The issue was destroyed so can we really say that his article was published? I dont think so and suggest we remove that line from the article.StoryMaster 17:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- The article says that the story was printed, which it was. The fact that all issues of the magazine were later destroyed doesn't negate the fact that the story was printed to begin with. -- Renegade54 17:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- It's just like saying we shouldn't have an Enterprise article because it was destroyed. ;) - Adm. Enzo Aquarius...I'm listening 17:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- Bleh, my bad, but still, it was indeed printed, and then destroyed. Even so, the mention should stay, but we should state that all the issues were destroyed. - Adm. Enzo Aquarius...I'm listening 20:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
I added that it was pulped. And as you can see, I can make valuable contributions to this wiki. StoryMaster 20:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- I'm sure you can make valuable contributions. Several months of consistently valuable edits might go a long way towards reducing the negative impression you've created universally thus far. Also, when making edits, please be conscious of details like spelling, grammar, punctuation, formatting, and the like. Thanks! -- Renegade54 00:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- This is curious, I had a very similar conversation with a colleague of mine recently. It comes down to the difference between printing and publishing. "Far Beyond the Stars" was printed, it wasn't published. I know it seems like just semantics, but there is a real difference when you think about it - printing is the putting of the words on a hardcopy, publishing is the issueing of that hard copy for distribution (complicated I know by the internet, but let's sort one problem at a time shall we!). My colleague was going on and on about how an article he wrote had gone to print but wasn't getting published, and how it was terrible to get so far and then not get the final recognition, and someone else made a joke that at least it had gotten to print in the first place. He didn't laugh! – Bertaut talk 02:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Was any of the story actually quoted or shown onscreen? It might be nice to include it in the article, similar to what has been done with the Captain's Logs articles. -- Connor Cabal 18:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Use of term Edit
Wasn't the term Negro used in the episode, and if it was, shouldn't it be used here, in the article?--31dot 23:56, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
- The word Negro was used in the context of Sisko's vision, but in general Star Trek uses the US style African American or the Canadian/UK style Black. Given our point of view policy (in-universe encyclopeadic), the latter two are preferable. --- Jaz 00:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
- Sounds good to me. Thanks for the info.--31dot 00:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Are we to assume that Sisko's experience in 1953 was a vision sent to him by the Prophets? Would that vision present to Sisko the present-day (2374) situation and how he should conduct matters in order to save Bajor and the Federation from the Dominion?
If this is true, then could these parallels be drawn?
- Racial oppression - the Dominion's (attempted) oppression of the Alpha Quadrant
- Burt Ryan and Kevin Mulkahey are racist police officers - Dukat and Wayoum are those who implement the Dominion oppression
- Benny Russell writes radical science fiction which opposes racism - Sisko is trying to stop the Dominion
- Roy Ritterhouse provides the inspiration for the story - Martok inspires Sisko on how to stop the Dominion
- The preacher gives Benny cryptic advise - the Prophets guide Sisko
- Douglas Pabst hinders publication - Odo has ties with the Founders
- Stone Publications pulp the magazine - the Federation prevent Sisko from carrying out his plan to stop the Dominion (???)
I'm sure there are many other parallels in there, but they're too fiddly to work out.
I haven't seen any DS9 episodes from this one onwards, so I might not check this talk page until I've finished season 7, lest you all spoil it for me. :-)
Adambuckley 08:40, November 20, 2009 (UTC)