Talk:Jean-Luc Picard

Past and special-purpose discussions related to this article can be found on the following subpages:

• Jean-Luc Picard/FA status
• Jean-Luc Picard/archive

---

Memory Alpha talk pages are for improving the article only.
For general discussion, please visit Memory Alpha's Discussions feature, or join the chat on Discord.

---

Please click here to start a new discussion

---

Featured Article Nomination (29th July, 2008)

The Jean-Luc Picard article is very detailed, including lots of references, images and a timeline of events, as well as relevant quotes and detailed background information. I would like to nominate it for FA status. TrekFan 12:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose: My main objection to this being a featured article is the quote which has come and gone several times from the top of the article; in fact, that single quote has sparked at least three edit wars. This is not the marking of a featured article if agreement cannot even come to what quote we should have up there. Not to mention there is frequent editing on this article and it is not all that stable with reverts, pasting, and removed-readded material appearing and disappearing quite frequently. I do like the article, but alas I must object for now. -FC 03:30, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Quote issue resolved, so I recant my oppose vote but dont want to support it just yet due to the instability of the article, large number of edits, and anon ip additions added, deleted, and re-added over the past few months. -FC 13:27, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support: This is a fantastic article, very well detailed. As for the quote, a suggestion I would make is perhaps Admiral J.P. Hanson's line from TNG: "The Best of Both Worlds, Part II", which went: "I've never known anyone with more drive, determination or more courage than Jean-Luc Picard." Dave 07:01, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment - A fitting quote. I have added it to the page. TrekFan 15:11, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose for now. I too like the article. I think it is extremely detailed and has virtually everything we know about Picard in it. I do have a few concerns, some minor:
  1. One is the section in appendices "References in Other Trek Series". The whole section is in-universe, so it needs an in-universe title.
  2. I don't like the idea of the "Miscellaneous Information" section. This can surely be incorporated elsewhere into the article.
  3. I can't help but feel the relationships section, while nicely detailed for each person, is rather selective. Shouldn't Troi and Wesley get a short section each?
  4. His actions in the Klingon arc are noted in the intro paragraph, but I feel they should have their own section. Career-wise, they're certainly as significant as his encounters with the Borg and Q.– Cleanse 01:49, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - I have changed the title (point #1) to "References by other people". I will look at incorporating point #2 into the article itself. - TrekFan 02:48, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support: While I do believe some of the points made here are valid, I also believe that this article is well written, and more then qualifies for FA as is. Melak ^talk 18:14, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support: Very good article.--Aamin Marritza 13:03, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

My first two concerns have been met, and the second two are more icing on the cake so I recant my oppose vote.– Cleanse 07:13, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: Aesthetically speaking, I'm not keen on how the italicized background comments are pushed into the same space as regular text by images placed on the left. Such information should be indented and offset from the main content, but with the left placed images the formatting that would otherwise differentiate the two pov's are crushed together, and italics alone are not enough to offset the pov change (seeing as italics also denote an alternate timeline in our style of formatting). I'd rather see that somehow resolved...images moved to the right to restore the formatting, or the indented italics moved away from the left images, before this is featured. --Alan 07:44, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

That's a good point. I think those left images should be moved to the right.--Aamin Marritza 12:21, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Done.– Cleanse 12:44, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: Come on, guys! We only need two more votes! TrekFan 17:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
• Conditional support - Having thoroughly examined the article, it is certainly one of the better candidates we've had, and there are just a few things I'd like to see changed. The Guinan section should include the very important events of TNG: "Time's Arrow, Part II"; the placement of the File:Jean-Luc Picard, 2370.jpg in the Q section seems odd, the Worf section seems short, and I'm weary about the "alternate picard"'s quotes being in the "real picard's" quotes section. Other than these minor things - absolutly fantastic article!!! - AJ Halliwell 18:07, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I have moved the Picard image further up so it is in the section about his time on the Enterprise. I have also added another Q image to the Q section in its place and removed the AR quotes from the quotes section. TrekFan 11:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support: It's nice, detailed, has lots of good pictures. ~Anya Prynn | Talk 13:55, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support: Now that it looks like all issues have been resolved, I would like to express my support for this article to be featured, too. --36ophiuchi 17:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• Voting concluded. Five votes for FA status. TrekFan 19:30, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Removed speculation

I've removed the following three notes:

"The character of Jean-Luc Picard was named after Dr. Jean-Felix Piccard, a Swiss scientist, high-altitude balloonist, and member of a family of noted explorers. While there is no official source of the name Picard, the character makes occasional allusions to his 'famous ancestors' – presumably Jean, Auguste, Jacques and Bertrand Piccard. Jean-Felix Piccard was the uncle of Jacques Piccard, who explored the Marianas Trench in 1960. Jacques Piccard's Basthyscaphe (deep sea submarine) was named Trieste, the potential namesake of the USS Trieste.

"A 'Picard' is also a 16th- and 17th-century term for someone of an enquiring mindset (derived from the birthplace of John Calvin of Picardy). With his interest in the development of humanism, it is likely Gene Roddenberry knew this. Certainly it is a fitting description of Jean-Luc's character as well as his name.

"Further, there was a 17th-century Catholic priest and astronomer named Jean Picard, who was the first to measure the Earth's size to a high degree of accuracy, and who kept close contacts with Isaac Newton and Tycho Brahe, who may have also contributed to the character's naming."

All three notes are entirely speculative regarding their link to Jean-Luc Picard (which is, let's face it, the reason they're on this page) with the only exception being "There is no official source of the name Picard." --Defiant (talk) 07:33, September 6, 2016 (UTC)

Rank Trivia

Under the Trivia section, the following appears regarding Picard's onscreen rank: "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 and Dr. Crusher are the only other characters to remain at the ranks they started with."

Picard did not continuously retain his rank throughout the series & movies, since he explicitly resigned his commission during the events of Insurrection. While both his rank and position would appear to have been restored by the time of Nemesis, this still constitutes a temporary loss of rank during his career. Some mention of this should either be added to this piece of trivia, or else it should probably be removed. On a related note, Data, Troi, Crusher, and Worf might also have resigned during the same events, though the evidence is slightly less conclusive in their cases. --ThetaSigma47 (talk) 08:40, January 15, 2019 (UTC)

In order to resign, the person resigning must give their resignation to someone higher up who then accepts it. We don't know that this happened and it seems likely that it didn't("I'm resigning to stop Starfleet's removal of these people"). 31dot (talk) 14:24, January 15, 2019 (UTC)

That's a very good point; we do know that a formal resignation in Starfleet requires the approval of a superior officer. Since there is no evidence of Picard receiving such approval in this story (indeed his immediate superior, Admiral Dougherty, made it clear that he expected Picard to remain in command of the Enterprise and carry out his orders), I agree that it makes sense that Picard didn't truly resign (the same reasoning can apply to the other crew-members who joined his insurrection).

However, he (and the others) did go AWOL, and explicitly defied their superior's orders. Does it then follow that they were no longer Starfleet officers for the duration of their activities on the Bak'u planet, since both their intent and actions fell outside of Starfleet mandate? Would Admiral Dougherty's actions during the same events constitute a nullification of his position and authority, as (presumably) Starfleet were later informed of his behavior? Can we clarify this example by drawinng any parallels to similar circumstances, either in Trek or the real world (i.e. Kirk & co. going rogue in The Search for Spock)? Thank you for considering.--ThetaSigma47 (talk) 14:28, January 16, 2019 (UTC)

If they weren't Starfleet officers at the time, how could they be AWOL? You don't stop being an office just because you decide to mount an insurrection. The former Starfleet Maquis had to either resign or have their defection reported before they weren't in Starfleet anymore, and I don't see how stopping the article to have this discussion is a good idea for most readers. Anyone who is confused should see this before saying anything here. That said, I'm going to adjust the wording a bit for other reasons. - Archduk3 (on an unsecure connection) 20:31, January 16, 2019 (UTC)

Removed “most popular”

I’ve removed this dubious (or at least, poorly phrased) bit:

Picard was most popular for straightening his uniform when standing up (the "Picard Maneuver", different from the tactical maneuver he first performed with the Stargazer), saying "Engage" after plotting a course, and "Make it so" when agreeing with someone's suggested orders.

Catchphrases and habitual motions are not what makes a character popular, in my opinion. A character becomes popular for being well-written and well-performed; an audience first gains affection for a character, and then develops fondness for the character’s habits and sayings.

Now, it’s possible that what was meant was that these catchphrases and habits became popular with the audience, but that’s not what the wording above actually says. —Josiah Rowe (talk) 04:17, September 27, 2019 (UTC)

Personal project

I wanted to know if it would be fine if I made this article my own little project. I would love to help by improving this article with all relevant info, images, etc. Mseay222 (talk) 00:06, February 8, 2020 (UTC)

Broken Pieces

Why was the information I added from the episode Broken Pieces removed? Mseay222 (talk) 18:50, March 15, 2020 (UTC)

I made some changes. Hopefully, it is OK now. Pedronog (talk) 19:21, March 15, 2020 (UTC)

Okay cool, I was a little confused because the info wasn't there for a bit. No worries. Mseay222 (talk) 19:26, March 15, 2020 (UTC)

Human Picard and Android Picard

Is it really necessary to split the article into two parts (Golem),After all, he is still Jean Luc Picard, with the same mind and same looking body, still mortal, and with no "special powers", only difference is that body is artificial.A difference which makes no difference is no difference.93.136.27.59 09:59, March 26, 2020 (UTC)

Whether an android containing all the memories, experiences and personality of a human is the same person as the original human is a metaphysical question with no definite answer. We do have separate pages for Roger Korby and Roger Korby (android) as well as Juliana Soong and Juliana Tainer. However, there is currently a suggestion to merge the Juliana articles. --NetSpiker (talk) 11:28, March 26, 2020 (UTC)

Juliana Tainer only appeared in one episode though, and technically Juliana Soong never appeared onscreen. The Picard golem will most likely appear in all future seasons of Star Trek: Picard, therefore I think they should remain 2 separate articles. Madnana42 (talk) 11:49, March 26, 2020 (UTC)Madnana42

I think we only need one article here. (Juliana too) It's very clear it's meant to be the same person. 31dot (talk) 13:55, March 26, 2020 (UTC)

Is a copy the same as the original?--Memphis77 (talk) 15:03, March 26, 2020 (UTC)

The way the transporters work in Star Trek, there would have to be couple of thousand pages for each character, since each time a person is transported, a copy (a "quantum exact" one, but still a copy) is created at the destination, with the original destroyed.93.136.79.216 15:42, March 26, 2020 (UTC)

Kurtzman on The Ready Room said they intend it to be the same person. 31dot (talk) 15:05, March 26, 2020 (UTC)

Well, that could be mentioned in the background section of either page, leaving the reader to judge whether or not they are the same or different.--Memphis77 (talk) 15:14, March 26, 2020 (UTC)

I agree that they should be separate pages. It's a copy of the original mind. It's said in the episode, as well as the fact that the original had died, even said by Data's consciousness, who was also a copy. It's meant to be the same mind in the sense that it's an exact copy of the first, but they mention that the first mind's brain functions ceased, which means he died. This is a completely different mind, built, not born and even if he continues on acting like Picard, he still isn't the same being, much in the same way as when William T. Riker and Thomas Riker aren't the same man. The difference being that Picard has died, so we don't get to see a diverging path, but even so, he has died. The way previous articles have been made into separated entities also is cause for two different pages. It'd be strange to continue the story on the original page as if it's the same man. It'd be different if it was a brain transplant, but this was a copy of his brain. Roger Murtaugh (talk) 16:08, March 26, 2020 (UTC)

According to your arguments, Harry Kim should also have two separate pages, one prior to, and other following the events of Deadlock.93.136.79.216 16:20, March 26, 2020 (UTC)

If the Spock post-Search for Spock is kept as the same person as the Spock up to Wrath of Khan, despite his consciousness having been transferred to a new body, I see no reason to have two pages for Picard. JagoAndLitefoot (talk) 16:23, March 26, 2020 (UTC)

Spock's body reanimated in that film with the same mind, just transferred. Same with Harry Kim. Organic copy, not created. This is an artificial mind and body created by a scientist. Roger Murtaugh (talk) 16:25, March 26, 2020 (UTC)

There was a lot of time in between Spock's death and his being brought back, as well. This case occurred quickly. There is also readers to consider; readers are naturally going to come to this page first for information, not "Jean-Luc Picard (golem)". 31dot (talk) 16:26, March 26, 2020 (UTC)

It'd be the same as combining the pages of William T. Riker and Thomas Riker. Data and B-4. It just feels like different beings merit different pages. Different stories. The only reason this Picard is like the other one is because he was manufactured to be so. New body, new heart, new brain. It's not really the same man at all. Shinzon is Picard, as well, who went through his own story. Roger Murtaugh (talk) 16:28, March 26, 2020 (UTC)

Shinzon was a clone who never shared Picard's memories and consciousness. The reason the two Rikers need two pages is that they diverged and existed simultaneously, unlike Picard, where the new body is a continuation of the old one. JagoAndLitefoot (talk) 16:31, March 26, 2020 (UTC)