FANDOM


(Removed speculation: ok)
Line 66: Line 66:
   
 
:::::My mistake. The note is neutral the way it is. In fact, contrary to what Sulfur said above, it does NOT ''"acknowledge that most people in our generation would only know that quote from that movie"'', it doesn't say anything at all about generations or about who knows what from where. Sorry for not having seen the newest version. Turnabout Intruder (no surprise, fairly warned) [http://memory-alpha.org/en/index.php?title=Turnabout_Intruder_%28episode%29&diff=prev&oldid=826894 DID] suffer from that kind of thing, though, even after Sulfur's contribution, so it seemed to me to be far from over. [[User:TribbleFurSuit|TribbleFurSuit]] 06:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 
:::::My mistake. The note is neutral the way it is. In fact, contrary to what Sulfur said above, it does NOT ''"acknowledge that most people in our generation would only know that quote from that movie"'', it doesn't say anything at all about generations or about who knows what from where. Sorry for not having seen the newest version. Turnabout Intruder (no surprise, fairly warned) [http://memory-alpha.org/en/index.php?title=Turnabout_Intruder_%28episode%29&diff=prev&oldid=826894 DID] suffer from that kind of thing, though, even after Sulfur's contribution, so it seemed to me to be far from over. [[User:TribbleFurSuit|TribbleFurSuit]] 06:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  +
  +
If I'm the only one who genuinely thinks mentioning Batman here for absolutely no reason is remarkably immature, and out of place than I'll back down. If I'm the only one who thinks people reading that will smirk about how silly the notion is, than I guess I'm not going to be the only one who'll fight. I will be removing the Turnabout Intruder reference, not because someone is making me, but because they're both clearly out of place, and if I can remove but one absurd reference, than I'll consider myself at least the bigger man in the disagreement. That Memory Alpha suffers from Cleanse's little brother throwing his weight around should be no concern to me, as its Memory Alpha's reputation that will suffer. [[User:Hossrex|Hossrex]] 06:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 06:09, May 8, 2008

Episode talk page

Maintenance links

Forged data rod

In Background info - "In the Star Trek universe, it appears that the Dominion really did intend to invade Romulus, and (unsuccessfully) failed to stop the Romulans from finding out. Only Sisko and Garak know the truth of the matter, and erase all the evidence of it (including the log and, in essense, this entire episode)." - Is this correct? Sisko refers to Starfleet Command a number of times and I thought they even approved the plan. He would hardly lie to himself in his personal log, would he? Should this point be removed? Bswee 22:50, 16 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Starfleet went so far as to approve the forged data rod. The murder of Vreenak was Garak's idea, and there's no indication that Sisko told them that. (Wouldn't be too hard to figure out though.) It does need to be changed. --9er 01:35, 17 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Uncredited rewrite by Moore

Does anyone have a source for the claim that Ronald D. Moore actually wrote this episode? -- Tough Little Ship 22:11, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it was him. Michael Taylor got the credit for writing the original story where Jake found out something about Shakaar and his father told him not to publish it. -- DS9 Forever 08:56, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Star Wars Reference

Two lines from the dialogue are possible Star Wars references: Garak wants Sisko to tell Vreenak that the data rod came at the loss of "ten good men" -- the loss of several Bothans was what convinced the Rebel Alliance that the second Death Star could be destroyed. Secondly, after Vreenak's death Dax and Bashir mention "a Romulan senator on a diplomatic mission", which was Leia's cover story when her ship was boarded by Darth Vader.

-- The idea that the two are connected is a bit of a stretch. I think it was coincidental. Should it be erased? --205.237.164.127 04:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this seems like speculation, and the author admits that these are only "possible" Star Wars references. Can anybody provide a citation showing that the production staff acknowledged that these references to Star Wars were inserted deliberately? Taduolus 09:35, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Fourth Wall?

"In a unique directorial and writing turn for the series, the audience is faced with more than just the fourth-wall concept of television. Rather, the audience becomes interactive. All the while, Captain Sisko is recording a personal log regarding the events of persuading the Romulans. The series explores the complex side of values and principles and deals head on with the perils of altruism."

I've removed this note, as I can't make sense of it. There seem to be three seperate points, all relatively unrelated to one another. The last sentence seems completely cut off from the rest of the sentences, and the third sentence isn't a grammatical sentence anyway. As well as that, the first two sentences are copied and pasted from a note in the BG section of the episode "Whispers", which I also removed, as it was inaccurate. There does need to be some acknowledgment of the issue of the fourth wall, but I think the note I've added is a lot clearer than this one – Bertaut talk 02:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

You were right to remove that, for all the reasons you state. ("Interactive"?) On the fourth wall topic, breaking the fourth wall is more than just speaking to the camera. In this ep, there's a reason Sisko's talking to the camera: we have the POV of the camera recording Sisko's log. The only time that I can recall ST breaking the fourth wall is at the end of "Journey to Babel" when McCoy turns to the camera and says, "Well, what do you know? I finally got the last word!" 9er 19:57, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Title origin

I'm not convinced by the note suggesting that the episode's title is a quote from Dickens. The Batman reference seems more likely, seeing as how the episode is about Sisko's deal with the devil, in the form of Garak's ruthless plans, and his resulting struggle with the consequences of that deal. Since moonlight IS pale, I'd suggest that the fact Dickens used the phrase 150 years before Tim Burton is just a coincidence, and unless we have a direct reference from one of the writers stating Dickens rather than Batman as the source of inspiration for the title, this coincidence shouldn't be mentioned in the article. -AndroidFan 22:39, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Is this a joke? The Batman line was a reference to Dickens in the same way the DS9 episode title was. Even if it wasn't, the writers of DS9 simply would not name an episode in reference to a 1989 movie about a comic book. This is as bad as the guy who demanded we include a note in the Schisms page saying how the name was an homage to Hellraiser. Its hard to even dispute the point, because you're so busy confusedly scratching your head trying to figure out exactly how you'll respond to the absurdity. Hossrex 01:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, as the author of the note, I'm obviously inclined to agree with Hossrex. But the fact is that the note doesn't suggest that the title is a quote from Dickens anyway, it merely points out that Dickens originated the phrase, which is simply a statement of fact. That is to say, his use of the phrase is the first recorded use of it in literature (yep, there are one or two phrases not coined by Shakspeare). But I would agree with Hossrex, the Dickens reference seems more likely than the Batman one. So if we're going to get pedantic about it, I would suggest removing the Batman reference and leaving the Dickens one! – Bertaut talk 19:31, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Removed speculation

Removed the following (and changed two words in what remains in the article): The title of this episode is often seen as a possible reference to the phrase "Have you ever danced with the devil in the pale moonlight?," best known to modern audiences from the 1989 Tim Burton movie Batman.

This has no citation, and is just silly. If it is in fact "often" seen, than a reference/citation should be an easy matter. At which time, I wouldn't have a problem with its return. The title of the episode just simply is not a reference to Batman. It just *isn't*. Please don't fight this issue. Hossrex 22:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the title is not a Batman reference, merely a coincidence(which doesn't merit a mention). I also would be happy to accept it if there is something from TPTB stating that it was a reference, but I'm pretty sure there isn't one.--31dot 22:50, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I happen to believe that the title is a reference to the Batman quote, simply since it is more relevant to the episode than either of the cited Dickens passages. I mean, Sisko really did dance with the devil in figurative sense, lying and condoning murder to promote his cause. Neither of the Dickens passages really have anything to do with deceit and treachery, the central theme of the episode. That being said, with no evidence that the Batman quote was the inspiration for the title, we really shouldn't say that it is. Perhaps alternatively, we could have a note after the Dickens one, that the Batman quote is a possible source of the name. That way, we recognize that Dickens as the sources of the phrase "In the pale moonlight", but we also state a closer possible meaning. I think to remove the Batman reference entirely would be a great loss. Tanky 23:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I am so very much forcing myself under control to not remove this again. Ignoring the sheer absurdity of the notion, this all boils down to Memory Alpha policy. Inferences without citation have no place here. Please provide citations, or at least references to this quote being about Batman. I had a reference removed from the "Turnabout Intruder" page which was this exact situation. I felt it was a reasonable inference that the episode was about something not implicitly stated, and basically the conclusion was that it doesn't matter what a couple people think, if it isn't a cited reference, its a no go for memory alpha. Part of that decision was, ironically, your brother cleanse.

So. Cleanse. Whats your opinion here? Should I go back and reinstate the passage on the "Turnabout Intruder" page? Because I will if this is the precedence we're setting (no. I'm not in favor of that, which is why I respectfully bowed out of that discussion when it became clear what people were saying, since it made sense). Hossrex 00:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok... a couple of things. #1 learn which "universe" to link years to. And don't link years for non-Trek stuff. We isn't Wikipedia. #2 when two BG notes discuss the same thing. Merge them. #3 I've done what is discussed in the prior note and removed the speculation about the "origin" of the phrase. The phrase "originates" in the earliest form of it. It was re-used. #4 There is no number 4. -- Sulfur 01:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

So do I get to go reinstate my comments that Turnabout Intruder had parallel themes regarding the equality of sexuality? Because if the Batman comment stays, I don't see any logic that prevents that comment from being appropriate. Hossrex 01:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

No. That's separate from this discussion. If you re-read things now, there's no speculation about the quote being from Batman. It simply acknowledges that most people in our generation would only know that quote from that movie and would not have realized that Dickens was the one who came up with it. -- Sulfur 01:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
The current solution works for me. BTW Sulfur, the link to 1989 year page was in the Batman reference before Hossrex deleted it, and before I put the reference back in. I had simply copied what had been there from the History page, and re-worded the beginning of the sentence. It had been there for some time before I came anywhere near it. I know "we isn't Wikipedia". Tanky 01:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

We're doing this without a single citation, or reference? So when I go add a page to Turnabout Intruder (episode), I just have to say "most people in our generation would", and the reference becomes valid? I'll be adding that to the other episode page immediately. Hossrex 02:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

So are we all cool on the new note? Sulfur's revision is good; no speculation there. – Cleanse 05:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
"acknowledges that most people in our generation would only know that quote from that movie and would not have realized that Dickens was the one who came up with it" Why is this any cooler at all than the old unacceptable claim? It's not cited either, which was the whole argument against claiming that Batman was the inspiration for this episode's title. The only reasonable thing would be to indicate that the phrase originated with Dickens and has inspired other contemporary works (Batman) besides Star Trek ones. Those statements are at least verifiable. It's true, this ain't Wikipedia, but it's not at all hard to find, if one doesn't already know, the local attitude about original research, [1], [2], [3], [4] even if it's not an explicit local policy. TribbleFurSuit 05:45, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Um. Have you looked at the page? I was referring to Sulfur's latest revision, which merely states: "The phrase was used again in the form of "Have you ever danced with the devil in the pale moonlight?," in Batman." What you're saying should be on the page has already been implemented on the page. In fact, I was trying to confirm here that this revision is acceptable to everyone. – Cleanse 05:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
My mistake. The note is neutral the way it is. In fact, contrary to what Sulfur said above, it does NOT "acknowledge that most people in our generation would only know that quote from that movie", it doesn't say anything at all about generations or about who knows what from where. Sorry for not having seen the newest version. Turnabout Intruder (no surprise, fairly warned) DID suffer from that kind of thing, though, even after Sulfur's contribution, so it seemed to me to be far from over. TribbleFurSuit 06:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

If I'm the only one who genuinely thinks mentioning Batman here for absolutely no reason is remarkably immature, and out of place than I'll back down. If I'm the only one who thinks people reading that will smirk about how silly the notion is, than I guess I'm not going to be the only one who'll fight. I will be removing the Turnabout Intruder reference, not because someone is making me, but because they're both clearly out of place, and if I can remove but one absurd reference, than I'll consider myself at least the bigger man in the disagreement. That Memory Alpha suffers from Cleanse's little brother throwing his weight around should be no concern to me, as its Memory Alpha's reputation that will suffer. Hossrex 06:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-NC unless otherwise noted.