Umm, what's to conflict about when the background information is that Tasha and Data had a relationship? I believe Defiant is still mad at me for opposing These are the Voyages, as evinced by the block he placed on me for stating that he couldn't unilaterally delete things. Vedek Dukat 02:14, 7 Oct 2005 (UTC)

The information is not that "Tash Yar" and Data had "a relationship" (which would be better), it's that "Tash Yar" had some kind of thing for androids in general (which makes it sound as if she had some strange kind of fetish!) There is no indication that "Tash Yar" had some kind of "thing" for androids, nor even that she had a relationship with Data. Most probably, she was acting under the influence of Psi 2000 and the scene was just a major example of that (in other words, a one-night stand rather than a long-term relationship). Furthermore, users are advised to contact the person who reverted their edit if they do not agree with it. In this case, Vedek Dukat should have contacted me instead of just redoing his/her edit. --Defiant | Talk 02:24, 7 Oct 2005 (UTC)
Also, I don't believe that MA should contain such speculative information as, "Some fans have speculated that this curious pairing was a foreshadowing of the cybernetic beings known as the Borg." The entire sentence seems fannish and entirely speculative. --Defiant | Talk 02:36, 7 Oct 2005 (UTC)
I am looking at Special:Contributions/Vedek_Dukat and User_talk:Vedek_Dukat and thinking you are a potentially valuable contributor who maybe needs to study the Help section a little more. In his defence, it is possible that he is accustomed to procedures such as Wikipedia:Three-revert_rule... However, on Memory Alpha, I believe the word revert in a Summary means you must discuss the issue rather than simply re-wording or otherwise adding the information. Also, please discuss personal issues either on Defiant's talk page or through e-mail. --Makon 03:06, 7 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Tash YarEdit

In the background section, Natasha Yar is misspelled, it spells and links to Tash Yar, and it should be fixed.--Tim Thomason 02:17, 7 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Proper NameEdit

On screen, each word of the title in this episode's name is capitalized. Thus, this article should stay at "The Measure Of A Man" rather than being moved to suit the typical MA/en naming conventions. -- Sulfur 15:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

But wasn't that just an adaptation of their title case font, used onscreen? I'm not sure I agree with any part of your argument for keeping the article at an incorrect title. -- Captain MKB 17:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Merely according to the screenshot that Bp and Gvsualan found some time ago. I seem to recall that it was shown in mixed case -- Not all in upper case, and if it were upper case, it was in CamelCase. -- Sulfur 17:34, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

As with the "CHARNOCK'S COMEDY CABARET" versus "Charnock's Comedy Cabaret" argument, I just want to ask -- should we be slavishly honoring the casing seen in a sign or title with was presented for title purposes, in this case, I'm asking because we are not trying to create signs and titles here, but instead, we write descriptive text with the expectation that grammar will be adhered to. According to the very same types of title sequences, STAR TREK was created by GENE RODDENBERRY and DOCTOR MCCOY was played by DEFOREST KELLEY. Should we start changing those links? -- Captain MKB 17:53, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

My take on it is, if it's all in capitals of the same height, then we capitalize according to our naming conventions (such as the Charnock's thing above). If it's in CamelCase, we capitalize as per that (ie: "DeForest Kelley"). If it's already in mixed case, we copy it as is. So, if Charnock's was actually spelled onscreen as "Charnock's comedy Caberet", that's how we should present it (for example). So, in this case, if it was presented onscreen in mixed case, it should be listed as it was presented. -- Sulfur 17:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I still disagree, its my take that we should be presenting episode and story titles and blurbs in accordance with our grammar conventions for the ease of the people who are editing and searching this database to be able to reference a singular set of rules of grammar to help them write and follow links. By honoring camelcased* cover texts and episode titles, we are presenting a non-intuitive grammar structure into the mix and its simply going to make MA more difficult to edit and administrate, as well as not being well-explained, or even easily explainable to our audience of readers. I hope that you recognize that as being the source of my argument here (and the other times we've discussed this).
*By the way, the "title casing" being used in episodes is probably through some graphic processor that automatically capitalizes the first of every word, for the sake of emphasis. I really disagree that there is any conscious force here stating "since we decided to emphasize this on the title screen, it means that mankind should capitalize 'a' and 'the' until the end of time". -- Captain MKB 18:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

That's what redirects are for. :) -- Sulfur 18:34, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

As an aside, I found the image of the title screen [1], and it is clearly in mixed case. Therefore, the proper title is, regardless of "proper" grammar and naming conventions, "The Measure Of A Man", which is therefore what it should be titled on the article here. If it were all in capitals, then I'd be happy changing it to suit the naming conventions, but since it's not, we must stick with the style of capitalization chosen. -- Sulfur 18:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

That seems like a pretty pointless differentiation. By "title case" i mean a phrase where the first letter is capitalized and the rest of the letters are lower-cased, even if this font has small caps, where they are presented as lower case despite being identical to the capital, which are differentiated by being larger in size. -- Captain MKB 03:25, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
To clarify: I see no reason to start changing our grammatical standards for any of the following: "THE MEASURE OF A MAN", "THE MEASURE OF A MAN" or ""The Measure Of A Man"" -- they are all presented as titles and not as grammatically correct text -- none of these should have any bearing on our confusing our editors and readers by suddenly requiring them to break rules that we have, up to this point, enforced. American English capitalization rules state ""The Measure Of A Man"" and that is what we should use. -- Captain MKB 15:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

And you've just proven my point. It's a title. It's presented with capitalization, and thus we should stick by that capitalization. When there's no capitalization presented, we use our own style. When the comic, book, episode, movie, etc presents capitalizations, we best stick to that. Same goes for blurb text. We're quoting their chosen title. The script, as an aside, is capitalized according to our standards, but we have taken the stance to use what is onscreen as correct, except when everything is capitalized. Which, in this case it isn't. And that's the last I'm going to state on the subject. -- Sulfur 16:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but is this the capitalization used in the script? You're taking one instance of them titling the episode, in a graphic format of TV titles and assuming it somehow relates to the grammar format they are supposedly choosing for it -- which is nonsense. If you're done discussing it, then at least I can walk away from the discussion knowing that I am right and you are wrong. -- Captain MKB

Removed Notes Edit

I removed the following notes for being uncited similarities:

  • It is possible this episode may have been inspired by Isaac Asimov's novella "The Bicentennial Man". In it, a self-conscious android with positronic brain also has to face a trial to determine whether he can be considered an individual or a disposable machine.
  • The implied romantic interlude between Captain Picard and Captain Louvois is reminiscent of the romantic interlude between Captain Kirk and Areel Shaw in TOS: "Court Martial".

And the following has had an incite tag for at least several months. If something turns up, by all means re-add. (It's also kind of strangely worded - is it suggesting Berman would lie to us about his favourite ep? ;-)

Cleanse 10:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I seem to remember reading that. I'll try to see if I can find where. If someone finds it, "claims" should be "says" or "states".--31dot 11:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Another removed note, this time for being a nitpick:
  • Shortly before the episode ends, the Enterprise-D is seen leaving Starbase 173. Erroneously, a few moments later, the Enterprise-D is seen still docked at the starbase.
Doesn't really belong as per MA:NIT. -- sulfur 11:51, January 17, 2012 (UTC)

Precedents Edit

Would it be worthy of inclusion in the article that the entire premise of Data's status was moot given that Starfleet had already decided he was capable of consenting when they allowed him to petition for admission to Starfleet Academy? Given that Starfleet is a volunteer organization and they did let Data in, I would think that would just about wrap it up as far as his sentience. -- 14:21, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, no, because its speculative. Just because they did that, doesn't mean they thought he was sentient. Look at what happened to The Doctor in "Author, Author"- they didn't judge him a person even though he was judged an artist. The same was probably true for Data.--31dot 18:17, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Also don't forget that in Encounter at Farpoint (episode), one of the first things Riker asks Data is whether his rank was honorary, to which Data replies that he's a full-fledged graduate of the Academy. So Data's status was unclear until the issue was officially resolved in this episode. Starfleetjedi 06:26, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
You are forgetting one thing; there is an inherent difference between Data and the Doctor. The Doctor can be considered Starfleet property simply because the E. M. H. Program was created under the awesome spices of Starfleet. Unless it can be definitively proven otherwise, Lt. Com. Data was not. -- 23:35, February 23, 2011 (UTC)

Nitpick? Edit

I haven't removed the following comment yet, as I was unsure, but this seems nitpicky to me:

  • In this episode, Riker, acting as prosecutor, calls Data, the defendant, to testify as a witness for the prosecution. This would seem to violate the Federation's Seventh Guarantee as quoted by Picard in TNG: "The Drumhead". Analagous to the 5th Amendment of the US Constitution, it protects any individual from being compelled to act as a witness against himself. While Picard cites the Guarantee as applying to criminal proceedings (as does the 5th Amendment), ostensibly, if the Guarantee was meant to funtion as the 5th Amendment does, it would apply in this proceeding as well; since Data's personal freedom and liberty are at stake.

Per MA:NIT, we don't make comparisons to reality, so the part about the US Constitution probably should go. As for the rest of it, Data was not yet legally considered a sentient being, so there would have been no violation of the Seventh Guarantee.--31dot 22:19, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, we do have two specific canonical facts that seem to contradict. It wouldn't be a judgment to simply state the facts A) The Seventh Guarantee protects all Federation citizens from being compelled to give self-incriminating testimony in legal procedings, and B) Data is compelled to testify against himself. To present it that way, however, is boring and lacks context. It is apparent that the Seventh Guarantee is meant to be the Fifth Amendment of the 24th century. This one is more difficult than the recent Identity Crisis case. :) It probably is a nitpick, because there are assumptions one could make to resolve the contradiction, such as the one you mentioned "Data not legally considered sentient." --bp 22:53, 5 April 2009 (UTC) I'm going to go watch this episode, good episode! --bp 22:54, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

That's not an assumption, that was the purpose of the hearing. If he had been considered a sentient being, the hearing would have been unneccesary, as Data would have had the right to resign.--31dot 22:55, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Right, good point. Forgot he wasn't allowed to resign. Haven't seen it in a while, will tonight, though. --bp 22:57, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I hope that didn't come across as too blunt. :) Just a comment. You're right that this is different than Identity Crisis.--31dot 23:01, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

No, no, just fine, but... (in edit conflict I write the following)
This case makes me rethink nitpicks a little, becuase I like this one :) I wonder, do you still think it is a nitpick if it doesnt assert there is a contradiciton but instead claims continuity that may not have been planned? Something like "..because data was not legally sentient, he did not have the protection of the Seventh Guarantee, the 24th century analoge of the 5th amendment..."? Now, the writers of season 4's "The Drumhead" were probably not even thinking about this season 2 episode, and certainly not the other way around, but it comes together nicely. It's not a nitpick then, but maybe speculation. What do you think? --bp 23:08, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

My opinion (feel free to disagree :) ) is that it is a nitpick, because it would point out comething coincidental. It would open up quite a can of worms if we allowed things like that. Now, if there was evidence that it was deliberate, then it certainly would be valid information. Absent that, though, its only speculation. Again, just my opinion. --31dot 00:38, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh hah! There are whole pages of coincidental relationships written as though they were meaningful references! That is what we do here! :) Ok remove it anyway, but something interesting will be lost. --bp 10:10, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Agree with 31dot. But it's archived here on the talk page now so not all is lost :) — Morder 10:12, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

For the record, the analogy to the 5th Amendment was not my own idea, but rather written as cited in the preexisting article on the 7th Guarantee. Frankly, the relationship to the 5th Amndnt wasn't the point. Rather, the point was the continuity issue between Measue of a Man and Drumhead (the proceedings in Drumhead weren't criminal either. They were merely hearings to determine whether a crime had occured. According to Picard, the Guarantee applied anyway). Weird that all my contributions seem to be struck on the basis of passages that show up in the original source material. I should be a little less festidious about proper citation. More of my contributions would survive... SwordandScales 02:41, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Also worth adding that Data did have rights until the hearing settled the matter. The initial determination depriving him of his rights was challenged, and would therefore not apply until confirmation on appeal. Otherwise, every objection Picard made would have been overruled on the grounds that he had no right to make them, and heck, the entire hearing would have adjourned on the grounds that the defendant has no right to appeal. (or at least that's what they taught us at law school) SwordandScales 02:46, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Actually, we're assuming the Seventh Guarantee wasn't created after this episode — Morder 03:01, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Doctor Noonien SoongEdit

I find it rather odd that it was never proven one way or another if Star Fleet had any role at all in Doctor Noonien Soong's work. There has never been any episode that claimed that Star Fleet ever did. If Star Fleet did not have any involvement in any way, shape or form, then Star Fleet has absolutely no basis for claiming that Lt. Com. Data is the "property" of Star Fleet. -- 19:40, February 26, 2010 (UTC)

Or we could assume that those JAGs are not completely ignorant of Federation law and Starfleet regulations, and go by what was shown to us. --OuroborosCobra talk 19:48, February 26, 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps, then, they merely have had "custody" transferred to them when he decided to enter the Academy. He was found in the ruins of a colony, abandoned. So finders keepers? --LauraCC (talk) 16:49, April 17, 2015 (UTC)

Extended Cut Edit

According to Melinda Snodgrass, this episode will have an extended cut on the Remastered DVDs/BDs:

"Need to send first cut of The Measure of a Man back to CBS today. Version is 20 minutes longer than broadcast. Will be on DVD's." 18:44, June 24, 2012 (UTC)

Nitpick - (in-iniv) date of ep? Edit

It says that this episode contradicts in Where Silence Has Lease where Data is listed as "alive". But does this episode take place after WSHL? If air-date is assumed to parallel stardate (in absence of a given SD), then yes. Jswitte (talk) 19:29, December 19, 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that doubting his sentience contradicts the notion of him being alive. Many life forms are considered non-sentient (plants etc).-- 10:18, April 14, 2016 (UTC)