Talk:Section 31 (Star Trek)

Rollback

Version rolled back because of unexplained removal of many wikilinks to other articles. -- Infrogmation 03:28, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

My intention was not to remove links to other articles; it was to improve the quality, accuracy, and completeness of the text. Wikilinks that got left out were mere overlooks. I will revert to my improved version and add the wikilinks. Next time, feel free to add them yourself rather than choosing an inferior and innacurate article. EDGE 04:05, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)

Enterprise?

The information regarding Section 31's inclusion in ENT, specifically:

"Reportedly Section 31 will be involved in an upcoming two-part story involving the Klingons and detailing why their visual appearance changes. The NX-01's security officer, Malcolm Reed, is also somehow involved (though the details have not yet been revealed)."

What is the source of this information, and how has it been affected by the cancellation? THOR 19:45, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

New Proposal: I propose that the organisation in Enterprise is not Section 31. Based on excepted canon that Section 31's name is derived from Article 14 Section 31 of the Starfleet charter and the charter did not exist at this point in time. I believe it more logical to assume that the organization is a precursor to Section 31, but not the same organization. Also, to my knowledge, the organization in Enterprise never claimed to be Section 31. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.124.91.11 (talk) 03:37, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Books

There is also a series of four books about Section 31, one for each major Star Trek show (excluding Enterprise, which it predates). Should this be mentioned? — JIP | Talk 20:52, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely. There is very little about S31 in canon sources (TV), so I think that adding the books would be very useful and legitimate.

It should be noted, though, when parts are from books, if only because canon does not include books and Trek purists usually do not either.

VigilancePrime 02:45, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

"Unaccountability": National Security, and S31's dramatic realism

To make this succinct, author Richard M. Dolan wrote written a book, UFOs and the National Security State, which has little to do with the Star Trek universe...but has much to do with a study such as this. In the work, Dolan makes a very serious and (if I may be so bold) contentious claim, that, namely, even though it may appear that organizations such as the NSA or CIA have accountability to the people of the United States, they, in actual practice, have virtually unlimited power to do whatever their members and directors deem necessary to "safeguard the welfare of the United"...States of America, here, though the words of Mr. Sloane almost roll off the tongue. Granted, Dolan's work is about UFOs, and the ramifications of policies down through the years that many who write about Star Trek may either scoff at, or merely not care about...but his quite-lucid statements regarding the nature of "real power" in the United States are certainly fascinating reading, as well as illuminative on such a topic as S31. To sum it up, the idea that Section 31 would remain in the shadows, and not even be named as legitimate, is more real, not less, than the idea that the NSA and CIA answer to America. To state that the two real organizations likely see themselves much more in the fictional S31 roll of "quietly dealing with" anything that the Federation (American?) public would be unwilling to openly state need to neutralize and/or eliminate...is a very real suggestion. As such, in the paragraph where it is claimed they are 'legitimate' in a way S31 is not, I question that; perhaps they are known and S31 is not, but their power seems to be equal. "Self-appointed guardians of the universe" as Janeway once accused the Q of being. --Chr.K. 11:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

As a non American, it seems pretty clear to me that S31 is an allegory of the CIA/NSA. This must have been intentional when the scripts were being written. --Ef80 (talk) 19:19, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

I fixed the paragraph on this in the article, to make it more NPOV. I think though, that it could do with a whole rewrite. There are some basic points to be made, the naritive desire to make parallels between current 'democratic governments' and 'intelligence services' and the Star Trek conception of the Federation, the role of realism in introducing more moral greyness and complexity (are black ops orginisations inevitable, and thus in pursuit of realism ST should have an S31), and as an aside perhaps, its narrative usefulness as a plot device (S31 did it, in the same way secret societies and orginisations are often blamed (fairly and not) for the woes of the world).

I think that the role of S31 is more or less to develop the complexity of the Star Trek universe, especially in the political sense, which started with DS9. If you want to talk about real world events, especially the post cold war events that DS9 deals with, then you need something like S31 to show that the 'powers that be' are not neccessarily morally perfect. Its role is especially poignant in the post 9-11 world: what is the role of government, and how much should the rule sbe 'bent' (or broken) to protect 'the innocent'.

I am a little concerned by this. It seems to be pushing politics in a star trek article. Further, whilst the recent edit seems to be NPOV, in fact it may not be. Adding arguments such as "Others counter that the idealised form of governance in Star Trek precludes the existance of official black-ops organisations, and thus any true black-ops must neccessarily be carried out by a non-official organistion." is all well and good, but you must cite your sources ( who are these "others"?). I dislike the term, but you may be using Weasel words (according to Wikipedia's definition). The best thing to do is to find sources (such as the book given at the top of this section - with more information like year, publisher etc).

Actually I don't think that paragraph was that reasonable before your edits, so I am reluctant to merely revert it. For now, I will tag it as unsourced, but if no references can be found I think we should discuss whether the whole paragraph might have to be moved to the talk page. Captainj 17:25, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Moved to talk page

I have moved the following from the article, per notes above. Please don't put it back in without some references:

Roddenbery's vision of the Federation is likely to have been inspired by American democracy. The addition of Section 31 adds a touch of realism to the Star Trek Universe, especially to the concept of the "Federation". In American politics, the existence of intelligence organizations, such as the NSA or CIA, exist alongside a democratic form of government, and carry out much work unknown to the average citizen behind a veil of secrecy. While many fans like to compare Section 31 to groups such as the NSA or the CIA, this comparison has been critised on the grounds that both the Central Intelligence Agency and the National Security Agency are officially acknowledged organizations that are subject to the authority of the American government, while Section 31 is unacknowledged and operates without any accountability towards the Federation government. Others counter that the idealised form of governance in Star Trek precludes the existence of official black-ops organisations, and thus any true black-ops must necessarily be carried out by a non-official organistion.

Episodes dealing with Section 31

I personally would find it very handy if there was a list of episodes dealing with Section 31, similar to how many frequent recurring characters (such as Dukat, Nog, and Liquidator Brunt) have lists of episodes in which they appeared. Althai 10:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! Althai 18:37, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

On the subject of which episodes involve S31, in my edit I removed a para someone had added about the TNG episode "The Pegasus" which speculated that Admiral Pressman (Terry O'Quinn) was actually involved with Section 31. I felt it was out of place as (a) the concept of S31 did not exist when the episode was written, so such an inference was not the writer's intention; (b) there is no mention of S31 in the episode, nor does any other episode link that incident to S31 retrospectively, so it is not Trek canon nor suitable for Wikipedia's "just the facts" style.

It is a cool idea though, and would make sense in terms of the Trek universe - so I thought I'd mention it here just to give it voice somewhere on the page. Oceanhopper 19:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• Riker's comment was not actually from The Pegasus, but retroactively alluded to in dialog in the Star Trek: Enterprise episode These are the voyages, which takes a lot of plot information from The Pegasus (and also has the characters of Riker and Troi in it), but was written after the introduction of Section 31 (in real world terms), allowing the writers to retroactively allude to Section 31 in the episode (although Riker mentions "a secret section of Starfleet security", he never mentions 31 by name). Toad of Steel 13:51, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

PROD/deletion thought

From the template: "You may remove this message if you improve the article or otherwise object to its deletion for any reason." As I indicated in the revert, this particular aspect of Trek encompasses multiple episodes, all of which have individual articles on Wikipedia, but do not completely document this organization of the Trek world. This article is the central repository and center of information regarding this part of Trek and is necessary (and notable) for the impact it has had on the Trek universe in general, in addition to having spawned many books. VigilancePrime 01:54, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

• Changed from PROD to AfD because it appears controversial, and PROD is only for non-controversial. The notability in the PROD template said "real world" notability. This article lacks and "real-world" notability, in-universe notability is irrelevant, and the article needs to be primarily real-world. I do not think there is enough real-world notability that the article can stand alone, but hey, if there is go ahead an add it, make sure everything is sourced. Ejfetters 04:01, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Barrett and Barrett

Who are Barrett and Barrett and why is it so important that we care wat they think about Star Trek. I'm sorry, I don't mean to sound aggressive, but who are they and why should their opinions matter more than others? I'm just curious. (Bobbo9000 (talk) 05:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC))

It appears to reference this book: "Barrett, Michèle, and Duncan Barrett. (2001) Star Trek The Human Frontier. Cambridge: Polity Press." I'm going through and properly footnoting it.--Aervanath (talk) 21:24, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the statement at the end sounds out of place. It sounds like opinion to me, rather than a factual statement. Why is it considered encyclopedic?

Have JJ Abrams and Alex Kurtzman ever claimed they're familiar with the prior series canon?

In Star Trek Into Darkness they treat Section 31 as an open secret. This is also how they're treating it in Discovery. Isn't this a distinctive break from Deep Space 9 and Enterprise? It's as if Abrams and Kurtzman are basically just referring back at their own prior work and not the rest of the series. -Reticuli 2605:A000:1301:A37F:353F:BEAF:FDF:E00C (talk) 21:13, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Section 2 which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 11:16, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Out-of-universe reason for "31"?

Is there an out-of-universe reason for why "31" was chosen? Jimw338 (talk) 17:49, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I skimmed Memory Alpha but didn't see anything regarding that. It could be random. DonIago (talk) 04:30, 14 March 2024 (UTC)