Talk:Law in Star Trek

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article was nominated for deletion on Nov 2 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

This article was nominated for deletion on 4 February 2008. The result of the discussion was Keep.

	Law Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the assessment scale.
Low	This article has been assessed as Low-importance on the assessment scale.

	Star Trek Portal This article is part of WikiProject Star Trek, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to all Star Trek-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Contents 1 Sourcing : an example of a problem 2 Not bad faith 3 Sourcing 4 A Source! My Kingdom for a Source! 5 Klingon legal system 6 More specific citations? 7 Delete nomination 8 Video games canon? 9 Sourcing 10 Maintenance tags

[edit] Sourcing : an example of a problem

I shall assume for the moment that

"Military law is influenced by the actual Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)"

is a true statement. What sources are needed to substantiate this statement? In order to verify this statement, we need to

• find a quote by a member of production staff that this was their intent

or to

• find a quote by a reliable source, which considers the military law in Star Trek, compares it to the UCMJ, and then notes that it was evidently influenced by it

If we are doing that comparison ourself, then this is original research. The comparison needs to be sourced. Adding "The Drumhead" here as a cite does not address the issue of sourcing, and in fact makes it seem even more like original research than decent unsourced material. Morwen - Talk 14:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

One can argue both sides of the point. I can see why Husnock says this. I've been to the green table (Captain's Mast) and Court Martials (general and special) myself, and everything seems to indicate that whoever wrote this stuff probaby copied it from existing military law. But on the other hand, without a source to prove this , it's OR. Husnock, the frustration you have regarding this issue has to do more with the fact that no sources touch on this topic aside from the shows themselves. Aren't there any kind of publicized production notes or something? --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 14:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure there are, I will research and find them. I jut need time to find them and its hard right now as I am in the Middle East. I will back home next summer. -Husnock 14:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't really know how to explain how wrong that is. We can't just leave uncited material there for months in the hope you will remember it. If you don't have access to sources, then you simply should not be adding this type of stuff from your memory, please leave it to those of us who do. -Morwen - Talk 15:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Not to go into a very toucy subject, but I would be careful telling a deployed member of the military they shouldn't edit on Wikipedia for whatever reason. I am certianly not going to curtail my editing Wikipedia because I'm in the Gulf, P.S. I'm not thinking you meant it badly, it just sounded like that. No one is saying "leave uncited material for four months". I am just saying I can't give exact sources until I get home and can look them up. This also isn't trying to become an FAC and general sources can do name of books episodes, etc until specifics can be provided. My main goal right now is to get this up and running and save it from the AfD. -Husnock 15:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not disputing whether it's actually true or not, it's just that replacing a {{fact}} tag here with a reference to an episode is not really providing the requested reference. It is difficult to try to improve articles and the sourcing of articles in an environment where not every editor is on the same page regarding sourcing. Also, yeah, how can "civil law is modeled after the the United States legal system" can be substantiated by a reference to the episode "Court Martial". The very name of the episode rather gives away that it deals, with, well, a Court Martial? Morwen - Talk 15:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Samuel Cogley directly states that the law of Federaton is based on several older documents, among them the Constitution. -Husnock 15:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

(after THREE edit conflicts) But these sources do exist, Husnock? Isn't there someone else here who would have access to such things, who could concievably source the article now? (Your predicament is precisely why I didn't re-enlist , aside from the fact that I didn't wanna screw around with trying to make chief.) --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 15:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, they do exist. There is at least one that I know of which talks about the "Samual Cogley" style of lawyering. its out of some law essay written by a law firm in St. Louis. Will find it when I have time. -Husnock 15:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

What the hell, I'll see what I can remember from the Klingon side and try to add something in the next couple of days, wherever it ends up in the end. (Off topic, I'm in the reserves myself (diff. country, but :-p), just like to send out some respect to everyone who's on the job for real.) Quack 688 15:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Not bad faith

"Klingon Law revolves around trial by combat (DS9 "The Way of the Warrior") but with a formal trial procedure in place as well (Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country)."

I think the contention is that this statement is a generalization about Klingon law as a whole based one incident in a TV show and one trial in the film. I don't remember Way of the Warrior (Rules of Engagement probably mentions it, too), but certainly there's nothing in ST6 (or the Enterprise episode with similar events) from which to make an across the board statement about Klingon law. More appropriate phrasing would be along the lines of, "In one instance, X happens" or some such. --EEMeltonIV 20:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

* Cite a reputable secondary source, or remove it.  Guy (Help!) 22:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sourcing

No. No, no, no. When I say that the comparison with the US military code needs sourcing, I do not mean "quote an episode", I mean cite a secondary source that makes this inference. The whole of the JAG section is still sourced to episodes which means it is still original research. Somebody really does not seem to be getting this simple point. Guy (Help!) 22:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

You never replied to my post regarding this on the AfD, so I'll just copy-paste it here:

Guy: The primary sources are the canon sources. If it's shown in the original Star Wars movie that Luke blew up the Death Star, then that's it - it's part of canon. Done. You don't need a newspaper review saying "Luke blew up the Death Star" before you can accept it. OR would be "What was Luke thinking when he fired the torps?", "How fast was his X-Wing going?", or "How big is the Death Star, anyway?"

How does that relate to this article? Statements of fact within a work of fiction, like "Lieutenant Areel Shaw prosecutes Captain James T. Kirk in his 2267 court-martial for alleged negligence in the death of Lieutenant Commander Ben Finney". are fine, as long as they source the episode. The UCMJ issue is different, because it involves both the fictional universe and the real world. I don't think it's OR to simply refer to the events in "TOS: Court Martial" as a "military court-martial", since it's described as such, and Kirk et al. are in the 23rd century military. To link it to a specific code, like UCMJ, you'd need to find references from both sides (e.g. in-universe quote mentioning the Starfleet policy on lampshade wearing , and a real-world UCMJ section that deals with lampshade wearing), then show they deal with the problem in the same manner. Stupid example, but I hope you get the point. Even so, the best you could say is that they're somewhat similar. The only way to say conclusively that "Starfleet law is based on the UCMJ" is to get a quote from the production staff explicitly saying that. Quack 688 03:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I still no source that links USMC with what we see in Star Trek. I'll remove the statement in about a week if a source does not appear. --Charlesknight 15:30, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A Source! My Kingdom for a Source!

The entire OR issue and lacking a source just got attacked by a Klingon armada and completely destryoed. Survivors are in an unorganized retreat towards the Tholian Neutral Zone...a PRIMARY LITERARY SOURCE...has now been added to this article. -Husnock 05:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

That's quick : wonder how you got access to it. I can't find it to download, and it doesn't seem to be on amazon.co.uk. Did it confirm everything that has been written here? Morwen - Talk 07:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I ordered it. Exerts of it were sent to me by a lawyer I know in St. Louis. It looks very interesting. -Husnock 08:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Damn, buy that man a beer - nice work! I wouldn't use that book as a source for in-universe stuff, like the seven rights you've mentioned for example - stuff like that still has to come direct from canon. But it'd be great to introduce a bit of well-sourced criticism in a Trek article. Onya! Quack 688 09:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Hold on - WHICH bits of the article does it provide a source for? --Charlesknight 17:18, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Klingon legal system

Things to do:

Add appropriate wikilinks throughout the text.
Change the reference style to the one already used at the bottom of the article.
Images that should be wikified, copyright-cleared, and added:

http://startrek.wikia.com/wiki/High_Council_of_the_Klingon_Empire (TNG-era council shot)
http://www.thefilmfrontier.com/images/trek06_010.jpg (image of st6 trial)
http://www.paulmcelligott.com/images/undiscovered_country.jpg (2nd image of st6 trial - I prefer the first one, though, cause it focuses more on the klingons, but I'm not too stressed. only one st6 shot is necessary, though)

Unsourced claims to add if sourced:

- The Mek'ba is the name given to that part of a trial or challenge in which evidence is presented.
- Klingon law provides that both the prosecution and the defence present their cases simultaneously.

Things that need to be added:

New "Trial procedures" section:

In the Klingon legal system, a Klingon warrior standing trial or challenging the High Council can appoint a cha'DIch, or "second." Since the accused warrior is denied combat privileges during the trial, the cha'DIch must physically defend him. (TNG: Sins of the Father)

ST6 - trial procedures
ENT:Judgment - trial procedures

PS. I found this script website - they shouldn't be listed as references, keep listing the actual eps for that, but they make life a bit easier when trying to find an old episode you're thinking of.
TNG scripts: http://www.twiztv.com/scripts/nextgeneration/
DS9 scripts: http://www.twiztv.com/scripts/ds9/ Quack 688 09:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Also some mention should be made to the whole "right to kill" aspect, as when Worf slays Duras who in turn had killed Worf's mate. This right seems to be rated above discommendation since Worf's dishonor was put on hold after he declared Klyer his mate and his right to fight Duras. -Husnock 09:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Um, that's already in the "vengeance" section, including the "above discommendation" bit. Was there something else about that specific incident you wanted to add? I wouldn't extend it to a general "right to kill", since even Klingons can't go around killing whoever they want without just cause. Quack 688 10:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment from Charlesknight's "This article may contain original research or unverified claims." tag: "it is suggested" It suggests that klingons like to kill people, says nothing about the legal system.

Response: The point I wanted to make was that under their legal system, killing someone for challenging their honor is a perfectly legal response. I can't think of a source for that off-hand, so I'll remove that section until I find one. If you have any other concerns with that section of the article, can you please leave a note here as well? Thanks! Quack 688 16:57, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest as a source the episode where Picard have to choose the new Klingon Emperor. Work kills Duras in revenge and Picard says at the end that "the Klingons consider the matter closed." Can't remember the name of the episode. - WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 17:01, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

That's the first thing I thought of myself, but it's not clear from that episode if that applies to any honor challenge, or just for the right of vengeance "you killed me missus" type - therefore, I've only used that as a source in the "right of vengeance" section. As a reference for this deleted bit, I was thinking of a few of the episodes that take place on Klingon ships. Two of them duke it out in a challenge, while the higher-ups just sit back and watch for a while. Even when they do break up the fight (which they don't always do), they always let it go for a little while first. And I can't think of a single example where two Klingons get in trouble for starting a fight over honor. Think what Picard would do if he bumped into a couple of his crew taking swings at each other in Ten-Forward. Quack 688 17:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, the DS9 episode where they think Gowron has been replaced by a changeling (in fact its Martok)? Worf is able to challenge him to honourable compat to the death (desptie his being the Emperor). Martok's inability to understand that is what gives the game away to Odo that he's the changeling. - WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 17:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More specific citations?

Would people who own the DVDs be willing to put in the exact minute(s) the cited material occurs? It makes the sources much more accessible. (Alas I own very little Star Trek myself.) --Fang Aili ^talk 22:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

That'd be nice, but it'd set an uncomfortable precedent - I don't want to see someone demand that every movie/TV article find to-the-minute references or be deleted as "unsourced". If it's a TNG or DS9 episode you're thinking about, though, have a look at those scripts - they should be able to tell you if whatever you're looking for is in the beginning/middle/end and fast-forward accordingly. Quack 688 16:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting it be required, and I think listing the episode is sufficient. The idea of more specific episode citations was brought up on the wiki-en listserv, and I do think this would make the citations better. If you're citing a book, for instance, you should list the page number the information comes from. Same thing here. (What scripts are you talking about, btw? The episode scripts? I think more people own the DVDs than the scripts.) --Fang Aili ^talk 16:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I guess I'm just paranoid that eventually, someone would try and force such criteria on all articles as a new standard, and I don't want to do anything that could start such a trend. Oh, the scripts I mentioned are at the end of my previous post on this discussion page about Klingon law. Quack 688 17:30, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Delete nomination

This article was not nominated for deletion. The result of that AfD should not be seen as an endorsement of the contents of this article. Its predecessor Starfleet Judge Advocate General was nominated and this article was created as a means of salvaging its content. The AfD concensus was that this article should be given time to be finalised. This should be kept in mind should editors consider that this article once finished still has problems with WP:N or WP:OR. -WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 14:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Video games canon?

Is Birth of the federation canon?

--Charlesknight 11:28, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

No. But that doesn't automatically preclude mentioning stuff from it. However, the thing being sourced from it at the moment is just some random game mechanics - the model used is a pretty standard simplified model of international law - which has no relevance at all to this article. Morwen - Talk 14:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed - the listed treaties are fairly generic space-strategy game treaties, there's no evidence to suggest that Star Trek was in mind when they thought of them. I wouldn't mind seeing a mention of established Star Trek treaties like non-aggression pacts & alliances, though. Along with Federation policy on alliances - namely, that they won't take sides in an ally's internal matters (as witnessed during the Klingon civil war in Redemption). Quack 688 17:05, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sourcing

From WP:ATT#Primary_and_secondary_sources:

Edits that rely on primary sources should only make descriptive claims that can be checked by anyone without specialist knowledge.

Primary sources are documents or people close to the situation you are writing about. An eyewitness account of a traffic accident, and the White House's summary of a president's speech are primary sources. Primary source material that has been published by a reliable source may be used for the purposes of attribution in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it's easy to misuse primary sources. The Bible cannot be used as a source for the claim that Jesus advocated eye removal (Matthew 18:9, Mark 9:47) for his followers, because theologians differ as to how these passages should be interpreted. Edits that rely on primary sources should only make descriptive claims that can be checked by anyone without specialist knowledge.

I believe the article as of the most recent diff meets the criteria for usage of primary sources and as such should not be tagged. All of the information is merely descriptive and can definitely be checked by anyone without specialist knowledge - just pop in a DVD of the episode cited. Because this is a descriptive article about a fictional universe, it's not a misuse of primary source if we say "anyone who breaks Edo law is sentenced to death" since the episode "Justice" tells us so and there is no interpretive debate about it. We do not run into the Bible problem above, which is I believe what WP:ATT is trying to avoid, because we're not dealing with anything that can be twisted inside out through differing interpretations. We know that Star Trek canon is defined for better or worse as the live-action TV episodes and movies. Since my major rewrite of this article back in January, I have tried to keep the cruft out and stick strictly to ST canon. There is of course an active debate on the canonicity of certain elements of the episodes and films, but that debate does not come into play here.

In addition, I have added cites to secondary sources (law review articles) which by definition meet what is asked for in the tag: "sources or references that appear in reliable, third-party publications". Wl219 05:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Maintenance tags

• In-universe - refer to WP:WAF, which clearly states that Wikipedia is an out-of-universe source, and all articles about fiction and elements of fiction should take an overall out-of-universe perspective.
• Primary sources - refer to WP:V, which clearly states that articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.

The article is currently written in an "in-universe" style and relies on primary sources. Only after these problems are resolved should the maintenance tags be removed. Addhoc 18:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)