Wikia

Memory Alpha

Talk:The Arsenal of Freedom (episode)

37,578pages on
this wiki

Back to page

Revision as of 15:36, July 28, 2013 by SulfBot (Talk | contribs)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

TitleEdit

The title "The Arsenal of Freedom" is an ironic comment on a planet whose sole purpose is making weapons systems for the highest bidder; likewise the title is a spoof of Franklin Delano Roosevelt speech describing the USA as "The Arsenal of Democracy" during World War II.The preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.53.145.129 (talk).

I think that's the point.– Pesky 21:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Removed the following comment relating to the above statement, as it lacks a citation. If one is available, it should be put back. (The title "The Arsenal of Freedom" was a reference to US President Franklin Delano Roosevelt's famous speech referring to America as the Arsenal of Democracy during World War II.)--31dot 01:28, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Here's the link to the speech. http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Roosevelt%27s_Fireside_Chat%2C_29_December_1940
The "arsenal of democracy" line is towards the end. I'm adding the comment back. Samy Merchi 02:43, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
As Shran said, I don't think you understand. I don't deny that it is similar, but without some statement from someone involved in the production or writing of this episode that it was done intentionally, it shouldn't be in the article. Saying "could be" doesn't change that. Otherwise, the episode pages would be loaded down with such references.--31dot 14:06, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
"without some statement from someone involved in the production or writing of this episode that it was done intentionally, it shouldn't be in the article"
I disagree. If there's existing MA policy on this that is clearly spelled out, I'd appreciate a pointer to it so I can educate myself. But for myself at least, it was valuable information, as I never would have learned about the possibility of it being a take on Roosevelt's speech otherwise. One can read the original text and decide for oneself whether it's a likely intentional allusion or not. I read the original text, I think it's definitely a possibility but not a certainty, and I would never have had the opportunity to consider that possibility if it hadn't been pointed out in the article. I think if it can be conclusively proven that it was *not* intended so, then it should be removed, but as long as it's a possibility, it should be there, with the "citation needed", to invite clarification. If it's not there, then we'll never get that clarification. Samy Merchi 19:11, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
The burden of proof isn't on us to prove something is false. It never is. To put this into the article would constitute "original research" on our part, which is not something we should ever do. Worse still, it would be putting words into the mouths of production side, which is definitely something we should not do. Using "weasel words" such as "could be" doesn't help either. --OuroborosCobra talk 19:39, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
"it would be putting words into the mouths of production side" -- "is an allusion" is putting words into their mouths. "could be an allusion" is not. There's a big difference there. And why should we not put forth any original theories? It seems to me there's a LOT of uncited theories put out there. Looking just at this one article: "Paul Rice was named in honor of Gene Roddenberry's plans to have a character named "Rice" in every show that he created." How do we know that? No citation. Why take exception to this, but not to that? Seems awfully arbitrary. Either remove all such instances, or none. A biased approach is not neutral. I suspect *most* articles have original theories in them, and it has not been harmful in any way. In fact, it is helpful. Samy Merchi 20:51, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Some more original theories:
  • In "We'll Always Have Paris", "The episode title comes from the classic 1942 film Casablanca." No citation. Original theory.
  • In "Conspiracy", "A star chart featured in this episode, on the wall behind Remmick's chair, was created by the art department and shows several dozen planets and star systems mentioned in TOS and TAS." No citation. Original theory.
  • In "The Neutral Zone", "Maurice Hurley had something more in mind with this episode." No citation. Original theory.
  • In "The Child", "Guinan may have concealed (or been asked to conceal) the name of her species to prevent people from asking too many questions about what happened to the El-Aurians." No citation. Original theory.
  • In "Where Silence Has Lease", "The title is taken from a line of the Robert Service poem The Spell of the Yukon." No citation. Original theory.
  • In "Elementary, Dear Data", "The equation fragments on Moriarty's chalkboard, surrounding his "sketch" of the Enterprise, include math. i.e. Ataru over Lum — the two main characters of Rumiko Takahashi's anime series, Urusei Yatsura." No citation. Original theory.
Nearly all episodes have this kind of references in them. You're going to have to complain about a *lot* of articles if you want to disallow original theories. The preceding unsigned comment was added by Samy Merchi (talk • contribs).
Several things:
1. MA is a work in progress. Of course we can't get around to everything at once, and there will be some theories that haven't been cited or removed yet. That doesn't mean we should ignore this one.
2. I know the We'll Always Have Paris-Casablanca reference comes from the TNG Companion, where a person from the production said that it was written like that intentionally. Your Neutral Zone statement is also from the Companion. The Paul Rice reference- from the Companion. Again, a production source gives it. I'm not sure why the citation is not provided in some cases, but it does exist in those cases. It doesn't with the Roosevelt case as of yet, but anyone has the chance to find it. If there is a citation I would be the first to support its inclusion.
3. By your own admission "it is a possibility but not a certainty". MA is based on facts, not uncertainties. Again, uncertainty can be noted when there is a production source which says so. There isn't here, yet.
4. It is good that you learned something here. MA, though, can't serve to educate people about every similarity that may or may not exist, only the ones that we know exist. That's why Google exists.--31dot 23:07, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Here is the policy on citations, which can be found here:
  • Trek universe articles require that all statements of fact be supported by reference to identified source material that is a "valid resource". Failure to identify a referenced source, or use of a source that is not a valid resource, may result in removal or revision of the associated statement and/or article.
--31dot 23:13, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
That only refers to statements of fact, though. Theories, by definition, are not facts but possibilities, and hence I don't see that paragraph applying to bringing up *possibilities*. I agree that if something is to be stated as a *fact*, it should indeed have corroborating hard evidence. But if something is stated as a possibility, rather than fact, then I don't see that requiring hard evidence, as long as it's clearly noted as a theory and not confirmed fact. Putting it up there as a theory encourages people to find evidence either confirming or refuting it. Leaving it out will likely mean that we'll never know, as nobody will be motivated to find evidence one way or the other. Out of sight, out of mind. Samy Merchi 00:25, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
I've already covered the "could be" wording as "weasel words", and therefore unacceptable. It isn't really any different than original research, just a poor attempt around the policy. In addition, it opens the door to thousands of bits of fan speculation that have no place on Memory Alpha. Memory Alpha is not a place for personal theories, it is a place for facts. --OuroborosCobra talk 04:06, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, fine. If you want to be hardass strict, then I can certainly help you and I can start scouring articles for anything that might smack of personal theory and start removing stuff all over the wiki. Thanks for the attitude, I'm sure it will be very productive. Let me request you to be clear: you prefer that I outright remove the stuff, with a comment of "no citation", rather than adding "citation needed" after the tidbit? Is that correct? Samy Merchi 04:49, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
I never said anything of the sort, no. The difference here is that there is no reasonable expectation of ever receiving a citation, and a presumed idea that simply changing the language to be "speculative" means a citation isn't needed. Read what I type, not between the lines into something I never said. In addition, do not take this opportunity to play WP:POINT. --OuroborosCobra talk 04:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Indeed. Instead of removing stuff outright, let's just please phrase these comments as a definitive statement and slap {{incite}} tags on these notes first to give people a chance to cite them. (Like we eventually did here). If that doesn't work after a few months, then remove it.– Cleanse 04:55, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
I find that an acceptable compromise. Samy Merchi 05:48, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Also, Samy Merchi, please watch the attitude. Memory Alpha has policies and guidelines which we all have to follow, not just you. We are aware of these policies and are trying to help you understand them, as well. Memory Alpha does not accept speculation... and, let's face it, theory is just a fancy word for speculation. ;) --From Andoria with Love 05:09, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
"No reasonable expectation"? According to whom? You? That sounds like you're making a subjective judgment call. What if you think there is no reasonable expectation, and someone else thinks there is a reasonable expectation? Whose opinion should win, and why? IMO, making subjective judgment calls is just a way to bully your own viewpoint into prominence. I don't think the content of an article should be dictated by what you subjectively feel. I think that is a breach of WP:NPOV. Samy Merchi 05:48, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
I think you need to take some time away from this article. You are starting to make this very personal, ignore comments made by other people, and at this point make personal attacks. I made my statement based on the fact that those with production sources that have this information, such as 31dot and the TNG Companion, have said it isn't there. That isn't subjective, it isn't bullying, etc. Take a breather, or move on to another topic, before you say or do something that requires administrative action simply because of being angry. Trust me, you don't want to do that (I say this from personal experience). --OuroborosCobra talk 05:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
I do think it is a subjective judgment call that you're ruling out expectation simply when one source fails to deliver. What about asking questions at cons, writing emails, and so on? You're subjectively deciding to rule out other possibilities. I do apologize for some of my earlier comments and agree I was out of line, but I still hold to my point: I believe that affecting article content because of your subjective judgment on what sources should encompass "reasonable expectation" is breach of NPOV. "If we expect to find the datum in Source 1, we will have the article look one way, and if we expect to find the datum in Source 2, we will have the article look another way." I do not feel that is neutrality. Seriously, do you not feel it is a subjective judgment call where you draw the line between reasonable expectation and unreasonable expectation? You feel the line is in the same place for every human being and is therefore objective? Samy Merchi 11:32, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
I think this argument on expectation is a bit irrelevant, considering that I have noticed it is unwritten policy on MA, that if a comment is uncited, but could be true, you make a note of it on the talkpage before or after removing it as happened in this incident. Therefore no knowledge is lost really, instead it is placed in a alternative but easy to find location where it is not confused with established canon. This places it in a in "unsure" category in effect. Therefore, if it is later established through an acceptable source (whatever that may be, as that is a different kettle of fish entirely), it can easily be added back to the article. Now I am not suggesting this needs process needs to be institutionalized or anything like that, but it something that needs to be considered in this discussion. Take this case as a perfect example. As you Samy stated yourself, you did not know of the possible (but unproven) origin of the name, yet you still learnt of the reasonable but unconfirmed possibility from the talkpage. From my point of view, this incident has not shown any problems with the way MA is being run as a collective.
On a secondary note, Samy, you need to tone down your language a bit in my opinion. Your messages are starting to read as very personal and a touch aggressive in this matter. Lets not forget that this is all for fun after all. Tanky 11:58, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
It's really simple. If there is a citation it can be included. If there isn't a citation then, as someone mentioned above, you can ask that one be given and after a length of time if no citation has been offered it can be removed. However, you really shouldn't add anything that is a personal viewpoint unless you have something in your possession that tells you that it follows your viewpoint (I would accept I saw it in a documentary at some point and then you can ask for a citation from someone who knows). If we start adding a lot of 'this may be' or 'this could be' it will never end and then this site will end up with a lot of useless information that doesn't belong. It's pretty obvious by now that you are applying what you think is true to the title of this episode. Unless you heard/read about it somewhere it really doesn't belong. – Morder 11:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

If it's that easy to turn off... Edit

Why didn't the Minosians turn off the system before getting wiped out? TribbleFurSuit 05:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't "that easy", Picard had to outsmart it by being a potential client. Minosians may not have even thought of that. --OuroborosCobra talk 05:46, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Picard only shut down the demo model. Once you've made the sale there's no need to run the demo any more. If some people on the planet actually bought the system that one wouldn't be shut down quite as easily.--A Pickering 15:04, November 7, 2010 (UTC)

Citations needed Edit

The following notes have lacked citations for awhile now:

  • Reportedly, Jonathan Frakes spent much of the production of this episode trying to talk Denise Crosby out of her desire to leave the show, albeit without success.

Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 11:43, September 6, 2010 (UTC)

Erlesrope Wars sending messages? Edit

Can someone please explain to me how the peddler's message was "actually from the erlesrope wars"? The wars are historical events, not conscious beings who can send messages... nor can it be a time reference. Leonard James Akaar 02:53, July 24, 2011 (UTC)

While it's been a long time since I've seen the episode, I'm pretty sure that the Enterprise triggered a system that was created during those wars.–Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 03:06, July 24, 2011 (UTC)

Removed Edit

  • Even thought it is stated several times that there are no "Life Signs" on the planet, when the away team beams down there are clearly sounds of birds and other animal life.

Removed as a nitpick; "Life signs" usually means "sentient life signs" anyway.--31dot 18:48, September 23, 2011 (UTC)

Orbital Drone Edit

If Picard brought the Echo Papa Drone, how come the space Drone kept assaulting the Enterprise?The preceding unsigned comment was added by 2.122.15.172 (talk).

This isn't really the place for plot questions, but perhaps that was a different system, not the one that Picard dealt with. 31dot (talk) 21:00, February 7, 2013 (UTC)

Around Wikia's network

Random Wiki