Talk: Jean-Luc Picard/archive

Stargazer reference[]

Does anyone have a source for Picard being flight controller/conn officer on the Stargazer? I don't think this has ever been canonically revealed, so should be removed unless we can locate a reference... --Captain Mike K. Bartel 23:03, 20 Jul 2004 (CEST)

Grandfather reference[]

Might want to tie in the chat he had with Data on "Night Terrors" where he says he watched his grandfather go nuts as a child. I'll leave working it in up to someone else. Tyrant 23:01, 25 Jan 2005 (CET)

Reliant reference[]

The Reliant was mentioned in the script of "The Measure Of A Man" only, and not in the final episode. Perhaps a small note after the information stating it was from a cut scene would be appropriate? -- SmokeDetector47 21:55, 2005 Jan 29 (CET)

Was it cut? I didn't know that - I was just researching the script to rewrite the Judge Advocate General article when I came across the reference - haven't seen the ep itself for quite some time... -- Michael Warren | Talk 22:17, Jan 29, 2005 (CET)

Casting Call[]

I have added the original casting call in background information. It is quoted from the TNG Companion. --Jaz

Needs Information On...[]

The following currently lacks from the article:

information on "Romance" under "Personal relationships", including Lily Sloane, Jenice Manheim, Miranda Vigo, Anij, possibly also the Borg Queen;
information on interest in classic music and Shakespeare;
more detailed information on events from during TNG.

Ottens 15:18, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Family could also be greatly expanded. Tyrant 18:39, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Relationship with Data[]

I wrote as much as I could remember on this sub-topic. Before anybody asks where I found the information on the conversation that Picard had with Data following Riker and Troi's wedding, it is mentioned in one of the deleted scenes on the Star Trek Nemesis DVD.--Scimitar 00:49, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Engage!"[]

I think it'd be neat to have a brief article devoted to this command. It was Picard's tagline, but we saw several other characters (Riker, La Forge, etc.) use the command while sitting in the captain's chair over the course of TNG. Was it a standard, recognized command throughout Starfleet at this time, or were they all simply emulating their captain? Was the command ever used by Kirk on TOS, or on DS9, Enterprise, etc.? Do the TNG DVDs include audio commentary -- and if so, did the actors or writers ever discuss where this term came from, whose idea it was, when it was decided to make a habit of it, etc.? – The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.218.67.134. September 29, 2005

I believe Captain Pike used "engage." – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Scottmz (talk • contribs).

Bloated Article[]

For a brief period in 2375, Worf rejoined his old crew to reveal Admiral Dougherty's conspiracy concerning the Ba'ku relocation. In 2379, he attended the wedding ceremony of William Riker and Deanna Troi. En route to Betazed aboard the Enterprise, the crew was assigned to Romulus to begin peace negotiations with the new praetor of the Romulan Star Empire, Shinzon. The peace offer turned out to be a trap and in the end Worf, together with the Romulans, had to face Shinzon and the Remans. Finally, he admitted that the Romulans fought with honor, possibly getting over his life-long grudge against this species.

That's just one example of a problem that plagues this article: There's a lot of information that has only, charitably, a tangential relevance to Picard -- and plenty of information, like the above, that has no relationship to Picard whatsoever. This article needs a serious revision, heavy on deletion. – The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.218.67.134. September 29, 2005

Receding hairline[]

There was a paragraph (cited to episodes "Tapestry", "Violations" and Star Trek Nemesis) which described the adolescent Picard having a receding hairline and receiving follicle restorations in his adult life -- i can't find any reference to such incidents in those three sources. If there is a source for these odd claims, i'd like it described in more detail. -- Captain Mike K. Bartel^talk 01:52, 5 Oct 2005 (UTC)

I admit it. There is no explicit dialog stating Picard had any kind of hair restoration at all. It just mysteriously fell out and suddenly grew back, only to fall out again. It is highly improbable that the subject will ever get mentioned in any film or TV show. It just isn't as big a mystery as the Klingons' foreheads. But, the explaination I offered is the least complicated and minimally speculative. Something happened to poor Jean-Luc's hair, and it's unlikely we'll ever get an explanation as what. Maybe that would be considred "fanon", it just seemed like the most probable way of clearing up an issue we'll never hear about again. – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mike Nobody (talk • contribs).

Hair tends to grow back after being shaved off, but perhaps this mightn't be obvious to everyone. basically, we have Boothby, "Tapestry" and "Violations" all confirming that Picard definitely did have hair until the 2350s. ST:Nemesis has a photo of hairless Picard, played by Tom Hardy while Hardy was also portraying the clone Shinzon, who had stubble visible on his head while playing Shinzon. I think it seems likely Picard shaved his head for some of his academy years. Offering any "minimal speculation" passed off as cited fact in an article body, rather than a background note, is rather unbecoming of Memory Alpha -- especially if it creates the false inference that you meant to claim it was cited to any of the sources listed -- that would be total disinformation, if that's what "fanon" refers to... -- Captain Mike K. Bartel^talk 04:23, 5 Oct 2005 (UTC)

The speculation left is even worse than mine;"Picard lost his hair by the 2350s, although he was known to have a shaved head for some time as a student at Starfleet Academy. (TNG: "Rascals", "Star Trek Nemesis", "Tapestry", "Violations")" That definitely was never in an episode or film. It's understandable if both Shinzon and Picard Drink tea, they share the same taste buds. But, since when is shaving your head hereditary? What if we acknowledged the noticable miracle grow on his head and leave it like that. How's this?

"Picard lost his hair prior to joining Starfleet, but it was restored in time for graduation. In the 2350s, though, it began to recede again."

The italicized comment that Boothby was stunned by Picard's hair loss either suggests that Picard did have hair when they met or was aware of Picard's restoration seems like a valid point to make. – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mike Nobody (talk • contribs).

Um.. no, sorry, but you're completely wrong -- there's no speculation involved. Picard's head was obviously shaved in his Academy picture. You could see the stubble. Try reading what I write before you reply. It helps to keep the conversation on track. -- Captain Mike K. Bartel^talk 13:50, 24 Nov 2005 (UTC)

I think the solution to the hairline issue is to decanonize "Star Trek Nemesis" as not only a lousy movie directed by a man who knew nothing about Star Trek, but also as a narrative filled with plot and character holes. The reason why the photograph of Picard at the Academy shows him as bald is because no one bothered to remember Picard's history. – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Scottmz (talk • contribs).

Peer Review[]

What information is still lacking for this article to become featured? It's already quite long, and the only thing I feel still needs to be added is significant events from Star Trek: The Next Generation, i.e. Picard's command of the Enterprise-D. Ottens 10:05, 16 Oct 2005 (UTC)

It looks like you'll have to add in the Enterprise-D service record before you can nominate it (it's long, but should be longer). Some of my suggested improvements to the article include: relationships with Wesley Crusher (how he hated him at first, but then made him a bridge officer then became a personal mentor to him), some on Sarek, more on Spock ("Unification II") Montgomery Scott in "Relics", a little more on Boothby in "The First Duty" (wasn't there one other episode with him and Picard?) and Dr. Galen in "The Chase" (in fact anything on his archaeology hobby: "Gambit, Part I", "Starship Mine", et al.). And what about Kirk and Picard in Star Trek Generations? If you're looking for extra credit, you could have a section on apocrypha. Picard appears in nearly all the TNG based novels, and you should be able to obtain plenty of information on both Picard's career and his personal life. --Oshah 15:22, 20 Oct 2005 (UTC)

The problem with this article isn't that it's too short, but that it's absurdly, ridiculously long. I would advise that it's shredded -- probably re-written from scratch. And for starters, you don't need a line-by-line scene breakdown of everything that happened to the character. Learn to summarize and use hyperlink citation. – The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.218.67.134.

Command code[]

According to Star Trek Nemesis Picard's Auto-destruct code is Picard Alpha Alpha 3-0-5 – The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.121.36.162. October 16, 2005

Criminal[]

Wasn't anything done to him when he murdered his future self in TNG:'Time Squared" Phasers do have stun settings... – The preceding unsigned comment was added by 139.222.177.104.

As I recall, he killed his future self to save his ship and crew. He has killed several others in defense of his ship before, why should he be so special? Ironically, he would do the same thing again (with his younger, cloned self) in Star Trek Nemesis. --From Andoria with Love 06:45, 13 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Age at Graduation[]

I was just watching "Tapestry", and Q said Picard was 21 years old at the time he was on Starbase Earhart shortly after graduation. Since the episode (and "The First Duty") also states Picard to be of the class of '27, that would mean Picard was born in 2306. Is there a canonical resource for the 2305 birth year? I know this year has been long standing because it was listed in the Star Trek Chronology and the like, but even that is conjectural, since it was based on the possibility that Picard first attempted to enter Starfleet Academy at age 17, but he could have just as well have attempted at age 16 and accepted at 17. If 2305 is non a canonical year, then we should change it 2306. --From Andoria with Love 19:55, 21 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Picard's birthdate was listed on his personnel file in "Conundrum" -- and it matches with "Tapestry" -- Being born on July 13, 2305 means that his 22nd birthday was in 2327 -- the point at which he was referred to as 21 years of age in 2327 means that "Tapestry" takes place in 2327 before July 13. -- Captain Mike K. Bartel^talk

Okay, that's all I needed to know. Thanks! :) --From Andoria with Love 20:16, 21 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Age when he met Beverly[]

There seems to be a bit of an oddity in the relative ages of Picard and Beverly when considering there romance.

taking Picards birth date of 2305 and Beverly's of 2324. Picard was 49 and Beverly 29 in 2353, when Jack Crusher was killed. While statistically there is nothing wrong with their twenty year age gap, it doesnt feel right. Also considering how young Jack looks only 4 years before he died and accounting for the fact that he and picard were supposed to be very close friends.

Its feels a bit wrong that Picard is made out to be a bit of a letchy older man. Lusting after a wife in a young couple. – The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.210.143.160.

What exactly are you getting at? I doubt he'd be seen as a "letchy" older man at that time, especially since he kept his love for Beverly secret in order to preserve the friendship he had with Jack. And in this day and age where someone like Demi Moore (43) marries someone like Ashton Kutcher (27), or that old guy (now dead) marrying Anna Nicole Smith, or James Doohan (who died at 85) being married to a woman in her forties, it seems the whole "he's way too old fer her/she's way too old for him" outlook is quickly becoming a thing of the past. That said, I'm not sure what this has to do with the Picard article itself. Are you questioning the facts of the two characters' birthdates? If so, those birth years have been canonically established, making them factual, so there really is no reason to question it. --From Andoria with Love 01:24, 24 Nov 2005 (UTC)

I am not making an issue here, but I would like to know exactly how their ages were canonically established. --TOSrules 01:47, 24 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Certainly! Picard's age in the past events seen in "Tapestry", set in 2327, was given as 21, which would suggest a birth year of 2306. However, computer bio screen in the episode "Conundrum" stated he was born on July 13th, 2305, which fits continuity just fine, it just means "Tapestry" was set before July 13th. That same bio screen also gave Dr. Crusher's birth year as 2324, which would make her 40 at the time of TNG's first season (which is the age suggested in the show's writer's guide/"bible"). And there you have it. :) --From Andoria with Love 04:48, 24 Nov 2005 (UTC)

The Conundrum bios give days of birth? That is wonderful, valuable to my date tracking. I only wish Wesley was included because his age is brought up the most. --TOSrules 08:52, 24 Nov 2005 (UTC)

What is Riker's day of birth? That would give us the exact day of "Future Imperfect" --TOSrules 09:55, 24 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Riker's bio screen was not seen in the episode (at least, I don't think it was; I think they cut away to the reactions of the amnesiastic crew). However, because the producers used July 13th for Picard's birthday, which is the same birthday for actor Patrick Stewart, we can probably assume they would use August 19th for Will Riker based on Jonathan Frakes' birthday. Again, though, that bit of info hasn't been established. --From Andoria with Love 11:24, 24 Nov 2005 (UTC)

All we know for Riker is that one birthday fell on (or about) stardate 44286.5. Of course, there's no canon way of converting this to a Julian calendar date, however the guide at http://trekguide.com/Stardates.htm calculates it to be Tuesday, September 6, 2366. Of course, Picard's birthyear is before the 2322 switchover to the "new" stardate system from the movie system, so we can't even really venture a guess. --Lenonn

It's highly unlikely that there even was a "switchover" between the TOS era and TNG era, as that would cause much confusion for historical record-keeping. However, since "Data's Day" most likely took place in October of 2366 and "Future Imperfect" took place two episodes prior, the September 6th date seems like a pretty good estimate, albeit, as you point out, one that can't be used on Memory Alpha. --From Andoria with Love 03:27, 9 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Oddly enough, that birthday for Riker fits very closely with my own Stardate system, though mine isn't capable of getting that specific normally...

The idea of the "lechy" old man isn't a "thing of the past", btw. In the eyes of most people, at least. Hollywood is just full of sick, cradle-robbing perverts (you forgot to mention Tom Cruise marrying Katie Holmes, who was in preschool when Top Gun was released). My personal belief in Picard's high moral standing contradicts what that barely-legible birthdate on the monitor screen in "Conundrum" (I just watched that episode the other night and I certainlly didn't make out a date) seems to imply; I find it very difficult to believe that Picard would have such salacious thoughts about a woman young enough to be his daughter--or vice-versa, for that matter.

I think we ought to make it clearer in our canon policy what force certain statements that appear onscreen have against others based on their context. For example, spoken statements should carry more weight than things that appear in tiny text on a viewscreen. If a spoken statement contradicts what's on the viewscreen, the statement should be considered to override the text.

That being said, I don't see why we shouldn't consider Nemesis to have effectively retconned Picard's birthdate and the time period in which he was at the Academy, making him about 20 years younger and (hopefully) within a decade of Beverly's age. I always assumed that the Stargazer was his first assignment, and that he became captain of that ship when he was relatively young; I don't know of any canonical evidence that there was ever a another ship that Picard served on before the Stargazer. --Antodav 19:39, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, if you draw solely from the episode "Tapestry," Picard was an ensign and got stabbed in the heart in 2338 ("thirty years before" "Tapestry"), and was born 21 years before that, in 2317. Of course, the episode also repeats and confirms the statment made in "The First Duty" about Picard graduating in 2327...which would mean that Picard was only 10 years old when he graduated from the Academy. A brilliant man, surely, but not that brilliant. Plus, if he was that brilliant, I have to wonder why it would be another 11 years before he got an actual posting (presumably to the Stargazer)...

In other words, folks, the timeline of Picard's life is FRELLED. However, I'd rather believe that he's only 51 in TNG Season 6 and thus the age gap between him and Beverly is only about 10 years. That's far less obscene than the alternative. --Antodav 06:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

The writers have deemed the 30-year thing as a mistake, as do we. --From Andoria with Love 17:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Opening Quote[]

If we want an opening quote on this page (which is not something I encourage), is this truly one that reflects Picard's personality? Ottens 17:11, 10 Jan 2006 (UTC)

I personally don't think an opening quote is necessary, nor do I believe this is a quote which best describes Picard. --From Andoria with Love 18:05, 10 Jan 2006 (UTC)

I support the current quote and opening quotes in general. Jaf

It might be useful if you provided us with some kind of argumentation in order to possibly convince us of the necessity of keep this quote. Ottens 13:38, 11 Jan 2006 (UTC)

I also think an opening quote might be problematic, it relies on a "value judgment" on whether the quote does well to introduce or summarize the character's life (which is what the article -- and therefore the quote -- should be about) -- easy enough if the person is describing themselves in the quote, but how about this one? Picard is talking about a holodeck experience with horses, not describing his life this quote is adding artificial allusions about the scope of his "reins" comment -- such as that it has to do with anything besides his horse and saddle. Does this really seems impartial as a choice? In the world of metaphor, its difficult to remain "encyclopedic". -- Captain Mike K. Bartel^talk 14:36, 11 Jan 2006 (UTC)

He was talking to Riker about being in command when he said it. – The preceding unsigned comment was added by 205.251.151.139.

I think a good opening quote for Picard might be what he said to Admiral Haftel in "The Offspring": "There are times, sir, when men of good conscience cannot blindly follow orders." That, I think, summarizes Picard's character better than anything else. --Antodav 19:48, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I support the existing opening quote. It is marked as Tasha Yar's statement and it expresses her view of Picard. Nothing wrong with that and her opinion seems to me to describe Picard well.--Skon 16:05, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Just a note, the current quote and the quote being discussed at the beginning of this converstation are not the same. Look at the dates, you will note this is an old converstation. --OuroborosCobra ^talk 16:30, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Part II[]

As the article on JLP has gone up for featured article status, one person has commented on the quote used. I suggested the new one (by JP Hanson) but feel free to tell me if it "doesn't fit" the character of Picard. Dave 12:22, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Erm, I think Tasha Yar's quote from "Skin Of Evil" would be more adequate as I believe it sums up the main traits of his personality, the predilection for art and exploration. Picard himself emphasized many times he was an "explorer", last time in Star Trek Nemesis when Shinzon wanted to learn more about his alter ego:(Shinzon: "Were the Picards always warriors?")Besides this, many episodes revolve around his interest for archeology, literature and other forms of art.--Aamin Marritza 10:57, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

It's funny, as there has been so much debate on this one area in particular. There's no one specific quote that can really sum up a person all at the same time, so I reckon there should be two quotes (three at a stretch). Aamin Marritza, what was Tasha's quote? Dave 16:44, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

This was discussed extensively in the debate to make this a featured article. The quote at the top of the page was constantly being changed, removed, and readded. There at last came a general agreement for a single quote to remain in the article at the top of the page. I would urge people not to go back to changing this quote, removing it, or adding others in which they feel should be better. As this is now a featured article, we should avoid such edits which would detract the status of this article. -FC 17:19, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Tasha's quote was:...the heart of an explorer and the soul of a poet or something like that. As I recall, it was featured as the opening quote in an earlier version and I can't really tell from the discussions on this talk page what you had against it in the first place. On tehe other hand, I do believe the actual quote is too flat and general. Almost every character was praised for his drive and ambition at least once during the series. And I really don't think changing the quote would affect the article status.--Aamin Marritza 18:09, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I never said I had anything against it. I'm simply saying a general agreement was reached during the FA discussion and I see no need to repeat the same discussion. -FC 19:28, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, it may be so. But I suggested now a more fitting quote, which seems to have been favored in the past, and no one has yet objected against it.--Aamin Marritza 19:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Part III[]

I find the current quote inadequate in describing Picard in his essence. Having courage and determination apply to half of he captains and COs in the Star Trek world and the Federation in particular. That quote is generic and can be applied to all federation captains as far as i am concerned. It simply does not summarize the uniqueness and personality of jean-luc picard well, but the quote by Tasha Yar, in which she describes him as a man who has the heart of an explorer and the soul of a poet does. The rest of the article is great, the quote...not so. – Distantlycharmed 00:10, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I certainly doubt that Admiral Hayes is able to say that he has never known anyone with more of those qualities than anyone in Starfleet. Generally speaking, you can only have one that is more than everyone else. I'd ask that you read Talk:Jean-Luc Picard#Opening Quote before continuing further. --OuroborosCobra ^talk 00:22, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

This is now just semantics here. Whether Hanson says that he thinks Picard is courageous and determined or whether he says that he has never met anyone more courageous and determined than Picard doesn't change anything about the fact that this quote is bland, generic, cliché and inappropriate for Picard. Of course, as some pointed out, there is never just one quote alone that sums up a person in life, but some do a better job than others.

In selecting a quote for an opening article such as this one, we need to find one that reflects Picard's personality. Being courageous and determined is not something that makes Jean-Luc Picard stand out and be different from so many other captains and personalities in the Federation. Sure he might be more courageous and determined than some, according to Admiral Hanson's personal opinion by the way, but it doesn't really fit as an instantly recognizable hallmark of Picard's personality for what makes Picard stand out, be who he is, IS his heart of an explorer and soul of a poet – in this regard he is unlike all the other starship Captain's we know, who each have their very own idiosyncrasies.

Picard gave up being an archeologist because he is an explorer and wanted to join Starfleet. He joined even when his own father was against it. He risked, or had in fact, his brother be alienated from him because being an explorer was so important to him, He truly has that quality engraved in him...at the same time he is also a man of incredible sensitivity, character, tranquility of personality, delicate; he is soft-spoken, is not the loud, rowdy, egocentric man who occasionally let's libido and urges drive his actions (like Kirk sometime, or Riker)....he used to be, as a young cadet, as we found out in "Tapestry", but as he admitted that was all ego...he loves Shakespeare, art, the written word – he as a book displayed in his ready-room, archeological artifacts, he in fact goes to bed every night with a book in his hand...all these qualities truly give him the soul of a poet. He is so unlike all the other starfleet captains. Thus, the quote by Tasha Yar truly summarizes Picard's essence in a nutshell. Of course he is so much more than just that – but as I said above, the whole point of an opening quote is the extent to which it really succinctly, beautifully and accurately captures the essence and personality of the subject it describes.

So the reason I go into lengths to explain this is because I really want people to understand why Admiral Hanson's quote just does not give Picard the due and deserved credit. Picard is determined and couragegous, but such a description is what you might find in his personnel file...And yes I have indeed read the sections about the quote and still decided to post here...– Distantlycharmed 01:48, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

As I explained to User:Aamin Marritza, the opening quote was a cause of much edit warring and reverting of this article and during a lengthy discussion on the featured article status, the present one was agreed upon. I am very much against changing this quote as it would slap in the face of the agreement which was reached during the featured article debate and return this article to the state it was where every few days a new red link account with few to no contributions was showing up to change the quote based on an episode they saw or a personal opinion about Picard. Let's not fix whats not broken and leave this alone. -FC 21:34, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

While I think the whole "We agreed, therfore we can't change it" argument is somewhat overwraught, I think the current quote is better than the "heart of a poet" one, which I thought was actually cringe-worthy.

If only Vreenak had met Picard...everyone seems to like the Benjamin Sisko one...– Cleanse 00:26, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

For the record, when looking at my talk page and this one, we have Distantlycharmed in favor of change, OuroborosCobra and FleetCaptain and TrekFan and Cleanse against changing the quote. --OuroborosCobra ^talk 00:37, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the quote that best sums up Picard is "Engage". :) But seriously this is old hat...it's an FA now and thus there shouldn't be any major changes left to this article. – Morder 00:49, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I also oppose changing the quote, for the reasons already listed.--31dot 00:59, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree, "engage"" sums up Picard pretty well :p As a matter of fact it would probably be better than the current one anyway. So let me get this straight, FAs are not supposed to be changed? They are sort of set in stone? I am really curious to know. If that is the case, then why not simply lock the edit page option then? I mean that would make more sense and we wouldn't get into such situations where no one is allowed to make changes and then when they do, they get yelled at etc. Unless of course it is not set in stone in which case I dont understand why everyone is acting like it is. And by the way, regardless of how many people support the current quote because they dont wanna jepoardize its status, I stand by what I said - it simply is generic and I believe that when this was being discussed previously quite a few people shared my view.– Distantlycharmed 04:05, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

No, no, you can edit and add to any article on the site, featured or otherwise. That's why it's a wiki. Out of courtesy (and to avoid being "yelled at"), one should try not to change potentially contentious issues, without at least bringing it up on the talk page first.--Tim Thomason 04:41, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Of all the starship captains in Starfleet, there must be at least one or two more who also fit Tasha's quote. I don't see how that is any less "generic" that the current one, or how your arguments against that one don't apply to yours. It really comes down to a matter of opinion, and in this case, opinion doesn't favor the poet quote. Without a compelling, different, reason to change it, it should be left alone.--31dot 11:16, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Distantly, you have been out-voted. 4 to 1. Since this is a community project, it seems the vote is it stays. I don't see why you are making such a big deal over a quote anyway. It's one small fraction of the article, and, as I said in OC's talk page, if you had any concerns about the article, they should have been brought up when the article was going through the FA nomination process. -- TrekFan 16:16, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I have already dropped the subject but someone keeps brining it up. I have given a very compelling argument as to why Yar's quote is more appropriate for Picard. See above. If you still cant comprehend that, then so be it. At the same time, however, I have not seen any compelling argument or or explanation whatsoever as to why the current quote is really summing it up. Except for nah, we dont wanna change it, let's keep it I really havent heard anything substantial supporting it either way. Lastly, I really would like to know what other starship captain yar's quote could apply to as well. Really. Kirk, Archer, Janeway? Worf, or Data or Sulu? Maybe Spock or Scotty? Some things are not a matter of opinion and even if they are, as long as they can be substantiated then great. Anyway, whether the quote stands or doesnt , doesnt make much of a difference to me ultimately. I just thought I bring it up since this is the place for it. My life doesnt evolve around Star Trek so I guess I missed the whole nomination process. I dont even know when it was. Anyway, this was just to respond to the above. – Distantlycharmed 17:11, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

If you looked directly above this talk topic you would see the Archived FA nomination, and nobody objected to the changed quote. -- TrekFan 18:17, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't invalidate the concern or legitimacy of the current discussion. IMO, a "descriptor quote" at the intro of an article is not very "encyclopedic" anyway. --Alan 22:33, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I comprehend your argument just fine, thank you. I just think the same arguments you are making could be made against your suggestion, and to me that is not compelling. But to each his own.--31dot 00:34, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

FC, well now this is ridiculous, just because someone doesnt have a "blue link" account, doesnt mean their contributions are irrelevant or little or should be dismissed. Speaking of missing the whole point of a wiki. I dont know if you were referring to me, but I certainly have not suggested the change based on "one episode I saw" or personal opinion. You seem to be very quick and generous with blind, unsubstantiated accusations it seems. You've done that before too. Anyway, this debate over a quote has gone too far for sure.– Distantlycharmed 03:39, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Now that this debate has been declared "over" at least twice, and now that basically no one is talking about the quote anyways, and just taking pot shots at each other, can we lay this to rest? By the way, I happen to agree with these quotes being unencyclopedic to begin with, and started to fight these 2 years ago, but that is neither here nor there and also has nothing to do with the current debate. --OuroborosCobra ^talk 04:56, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with OC, end this now. I also dont know why my name got dragged up 3 days later. I actually tried to help our friend up there suggesting that he establish a permanent account and so forth; its just a fact that people tend to take established accounts more seriously. The history of the article being vandalized by anon red link accounts had nothing to do with D.C. in any case (and I never said it did); it happened weeks and months ago causing instability which was also brought up during the FA discussion. In any event, close this discussion now as OC suggested. -FC 09:31, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Closed. — Morder 09:56, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Part IV[]

And yet again no one has even bothered to answer, instead aparking another pointless discussion below ten days later. Great communication. I'm changing the quote to Tasha Yar's statement for the reasons above.--Aamin Marritza 09:18, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Except that quite clearly below, the majority of people have agreed NOT to change it.– Cleanse 09:21, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Do you actually give a damn about community consensus or the rules about here, Marritza? Do you realize you are NOT the only person here, and that you have been massively and completely outvoted? Do you realize that it is 5 to 2 (assuming you and DistantlyCharmed are in fact separate accounts) against you now, with the addition of Morder to those names already below? You need to move on! --OuroborosCobra ^talk 09:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Don't be a jerk, dude. Also I'm writing a rather lenghty reply at the bottom of the page--Aamin Marritza 09:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Apparently not closed. Due to an edit war, the quote has now been removed entirely and the page has been protected. When everyone can agree on a quote, then and only then can a quote be added. Since a quote is unnecessary, though, it would be great if this entire thing ended here and now. --From Andoria with Love 09:42, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Since attention is not a virtue here, I had to shorten my initial comment. I really think this issue has not been properly resolved. I felt the quote was awful, came to this page, looked at the opening quote discussion, seen only confusion and no relevant agreement so I suggested a new quote. FleetCaptain was the only one to oppose a change, talking about edit wars and a consensus on the featured article nomination page. But:

It seems the supposed edit wars he was talking about implied people unwilling to reach consensus on talk page (as I said, the previous discussions I found on the talk page here showed no agreement and even confusion as to what which quote was being debated). As such, I feel Tasha Yar's quote, which was used in earlier versions of the article (at the time I viewed it), was removed without consensus or a proper reason. The only step towars a consensus seemed User:Skon's comment supporting Tasha's quote.
The consensus at the nomination for featured article was achieved as follows: someone suggested a quote and two users agreed. This is exactly what I tried to do here: I suggested a better quote, detailed my reasons for it and asked for opinions. I believe the "a consensus has been reached thus it cannot be changed" thing is exaggerated and detrimental for the betterment of an encyclopedia. Yet this was the main reason of FleetCaptain's opposition, the only significant reaction I got. He also said he had no objections to my quote but was holding previous consensuns more important, an almost contradictory statement in my opinion, since the previous consensus had been achieved by no one raising objections to a suggestion. Other than this, no one cared to add his opinion.

Again, I did what any normal user can do when he feels something is wrong: I used the talk page, I made a suggestion and received anemic reaction. I've been caught up for two weeks in RL and when I returned, noticed no further reply to my previous discussion but a new one, in which a different user (despite some editor's assumption, I am not that user. I imagine moderators would have special tools to check this things out) also attempted to have the quote changed. Frankly, I read everything up until FleetCaptain's comment about "redlinks" which I was greatly annoyed of. I then skimmed through the text, got the impression everyone was running in circles again, decided I've had enough and finally edited the section. Needless to say, Oroboros Cobra's ad hominem attacks didn't strike me as very constructive (neither were FleetCaptain's jerk comments). From what I've seen, the "community" is interested more about technicalities such as unchangeable consensus (since this is the opposing editors' main if not only reasoning), interested more about ridiculizing other users than actually trying to talk things out.--Aamin Marritza 10:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I like that your refusal to read the latter conversation means that we didn't discuss the issue, and that you can just ignore any consensus struck there.

"No one offered to add his opinion"??? If you'd bothered to read it you would have found that there were opinions offered. Such as:

"I think the current quote is better than the "heart of a poet" one, which I thought was actually cringe-worthy." from me. How is this opinion any less valid then your own? – Cleanse 11:19, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

"Other than this, no one cared to add his opinion." It'd be nice if you didn't take things out of the context. I was talking about the first discussion which apparently ended on 6 august. If the other "redlink" hand't tried to change the quote you're clinging on with your teeth, I highly doubt we would've heard this particular opinion.--Aamin Marritza 11:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I thought you were talking about the newer conversation there, because FC made similar comments in both conversations. For that I apologise. But the rest of my point stands. You described the 16th-18th Oct conversation as follows: "I then skimmed through the text, got the impression everyone was running in circles again, decided I've had enough and finally edited the section...From what I've seen, the "community" is interested more about technicalities such as unchangeable consensus (since this is the opposing editors' main if not only reasoning), interested more about ridiculizing other users than actually trying to talk things out."

I added an opinion. Is this not trying to talk things out? So clearly, when you changed the quote today, you were aware that there were at least some people against it, but you felt you had the right to ignore any consensus struck in a later conversation, and any additional opinions offered there. – Cleanse 11:40, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, especially opinions going along ideas "we don't have time to debate with new users", "there can be only one consensus" "gtfo" are very useful for talking things out. Preserving the previous consensus is the rationale for many opposing the quote change, with little regard to the quote itself. Take TrekFan's comment for example: "Nobody objected to the quote". Following his logic, since nobody objected to the quote in the first discussion (I specifically asked what the objections to the suggested quote are), the outcome would've been different.--Aamin Marritza 11:55, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I would say not closed! As it appears that A.M. drew exactly the same offensive at the "red link" reference as D.C. did (how interesting), I'll explain again that I was referring to the string of anon ip address red links (EX: 64.514.123, etc) that were vandalizing this article weeks/months ago. That wasn't directed at either of our new interested parties nor did I ever write that either of those accounts had anything to do with the vandalism of weeks past. As far as this "jerk comments" reference, I actually see my comments as polite and civil in accordence with MA policy. It is in fact that act of calling someone a jerk that would be seen as uncivil. With that said, if either of the new users has any problem with the way I have conducted myself, please take it to the talk page of an administrator and discuss it there. Do not clutter this quote issue with any personal matters, please. -FC 15:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to see a catch phrase quote at the beginning, like Morder suggested back there somewhere, rather than a descriptive quote from someone else. "Make it so." would be nice. --Pseudohuman 16:28, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I propose we permanently remove a quote from this article if this is what is going to happen. Quite frankly I didn't see anything wrong with the quote that was on there and apparently 4 other people didn't either. However, if we are just going to debate this endlessly, we may as well just get rid of the quote altogether. I simply cannot believe that all of this is because of two lines of text. Pretty pathetic. And Distantly, you need to read up on MA policy before you go making changes that will start debates such as this one. You will find things go a lot smoother if you do. -- TrekFan 18:23, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree, cut the quote out as it is such a minor thing and not worth risking FA status with edit wars and page protections. -FC 18:39, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what AM means by "the discussion was not properly resolved", since, as Cleanse said, the majority clearly agreed to not change it. What is desired here to make it "proper"?

Anyway, I will second the suggestion of "Make it so" as a replacement. I also agree, however, that there should be nothing if there is going to be a perpetual discussion about it.--31dot 20:21, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree -- if something so minor (even worthless?) as an opening quote is going to cause so much debate, then it's better not to have any quote at all. Since no one can agree what quote to use, the only reasonable option is to not have any quote at all. That is, of course, until such time as we all actually agree on what should be used, which I don't see happening in the foreseeable future. In the meantime, this discussion has gone on long enough. The quote has already been removed due to constant edit warring (which is against policy, D.C. and Aamin), so by the "power" vested in me by the community of Memory Alpha, I hereby declare this discussion closed. As an administrator, I cannot let this discussion get further out of hand and further disrupt the community. If you would like to do something constructive, like creating a subsection of this talk page to suggest what quote should be used and seeing if we can get a consensus from that, that is fine. But the days of arguing over and complaining about this extremely minor issue is over. Suggest a quote in a new subsection and see if everyone goes for it. If not, tough luck. Regardless, keep it civil: no arguing, whining, name-calling, etc., especially when there are disagreements. Until everyone reaches an agreement on what quote should be added, there will be no quote. Any further attempt to continue this discussion will result in the talk page being protected. So let it be written, so let it be done. The end. --From Andoria with Love 21:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I was browsing through this and noted that the discussion on the quote has been taken up again. I havent read anything that is said below cause this part caught my attention first: so let me make this clear ONE LAST TIME: I AM NOT Aamin Marritza, OuroborosCobra! Please stop using this lame accusation every time someone says anything about this quote. I dont understand why you think some foul play is going on here just because two people happen to agree on the same issue and both have 'red ink' accounts? That is ridiculous. In any event, I am glad that the quote about Picard being a man with courage and conviction blah blah blah has been taken out. It is lame and generic so it's better it ain't out there at all. Sorry to say. Anyway, that is it from my part. AND..I am a she, not a he. – Distantlycharmed 21:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Please be aware that the last instruction from an administrator was that there would be no further discussion about this [1]. As for your being or not being the same person, there is no reason to disbelieve you at this stage so very well, there were two separate people with the same opinion. Sounds good to me. -FC 22:30, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify the above, although this specific discussion/argument is finished, anyone can suggest a new quote in a new section on this talk page and let people decide if they like it and to make their own suggestions. A new quote should not be added until/unless there is a consensus on it. Keep the discussion civil; no arguing, accusing, bickering, complaining, etc. --From Andoria with Love 05:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Part V[]

As the person who first introduced the Yar/Picard quote, I have several things to take note of.

To begin, it is extremely disheartening to whatever lingering respect I might still have for "democratic processes" that people in general would think that the epitaph given posthumously by Yar would be either equal, or even inferior, to the assorted alternatives suggested or briefly inserted by others ("Engage," for example, being a term introduced into Star Trek not by Picard, but by Pike, in the first episode ever ("The Cage"), and thus not only not specifically indicative of his personality, but theoretically dismissive of someone who still remains certain fans' favorite captain among them all). And epitaph, in turn, is the accurate term for the intention of the summarizing quotes at the beginnings of pages on major series characters: a markedly poignant statement that stands out from other quotes about other characters, that encapsulates not only how others perceived him or her, but how they perceived themselves.

In the case of the Yar quote about Picard, my original thought..."once upon a time"...was to consider both under what circumstances the words were given, as well as the implications it entailed. These are words given by someone who was preparing a statement, about a man she admired as highly as any she ever knew, to be given in the event of never being seen alive again by him; events later transpiring to give him a look at her visage through the daughter of her alternate self, or sending him in turn back through time, via a predestination paradox, to talk with her under circumstances that eventually never happened notwithstanding, it was exactly what Yar expected it to be, and she did die. That said...these were words she chose. Granted, she is not the only individual to speak in high terms concerning Picard, but a marked difference between her counter-eulogy and those of, say, Admiral Hansen, are that hers most assuredly do not stand alone: they are reinforced by the emotionally intimate observations of a telepathic metamorph, the experiences of a rogue archaeologist who gains a reference in the article under his romantic interests, and for that matter his own service record, replete as it is with events such as his extensive part in uncovering the existence of the oldest humanoid civilization known, or the acquisition and reassembly of ancient Vulcan psionic resonator weapons.

To put it bluntly, while "Engage" might be his most-often-used phrase, it does not explain the man, just as "drive" and "determination" are rightly seen by other users here as qualities that far too many Starfleet personnel are mentioned as having for it to be a suitable epitaph; Boothby, in fact, once commented on this, that Starfleet obviously looks for these qualities in their officers from the outset. His possessing the aforementioned "explorer-and-yet-poet" qualities, however, is a line that I do not recall being stated for any other character: ever; in any series, not merely limited to Star Trek. How many times did Picard make clear to others, be they either the Paxans or his own clone, that he was ever and always foremost an explorer, and so were all other "true Starfleet graduates" ("Where No One Has Gone Before")? Even when his mind was merged (forcibly or not, never determined) with a non-corporeal lifeform ("Lonely Among Us"), what was the claim by the resulting mind, but that Picard desired above all else to explore the very edges of possible existence? In turn, how often did we see some reference coming as to his love of Shakespeare (directly quote from Kamala), or any others among the classical authors comprising the English canon (that Patrick Stewart, as an actor, was with the Royal Shakespeare Company very early in his career, beside the point...but still a point, nevertheless)? This latter aspect, in particular, has often had a direct correlation to his blatantly "awesome dignity"; whereas "Kirking" is a phrase used for another captain's extensive proclivities, this one had his romantic options sifted before matters even began by whether or not the woman was of sufficiently advanced literary persuasion, among other things. If these last few sentences sound ridiculously complex, good: that would be the point, to give further atmosphere to these examples, that the equally awesome poetry (overemphasis of this aspect is not scientifically possible) presented in so many of the English classics is ever a personality trait that readily comes to mind when considering Jean-Luc Picard?

...Or at least, to those who have extensively studied this character, including the licensed authors who write novels about him. Some fans/voices/etc. don't consider these qualities at all, and instead simply think of certain catch-phrases like the ubiquitous "make it so" when hearing his name. This, in turn, leads to a position and a commentary on my part that might not be appreciated: namely, that if a majority of readers and/or posters at this or any other community disagree with these assessments, and by aforementioned democratic processes agree that these are not the case concerning him, such a majority would be simply, flatly, wrong, and any such votes entirely irrelevant. This could easily depart into a discussion concerning intellectual or political philosophies and the like, but I doubt anyone here has either the time or the inclination to so...engage. Therefore, suffice to say that my claim is that some realities, or perhaps more specifically truths, about Picard are entirely objective, not subjective, given what the canon writers have had his character directly say and do within the series, what observations have come via licensed novelists, or for that matter merely in the 'aura' he projected/projects right upon the screen. His talents may include great tactical prowess enabling him to outmanuever mercenary terrorists; he absolutely is an explorer, with a mind quoting poetry. His principles might have kept him from treating Hugh like a tool for mass destruction, but what are the sources of those principles? What, taking this to its ultimate conclusion, comprises the living guts of the man? The epitaph above his article should reflect this accordingly.

But then again, all these observations are based on the firm conviction that epitaphs should be present for the greats, whether characters or subjects, to begin with. And that is an entire discussion in its own right, isn't it? --ChrisK 15:24, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Why? Why do we need this crap opened again? Why? Seriously, I'm at a loss here. Also, no one is reading that massive amount of text, nearly 7K. --OuroborosCobra ^talk 18:49, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree....let's let sleeping dogs lie.--31dot 18:57, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Tense[]

Q: "Jean-Luc Picard was a celebrated and well-respected ..."

Why "was"! He's not dead (not yet)! – The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.131.128.102.

Memory Alpha's POV is that of the far future, and therefore all articles are in past tense. This includes Captain Picard. --From Andoria with Love 19:13, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

So then would we refer to post-Nemesis events such as the invention of the Tox Uthat and the Battle of Procyon V in the past tense too? --Antodav 19:50, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Old friends[]

Donald Varley is listed as an Academy friend, I don't remember that and Varley's article don't state it. - Philoust123 20:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

The episode script and dialogue stated that Varley and Picard had been friends for many years. Not sure if the Academy was mentioned or not -- Captain M.K.B. 21:09, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[Early career]

As a junior officer, Picard was the closest of friends with Walker Keel, and also became friends with Jack Crusher and his fiancé Beverly Howard. (TNG: "Conspiracy", "Journey's End")

This event is most likely set in the 2340s (at least for the Crushers) rather than the 2320s-30s ("junior officer" ? any reference) where Beverly is about 10-13 years old - Philoust123 15:09, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

All that I found about Keel was that he first met Picard in a bar on Tau Ceti III and that he introduced Jack and Beverly. - Philoust123 18:28, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Farpoint[]

Was Farpoint the first mission Picard and the Enterprise were involved in? I always thought it was the first mission we SAW, which included the arrival of several members of the crew, but that the starship didn't spend its first 8 months flying in circles while its Captain avoided his brother.– The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.148.61.66.

At the very least, "All Good Things..." establishes it was the first. We seem him arrive on the Enterprise-D for the first time, and precede to the time of the Farpoint mission. --OuroborosCobra ^talk 15:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Stargazer Captaincy[]

The first paragraph about Picard's service aboard the Stargazer, that mentions how he became captain, is unreferenced. What episode did this come from? Can somebody please add this reference. Thank you. -– Ds093 18:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)..

Updated. --Alan 06:29, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Shinzon/Academy Picard age[]

I saw that there was a post reversion on a change made to Picards age as "late teens". I'm not in favor necessarily of it saying "late teens", or "early 20's"... but do we have a canon citation for either? Wouldn't perhaps "young adult" be better? Of course an actors age has absolutely nothing to do with his characters age, but keep in mind that Hardy was even 25 when Nemesis was released. Opinions? Citations? References?– Hossrex 05:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

We know exactly how old he was at the Academy since we have his birthdate (2305) and his year of graduation (2327). He was stated to be 21 when he graduated, per "Q" in "Tapestry" and started a year late because he failed his first entrance exam "Coming of Age". With four years of classes, that means he was a new cadet at the age of 18. Interesting, that if he had passed his first test he would have become a cadet at 17. -FleetCaptain 11:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

But the question was "how old was Picard when he took the picture we saw on screen of him in his academy gear", not "how old was he when he started the academy". The question is in an effort determine how old Picard was in the picture we saw Tom Hardy "play" him, so we know whether to call him "late teens", or "early 20's". I think its as equally reasonable to say he was in his early 20's, as it is to say late teens... and thus any specifics regarding EITHER is speculation, and should be replaced with "young adult", or some other such. By your own admission, he was at the academy at both ages 20, and 21 (if he graduated at 21, he would have to have been there at 21). So... he was at the academy at ages 18, 19, 20, and 21... yet we're assuming that picture was taken in the first half of his formal education. Why? – Hossrex 22:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Errrrrrrr... nevermind. :) You didn't mention in the talk page that you'd gone ahead and changed the article. :) I wholeheartedly endorse the changes made. Thank you. :) – Hossrex 22:34, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

"Spock's wedding" not completely canon[]

This article states:

"As a young lieutenant, Picard assisted at Spock's wedding, where he briefly met with Spock's father, Sarek, for the first time. (TNG: "Sarek")

The ambassador saved on Milika III might have been Spock, Sarek or Spock's wife, which would explain Picard's invitation to the wedding. However, Picard declared in the 2360s that he only met Spock and Sarek once. (TNG: "Sarek", "Unification I")"

Sarek never says that the son whose wedding Picard attended was Spock. It is implied that it is, but is this really the hard fact we need to be included in this article? Seeing as how Sarek is already known to have two sons (Sybok and Spock), who's to say he hasn't had more since Star Trek V: The Final Frontier with Perrin or even Amanda? Only the non-canon novel Vulcan's Heart verifies that it's Spock's wedding. – Topher 03:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Mainly because there is only one canon son alive during Picard's life. To suggest there are more, that is non-canon. --OuroborosCobra ^talk 03:26, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, stating that there's definitely only one would be just as much speculation. I'm rewording the bit about the wedding - and, I'm removing the background note about the saved ambassador. Not only is it pure speculation, it even delivers its own direct contradiction... -- Cid Highwind 06:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I like Cid's current wording. But I think a short bg note stating that the person being married was intended to be Spock is in order. In the Star Trek: The Next Generation Companion, it has the following note:

"Though Sarek's famous son Spock is later seen to be very much alive, Behr recalled the battle at the time just to mention the character at all, with caution still in place about dealing with the original series. Picard does say he attended the wedding of Sarek's son as a lieutenant though again Spock is not specified"

Which seems to confirm the statement was intended to refer to Spock– Cleanse 02:31, 14 April 2008 (EDT)

Cid's wording is better, but still reads into Picard's words by claiming he had assisted in the wedding. As far as I recall, this is not what is said. According to an online transcript, the captain's line is, "I met him once, many years ago, very briefly at his son's wedding. I can tell you that was quite a moment for a young lieutenant, standing in the presence of such history. I remember he spoke to me and I just stood there grinning like an idiot."

I think it should be:

"As a young lieutenant, Picard attended the wedding of Sarek's son where he briefly met Sarek and Spock for the first and only time before the 2360s. (TNG: "Sarek", "Unification I")

Caution was still in place during the writing of "Sarek" about dealing with characters from The Original Series, thus it is only implied that the son in question is Spock. (Star Trek: The Next Generation Companion) Picard's line in "Unification I" only states that he has met Spock before but does not explicitly state when that meeting occurred, though likely it would have been at the wedding. "

Consensus? – Topher 19:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. FWIW, I just worked on what was there to remove the speculation about it being Spock's wedding. Background note looks good, too. -- Cid Highwind 19:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks good to me :-)– Cleanse 22:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Images[]

I think we should solve the problem of further differentiating the italicized background comments by moving the left images that affect their formating to the right.--Aamin Marritza 12:26, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Done --Alan 06:29, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

The top image of Picard (Jean-Luc Picard, 2379.jpg) looks squashed, as it is shown in the wrong aspect ratio. The full-size image is 600x586 pixels (1.02 AR), but the thumbnail is 292x356 (0.82 AR), which corresponds to an older version of the image.--71.178.154.41 17:26, June 14, 2010 (UTC)

Between Stargazer and Ent-D?[]

Do we have any information on what Picard was doing during this period? If I recall in "All Good Things..." the scene where Picard takes command of the Ent-D has him reciting his orders; something like: "To Captain Jean-Luc Picard, you are hereby requested and required to..." was there a mention of his current posting in that order? "To Captain Jean-Luc Picard, commanding officer USS-shipname, you are hereby requested and required..." Or do we just not have any info? Logan 5 18:35, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Additionally, the "Legacy" episode seems to indicate that he was commanding a different ship when he first met Tasha Yar but I'm not sure it's ever been mentioned by name. Seems a long period for him not to be in command, or maybe he was posted to a starbase or at Starfleet Headquarters? Do we have even a non-canon mention of this time period? Logan 5 17:10, 15 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Has anyone ever speculated as to what Picard did for the nine years between commanding the Stargazer and the Enterprise? Could he have commanded another ship in that time span, or might he have left Starfleet for awhile ala James T. Kirk? – The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.4.113.174.

The novel The Buried Age covers this period.– Cleanse 00:44, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

First Officer on the Stargazer?[]

I seem to recall that Riker once stated to Picard something about him being a former first officer. If this is true (I'm thinking from a second or third season episode), then Picard would have been the first officer on the Stargazer in 2333. Does any of this sound familiar or have I been daydreaming?--Tim Thomason 17:01, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

You haven't been daydreaming. I think it was during a first season episode. -Scottmz

Is there anything that establishes that Picard was never on another ship? Or that he couldn't be First Officer of something besides a ship?

--Commodore Sixty-Four^(talk) 04:14, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I believe Riker said in "Encounter at Farpoint", something similar to "As a former first officer yourself you know...". I don't remember Picard referred to as the Stargazer first officer subsequently. 74.69.8.195 20:20, September 9, 2012 (UTC)

First contact with Ferengi?[]

I think that it was Jonathan Archer who made first contact with the Ferengi when they tried to steal everything of his ship.– The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.187.102.166 .

A) That wasn't the Federation, B) He did not know they were Ferengi, never got a name. --OuroborosCobra ^talk 11:16, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Even so, it wasn't Picard who made first contact. Whilst Archer was the first Human, in TNG: "Encounter at Farpoint", Groppler Zorn said "The Ferengi would be very interested in a base like this." Obviously there had been previous contact or the away team would have said, "Who?" True, the Ferengi were never named in ENT: "Acquisition" but remember that many events in Enterprise came under scrutiny, many people stated that it couldn't be canon. Most of it is but it is quite hard to stay "within continuity". Dave 12:17, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Picard made first contact with the Ferengi while on the USS Stargazer, before Encounter at Farpoint. --OuroborosCobra ^talk 14:05, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

you just contradicted yourself. when picard was on the stargazer he did not know who the ferengi where. according to this line of thinking then archer would be the one who made first contact. (Grim reap 09:30, 13 July 2008 (UTC))

You have contradicted yourself. Why wouldn't that line of thinking apply to your statement as well? Archer didn't know who they were either, and he never found out. Picard would later find out that he had met the Ferengi. I think that qualifies him as being the first to contact them.--31dot 12:19, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, the statement in EAF does not mean too much other than as a competitor for the base. The Federation doesn't have to have met them in order to compete with them.--31dot 12:21, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

27 First Contacts[]

I'd think it would be interesting to try bringing together a list of Picards first contacts and see if we reach the number 27 or even go above it. This could certainly be included as a bg note IMO.

Out of memory:

Kennelly 17:17, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

There was also the Malcorians, Mintakans, and maybe the Satarrans and Lysians. I don't know about those last two, they come from TNG: "Conundrum". Also the Edo. Just a few more. ----Willie 17:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Were the Edo established as a "first contact"? --OuroborosCobra ^talk 17:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll have to watch the episode again, but IIRC that was the first time humans went to Rubicun III. ----Willie 17:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Well here is Picard's captain's log from the episode. You be the judge

"Captain's Log, Stardate 41255.6. After delivering a party of Earth colonists to the Strnad solar system we have discovered another class M planet in the adjoining Rubicun star system. We are now in orbit there having determined it to be inhabited as well as unusually lovely. My first officer has taken an away team down to make contact and they are in the process of returning to the ship."

– The preceding unsigned comment was added by Trlkly (talk • contribs).

Picard did open relations with the Tamarians, but first contact ocurred a long time ago before that. There are of course the Farpoint star-jellys, 2D star-jellys, Alpha Omicron space whales, Energy cloud parasites, Quantum singularity parasites (from "Timescape"), Armus, Gomtuu (sort of), parasitic beings & mother creature, Nagilum, Velarans, the Life-cycle experiencing being, first self-aware photonic lifeform (Moriarty), first self-aware nanites, the REM-disrupting telepaths, Douwd, the non-corporeal Koinonians, Devidian humanoids and Devidian ophidians, the regular abducting aliens, the solanagen-based abducting aliens, magnascopically induced emergent lifeform. I'm sure I missed some. Any list kind of depends on if it counts, if the lifeform only interacted at some level with humans when it was discovered, as a first contact, or that first contact is made but not necessarily by Picard personally but by the ship and crew, or that contact with Picard is the first confirmed public record of the entity/race, but it has been encountered before by humans. etc. --Pseudohuman 22:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Memorable Quotes[]

Are the quotes on personnel pages necessary? They seem to clutter up the page with all the links to each individual episode that the quote is from. They're also not consistent across pages. Some personnel have quotes some don't. Riker, Data, Yar, Troi, Wesley, (his mother has one) don't have quotes but Worf seems to have a few and they really, to me, look out of place. I'm wondering what the consensus view is here at alpha. --Morder 00:29, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

The pages without quotes are just because no one has added any yet. I don't really think 20 odd lines "clutter" a page that is 83kb long...

I think this falls squarely under Memory Alpha:Inform and entertain. They also provide additional insight into the character, whether it be Picard's speeches, Kirk's comments on women, or Worf's deadpan one-liners. – Cleanse 01:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

No problem. By clutter I mean it's just annoying to see all the links to each episode that the quotes are from. No problem though. I'll add quotes when I find good ones...if I find good ones. --Morder 01:17, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Toehold?[]

I don't know if this is just me, but does the phrase "gain a toehold" actually make sense? I thought the phrase was "gain a foothold". This is the sentence I am talking about:

"...dissidents to gain a toehold on the Romulan homeworld."

Any thoughts? TrekFan 12:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe they weren't big enough to have a "foot"? :D Seriously, though, toehold would imply a smaller foothold, seeing as the toe is part of the foot. It's just semantics. R2data 13:53, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Same rank[]

The Background Information section has a line reading:

"Other than in alternate realities, Picard is one of only two characters to hold the same rank throughout the entire series. Data is the second."

What about Dr. Crusher? She was a Commander (three pips) from start to finish, wasn't she?--(unsigned)

I removed the line. I guess by "the entire series" it is referring to TNG + the TNG movies. Otherwise, you could probably add Riker (minus one brief field promotion) to that list.--Tim Thomason 04:47, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Riker got promoted to Captain in Star Trek Nemesis. -- TrekFan 18:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, he wasn't promoted within the series.--Tim Thomason 00:06, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I would say that the field promotion he got would count. The wording of the statement (to hold the same rank). Picard and Data were never seen with different ranks outside of alternate realities. -- TrekFan 00:10, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I have re-added the information but reworded the it slightly. It now reads:

Other than in alternate realities, Jean-Luc Picard has always appeared as a captain, throughout the entire run of TNG and the subsequent movies. Data is the only other character to remain at the rank he started with.

I added a similar note to the Data article. I think this note is clearer than the previous one. - TrekFan ^Talk 16:49, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Picard's age[]

How can Picard appear in NEMESIS as a medium age man (not older than 50) but chronologicaly he has 74? – The preceding unsigned comment was added by 190.232.46.83.

Probably the same reason McCoy can be in his 130's in "Encounter at Farpoint". People live longer in the 24th Century.

Also, Patrick Stewart is 68, not 74.--31dot 04:13, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Picard was supposed to be 74 as of Nemesis. Picard, not Stewart. --TribbleFurSuit 05:18, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I think the "68" was put in as a response to the idea that Picard appeared no older than 50. He was played by someone nearly two decades older than 50. --OuroborosCobra ^talk 05:27, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Also gotta remember that in 1987, Stewart was "only" 47 years old therefore he matched exactly the age the producers wanted, i.e. a Captain around the age of 50. He spent most of TNG in his late 40s and early 50s because back then who knew there would be so many TNG movies. Hard to believe that the series is now 21 years in the past! Anyway, I've never met him but know someone who has. From what I hear, in person you can kind of tell he's slowing down and he does appear as someone who's about to hit 70 (Stewart is actually exactly the same age as my father so I have a sort of frame of reference to compare him with). His acting has also calmed down a bit too, I've read these days he kind of just sticks to plays. It would be interesting to talk about this some more on the Patrick Stewart article; I'd be very curious if he has any health problems at this stage in his life. -FC 12:58, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Quotes about Picard section[]

I know you'll want to kill me for making this section, but I thought it was appropriate given the editing wars that have gone on. I was the one who suggestion Admiral Hanson's quote, then any discussion regarding the main quote after that didn't include me. If we had up to five quotes about Picard, that would be good. That's my opinion, anyway. Then we can all stop arguing etc. Any suggestions or comments? Dave^{Subspace Message} 21:50, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

There are things I could say, but I think we should let sleeping dogs lie.--31dot 23:06, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Up to five quotes to do what? Up for a vote to pick one of them or put all five quotes in there? I'm confused. – Distantlycharmed 19:06, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Five quotes that describe Picard, as said by other characters. There may not be five (I'm sure there are), but it's better than arguing over a main quote. Dave^{Subspace Message} 23:57, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Well dont you think it would just look really awkward both style and contents wise if you had several opening quotes for Picard up there? I am not questioning the merit of what you are suggesting, I am just wondering how it would work style-wise. – Distantlycharmed 00:36, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I've put it down with the rest of the quotes. There are memorable quotes, then catchphrases, and then a little section of his character being described by other people would be good as there are some fitting quotes. Dave^{Subspace Message} 01:17, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

The Youngest Captain[]

If Picard was 59 when he took command of The Enterprise, and he had 9 years off after Captaining the Stargazer, and was Captain of tha vessel for 22 years, then wouldn't he be the youngest Captain in Star Fleet Histroy Period? – The preceding unsigned comment was added by 132.3.9.68.

It was said in dialog that Tryla Scott was the youngest ever, so the answer to your question is no.--31dot 19:47, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Picards Hair[]

As far as I know, by reading this wiki, Picard had lost his hair completely when he was in his 40s. But I seem to remember reading somewhere that he had begun loosing his air already in his 20s, something which would seem to be confirmed by the picture of Picard in the Academy, where he is clearly bald (most probably by choice).

Would he then had been wearing a wig by the time of the Nausicaan affair where he was stabbed in the heart? --The Picard 01:20, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Not sure where you read that, but he likely shaved his head when he was younger.--31dot 01:22, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I read that as well, that's why I wrote "Most probably by choice". I don't remember where I read about him loosing his hair already in his twentys, so I cannot confirm it..yet.. but I'll try to find where I read it. Thank you for the answer.--The Picard 01:33, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

The phrase "after having lost a bet" in the caption for the picture Picard as cadet with a shaved head should be deleted as a non-canon. There was no explanation given for why he had a shaved head in the photo. --71.195.58.196 17:14, April 23, 2017 (UTC)

Imposter link[]

Per the similar links on other pages, I have placed a link to the Jean-Luc Picard (replica) page at the top as a disambiguation. Although only in this episode, it is still useful to have at the top, as many other pages (Nog (mirror), Quark (mirror), Ezri Tigan (mirror))--31dot 02:36, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Also see Miles O'Brien. The replicant was only in one episode, but has a link at the top. This is so users can find it easily without reading the entire article.--31dot 02:42, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Without looking through the entire article? You can then say that about anything - like that one time someone got sick and was infected. And why not create one for when Picard was a Kamin in the Essik community and link that on top of his profile as well? You can then go ahead and then just have 15 links on top of his profile in case readers wouldn't wanna read the article. You're kidding.

Look, I really dont think that belongs there. It wasnt a mirror universe. There really is no reason to create a link on top of his main profile to point to the impostor in case someone were to want to know about that one episode he was someone else (??). Tuvok and Chakotay were also overtaken in one episode and acted differently - should there be a separate link created for each time and put on top of their profile? Kirk was also someone else in "Turnabout Intruder" and there isnt a link on top of his profile. Same with Barclay, and many other characters for that matter that were in similar situations. I mean what if someone had multiple personalities in various episodes, you can't possibly add several links (one per "take over") on top of their profile pages. It is clutter up - that is why it is in the body of the text.– Distantlycharmed 03:04, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I sort of agree with you but...this is an entirely new picard - a complete replacement - while the real one was imprisoned. The others you state are just the same one but taken over by someone else so they don't apply in this case. (The only exception to this is Barclay who had a doppelganger as well). Please do not revert articles just because you think they should be your way - take it to the talk page first. The item in question was added in good faith and was not obvious vandalism or anything. This helps prevent unnecessary edits and makes the community a little more civilized. — Morder 05:03, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree and it was taken to talk page at some point. I didnt think 31dot was doing anything out of ill will anyway. I thought that in such a case the item in dispute stays "offline" until the discussion over it is resolved. Then someone came back, and instead of talking about it in the talk page, reverted again and started the debate in the reverts (??). Anyway thanks for the input. I really still believe that whether he was a completely different person or just overtaken by someone temporarily is, in terms of relevance to add as a link, arbitrary and splitting hairs over definitions. I could also post For Picard as Kemin in the Essik community, click here. Anyway, as much as i would love to debate all this over and over, I got a thesis to write. Ciao and thanks. – Distantlycharmed 05:26, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

The problem with that is it's easier to discuss when the item in question is still on the page and not removed. — Morder 05:32, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

First, we do have an article on Kamin, the person who Picard lived as. As this person does not have the same name as Picard, a link at the top is not necessary, because there is nothing to confuse it with. The impostor has the same name, and someone looking for him might not know that the article is titled "Jean Luc Picard (impostor)", as with Miles O'Brien (replicant). That's not "arbitrary", that is to reduce confusion.--31dot 10:35, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I can kind of see both sides of this. It is neccesary to have this link in the article but I personally think its an eye sore at the top of the article. But, I understand the views here and we also had all those problems with the quote being up there a while back. Maybe its best to put it in the body of the article or as a see also link. -FC 02:24, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Believe me, no one will be looking for the alien who impersonated Jean-Luc Picard. When someone's looking for Picard, they'll be looking for Picard...not possible aliases. Unlike in mirror universe characters, what happened as part of an abduction/exchange/temp replacement scheme to Picard has no bearing on canon. I really believe that if someone wants to look at that info, they can find it in the body of the text - in conjunction with all the other things that happened to Picard. The link on top of his profile page is superfluous and you are right, it is an eye sore and distracting. *sigh* – Distantlycharmed 03:25, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

You could use that reasoning to justify removing virtually any article or link- who is going to look up blouse? Or any other article like that? If we're going to have disambig links for other characters with exactly the same name (the O'Brien replicant, mirror universe characters, etc.) why not this one? If you wish to discuss the broader issue of having such links, a seperate forum discussion should be started. But as long as we have others like it, this one should stay.--31dot 13:56, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah man, the point was not removing the article!! I didnt say remove the impostor article, I said, the link is superfluous and not needed right there, on top of his profile page like it was something so special in JLP's life and adventures that needs to be pointed out right on top of his page. The fact that he was completely replaced is an arbitrary reason to put up there as a link as opposed to when he was Borg for a while. How about a link up there pointing to Locutus - maybe someone would like to know about Picard as Locutus and not bother having to read the whole profile to get there. Let's then just add link after link for every possible contingency and scenario so it is really clear. Anyway this discussion is pointless. Gee...– Distantlycharmed 15:51, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Our style at MA, which you should know by now, is to put a disambig at the top of articles to articles with similar names. That's it. That's all it is. Have a nice day. -- sulfur 15:53, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Er yes i am fully aware of administrative inertia around here. Not wanting to change things around (like the whole issue with writing certain articles in the past tense no matter what and regardless of how it sounds and whether it makes sense and then this...) because changing it would be too inconvenient and newbies ...what do they know, always trying to change/improve things around here, they are such a nuisance to established policies set in stone which no one wants to deal with. Ya I'm aware. – Distantlycharmed 16:12, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

If you wish to change a policy, there is a way to do so- start a Forum discussion about it. I can say, however, that it likely would not be changed due to the reasons given above. This doesn't mean that we dislike new people or new ideas, but it means that we need a compelling reason to change it. If you can provide a sufficiently persuasive reason as to why a link to an article with a similar name should be buried within another aticle to make it more difficult to find, please do so.
What you consider an "improvement" might not be considered one by everyone else. This has been mentioned to you before. --31dot 17:56, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Does he exist?[]

Does he really exist in this new "alternate" timeline?

What makes you think we know? --OuroborosCobra ^talk 07:16, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Even if he does/will, he won't be born for about 50 years. It doesn't matter in the slightest that this point. --TimPendragon^Hail 07:22, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

the United States Navy, upon which Starfleet is based, a relationship like the one between Picard and Daren would be totally against protocol since it violates military law for a commanding officer to have a relationship with a subordinate member of their command. However, as referenced in a line from TOS: "Space Seed" where Leonard McCoy states "there aren't any regulations about romance", romantic relations between officers of the same command appear to be permitted.

Unnecessary real world comparison and statement to refute realworld comparison. — Morder 23:37, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protected[]

I have temporarily protected this page from editing by new and anonymous users due to repeated vandalism. --From Andoria with Love 05:04, November 15, 2009 (UTC)

Opening epitaph is back in play. --ChrisK 13:16, December 12, 2009 (UTC)

I have again protected it from new/anon users due to vandalism.--31dot 13:45, January 28, 2010 (UTC)

Quotes Part VI[]

I see a quote was added to the article. At this discussion on the archive page we agreed to not have one if one cannot be agreed on. The person who added it was probably not aware of this(which is OK) but as such I thought I would mention it here.

It's a nice quote, but I'm not sure what the quote has to do with Picard. I'll reserve final judgement until someone can point that out.--31dot 02:33, December 18, 2009 (UTC)

It does seem to show Picard's personality but I say we remove it and just put a hidden note and keep it removed as it's been discussed forever and no agreement could be reached or has just gone stale. — Morder (talk) 02:43, December 18, 2009 (UTC)

Removed to here--31dot 02:50, December 18, 2009 (UTC):

"If we're going to be damned, let's be damned for what we really are."

- Jean-Luc Picard, 2364

Yeah, didn't see that novel that was being written on this in the archives when I added it. As for the quote, I though it showed the strength of character Picard had, and showed something that wasn't soothed out as the character developed. Since this is apparently a big issue I'm just going to let this lie, though, under the circumstances that quote becomes just a little ironic. :) - Archduk3:talk 08:35, December 18, 2009 (UTC)

Pronunciation of his name[]

I am not French, nor is French my first or even second or third language. But I know how "Jean-Luc" SHOULD be pronounced in French. Nobody in the history of Star Trek ever pronounces "Luc" correctly. I guess most people whose first language is English cannot even pronounce it or would not hear the difference between the "look" and proper French "Luc" sounds. Maybe this could be explained away by the fact that a few hundred years have made certain sounds in the French language different. But, still, it irks me (as I am sure most French people are irked) that "Luc" is NEVER pronounced correctly compared to contemporary French... 68.200.98.166 00:19, January 30, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, considering that the French character of Picard spoke with an English accent, I think this is the least of the problems for French speakers. --OuroborosCobra ^talk 00:23, January 30, 2010 (UTC)

2379 picture looking a little distorted[]

The 2379 picture of Picard at the top of the sidebar is looking a little distorted--like it's stretched sideways. If I remember correctly, it's been like this for a while, I just couldn't quite place what was wrong with it until now. Looking at the actual image page (File:Jean-Luc Picard, 2379.jpg), it looks fine, so the problem is with this article. Is this just something that happens with images of different aspect ratios in character sidebars? If so, we should crop the 2364 image below it (the wider of the two--it can spare a few pixels on the right-hand side) to be of a matching ratio. -Mdettweiler 03:42, August 7, 2010 (UTC)

It's a chache problem with wikia's servers, or some such technobabble. Re-uploading the image seems to fix it most of the time. - Archduk 3 04:08, August 7, 2010 (UTC)

Hey, would you know...that did fix it. I could have sworn that had been tried before, which is why I thought it must be something different this time. I guess not :-) -Mdettweiler 17:00, August 7, 2010 (UTC)

Height[]

Where was Picard's height (5' 10") given in canon? I seem to recall his height being mentioned as about two meters (in "Gambit, Part I"). Or is it just Patrick Stewart's height? Doing some quick looking I don't think the other major captains have their heights listed.--31dot 12:49, April 16, 2011 (UTC)

I don't think his height was specifically mentioned, but this poses an interesting question of whether to use the known heights of actors as the heights of their characters. I don't think we should since it's not stated in canon (though it could be listed in the BG info). --| TrekFan ^{Open a channel} 14:03, April 16, 2011 (UTC)

Removed the height today. I didn't put the two meters reference because it was an estimation. I agree that heights should not be given unless stated in canon.--31dot 15:43, April 19, 2011 (UTC)

In Star Trek Nemesis, there's the scene between Shinzon and Picard in the Romulan Senate where Shinzon says "I'd always hoped I'd reach 2 meters" and Picard agrees. That suggests that they're both under 2 meters.--160.254.20.253 16:49, January 15, 2014 (UTC)

We already knew that from Part I of 'Gambit'; we shouldn't put "less than 2 meters" as a height in the sidebar. (The article itself would be fine, if it isn't there already. 31dot (talk) 01:12, January 16, 2014 (UTC)

tactical cunning?[]

I ask this not as a debate question, but as a legtimate topic on this wiki. The article mentions Picard's "tactical cunning". As someone with knowledge of military strategy and tactics, I question this greatly, especially in the TV series. In "The Survivors", Picard waits to open fire until the Enterprise has lost its shields and taken thermal damage to the hull, which can never be good in space. After it has no impact and Data announces that the Housnk ship can absorb incoming matter and energy, Picard does not immediately order retreat, which is the most strategic decision when weapons fire only fuels the aggressor. Instead Riker ludicrously orders something called "rapid fire sequence with all weapons on full" (never seen again btw), which only prompts the enemy vessel to fire, taking out at least one redshirt on the bridge, resulting in internal damage and weapons control functions being nullified. THEN Picard orders a retreat, which I find idiotic. Another excellent example is in "The Best of Both Worlds", when Picard faces in his words (from FC), "our most lethal enemy". When the Borg tractor beam attempts to lock on, Picard orders phasers and photon torpedoes armed, then sits in his chair with his hands folded and a puzzled look on his face for thirty secondswhile Geordi tries (and fails) to recalibrate the shield nutation. It isn't until after the shields are down (which is a severe tactical error; waiting until your defenses are breached and you are most vulernable to open fire is suicide), that Picard orders a full barrage of phasers and photon torpedoes fired, which have no impact whatsoever. Once again, the time is excellent for escape. Instead, Picard allows a beam to slice into the stardrive section (where the WARP CORE is) before ordering Worf to "Fire at will". Only because of Shelby's tactical cunning did they manage to escape. Even in the alternate timeline of "Yesterday's Enterprise", which is supposed to show a more war-like Starfleet, Picard WAITS eighteen seconds while the Klingon cruisers fire relentlessly at the ship before ordering return fire. Their primary mission is to protect the Enterprise-C. Well, they wait until it sustains damage from Klingon torpedoes to wheel starboard and return fire, which is a full thirty seconds. Then, when the Enterprise-D inexplictly takes severe damage from the Klingons, Picard and Riker spend ten SECONDS WATCHING as consoles explode around them and their crew fall, rather than perhaps "commencing rapid fire sequence with all weapons on full", which probably would have destroyed all three Klingon vessels. Even in battle with a tactically inferior vessel like the Cardassian warship in "The Wounded", Picard waits to open fire until after the Enterprise's shields and starboard power coupling have taken damage, and even then, limits it to weapons only. What we have in sum, is not a tactican but a defensive weakling. 74.69.11.229 15:54, October 25, 2012 (UTC)

You could have just said "I question the use of the phrase "tactical cunning""- the above is kinda long to read. I don't say that to be rude, just to suggest that in the future you don't put quite so much evidence of your position unless it becomes necessary.

I think the use of the phrase comes from him inventing the Picard Maneuver, among other reasons(maybe some characters implied that; not sure). Even in real life, people regarded as excellent military tacticians were not so all the time.

I'll add that if Picard had seriously damaged or destroyed the Cardassian ship, a war would have started. He wanted to talk to them, not militarily defeat them. 31dot (talk) 20:41, October 25, 2012 (UTC)

I understand your concerns. As for my loquaciousness, I am trained as a historian and want to cite specific and detailed examples to support my argument that I question Picard's tactical prowess. 74.69.11.229 20:03, October 27, 2012 (UTC)