discovered his people, he rejected them and refused to rejoin the Great Link; he was eventually forced to spend several episodes as a "solid" after killing another changeling. He was also viewed with suspicion during the Dominion War, as a representative of an enemy race.
• Worf sided with the Federation during the Federation-Klingon war, and was without a House until being "adopted" by General Martok.
• Quark was forbidden from doing business with other Ferengi after violating a contract (Body Parts).
• Bashir is a genetically engineered human; genetic engineering has been banned and feared on Earth since the rise of Khan Noonien Singh.

Bad Language

"you son of a bitch" was used in Star Trek IV, so it's not exactly unprecedented when it appeared in Enterprise 72.68.92.53 00:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Son of a Rigellian bitch-creature! Clarityfiend 05:38, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

link to st rules

EEMeltonIV reverted this page, removing a link I put in to a non-existent page for the star trek rules laid down by gene rodenberry. This subject is an important one and, as far as I can see, is not covered elsewhere in wikipedia. According to wiki policy, redlinks (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:REDLINK) should be created for needed, unwritten topics, and their removal should not be done without careful consideration of their importance or relevance.

Accordingly, I will revert the changes made by EEMeltonIV. Any objections to this should be raised here and discussed before any more reverts are done.84.66.220.48 00:33, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

"Rules (Star Trek)" is not an encyclopedic title for an article. It is in and of itself OR. What would the content of such an article be? Please do not add such a vague redlink article that will never be written. --EEMeltonIV 00:35, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, the subject is not original research, only the contents of the subject may be OR. The contents of the wouldbe article are clear from the context of the sentence in which the link (on rules) is contained - "...DS9 often broke the rules laid down by Roddenberry, such as the prohibition against interpersonal conflicts between the main characters." Just to make it completely obvious though, the contents of the page would be the rules laid down by Roddenberry. If you don't like the title, why not make it better, rather than throwing the whole thing away?

Since you keep removing the link and cite a different reason each time, in the interests of avoiding multiple edits, I won't change the article until others have a chance to voice their opinion. Do people think this is a worthy subject for inclusion? and, if so, what would be suitable title? 62.136.110.78 01:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Rules say no to Star Trek Rules. I haven't been able to find any third-party publication dealing with the subject, only fan sites, which means this potential article either violates WP:OR or is WP:Fancruft or both. Can you produce any Roddenberry quotes about these rules? Maybe mentions of it in this article should be rephrased. Clarityfiend 02:51, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on st and so would not have seen any quotes from Roddenberry if they exist. I think I'd heard something about st rules made by Roddenberry before now, and when I saw them mentioned in the article, with an example given, I assumed they existed. If they don't exist, the reference to them should definitely be removed from the article. The question is, do they exist? Any experts out there with an answer? 81.79.229.139 18:45, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

The Deep Space Nine x Babylon 5 polemic

Useful links with plenty of material

Section made a serious charge, without citation of evidence, of Paramount stealing the entire concept of Deep Space Nine from the Babylon 5 series pitch. There is controversy and there are accusations, but this section made no effort to prove or cite a resource indicating that Paramount did, in fact, steal Deep Space Nine from the Babylon 5 series pitch.

The available evidence, formed by messages posted by Straczynski himself, ( links are posted right below) suggests that there was indeed some kind of "poaching" of the original pitch of B5.

http://www.jmsnews.com/msg.aspx?id=1-7652&query=shapechanger

http://www.jmsnews.com/msg.aspx?id=1-13041&query=berman

http://www.jmsnews.com/msg.aspx?id=1-3367&query=Grand Theft, drama

http://www.jmsnews.com/msg.aspx?id=1-9256&query=berman

http://www.jmsnews.com/msg.aspx?id=1-15165&query=berman

http://www.jmsnews.com/msg.aspx?id=1-7616&query=shapechanger

http://www.jmsnews.com/msg.aspx?id=1-7614&query=shapechanger

http://www.jmsnews.com/msg.aspx?id=1-7730&query=shapechanger

http://www.jmsnews.com/msg.aspx?id=1-13041&query=berman

A list of the similarities between DS9 and the original proposal of B5 made by Stracznynsk himself

An explanation of why Warner Brothers didn't tried to litigate ( also found in the first link)

I think that these quotes about the Deep Space Nine controversy can be useful

The original post of JMS cited in the review whose relevant piece is transcribed right below can be found here

[ http://www.dvdverdict.com/reviews/ds9season1.php]

Though I was only dimly aware of the controversy at the time, crossfire between partisans of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine and Babylon 5 has raged hot and heavy ever since these similar shows first competed in the television marketplace. J. Michael Straczynski had "pitched" the full Babylon 5 concept in 1989 to many places, including Paramount, and soon began production of that series pilot, and a mere two months later the Star Trek: Deep Space Nine concept was in turn presented to Paramount brass. Though Babylon 5 had the early start, Paramount brought the Star Trek: Deep Space Nine pilot to air January 3, 1993, just weeks before the bow of Babylon 5 on February 22, 1993.

Ever since, the debate has raged as to whether one show "poached" off of the other. Aside from the most fanatical Trek partisans, no one seems to accuse Babylon 5 of that crime, but some credibly make the point in the other direction. However, to be absolutely clear, at no point has J. Michael Straczynski claimed that the Star Trek: Deep Space Nine creators (Rick Berman and Michael Piller) knew of the detailed Babylon 5 "pitch." Quite to the contrary, he describes both men in highly positive, ethical terms, though he fails to describe Paramount executives in such a manner. Of course, anyone in Hollywood is familiar with concurrent development patterns, though in such a gossip-riddled town, one can easily imagine how word of a hot project can soon spawn imitative fruit (and hence create the appearance of purely coincidental concurrent development). Though a truthful accounting is unlikely, Straczynski has his own measured but firmly stated view:

There's little question in my mind that the suits at Paramount wanted to co-opt what we were doing with B5. I know that they *resented* the show because it was, at that time, their belief that they pretty much owned the space SF genre.

I feel that they guided the development process in order to co-opt what we were doing. And nothing I've heard from my sources inside the studio has given me cause to think otherwise.

J. Michael Straczynski (posted on Usenet 2/19/01)

added by PauloIapetus• , 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Is there a way to edit the references for the respective section in the main article? The links to www.JMSnews.com don't work due to inexact separation of URL and comment, all but one. ~mandragora —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.49.243.253 (talk) 17:52, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Split proposal

Since the article is getting rather long, and lacks a real introduction to the main characters, I believe it's time to at least split off the Books, Games, Music and Other merchandising sections into a separate article. References in popular culture should either be deleted or moved to its own article too. I'm not sure what should be done with Connections with other Star Trek incarnations. Comments? Clarityfiend 17:31, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Probably the first step is to go through and trim some of the OR-ish and wordy detritus and indiscriminate list-ish stuff. --EEMeltonIV 18:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Non-Starfleet cast

Under the heading cast is the following paragraph:

Featuring a diverse cast, DS9 was the first series to include main characters who were not members of Starfleet: Kira Nerys, Odo, Quark and Jake Sisko.

Is this entireley accurate? If I remember correctly, Wesley Crusher of TNG was not involved in Starfleet in any way until the middle of the first season when Picard made him an acting ensign. He did not truly become a member of Starfleet until the end of the third season when Picard granted him a commision and later when he joined Starfleet Academy. -- Redfarmer 16:31, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Point taken, "crushed" the offending text. Clarityfiend 16:41, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Why is Tartikoff mentioned?

I thought he worked for NBC, not paramount? - Theaveng (talk) 22:59, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Incoming links

At least some appear to be for the space station not the series. I recommend an interested editor (not me) review and tidy incoming links. --kingboyk (talk) 17:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Alexander Siddig Citation

I see that there is a citation request for an explanation about why the actor who plays Julian Bashir changed his name. Here is a direct quote (copied from his official web site)

Here's Sid's explanation from an October 1995 appearance, shortly after the name change was announced: "Actually my name hasn't changed, just my stage name. One of the problems was that one of my old friends. . .didn't know how to say my second name (El Fadil). And of course he couldn't spell it. So we got to talking about what other names we might choose for me. And we rolled them off and we came up with some stupid names and some not so stupid names. In the end we decided we would definitely try to work out a way to try to change my name. My mother, before I was born, wanted to call me a European name and a Sudanese name. [Sid's mother is English, his father is Sudanese.] She wanted to call me Adrian or some such name, I'm not sure what it was, and so I came back to my mother and said 'well I think I'm going to change my name to what you probably wanted to do in the first place' - because she was put under a lot of pressure to call me Siddig El Fadil la la la la la. . . There was a point where I was going to call myself 'uh' because people would walk up to me in the street and say 'hey you're, uh...' That would just make it a lot easier for them. And I could just say 'yes I am!' Well the long and short of it was that, as much out of a sense of mischieviousness, I just changed my name...and I might do it again! I might do it again every year from now on and I'll be remembered as the person who changed their name."

Now, I would guess that the fact it is an official fan site, rather than the myriad of unofficial fan sites available, it is probably a valid source. Problem is that I am not much good at doing references, and the actual page address is not clear, as regardless of what page you are on at this site, the address always shows up as [[3]]. Anyway, if you want to look for the quote yourself, go to "About", then choose "SID FAQ". StephenBuxton (talk) 14:26, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Looking for help writing an article about the spin-offs and crossovers of this series

I am writing an article about all of the series which are in the same shared reality as this one through spin-offs and crossovers. I could use a little help expanding the article since it is currently extremely dense and a bit jumbled with some sentence structures being extremely repetitive. I would like to be able to put this article into article space soon. Any and all help in writing the article would be appreciated, even a comment or two on the talk page would help. Please give it a read through, also please do not comment here since I do not have all of the series on my watch list. - LA @ 17:40, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Babylon 5 Controversy

I don't think it's fair to have this article on the DS9 page if a similar article is not also included on the Babylon 5 page. There are still no firm facts either way as to whether or not the concept behind DS9 came from Babylon 5, it's only speculation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crouteru (talk • contribs) 13:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree. There is not a single mention of Deep Space Nine on the B5 article, whereas it is included here. Also, the comments made by J. Michael Straczynski are back-handed, and while that is his expression, and a matter of statement, it does appear in a prominent manner. Until more reliable information is available, other than that stated solely by Mr Straczynski, and it is correlated with the B5 article I think the section should be removed. Roche-Kerr (talk) 14:03, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Is it just me, but i really like both series, but i have to say i dont see that many similarities between he two shows. Sure there are the obvious similarities, i.e but space stations, and a few of the characters have some similar qualities like Garibaldi and Odo, and Sisko and Sinclair having large then life destinitys but thats about it. I really dont see how this is a valid article.(Ngates87 (talk))

Some of the things that appear insignificant on the surface are significant in context (e.g. the fact that they took place on stations instead of ships is only important when you take into account that it hadn't been done before and then suddenly there are two shows on stations at the same time.) However, that's irrelevant unless it can be documented by verifiable sources and most of the "sources" are just debate among viewers and comments by JMS. Until that changes, it can be removed. The reason it's here is because there used to be a separate article and then it got deleted, so somebody added it here. Also, articles don't need to be "balanced" - the lack of coverage on one article is not reason to remove it from another. - Koweja (talk) 02:50, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, after rereading the section, I think that it's written in a manner that covers the controversy (which there certainly was) without falling into synthesis, speculation, and original research. That said, this much detail on the subject is more appropriate for the B5 article than for this one. This section should be move to the B5 article, and maybe have a small blurb here. Honestly I don't really remember how much of a big deal the controversy was at the time (as in, how much was it covered by the media). - Koweja (talk) 02:55, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

it says that it aired just weeks apart , yet DS9 premiered in 3rd january 1993, and B5 26th january 1994, so a year.

B5 began in february 1993 with The Gathering. January 1994 was the month the first season began broadcasting. Davhorn (talk) 17:39, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

CD release?

The text claims the Emissary CD was released between seasons one and two (which i would assume to be correct but I don't know). However, the date listed is 1999.

Breaking taboos

Just wondering, but is there any information as to whether the casting of a black man as the commander of the station was at all controversial in the same way that Uhura/Number One were in TOS? Either way, I feel it's probably worth a mention here. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:57, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure some people were unhappy about it, however I don't recall there being much controversy among the general public, viewers, or critics. - Koweja (talk) 02:51, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't remember any fuss either, so I don't see any need to mention the lack thereof. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:49, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I think this section is badly sourced. Is Gay League (a fansite) really a reliable source? I don't think so. Other than Gay League, are there any (reliable) sources which claim that the series broke any "taboos?" In my opinion, any link between homosexuality and the series is extremely weak. I think this whole section should be removed. Offliner (talk) 19:46, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the section, since: 1) the main source, Gayleague.com, is not a reliable source per WP:RS - it is a fansite of some kind, 2) in addition to Gayleague.com, the section has only one other source, which was used as a reference for a specific sentence only, 3) I personally find any links between homosexuality and the series extremely weak, and I have not seen any reliable source claiming that the series broke any "taboos." Offliner (talk) 17:10, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Second stable wormhole?

On Star Trek: The Next Generation, season 3 episode 8 entitled "The Price" featured a wormhole that is named as "the first stable wormhole". This episode occured before Picard was assimilated by the borg, and therefore before the pilot of DS9. Have I missed something? Avatar 1 (talk) 09:58, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

The wormhole in question was discovered by the end of the episode to not be stable. --99.234.201.111 (talk) 02:03, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Merge in Deep Space Nine Station article here

That article is just plot summary, and could be taken care of in a paragraph in this article, giving more context to this article and eliminating a permanent stub that just repeats Deep Space Nine's plot. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 06:08, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Disagree with merge. This article is about the show itself, while the other article is about the fictional space station. Also all other Star Trek series have a separate article for both the show and the vessels which the shows take place on. Claframboise (talk) 06:24, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. This article is too long as it is. IMO, there is enough noteworthy station-specific info there that would be too detailed to include here. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:40, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Disagree what Claframboise said is quite true rdunn 15:19, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Oppose We would also have to merge articles like USS Enterprise under this type of merge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lordwow (talk • contribs) 21:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Disagree with merge. I must agree with what Claframboise said for the above-mentioned reasons. TrekCaptainUSA (talk) 00:59, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Infobox Starring List

There's a long list of people under the "Starring" entry in the infobox who merely had recurring roles. Anyone object to trimming it a little? Some of these actors appeared in fewer than 15 episodes, I don't think they were really considers stars of the show. CPitt76 (talk) 20:19, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Done. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:36, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Much better, thanks. 24.0.244.91 (talk) 03:34, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I removed two recurring actors, the ones who played Dukat and Garak, from the "starring" list since they weren't ever regulars. --CF90 (talk) 00:19, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Both had more episodes featuring them than Ezri and no fan of the show would say Ezri was more of a central character than they were though. In fact, I think to divide DS9 into 'starring' and 'recurring' is trying to define where a beard starts. The only reason some characters were in the starring credits in the end was because the producers had to of course from the Network, there's no clear cut line in DS9 in and in the last Season, people like Garak and Dukat had about equal numbers of episodes featuring them as Jake Sisko, and a lot more screen time. And seeing that some of episodes which were both essential to the overall story arc of the show as well as some of the most remembered by fans were carried by Garak and Dukat ('In The Pale Moonlight', 'The Die is Cast', 'What you leave behind', 'Waltz') and effectively Jake had no episodes and certainly no notable ones that he carried and likewise for Ezri. I find it peculiar that just on network labelling Ezri can be a 'main cast' member just for her appearances in the last season and Garak and Dukat cannot. I'd say simply remove the distinction and put the characters in there which have received a substantial amount of writing about them there on alphabetic order. I might even be thinking it wouldn't be too far fetched to put Sloan in there since he was a significant figure in Trek that divided and polarized the fans a lot and caused a lot of debates. Rajakhr (talk) 01:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

GA?

Should a Good Article have whole unreferenced sections as this does currently? — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 20:27, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Trills and symbionts

Not sure if this is overly nit-picking, but the show is quite explicit that it is to be seen as that Ezri Dax does not 'share her life with a symbiont', Ezri Dax is the fusion of the personalities of the Dax symbiont and Ezri Tigan. Same for Jadzia Dax of course. The personality in the host is not dominant over that of the symbiont per se. Rajakhr (talk) 17:45, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Clash with Roddenberry's vision?

The second paragraph seems highly subjective, even stating the author's own viewpoints. It's also a bit unprofessional, abbreviating Roddenberry's name and using only Majel's first name without even identifying her significance and why her opinion matters to the Star Trek universe. 192.91.172.42 (talk) 14:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I for one would like to know where the idea that Roddenberry had some form of vision of being noble creatures came from because it sure wasn't there in TOS. It seemed like every time Kirk ran into somebody famous in the Federation they either were already stark raving nuts or decided that this was the perfect time for their impending nervous breakdown.--BruceGrubb (talk) 22:14, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Nog

Should Nog not be a main character?

MWOAP (talk) 01:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

No. I would put Garak ahead of him in importance, and he only gets classed as a recurring character. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:19, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

ds9 astronomy package

Can we get a disambiguation page, showing the existence of the astronomy package DS9 (http://hea-www.harvard.edu/RD/ds9/)

Cheers —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.114.22.122 (talk) 19:19, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Date Correction?

I don't know the real date, but the article states that VHS tapes were released in the UK in 1993, which is probably not true given that the series wasn't aired until 1993 itself, and VHS tapes were not released until 1996. 195.228.146.194 (talk) 15:58, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Not true. I watched quite a few DS9 episodes on VHS cassettes in 1994 that I rented from a local, independent video shop. This fellow had almost the whole first season for rental. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.9.203.69 (talk) 19:27, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Quark

Why is the character of Quark given such prominence in this article? Whilst i recognise that he should be classed as a main character, i don't think it is necessary to continually refer to him - he is mentioned at least three times overall. Too much? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.45.4 (talk) 21:51, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Benjamin Sisko full human?

I would argue that Benjamin Sisko is fully human since all the prophet did was inhabit the body of the woman that bore Benjamin Sisko so physically he is fully human. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.114.230.47 (talk) 05:14, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I would agree. His mother was possessed by a prophet - not impregnated by one. I'm going to change it and if anyone objects, we can discuss it further. ῤerspeκὖlὖm in ænigmate_(talk)(spy) 15:53, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

DS9/Babylon 5 - removed paragraph

Removed this paragraph:

DS9 ran in syndication, never on UPN. DS9 sister show Voyager did run on UPN. This makes the following discussion dubious. The PTEN vs. UPN network rivalry may have been a factor in the development of such similar shows, since both networks were competing for control of the same independent stations and status as the 5th major network (after ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX). Each nascent network wanted the other to fail.^[1] Ultimately, PTEN dissolved in 1997, while The WB (majorly owned by and named after Warner Bros.) and UPN (launched by Paramount, but later managed and then owned by CBS) merged to form The CW in 2006.

Considering the editorial comments (emphasis added), probably needs to be reexamined before being added back in, though it doesn't add all that much to the article anyway, really. --Fru1tbat (talk) 14:31, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

milky way??

The show is set in the Milky Way galaxy, approximately during the 2370s.

this is a little unnecessary, right? i mean to say that ALL of star trek takes place in the milky way galaxy.. with the exception of a few instances... uh, visiting the q continuum, tom paris reaching warp 10 and being "everywhere in the known universe at the same time", fluidic space of species 8472.. there's probably a lot more.. i'm tired and can't think. ≈Sensorsweep (talk) 08:46, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Agree - go ahead and make the change. Ckruschke (talk) 19:01, 8 July 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

Proposed merge with The Way of the Warrior

Unreferenced, so should be merged with parent article.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 15:18, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, but I disagree. This wouldn't really be the parent article. List of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine episodes would be better, but would give undue weight, in that article, to one particular episode. Time would be better served finding reliable sources which must exist either in print or on the web or by citing the episode itself as a source. ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 13:22, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Citing the episode itself would not establish notability. Third-party references should be added to the article. DonIago (talk) 13:43, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 22:53, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

List of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine episodes may be a better merge target.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 22:53, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I disagree, unless we plan on merging all episodes, it is best to keep all episodes the same. Since all other episodes have their own page, this one should as well. S806 (talk) 03:48, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFF. It's entirely likely that those other episode articles should also be addressed. DonIago (talk) 13:08, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree that a review can be done, however quite literally the only reason this episode article was proposed to be merged was because it was recently created, and had no content (until yesterday). It is not any different than every other DS9 episode article. In fact, if you look now through the list of episode articles, you can't point this one out as being different. Merging this one episode makes no sense.S806 (talk) 14:24, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Anyways, I don't have a strong opinion, just an opinion. Whatever is decided, is decided.S806 (talk) 14:24, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

If my past experiences in this regard are any sort of precedent, I would recommend re-directing episode articles with no clear indication of notability (and hopefully some could be found for this particular episode) to the episode list article. DonIago (talk) 15:18, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I've removed the tag because it doesn't seem there is a consensus to merge at this time. As Jeff G. noted, List of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine episodes would be a better target for a merge anyhow. If any individual episode articles do need references, both The Star Trek Encyclopedia and Deep Space Nine Companion would be good places to start. gobonobo ^{+ c} 00:55, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Babylon 5

I removed the section pertaining to DS9 and Babylon 5. It seemed to go into great detail about Babylon 5 and did not seem relevant to the DS9 article. Its contents would perhaps be more appropriate on the Babylon 5 page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.127.81.35 (talk) 16:39, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with this sentiment, especially as most to the 'citations' are from Straczynski's posts. They hardly seems like a reliable source and this section on Babylon 5 should be removed from the DS9 page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.237.166.151 (talk) 13:52, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Just a FYI type thing. The ‘reply’ being attributed to Straczynski on the subject of suing Paramount in this section is complete fiction - it also appeared on the Babylon 5 article and was removed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Babylon_5#Edit_to_Star_Trek:_Deep_Space_Nine_controversy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.173.116.79 (talk) 00:00, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

No, the piece previously quoted as coming from JMS is,indeed, posted in a message posted by him in his Newsgroups as can be attested in the link right below.

JMS's statements about the litigation's issue

There are, indeed, reliable Third Party sources that can be cited in this article. IMO, the elucidation of this mess pertaining to both the series should have its place in both their Wikiarticles, provided that they follow the Wiki's guidelines. Given time I'll try to fix this problem, since that today we have statements made by Michael Piller and some magazines that covered the issue.--PauloIapetus (talk) 14:16, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Which quote are you referring to? I removed the quote 86.173.116.79 was referring to because (1) it actually juxtaposed two JMS quotes from 1992 and 1995 and (2) by selecting certain sentences it possibly misrepresented JMS's viewpoint.

The controversy should be mentioned somewhere in this article. Third party sources would help bring a more detached view of the issue. —Mrwojo (talk) 17:48, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

• I have thrice reverted a first-time IP user regarding deletion of the section, which has been a stable part of the article for years, and was then reverted agaiin by User:Justin.Parallax. Suggest we discuss the matter here, and gain consensus, which is the proper way to edit collaboratively instead of by way of terse edit summaries. Thanks. Jusdafax 09:53, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I made a few changes to this paragraph about a year ago, and I concur with the deletion decision. However, a few points:

• Roughly the same paragraph appears on the Wiki page for Babylon 5, but there has never been a move to delete it. I struggle to understand how the subsection (not a differently-written section, either, but an earlier version that seems like copy-and-paste) can be simultaneously relevant to one show, but not the other. Perhaps this can be explained plausibly; but if not, I suggest the paragraph be deleted on the B5 page, as well. Based on the talk page for the B5 article, it looks like the last discussion took place in 2009.

• Taking a step back, I think the entire section as it's presented now is a thinly-disguised collection of competing opinions, and wouldn't be worthy for inclusion even if it was relevant. Michael J. Straczynski's allegations have never been substantiated, and because DS9 and B5 never actually competed for viewership (e.g., different time-slot, no network-level competition), Paramount/CBS likely had no motive to engage in a risky scheme of IP infringement. To present the "controversy" as we do now, e.g., with collected quotes from MJS and some statements from the DS9 producers, implying that there's some kind of objective, unresolved debate, really does give this matter more than its due. To the extent that we have *any* paragraph addressing a DS9/B5 controversy, it should be only to the extent that, historically, a controversy has existed among fan opinions. But I question even the value of that. MaRoWi 19:24, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

• Since the sources are mainly posts on MJS sites, not independent 3rd party sources, I wouldn't add it back in as it was. Perhaps a sentence or two in the production or reception sections, based on discussion from the DVD verdict review (independent 3rd party, with a concise summary of the "controversy")? Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 19:49, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

[Category:African-American television drama series] clearly not an appropriate category IMO

Why, because the Captain on this program happens to be an African-American? That's a mighty broad brush with which this program is assigned to this category, and clearly not appropriate as its themes and storylines do not in any way focus on African-American culture, issues or themes; an essential premise of all Star Trek incarnations reflects a human race which has transcended such distinctions... I'm going to be bold and remove this category.Boogerpatrol (talk) 23:13, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I have to agree, this show doesn't have a focus on African Americans. Transcendence (talk) 23:25, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

More significantly in the star trek universe countries have ceased to exist sometime before TOS so 'African American' it a anachronism. Mtpaley (talk) 01:04, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Setting Impacting Storytelling

"[Setting the series on a space station] made continuing story arcs and the appearance of recurring characters much more feasible." In what way? I fail to see the difference between DS9 at the mouth of a wormhole, the original Enterprise on a 5 year mission, the Voyager stranded, as being in any way less conducive to continuing story arcs or using recurring characters - indeed, it is easily argued the other way 'round. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Voideater (talk • contribs) 15:34, 1 June 2016 (UTC) Voideater (talk) 15:35, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, a relatively fixed location does lend itself to revisiting the same nearby locations, characters, and conflicts... The connection from there to "continuing story arcs" is understandable, but is by no means exclusive to the setting. Either way, I think it reads a little like original analysis, and does not appear to be supported by anything else in the article, so I've removed it. --Fru1tbat (talk) 16:00, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you; I would only underscore that an isolated colony such as on a starship far from its home actually supports recurring characters much more effectively than a space station at the hub of major commercial and other interests. At best, we might say that the other incarnations of ST are a ship moving through space, while DS9 is space moving through a ship. Cheers! 2601:500:8202:8BC0:9C93:96CA:24FA:979F (talk) 16:03, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

That depends on the nature of the recurring character, does it not? If the recurring character lives on Bajor, they're probably not as likely to recur in a series set on a starship as they are in a series set on a space station orbiting Bajor. DonIago (talk) 14:29, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

"Lakarian City" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Lakarian City. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. TheAwesomeHwyh 17:59, 16 March 2020 (UTC)