Talk: Jonathan Archer/alternate reality

This talk page has no associated subject page. The subject page may have been deleted, or it may have never existed in the first place.

Talk:Jonathan Archer[]

Scotty and Archer's Beagle[]

I made a note that the incident with Archer's beagle was in the alternate reality since the article didn't make that clear. My only other concern is that Scotty only says "Admiral Archer" and at this point in time Archer had stepped down as President of the Federation. Nowhere is it stated that he rejoined Starfleet and he would have been called "President Archer" since that was his highest position. It is possible that this is one of his descendants or another admiral who happens to be named Archer. Should the fact that it is not explicitly stated to be this Archer be noted? Also, Scotty was born in 2222 so his birthday wasn't affected by the alternate timeline and he was 11 when the Narada changed the timeline so the beagle incident would have been after the timeline change.IndyK1ng 23:24, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Which is why i removed the ref altogether, seeing as "Admiral Archer" is mentioned in the top disambig on the page. Honestly, we can only speculate, but the namedrop (in combination with the beagle ref) is too close to be a coincidence. Unfortunately it would seem that unless it was stated in dialog or by the writers as being intentional, then it is a different person. --Alan 23:28, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

While I agree that the reference shouldn't be mentioned in the in-universe portion of the article, I think the reference is clear enough to go into the "Background" section. We don't know in-universe whether Archer is Jonathan Archer; however, it's quite clear that out-of-universe, the combination of "Archer" and "beagle" is a reference (direct or indirect) to Enterprise's captain. —Josiah Rowe 03:28, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I found a quotation from Kurtzman and Orci confirming that "Admiral Archer" is an Enterprise reference. [1]:

Alex: Admiral Archer gets referenced.

Bob: That's Enterprise.

Hope that helps. —Josiah Rowe 05:35, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

A reference does not mean it is the same Archer. See this article's background section and the section in the article on Admiral Archer.IndyK1ng 05:39, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I know that. I wrote some of those sections, and I'm not advocating moving the text to the in-universe sections of the article, or merging Archer with Jonathan Archer. I was just pointing out that the writers had confirmed that it was an intentional reference. —Josiah Rowe 05:45, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, upon reflection, I think we could treat this the same way that we treat Picard's remark about having met Sarek at "his son's wedding" in the Spock article. We didn't create a separate page for "unnamed son of Sarek" based on that line; we accepted the writers' expressed intention that Picard was referring to Spock, and mention it (with a caveat) in Spock. Why can't we do the same here? —Josiah Rowe 20:41, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

It just seems ridiculous that Scotty could have met an Admiral Archer who was actually Jonathan Archer in the timeframe we are discussing. At the time of Scotty's birth in the early 23rd century, Archer would already have been about 100 years old, having been born in the early 22nd century. By the time Scotty would have been able to operate or modify a transporter, even as a young man, would make Archer well over 100, approaching 150 even. Even if Scotty got a hold of his dog after Archer's passing, Archer was mentioned to be a former President of the Federation in his 23rd century bio in the ENT finale, making it odd that he would be referred to as "admiral" rather than "president". This is different from the Sarek case in that it was fully possible for Spock to be that unnamed son of Sarek (especially since we knew Sarek to be quite old and Spock's only brother to be deceased), this one is more unlikely and thus makes it more difficult to accept as an assumption. -- Captain MKB 21:04, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Was it Jonathan Archer? Maybe. Was it Porthos? No. A dog living for a century? That's a bit unlikely even for Star Trek. I kinda think it was Archer's kid, but if it was the same dog probably not.- JustPhil 21:06, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it's highly improbable that the dog was Porthos. But barring Archer's presidency, it seems quite possible that the admiral was Archer. Was Archer's presidency mentioned in the ENT finale? The article suggests that it comes from "In a Mirror, Darkly". I haven't seen either episode since their initial broadcast, and I don't recall whether the detail about Archer becoming president of the Federation was from dialogue in either episode or from the biographical display. If the latter, it can be put aside, the way we put aside the details of Archer's death. If the former, then that presents more of a problem for identifying Scotty's admiral as Jonathan Archer. —Josiah Rowe 21:23, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

The detail about Archer's presidency is from the bio screen, so yes, it's "secondary tier" canon. Additionally, Scotty's use of the phrase "prize beagle" instead of "pet beagle" could suggest that Archer became a breeder of beagles, after Porthos. --TimPendragon^Hail 21:28, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Right, then. If the presidency comes from the info screen, which Mike Sussman himself said wasn't necessarily canonical, I think we should go with something said on screen rather than something from an info screen.

Heck, maybe the timelines diverge earlier than we thought. Perhaps in the "prime" timeline, Archer became President of the Federation in 2184, but in the new timeline he never served in that post. After all, the Defiant came from the "prime" timeline, and Scotty beamed the beagle in the new one... but now I'm being speculative and silly.

Seriously, I think that given the writers' stated intent, this is the same as the "Sarek's son" situation. Which means that Archer should be merged back here. —Josiah Rowe 04:11, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Note: in the United States, former presidents (and vice-presidents) properly revert to their previous titles. So it's entirely reasonable that Archer would revert to "Admiral" after his term as Federation president was complete. Powers 03:06, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Bones was 137 and healthy in "Encounter at Farpoint". —Scott (talk) 20:19, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Really? I have never heard anyone refer to George HW Bush as "Lieutenant Bush", but have heard him called "Mr President" many times since 1993. Dangerdan97 21:24, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I think it's unlikely that "Admiral Archer" is a descendant of Jonathan Archer. Why wouldn't a spouse or children be listed in his biography read by Hoshi in "In a Mirror Darkly?" Also, the appearance of a Romulan ship that makes quick work of a Federation starship and then disappears would no doubt change Archer's plans, regardless of his age. He would want to help in a 'hands on fashion' meaning he'd likely reactivate as an Admiral in Starfleet rather than become a politician. With the writers explicitly stating that it is a nod to Enterprise, the fact that the last name is used, and that a beagle is what get's transported... I mean how much more does one need? Agent Xu--24.113.223.154 01:25, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Proof. — Morder 01:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

That's all you're going to get. Even if they identified "Jonathan" Archer in the movie, people would speculate it was Jonathan Archer II or Jr. What you want is for the scene in the movie to say, "Admiral Jonathan Archer's beagle, the same Jonathan Archer who commanded the NX-01" and that just isn't going to happen. They gave as overt a subtle nod as they were able. To speculate further beyond what the writers acknowledged out of universe seems... futile." Agent Xu--24.113.223.154 02:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Even if this similar to the "Sarek's son" situation, I think common sense tells us that this should not flatly be treated as being Jonathan Archer and the dog should definitely not be the same Porthos. At the very least, this should not be included in the body of the article without caveat. I don't think "Admiral Archer" deserves a separate article, but I don't think the reference is definitive either. --Praetor Neral 22:35, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Robert Orci has already stated it is indeed Jonathan Archer therefore there's no need to continue this. — Morder 22:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Archer[]

Merge proposal[]

The link demonstrates that K&O intended this Admiral Archer to be Jonathan Archer from Enterprise. So surely the pages should be conflated? – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jim Smith (talk • contribs)

Hm. I can see both sides of this. On the one hand, a "reference" (out of universe) isn't necessarily an "identification" (in universe) — even if "Admiral Archer" were a different character with a fondness for beagles, it could still be a reference to Jonathan Archer. On the other hand, the writers' intentions do seem to be that this is Jonathan Archer.

Upon reflection, I think that we have a precedent for this: Picard's remark about having met Sarek at "his son's wedding". This could be a reference to someone other than Spock, but the writers' intentions were that it was Spock, so we mention it in Spock, rather than having a separate page for "Sarek's son". By that precedent, this should be merged into Jonathan Archer. But I don't feel that strongly about it. —Josiah Rowe 16:53, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't Jonathan Archer be referred to as "President" Archer, as that would be the highest office he ever held? Dangerdan97 20:32, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. That's why I think the Archer that Scotty mentioned was a decedent of Jonathan Archer.JustPhil 20:50, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

if he isn't Jonathan ! are you sure is he a Human ? if he is a decedent, maybe is an hybrid or maybe a female or a maybe both female hybrid !!! (???) "category:Humans" isn't sure for me ! C-IMZADI-4 21:18, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

As discussed at Talk:Jonathan Archer#Scotty and Archer's Beagle, Jonathan Archer as President of the Federation comes from an on-screen graphic, which is on a lower "tier" of canonicity than dialogue. Plus, Mike Sussman, who wrote that on-screen graphic, said that it wasn't necessarily canonical. —Josiah Rowe 21:54, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

No. If the Federation President is anything like the President of the United States, then after his time in office has ended, Archer should be referred to by his highest title prior to becoming President. Referring to a former American president as "Mr. President" or "President Such-and-such" is technically incorrect, as the title does not follow them out of office. If you were to address George W. Bush, for example, you should call him "Governor Bush" instead of "Mr. President." If you were to address Barack Obama after his time as President is over, you should call him "Senator Obama." – Randy1012 01:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

That's not true. Former presidents are always referred to as "Mr. President". - Brandon Rhea ^(talk) 01:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Maybe the Federation uses different conventions than the US. Maybe Scotty screwed up on Archer's real title. Maybe Jonathan Archer (if it was him) preferred to be called "Admiral". Point is, I don't think the whole "Admiral" vs. "President" thing really helps us.– Cleanse 09:04, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

US Presidents are traditionally referred to as 'Mr President' after they leave office, but this is convention only. George Washington preferred to be referred to as General Washington in both correspondence and person after he left the Presidency. One of the White House tapes from during the Cuban Missle Crisis features Eisenhower telling JFK to call him General in order to avoid confusion (IIRC Truman is also on the line!).

Back on topic, I think the principle of ockham's razor is useful here (as it is in the 'Sarek's son' or 'Captain Sulu' questions); there's no need to create multiples. K& O say it's an Enterprise reference, there's a character called Archer who later becomes an Admiral in Enterprise. There's no other plausible candidate for who it is referring to. Ockham's razor says Jonathan Archer. – Jim Smith 09:32, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I've put up a formal merge proposal. There's also a discussion at Talk:Jonathan Archer, but I think we should continue it here.

I support a merge.

We assume "Cadet Vader" is the same guy/gal as Vader
We assume that "Chapel" is Christine Chapel
We have a quote from the writers that this was an Enterprise reference.
We know Humans can live that long in the Star Trek universe.
This Archer is fond of beagles. Jonathan Archer is fond of beagles.

Together, I think it is quite clear that we should follow the obvious as just say it was Jonathan.– Cleanse 10:11, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually I don't think we had assumed anything because it was stated (by the writers?) that they were intended to be the same. — Morder 10:13, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, we have the writers confirming that this line was a reference to Enterprise. Really, I don't think that it's worth quibbling over the meaning of "reference". I'll support the merger, with the caveat that there should be an indented and italicized note with the info, like there is in Spock at the discussion of his wedding. —Josiah Rowe 17:55, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I was a little torn about this, but if the writers stated that they intended this to be a reference to Jonathan, I think it's reasonable for us to merge here, given the other precedents.--31dot 18:01, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

if Archer was the 1st UFP President in 2163, he might have taken office before the charter was signed, in ...these are the voyages (ent: last ep) Archer is signing the charter but why should a Starfleet Captain sign a charter that creates a new government as big as the UFP? maybe he already said yes to "being tapped as Admiral" as Reed said and if so maybe he was the "UFP Fleet Admiral" a rank equal to CinC of the all military forces like the US President is, the fact that the UFP was just created when Archer would have become president maybe the title was not yet worked out (Vulcans had a council as it leadership not one person, Andoria and Tellar might have a ruling body as well and not one person) from 1776 - 1789 the US Constitution that governs it today did not back then

Maybe Archer and his beagle took an unexpected time-travel into the future? - 216.189.208.114 19:39, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

~~Oppose~~ merge, for now. Although in the real world it was meant as a reference to Jonathan Archer, we do not know if, in-universe, it is the same man. It's the same deal with the Captain Sulu mentioned in VOY: "Tattoo". We just can't assume anything. For all we know, it's Jonathan Archer's son and he picked up his dad's affinity for beagles, possibly having lived with them while growing up. Now, if Orci and Kurtzman were to say, specifically, that the line was meant to refer to Jonathan Archer in-universe, that would be another story. At the moment, though, all they said was that it they meant it as an in-joke homage to Archer and Porthos; they have not explained what the reference means from an in-universe perspective. And why we're assuming Cadet Vader and the dead Vader from "Sub Rosa" are the same person, I'll never know. --From Andoria with Love 22:08, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Why? We use a similar source for Nyota as the first name of Uhura Prime... — Morder 22:34, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

...which has production resources stating clearly that they decided on the name of Nyota. Here, the writers have just stated that it's a reference to Enterprise, not that it was the same person. Having said that, I'm not going to make a big deal out of this; to me, it really is the same person, I would just like a bit more verification that it was meant to be the same person. So... meh, whatever, support merge. :-P --From Andoria with Love 22:39, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Maybe we should merge the Sulu's together. I separated the page years ago because there was some disagreement (in non-canon sources) on who that Sulu was. This Admiral Archer is the exact same situation with Captain Sulu, in that the name was a reference to another character, although it wasn't explicit. I have no problem either way, although we should absolutely not have a 107-year-old Porthos.

At Memory Alpha, btw, there is no such thing as "secondary tier" canon. We'd just have to assume Archer was a "General Eisenhower"-like figure and didn't like his Ambassadorial and Presidential titles.--Tim Thomason 23:01, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Bob Orci has confirmed that the line was a reference to Jonathan Archer, so article has been merged. From the comments section here:

"...Admiral Archer is a reference to the Archer we all know and love, and yes he would be over 100, which is a likely life expectancy in a futuristic space faring race of Humans (as depicted by McCoy's (Deforest Kelley) in THE NEXT GENERATION."

So, there ya go. :) --From Andoria with Love 07:50, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Jonathan Archer[]

Incites removed[]

Two of the "incites" I added to the article were just removed, without either the change to the article or the edit summary explaining anything, really. So, I'm restating my question here:

In the sidebar,

"rank" states: Admiral (retired), Admiral (alternate reality)
"status" states: Retired (2233) Reinstated (alternate reality, prior to 2258)

Where, in Star Trek (which is now mentioned as the source of all this information) is it stated that the Archer mentioned there is this Archer? And, even if we assume that Admiral Archer from ST XI is this Archer - where's the information from that Archer is now longer in retirement but has instead been "reinstated"? If this is based on the fact that Archer managed to put Scotty on that lousy planet - that might have been him "pulling some strings" out of retirement. He has apparently been the President of the UFP, after all - surely some people still active in the chain of command would still like to do him a favor. -- Cid Highwind 11:41, January 29, 2011 (UTC)

My mistake; you're right – there is no info about Archer's current status in the alternate reality. I've included another citation for his rank, however – one that proves it's author intent that they're one and the same Archer. --Defiant 12:11, January 29, 2011 (UTC)

It's news to me that we're now accepting "author intent" on a par with information that is really from the show. In the past, we've gone out of our way to not do that. Which policy/guideline do you base that on? -- Cid Highwind 12:30, January 29, 2011 (UTC)

It'd be purely idiotic not to accept author intent, especially when backed up by the production itself! This entire site is based on the supposition that each Star Trek episode is not set in a different alternate timeline from each other. How do we know that's not the case? Common sense, probability and author intent – the same exact methods we can use to determine that the "Admiral Archer" referenced in the film is the same as the Jonathan Archer from Star Trek: Enterprise. Stop nitpicking for the sake of it; obviously, author intent matters! --Defiant 12:45, January 29, 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. Use common sense. Suppose the writers created "Ensign Bob Fletcher" in one episode, then referred to a "Lieutenant Fletcher" in another. In this hypothetical, the writers confirm it's the same person. Furthermore, in canon there's no reason the Fletchers have to be separate characters. Common sense would indicate that we follow the writer's intentions and note in Bob's article that he got promoted. Jon's situation is exactly the same.

Memory Alpha articles would be thrown into chaos if we suddenly demanded references to characters to use their full name to be valid. Is the "Dr. Lucas" mentioned in "Dear Doctor" really Jeremy Lucas of the Augment arc? Or did Phlox have two Human friends named Dr. Lucas? That's pretty much what it's come down to.

I'm not really sure why this has suddenly all become controversial again. This was already discussed above under "Scotty and Archer's Beagle" and "Merge proposal (from Talk:Archer)".–Cleanse ^{( talk | contribs )} 13:02, January 29, 2011 (UTC)

Cid, it'd be a different matter if author intent alone was to be counted as canon, or if the author intent contradicted the canon evidence, but this does neither; the probable on-screen evidence is backed up by the author intent. Therefore, it's acceptable. --Defiant 13:12, January 29, 2011 (UTC)

Oh, we're already at "idiotic" now? Great... I'll tell you what I think is idiotic, then - for example claiming to be be a "canon" encyclopedia while adding information that clearly isn't. Especially if it would be so easy to keep that information without resorting to fanon cutesy, by just adding it to some background section. Claiming "common sense" when talking about a 150-years old President that came back out of retirement to be an Admiral again, and who even still had his 110-years old dog (give or take some years) is great stuff, too. Last but not least, please don't try to suggest that I have ulterior motives here, thankyouverymuch. I'm not "nitpicking for the sake of it", but I'm really convinced that this article (and, by extension, this encyclopedia) loses if assumptions are added as facts. -- Cid Highwind 15:09, January 29, 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry you took personally that sentence "It'd be purely idiotic not to accept author intent", as it wasn't meant as a personal comment – I doubted you were actually doing that, which was why I used "it'd be" rather than "it's." Can you can cite a policy/guideline that states that probable on-screen evidence, corroborated by author intent, isn't canon? I'd be interested, as my ultimate goal is to improve the article - not to get into any petty squabbles (and I'm not suggesting, by any means, that the latter is true of you, Cid). --Defiant 16:16, January 29, 2011 (UTC)

content and resource policies, specifically section "Production and reference materials" states that "Background information from the production staff" (#3 of that list, giving "interviews" as an example, which basically is "author intent made explicit") "may be referenced in Trek universe articles, but should be formatted as background information". -- Cid Highwind 16:37, January 29, 2011 (UTC)

But that doesn't say anything that I find appropriate for this particular case, as it says nothing about "if backing up probable on-screen evidence", it should be bg info or not. It doesn't seem appropriate. --Defiant 16:46, January 29, 2011 (UTC)

The information does not belong there in the sidebar. Nowhere in the movie does it say anything about Jonathan Archer having been reinstated to Admiral. That "reinstated" term itself is completely made up by whoever inserted that information into Archer's sidebar. If it was taken from the author, it belongs in a background note at best, just as we have done with lots of other similar items. Use common sense, yes, but that doesnt mean you make up stuff as you go along. The only on screen information we have on Archer is the random musings of Scotty on Delta Vega stating he was put there because he messed around with Admiral Archer's prized beagle. And that is all we go by. How you take that as meaning he was reinstated and presently active in Starfleet is beyond me. That info is wrong, inappropriate where it currently stands and non-encyclopedic and the author's intend, if so contradictory with common sense (i.e. Archer's and his dog's age) belongs in the background note. Distantlycharmed 17:02, January 29, 2011 (UTC)

The same policy also contains (in the section "Citations") the requirement "that all statements of fact be supported by reference to identified source material that is a 'valid resource'". If something is just "probable" (and to be honest, I think the assumption of a 150 years old admiral is less than that), it means that it is not properly referenced - otherwise it would simply be the case, not "probably". -- Cid Highwind 17:06, January 29, 2011 (UTC)

Made a few changes, including the sidebar, complaints welcome; though think this has the least amount of "presumptions" based on bg info. - Archduk 3 17:49, January 29, 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I couldn't find a reference to the 2233 retirement date, either. It is claimed to be from IAMD2 here and on the date article, but the on-screen biography (which is quoted at the top of this talk page) doesn't mention any of it. In fact, it states that he retired from presidency in 2192 and doesn't contain any later references to any type of assignment. -- Cid Highwind 18:05, January 29, 2011 (UTC)

@Distantlycharmed, I don't think there's any debate about the "reinstated" portion; that seems to be settled as being speculative. It's the fact that he is referred to in the film Star Trek that's under debate. It's proven, confirmed fact that he is, yet some people apparently don't want to accept that. --Defiant 19:21, January 29, 2011 (UTC)

I'd just like to throw in my 2 cents here. The writers obviously intended this to be the same Jonathan Archer and Porthos so I think this should be in there. We have no idea that he was 100-odd years old by this time, perhaps he was frozen in stasis, perhaps he travelled through time and couldn't get back? There's a hundred different sci-fi technobabble explanations for that. On other articles which have inconsistencies, we have always gone with what is mentioned in canon along with any background/production info to come to a conclusion. I don't see how this is any different. I thought I our job was just to document the occurance, not explain how or why it could be him? -- TrekFan ^{Open a channel} 19:28, January 29, 2011 (UTC)

We know that he was referred to, but a retired military person is referred to by their rank at retirement. It doesn't mean that he was reinstated. A 100+ year old dog? That's definitely BG info noting the stupidity :) -- sulfur 19:32, January 29, 2011 (UTC)

But explicitely stating as a fact that Jonathan Archer was definitely alive and well, and also had enough influence (whether retired or not) to have Starfleet personnel moved around, at that point in time, is not just "documenting the occurance". It is much, much more... -- Cid Highwind 19:43, January 29, 2011 (UTC)

Although CidHighwind stated "to be honest, I think the assumption of a 150 years old admiral is less than [probable]", in actuality, the odds very much support the possibility that Admiral Archer is the same as the Jonathan Archer from ENT. For example, he would actually be only 146 years old, which is merely nine years older than the 137-year-old Leonard McCoy in TNG: "Encounter at Farpoint" (a fact cited by Roberto Orci himself, when he stated, "yes he would be over 100, which is a likely life expectancy in a futuristic space faring race of Humans (as depicted by McCoy's (Deforest Kelley) in THE NEXT GENERATION)"). Furthermore, remember that one has to account for the odds of not only another Archer serving in Starfleet but also the odds of the same Archer having a beagle and reaching the rank of Admiral. In conclusion, "common sense" firmly states that they are one and the same. MA's policies and guidelines instruct to "use common sense," so this is what I'm doing, and what we should do here. As TrekFan stated, "we have always gone with what is mentioned in canon along with any background/production info to come to a conclusion." Why should we suddenly change that practice here? --Defiant 20:17, January 29, 2011 (UTC)

I propose we just vote - yes or no - on this tiny piece of info being in the sidebar. If we vote then so be it, if we vote no then it can always go in the BG info? -- TrekFan ^{Open a channel} 20:27, January 29, 2011 (UTC)

Strawman argument: We're not "suddenly changing practice", because the practice that has been described is not the practice that we've been following all the time. Also, your aging logic is backwards. Someone being 137 years old in the 24th century is not proof for someone being able to become 10 years older more than 100 years earlier - and even if it was proof for the possibility, it still wouldn't be proof for this actually happening in Archers case. Last but not least: Valerie Archer. -- Cid Highwind 20:28, January 29, 2011 (UTC)

...for whom there is no proof whatsoever that she reached the rank of admiral, had a "prized beagle" nor, for that matter, whether she even existed! I agree with TrekFan – we seem to be arguing semantics here, as the "Admiral Archer" in the movie is clearly, IMO, Jonathan Archer. I support this. --Defiant 20:38, January 29, 2011 (UTC)

Then it's only good that voting still doesn't circumvent our core policies... -- Cid Highwind 20:40, January 29, 2011 (UTC)

I also support keeping the info for the reasons above. It's just common sense and it's not our policy to explain away information. -- TrekFan ^{Open a channel} 20:44, January 29, 2011 (UTC)

@CidHighwind: On the contrary, voting is a large part of the policies and guidelines. How do you account for all the featured articles having become featured, if voting had no bearing on proceedings?! --Defiant 20:49, January 29, 2011 (UTC)

Wow, we're really reaching now... "Featured Article nomination" is a specific process where our rules specifically state that (something similar to!) voting is the right thing to do. It's "reaching consensus" mostly anywhere else, and even then not any arbitrary, rule-breaking consensus. -- Cid Highwind 21:00, January 29, 2011 (UTC)

Cid, I don't mean to be rude, but what is with the sarcastic attitude? We're doing the right thing by trying to discuss this and come to a logical conclusion, something which can be respected by the whole community here on MA. We could easily have started an edit war, adding and reverting information, but we're discussing it, taking into account both sides of the coin in an effort to come to a conclusion. There's no need for the attitude. -- TrekFan ^{Open a channel} 21:04, January 29, 2011 (UTC)

I agree. I find it quite patronizing to be referred to as "we", when I am a single user; it's like dismissing my individuality. Also, I don't know how you can say this is "rule-breaking" as, when I asked you, you were unable to come up with any valid rule that is "broken" (per se) by accepting the reference to "Admiral Archer" as being to Jonathan Archer. --Defiant 21:13, January 29, 2011 (UTC)

@TrekFan: Please, try to read through this discussion again with a neutral mindset. Among other things, I was asked to provide pointers to rules for something that should actually be common sense (as in: "We're a canon encyclopedia, so perhaps we should only list strictly canon things, and not things that might probably be canon.") in the first place. I did, and presented parts of a policy that ruled out the reason that was given for inclusion of the info that we're discussing about. Strangely, I was then just told that this rule "doesn't seem appropriate", and I was asked to provide a better one. I did, and it was from the same policy page (a page that could, at least by then, have been read by all involved here). That second quote was not even addressed, but completely ignored. Instead, we got some ramblings about the exact probability of "probably" and the odds of other things, which was later topped with stuff that is even less related to the situation here (like completely incomparable circumstances under which we allow some sort of voting - although not even majority voting as has been suggested here). If, at that point, I added some sarcasm to my replies, I can't really say I'm sorry for that. -- Cid Highwind 23:19, January 29, 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, I too would welcome someone with "a neutral mindset" to add to the discussion; as CidHighwind keeps specifically attacking me (despite the guideline No personal attacks), I think we could definitely use some mediation here. He doesn't seem to be willing to adhere to the widely-accepted policy of using common sense, despite the number of users who have stated and/or implied that they believe that interpreting "Admiral Archer" as an acceptable canonical reference to "Jonathan Archer" is using common sense. --Defiant 23:39, January 29, 2011 (UTC)

As an uninvolved party I might suggest everyone take a breather for a bit, to get some time to refocus on the issue. --31dot 23:42, January 29, 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I'm feeling quite threatened here, to the degree that I've seriously been considering leaving MA if it continues. I'll take some temporary leave. I'd like to work out a solution with you, Cid; ideally, one that we can all be happy about, but I understand that may take some time. --Defiant 23:48, January 29, 2011 (UTC)

Well, I had the following typed up prior to a couple of edit conflicts, so let me post it first.

Cid - the following are allowed, and have always been allowed under our policies. These are not strawmen - these are exactly analogous situations dealt with in the past. The second sentence would show what would happen according to you:

Also my Dr. Lucas example above. You would require a separate page for "Lucas" from "Dear Doctor" and "Jeremy Lucas" from the Augments arc.–Cleanse ^{( talk | contribs )} 23:51, January 29, 2011 (UTC)

Cleanse, he was called McCoy up there and it is HIM pictured (even the same actor) and there was no speculation and contradiction whatsoever as to who he is, like there is now with Archer. Did you see Archer pictured in ST 11? NO. Also, Cid is not the only one opposing this here and he has made some very valid points, as did sulfur. I didnt see any threats emanating from anyone. What is going on here? Anyway...

Maybe it makes sense that Archer would be 147 years old based on the fact that McCoy was 137, that doesnt explain why they would be able to extend the life expectancy of a canine by about 5 or 6 times the canine's average life span. The equivalent of that would be a 500 year old Human. Magic bullets anyone? A 115 year old dog. Give me a break. That is ridiculous - speaking of common sense. Orci and Kurtzman seem to have put this in there for the "let's refer to something fans can pick up on" measure - and as with the rest of their "science (fiction)" didnt think it through obviously to make sure that it is scientifically consistent - even if it is sci-fi. Hence Oric's response "likely life expectancy in a futuristic space faring race of Humans." They probably thought, "Bakula, Archer, Scotty, dorky, funny...hahaha..let's make the reference it will be fun."
As Cid correctly stated, "Someone being 137 years old in the 24th century is not proof for someone being able to become 10 years older more than 100 years earlier." Different times, different technologies, different levels of advancement. Mr. Orci was not sensitive to these details and thought - as he stated - space faring civilization can extend lifetimes of everyone so put it in there, we'll explain it away later. And he did.
The dog is never referred to as Porthos by the way. It says beagle. In my book, that could mean a clone of the original Porthos or maybe his offspring or whatever. No one ever says Porthos - it says beagle and we dont know if Archer had one pet beagle or many throughout his life. Saying it is the same dog in the main portion of the text is again speculation of sorts. If it is what the authors intended, but it is not seen or obvious on screen, then it belongs in the background section.
On that note: Author intent it not grounds for including the information in the main part of the article or side bar as part of canon. It is background. We've always done it like that on MA. I dont get why you want to change that all of a sudden.
We dont know how long Scotty was on Delta Vega, when the event with the dog occurred, how long it took to "prosecute" him and if Archer is alive at the time he is on Delta Vega or when he was active or maybe he died. We would have to speculate to make that point, which is not what we do. Let's put it in the background.
Military folks are often referred to by their rank even after retirement. We dont know that Archer was either reinstated or even active in Starfleet. Again, speculation. So sorry, it doesnt belong there as fact in the side-bar. We don't know anything about his whereabouts. Where does it say in the movie that Archer was an Admiral active in Starfleet? Nowhere. Author intend moves it in the background.

Bottom line: there seems to be just too much speculation and many possibilities here to play with to state his rank and time he held it, and his status in Starfleet with certainty. Based on the facts represented above, we simply cannot say with certainty that he was in fact well and alive at 146 with his 110+ year old dog and active in Starfleet ordering people around. Again, there is too much contradiction and speculation here to state as undisputed fact. We dont do that. Move it into the background. So strongly oppose keeping this info in. Very encyclopedic and entirely too speculative. Distantlycharmed 23:57, January 29, 2011 (UTC)

Uh, McCoy was never referred to by name in "Encounter at Farpoint". Not even in the script. That was my point. Nor was Sela in "The Mind's Eye" (by the way played by a body double). Actors are irrelevant, since the same character can be played by the different actors. And vice versa, an actor can play different characters.

We don't have to prove that Archer could live. You're the ones who have to prove that he couldn't have lived. You have to show there's some contradiction in canon which prevents them from being the same character. You guys are actively going out of your way to try to prove the writers wrong. We're just saying - hey - maybe they wrote the line and knew what they were referring to.–Cleanse ^{( talk | contribs )} 00:13, January 30, 2011 (UTC)

A couple of notes:

1) we don't know when this incident happened.

2) we don't know if this beagle was Porthos or the latest in the line of Archer's beagles.

3) we don't know what status Archer has at this time. He would be ex-pres and likely ex-admiral, so it's likely just a shitload of pull. The other question here is, why is he "Admiral Archer", not "President Archer".

4) we know that the writers (BO and AK) intended Archer to be Archer.

5) we know that this Archer is in the alternate reality.

So, what do we get out of that?

Nothing that can be used in the sidebar. Lots that can be used in bginfo. Should any be used in the main text? That's debatable.

Wait a sec... what about the separation between prime universe and alternate reality? Aren't those supposed to be split? That would suggest that we shouldn't even really use it in the main text, since we have no idea what would've happened to Archer if the Narada hadn't changed so much crap.

Those are my "common sense" thoughts for the day, and the last of my input. -- sulfur 00:22, January 30, 2011 (UTC)

Eh, I'm just going to give it a break for awhile per 31dot's advice. I apologise for continuing the conversation past that point. –Cleanse ^{( talk | contribs )} 00:30, January 30, 2011 (UTC)

Fine, he wasnt referred to, but it is DeForrest Kelley. Had Scott Bakula shown up there in movie 11, the information about him being "active as of 2258" would be valid. Right now, you dont know anything about Archer's whereabouts and activity and Starfleet liaison etc based on Scotty's "Archer's prized beagle" line. Whatever we do, can go in BG. Also, I think a 146 year old active admiral and a 110+ (!) year dog is "contradiction in canon which prevents them from being the same character." Please re-read my points above but but let me restate this one: simply because in the 24th century there was technology and advancement that could allow McCoy to be 137 years old, doesnt mean that about 100 years earlier that technology existed as well to allow for the same level of life-extension. So really no, he couldnt have lived. Even if he was maybe frozen or whatever- something the "The Neutral Zone" said was a "fad in the 20th century" and thus unlikely and which Orci himself is not suggesting as he says that he is that old because space fsring civilizations can make it happen, it still does not explain his 110 year old dog. Moreover, - we still don't know anything about Archer's status in Starfleet to mention it in the side-bar as undisputed fact. And referring to your last point, frankly, I doubt that they knew what they were referring to and I genuinely believe they made it up as they went on and then explained later, thinking in the world of sci-fi (or Star Trek) magic bullets can be used to explain away everything. Star Trek never does that. But that is beside the point: the point is, is this info about Archer factual enough and mentioned in canon and non-contradictory that it would warrant mentioning it in the sidebar as undisputed fact? and the answer is no. The only thing I am saying is that stating anything about Archer's rank, activity status, relations with Starfleet or status in Starfleet etc. as part of canon is speculative and contradictory to established facts. We dont know enough and the contradictions, not to mention the massive amount of speculation I see that needs to be done to justify it there, speak for themselves, requiring it not be treated as canonical and/or fact. Distantlycharmed 00:56, January 30, 2011 (UTC)

Personally, the only thing I'm arguing for is the link between "Admiral Archer" and Jonathan Archer – they're the same person, and that's firmly confirmed fact. The circumstances in which he is in at the time of the movie, his rank and status at that point are all unclear; I agree with that. I actually also agree that there is insufficient evidence to say that the "prized beagle" is Porthos. The age issue has been brought up again, but I really don't understand this argument about, just because McCoy reached 137, doesn't mean that the same technology existed 100 years earlier. While this is true, it doesn't negate the extreme possibility that it did. You seem to be working from the faulty conjecture that McCoy's age of 137 was about the oldest he was gonna get, even though there's nothing canon to support that. --Defiant 10:18, January 30, 2011 (UTC)

I think the additional point that has been brought up in the meantime is an important one: typically, we separate information from different timelines - and especially in the case of Star Trek with its possibility to become a new "parallel timeline basis" for further spin-offs in the future, we did explicitly decide to do that - either on different pages or, if there's not enough information, at least in separate sections. So, even if we want to include information about "alternate-Archer" (let's ignore our differences about that for a moment), it should not be mixed up with information about "prime-Archer", but separated. That would mean to create a section for this other Archer, and fill it with the information we know - but, as has been stated above, what information would that really be? Surely nothing about Porthos, not the fact that he is active (again) in Starfleet, not even the fact that he is still alive at the time of Star Trek (but just within a "reasonable" timeframe of it - which would bring up the next question: what is "reasonable" here?). Basically, anything we could say about this alternate-Archer is that he got into contact with Scotty eventually and lost a dog during that contact. At that point, I'd really like to know whether it wouldn't be easier to just put that information in a background note on this page - which would mean that no information is lost while the initial issue of "less-than-certain-canonicity" is circumvented nicely. -- Cid Highwind 15:05, January 30, 2011 (UTC)

How about (something like):

In 2258 of an alternate reality created by Nero's incursion, Archer was known of by Montgomery Scott, who – shortly after being met by James T. Kirk, Keenser and Ambassador Spock, in a small and almost-forgotten research outpost on Delta Vega – mentioned Archer, referring to him as an admiral. According to Scott, Archer had owned a prize beagle and Scott had attempted to prove theories he had formed about interplanetary transporting by beaming the dog, which had unfortunately never been seen again. As a result of the beagle's disappearance, Scott had been exiled to the Delta Vega outpost. (Star Trek) --Defiant 20:10, January 30, 2011 (UTC)

If we're going to say that the Archer in Star Trek is this Archer, the info should be included in a "in-universe" section of the article, but maybe in it's own section with the bg note on the interview and such, so what Defiant wrote would work in my book. If we're going to say that the Archer in the film isn't this Archer, or isn't enough for us to say either way, then that info should not just be in a bg note here, as we would then need to create another page entitled Archer (alternate reality), or something to that effect, because we would still have canon information saying that there is a Archer who was an admiral in the film, a la Rura Penthe and Klingon prison planet. I'm for saying we have enough info in this case to say this is this Archer, just like I think we have enough info to say that the Klingon prison planet was Rura Penthe, but that's just me. - Archduk 3 21:36, January 30, 2011 (UTC)

Where exactly would you incorporate that info? In the "Alternate realities and timelines" section of his profile? Cause that is the only place I could see it work. What I dont understand is how - if we are going to assume that the Archer in the film isn't this Archer, as you wrote - we would still be justified to create an article of "Jonathan Archer (alternate reality)". I mean, when they are not the same people, why create an alternate reality article on the same person, thus pretending they are the same people? That doesnt make sense. Anyway, I am fine with Defiant's note in the background section or the "alternate realities and timelines" section. Either way though I dont think we would be justified to create an "alternate reality" article of Jonathan Archer for reasons mentioned above. Let me add that I would mention in Defiant's note the age Archer would be by 2258, that there was no mention of his role in Starfleet and whether was still active and that the beagle, if it was meant to be Porthos - which no one ever said - would be something like 110+ years old and include Orci's quote on that as I still believe that there is too much contradiction in canon which prevents them from being the same character. Distantlycharmed 05:13, January 31, 2011 (UTC)

You're right; I purposely missed out any "additional details" section, but I'm not suggesting that such details not be added – I just think they should be separated from the in-universe section and thought it might be confusing for readers if I suggested an outline of both, here. You're also right about thinking this was meant for the "Alternate realities and timelines" section – it's specifically written from the perspective of 2258 in the alternate reality, so there's the least amount of humming-and-hawing over what prior events did or did not occur in whichever reality, etc. Archer redirects here and, if "Admiral Archer" is not Jon Archer, one of the few other details we know about him, for sure, is that he was known in the alternate reality. What would you like instead? Archer (prized beagle owner)?! --Defiant 10:37, January 31, 2011 (UTC)

If you want to create an article that says Archer (alternate reality) (sorry I just noticed it doesnt say Jonathan but just Archer), then it makes sense. My bad. I just automatically read Jonathan Archer. However, I am not sure what info you would put in there other than the "prized beagle" stuff and background note by Orci. I certainly dont oppose an article being created on just Archer, alternate reality. I think what you proposed previously can be put in the "alternate realities and timelines" section (if we agree they are the same character) or background section (if we dont want to create an alternate Archer article). Distantlycharmed 22:31, January 31, 2011 (UTC)

I'd personally be opposed to restricting all info to the bg info section(s). The question (at least, in my mind) becomes: does anyone still oppose the proposition I made here and/or the idea that "Admiral Archer" refers to Jonathan Archer, which both common sense and bg sources confirm? --Defiant 23:23, January 31, 2011 (UTC)

To be honest, even if I was able to "tolerate" this (still being unconvinced) - I would definitely bring this up to oppose any future FA nominations, because declaring an article "the best we have" while it contains statements that we can't be absolutely certain of would be whitewashing the issue too much in my opinion. -- Cid Highwind 23:47, January 31, 2011 (UTC)

As the saying goes, "Never say never...." Anyway, I myself don't see this article meeting FA criteria any time soon, either; there's just too much of a "disputed content" issue going on. While you clearly feel that the evidence for "Admiral Archer" being a reference to Jonathan Archer is insufficient, I strongly believe the opposite. Even though I don't agree with your opinion on this matter, though, I still absolutely respect it. --Defiant 00:06, February 1, 2011 (UTC)

How is a 146 year admiral and a 110+ year dog that contradicts canon "common sense"? I honestly don't get it. And how could anything be said with certainty on his status and role and activity in starfleet based solely on Scotty's "Archer's prized beagle" comment? If it wasnt for Orci's "clarification" afterwards trying to rationalize it, we really would not have even this tiny shred of supposed "evidence" that these two are one and the same people. Anyway, I wonder if it has ever occurred to people that Orci/Kurtzman, maybe, but just maybe, could be wrong and that's why we face all these issues? The reason we even have this debate in the first place is because of the inadequate, superficial research they have done into Star Trek and then translated into the movie, as evidenced by comments like oh yeah we'll they are a space farcing civilization so we can totally assume they can do kind of stuff. This is not gonna go away and we are going to face this issue with upcoming projects (by these two) where they'll throw in stuff like that for shits and giggles (literally) and then try to rationalize it away later. The "it's the future and they are advanced" line seems to be sufficient for them to explain away everything, which makes me question how the Abrams reboot is ever going to really fit into 4 decades of established canon - alternate timeline or not. Anyway, I am fine with some variation of Defiant's proposed note in the background but with a notation stating that Orci intended for the Admiral mentioned in the movie to be John Archer and that given age and other isues it is inconclusive/contradictory to established canon. I dont see a reason to "filibuster" this FA nomination because of that. Distantlycharmed 00:57, February 1, 2011 (UTC)

"If the goal of Memory-Alpha is to be an encyclopedia of Trek material looked at as authoritative, trustworthy, and accurate we *have* to treat the material in Trek consistent with the intention of the production staff." - AHolland, quoted by Cid via Alan.

While the USS Melbourne debate was a different beast entirely, I still think that quote holds true here. Fans watching the film expect the Archer mentioned to be this Archer, not some other random Archer, and the writers confirmed it.

To quote Cid directly: "This expectation should not be contradicted if we don't have to - and in fact, no valuable information is completely lost if we don't have two articles instead of one."

We don't know of any other Archer active during that time, so there's no reason there to believe that the Archer mentioned isn't this Archer. Even the problem with his age isn't impossible, though it does seem improbable, but there simply is no contradiction in canon there either, since we have nothing saying that he couldn't live that long. Noting the appropriate bg info after the film reference in the article should be more than enough for any reader to make a informed decision - Archduk 3 01:31, February 1, 2011 (UTC)

I completely agree, but I'd also state that this isn't the place to launch into a diatribe/review of the film Star Trek; there's plenty of other sites that are better suited to that kind of stuff, Distantlycharmed, as well you should know! --Defiant 01:41, February 1, 2011 (UTC)

First of all, who is AH Holland? Second, with all due respect but how about some independent thinking instead of relying on how other people have interpreted things in the past so you can repeat their interpretations here over and over without reassessment? Treating the material in Trek consistent with the intention of the production staff is good and fine but not with so much contradiction within canon and inconclusiveness and speculation. Fans are not stupid. They can put two and two together and realize that while maybe it could be Archer's descendant the movie is referring to, it could hardly be THE Archer, even if Orci thinks so. Talking to other fans, frankly, the fact that they actually implied that this was the same Archer from like 150 years ago, is laughable and ridiculous to most of them (though i am not claiming them to be representative of ALL fans, it wasnt a clinical trial i conducted). Moreover, stating that because we dont know of any other Archer active and alive at that time it then must unequivocally mean that he is Jonthan Archer for a fact is a total fallacy. What makes you think there is and only always was one Archer in all of Starfleet since its foundation and that any references to Archer must mean Jonathan Archer? Canon certainly doesnt support it or a 110 year old dog, who doesnt evne have ot be Porthos, he never says Porthos. All this massive speculation I am seeing is based on three little words by Scotty. If the authors think they are the same, fine, put it in the background. Last but not least, bringing up the issue and underlying cause for this is important and whether people like it or not, or ignore it or not, it will remain an issue and debates like this will ensue as a result. Maybe this particular debate is not the forum for it, which I can see, but I think it really will require of us, as the new Abrams' franchise develops, to think how we are going about this new timeline born out of Hollywood greed, lack of creativity or whatever else people call it. Distantlycharmed 02:30, February 1, 2011 (UTC)

You definitely seem to be straying far from the topic at hand, DC. Can we please keep this on-topic, which is about Archer and not about your trivial opinion of the film? I don't have time to waste on trying to decipher such vast generalizations and having to sift through your stubborn opinions of whatever you think is likely or not, written in such dyer spelling and without backing up your opinion with facts. The odds of such posts being constructive are nothing or next to it! --Defiant 03:32, February 1, 2011 (UTC)

Wow, yeah - because quoting from 2.5 years old discussions without proper context will surely help this discussion. :) For what it's worth, the comments Archduk3 repeated here are from Talk:USS Melbourne, where we were talking about a ship (or "ships"?) called "Melbourne" in a single battle and whether we need to create a second article just because a second model was used, basically invisible to the viewer. Here, we are talking about situations a hundred years and a universe apart, so just picking the raisins out of what I and others said there while ignoring the context it was stated in is at least a little misleading. -- Cid Highwind 09:43, February 1, 2011 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks, for the explanation, Cid. Here's a quote from DC's post: "Stating that because we don't know of any other Archer active and alive at that time it then must unequivocally mean that he is Jonathan Archer for a fact is a total fallacy. What makes you think there is and only always was one Archer in all of Starfleet since its foundation and that any references to Archer must mean Jonathan Archer?'" I don't think this was suggested. The fact that Jon Archer was the only Archer known to be active in Starfleet and alive at about that time implies probability that he is "Admiral Archer". We know he is because of author intent, which must be taken into account. It proves the connection, regardless of your feelings about the authors themselves and/or their work. As the connection can be proven, it is a fact. --Defiant 11:02, February 1, 2011 (UTC)

I don't see anything misleading about using those quotes, since I did point out that they came from a completely different discussion about the USS Melbourne. If anything, it would have been disingenuous to say the same things without quoting them. That said, I don't think the change in context changes anything with AHolland's statement, and I'm still of the opinion that the audience's expectations should not be contradicted when we have a source stating the writers intent quite clearly, and there's no canon contradiction. - Archduk 3 20:15, February 1, 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Archer[]

Disambiguation[]

what's that ? Where are others Archer references ??? C-IMZADI-4 10:04, March 15, 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean "other Archer references"? -- sulfur 10:19, March 15, 2011 (UTC)

I Think at a disambiguation page...C-IMZADI-4 13:39, March 15, 2011 (UTC)

"Archer (disambiguation)". -- sulfur 13:46, March 15, 2011 (UTC)

I think it would make more sense to have the disambiguation here, at "Archer". This would be consistent with "Kirk", "Picard", "Sisko", "Janeway" etc. –Cleanse ^{( talk | contribs )} 00:19, March 16, 2011 (UTC)

"Archer" is the name given in the new movie, and most people wouldn't realize that he was "Jonathan Archer" in that reality. -- sulfur 00:39, March 16, 2011 (UTC)

But "Archer" as a term is also quite frequently used in Star Trek: Enterprise to refer to the "prime" Jonathan (and many more times than in the movie, I might add). I would wager that most people typing in "Archer" are looking for that guy, not the alternate reality version. This seems exactly why we should have a disambiguation rather than a redirect at "Archer" page, because we can't be sure which Archer the reader is looking for.–Cleanse ^{( talk | contribs )} 01:17, March 16, 2011 (UTC)

Thus the link to the disambig at the top at the top. The Archer in the new movie was only ever named "Archer", the one in Enterprise was "Jonathan Archer". Called Archer a couple of times, but was Jonathan Archer. The one in the movie was only called "Archer". -- sulfur 01:28, March 16, 2011 (UTC)

A fair point, the name was intended to reference to Jonathan Archer (even more so by the pet Beagle), but the name used onscreen was only "Admiral Archer", perhaps then, the content at "Jonathan Archer (alternate reality)" to this page (if that's what Sulfur was getting at)? --Terran Officer 03:39, March 16, 2011 (UTC)

It was at "Archer" originally, and moved to the full name since the producers intended (and stated in cited locations) that "Archer" was to be "Jonathan Archer". There are discussions about this on the Jonathan Archer talk page and peer review already. The choice was to leave the redirect pointing to that page due to his only ever being referenced as "Admiral Archer", and had the original user looked at the page, he would have seen the disambiguation link and this would all be a moot point. :) -- sulfur 10:23, March 16, 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Jonathan Archer (alternate reality)[]

Merge[]

For reference, the past discussions merging the original version of this to Jonathan Archer, and the discussion that somehow resulted in recreating this page.

Since almost the entire Jonathan Archer page can and, according to past discussions on the subject, should be included here, since all common information should be on both pages, this page should just be included on that page with a redirect to the section, to avoid the near complete duplication. - Archduk 3 (on an unsecure connection) 02:40, April 11, 2011 (UTC)

I thought the alternate reality stuff was being kept separate because it was becoming too cumbersome to keep the information organized properly, and among other thinks (and pardon my language), it was making the sidebars a clusterfuck. --Terran Officer 02:56, April 11, 2011 (UTC)

In this case, keeping it separate would result in a near duplication of an article, with this article requiring an update whenever the "prime" article was changed. The simplest solution IMO to all the problems, including the ones mentioned elsewhere, is to move this to a new section on Jonathan Archer, with this as the redirect, and create a second sidebar there, like at USS Defiant. Thus the separation between universes is retained, without the need for all the overhead and duplication. - Archduk 3 (on an unsecure connection) 03:09, April 11, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose: it may be true that this article, in its current form, duplicates information from Jonathan Archer - but, as the discussion linked to above shows, it's an open question whether we even want to make the assumption explicit that this Archer is that Archer. I personally do not. As an alternative, I suggest the following:

Rename/Move this page to Archer (admiral) (or some other disambiguated variant of Archer)
Remove anything that is duplicate information from Jonathan Archer, leave only the information from Star Trek.
Add a background comment, stating that this "was a hint at Jonathan Archer" (or some similar phrasing)
Add a similar background comment to the JA-article as well.

That way, we'd achieve the least amount of speculation while still being as informative as possible. Let the reader beware and let him draw own conclusions, instead of enforcing one specific interpretation of several possibilities. -- Cid Highwind 09:19, April 11, 2011 (UTC)

Let's just leave the article as is, where it is. I see no need to include Jon's pre-AR info here.

I don't really want to rehash previous discussions, so I'll just say that I support how the article currently deals with the "Jonathan" issue.–Cleanse ^{( talk | contribs )} 09:57, April 11, 2011 (UTC)

Comment: I might be just stating the obvious here, but can't this information just be included in the "Alternate realities and timelines" section of the Jonathan Archer article since there's next to no information on this alternate Archer anyway? To me, this seems to make sense. --| TrekFan ^{Open a channel} 10:02, April 11, 2011 (UTC)

Support merge given only one bit of information is different(the experience with Scotty and the Dog). Also without rehashing old discussions, I believe this should remain at this title if the pages are not merged.--31dot 10:58, April 11, 2011 (UTC)

It is hard to discuss this with people who basically state that, "yep, there has been a past discussion about this topic - but let's just ignore the points that have been brought up there". If that is a proper way of dealing with things, I'm sure no one will mind if I just start changing random pages where a consensus is more than, say, 3 months old...

One problem of re-merging this to the "main" JA article in form of a separate section with its own sidebar is that doing so would not solve the problem of content duplication that has been brought up here. On the other hand, removing all duplicated content from the second sidebar would create one that is nearly empty - and should not be a sidebar in the first place. Combined with the still valid issue of "less-than-certain canonicity", merging these pages should result in a background note about a one-line mentioning of some "Admiral Archer" which was supposed to be J.Archer according to producer intent, but about whom we know nothing else (especially not that he had been "reactivated" or similar). -- Cid Highwind 08:47, April 12, 2011 (UTC)

Addressing only the insinuations in your first sentence: I was just saying I didn't feel like going around in circles again. I never said to ignore previous discussions; rather it was that I stand by my previous comments in the other discussions. Honest, intelligent people can disagree about things without one side being clearly wrong. I have one view on interpreting our canon policy, you have another.–Cleanse ^{( talk | contribs )} 10:31, April 12, 2011 (UTC)

Yes, do not mistake not mentioning previous discussions for not wanting to talk about them- if you want to, we can- I just didn't think it necessary to repeat, especially to a regular contributor like you or me. I think this guy is the same character as Jonathan Archer and that there is enough evidence and precedent elsewhere to back it up.--31dot 10:45, April 12, 2011 (U

Oppose: for reasons mentioned by Cid above and because of the million kb debate we had on Archer's discussion/peer review page already and reasons mentioned therein. Why are we bringing this up again anyway? Why cant we just add it as a background note to the Archer article and state that in whatever ignorant-about-Star Trek, delusional state Kurtzman and Orci were, they said it is the same Archer even though all evidence and canon information point to the opposite. Anyway, what Cid said; see also debates and arguments made on the discussion page/peer review page and thus oppose merging/pretending they are the same people. Distantlycharmed 19:59, May 11, 2011 (UTC)

2016[]

So, removing Cid (who refused to accept this as "Jonathan" Archer) and Distantlycharmed (who refused to accept Star Trek as canon) the consensus is pretty clear for a merge with only Cleanse making a point on something that wasn't settled directly in the discussions linked at the top. That's mitigated by the fact that not including the pre-alternate reality info makes this a sub-article, and MA explicitly doesn't have sub-articles, it's flat. This, coupled with the questionable way this article was recreated after the first merge, is more than enough to use common sense to resolve the issue of this articles scope requiring the pre-alternate reality info to be complete. I've opted not to merge the histories for now, again, in case there is an argument for allowing sub-articles that someone wants to make. - Archduk 3 02:23, March 15, 2016 (UTC)

Firstly, it's worth mentioning out that I do think the merge makes sense. However, (sorry for pointing this out but I feel compelled to note it) this move based on the unilateral dismissal of certain votes, long enough after the fact that those responsible aren't around anymore to further explain, that feels just slightly shady to me. -- Capricorn (talk) 07:10, March 15, 2016 (UTC)

Forgot to mention this but also something weird seems to be up with the merging of the talk pages -- Capricorn (talk) 07:18, March 15, 2016 (UTC)

I'm not following you with the talk pages, but I'll agree that "ignoring all the rules" tends to be slightly shady, and everytime I've done it in this manner it almost always involves Cid and DC. Humanoid Figure/Future Guy, Winona Kirk/Winona Kirk (alternate reality), and the USS Melbourne (Nebula class) page are the ones that come to mind, and I think in all those cases at least Cid was here to reverse them, but what I did still stands. I don't need either of them here to know what they would say either, since Cid was remarkably consistent in his opinions over the span of years when not changing them completely to "win" an arugument, and the last time DC posted I think it was a tirad about how shitty the next film will be if the writers had to use MA to look something up, so you can just read what they wrote above, but in an angrier tone, with a few accusations at me thrown in to get a sense of what they would likely say today.

That said, consensus building has always been about the mitigation of aruguments, and I think even with their comments left in the better argument here was that this should be mereged back. I left the history here, making it easier to undo this, specifically because that argument was my own, and it is so long after the fact. - Archduk 3 14:12, March 15, 2016 (UTC)

Oh I completely understand and even sympathize. But I still felt the need to at least note it, call it some moral itch or something. What I mean about the talk page is shouldn't this page also be merged into the Jonathan Archer Talk page? --- Capricorn (talk) 19:15, March 15, 2016 (UTC)

I was thinking of creating a seprate archive for the AR stuff instead of just moving this over there, so maybe this would be a little more followable. - Archduk 3 19:34, March 15, 2016 (UTC)

Ok, but surely then this page should at least be linked from Talk:Jonathan Archer? There's a whole lot of relevant discussion here and currently the page is essentially an orphan. -- Capricorn (talk) 20:39, March 15, 2016 (UTC)

This would be moved to a subpage of that page, probably Talk:Jonathan Archer/alternate reality, and the other relavant bits added. Can't do it on my phone though. - Archduk 3 21:01, March 15, 2016 (UTC)

Original/Alternate?[]

I've read many things above about whether this article should be merged or not. I do not have a direct oppinion because I don't know how the film should fit.

It is stated that the film is a reboot of the franchise by altering time. This happens because Nero travels back in time and changes things. However, he travels to 2233, which is approx. 78 years after the events of Enterprise, which means those events still happened in the reboot-universe (or Abramsuniverse) up until Nero's arrival.

I do not know if the events of Enterprise is considered canon in the reboot, but if it is, then this Archer is the original Jonathan Archer, up until Nero's arrival, if he's still alive, which is actually impossible as he would have been over a hundred years old. Nivaoo (talk) 14:32, September 3, 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, but you're not saying anything that hasn't been said here and elsewhere. 31dot (talk) 15:52, September 3, 2012 (UTC)

Archer 2009[]

Star Trek 2009 only states that it was an Admiral Archer, not that it was Jonathan Archer, given the information from "In the Mirror, Darkly" that said he became the Federation President at one point Scotty would have said President Archer's prize beagle (his most senior position) if he was talking about Jonathan Archer, right? (we say President Eisenhower, not General Eisenhower), even if the Writers stated in an interview that it was Jonathan Archer, onscreen information is canon interviews are not Chasemarc (talk) 06:09, June 2, 2013 (UTC)

Please don't beat the dead horse; please review the discussions linked to above as to why this is here and why we assume this is Jonathan Archer. 31dot (talk) 08:52, June 2, 2013 (UTC)