Talk:Starfleet Security

Marines

Where are they "specifically mentioned" in ST VI? Please point to the dialogue or text on screen. One of my horrible, awful late-night deletions was for the bogus fancruft Marines article. --EEMeltonIV 06:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Colonel West sits in a briefing and is said to be a member of the Federation Marine Corps. Later gets very specific in the novel of the film as it goes into West's career in counter-intel.

"is said" - there's a reason passive voice sucks. The word "marine" isn't in the movie. Is it in the book? --EEMeltonIV 06:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, its in the book and quite a bit of backstory about Colonel West is also given. And whats with correcting people's grammer on talk pages? I wouldn't do that, it might offend someone who reads it the wrong way. Just some advice. -Husnock 07:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The point of pointing out your passive voice is that in passive voice, the thing that carries out the verb isn't always identified, e.g. your construction didn't actually identify who did the "saying" about West's background, and was therefore useless as a reference. Thanks for the advice, though, although doling out what might seem like patronizing advice might offend someone who reads it the wrong way. Just some adice. --EEMeltonIV 14:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

What in the world does that have to do with the article? Correcting grammer in this way on a talk page could easily be misunderstood as a statement about the user's writing abilities and thus, a statement about them. Nobody is "doling about patronizing advice", I am an Admin politely telling you that you shouldn't be making comments like that on a talk page when it has nothing to do with the article being discussed. -Husnock 20:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm pointing out that in that assertion, you missed the point of the prompting question: who/what is the source? What you think might have been an answer did not, in fact, indicate the source. And that's an easy slip to make when using passive voice. Sorry (sort of); it's the English teacher in me.

Yes, you're very polite. --EEMeltonIV 20:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Novel of Star Trek VI is the source, have no idea what page or anything like that. Colonel West is stated to be a member of the Federation Marine Corps and the secton goes briefly into how the Fed Marines fit into the scheme of things. To the best of memory, they are set to be counter-insurg/counter-intel who work side by side with Starfleet Security. Thats the extent of my knowledge based on reading the novel some 12 years ago. -Husnock 20:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I will skim appropriately. --EEMeltonIV 20:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Is the novelization canon? --Fang Aili ^talk 14:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Not canon, but nevertheless a published source. Cited as such, it could be worth including. --EEMeltonIV 14:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Understood. --Fang Aili ^talk 15:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Sources

I added and expanded the article. A number of sources are available, to include specifically the onscreen apperance. I put down the one book title I remembered and will research more over the next few months. This article has been hit alot for being speculation and not citing courses. I hope this clears it up. -Husnock 06:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Federation Security

Saw some concern raised about this group. Appears for about 10 minutes in Star Trek III, a black man approaches mcCoy about talking too loud regarding the Genesis Planet. Saying the man was acting like the CIA shouldn't by POV or OR since his character was very clearly supposed to be the "secret agent" type in the bar with knowledge about secret things. Maybe some re-wording, but references to this group should stay in. -Husnock 06:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Citations

Husnock (or anyone)--

Please provide references -- either specific dialogue or reliable secondary sources -- for the following assertions:

• During this time, most of Starfleet Security was assigned as security guards onboard Starfleet vessels and space stations. --EEMeltonIV 06:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Thats common knowledge from watching the show and is mentioned in 50 - 100 pocket books, the animated series, and countless technical manuals. --—Preceding unsigned comment added by Husnock (talk • contribs)
    • It's not "common knowledge" if one needs to see the TV show or read the books. Cite a source that covers the "most of" component. --EEMeltonIV 14:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Removed this assertion in the absence of citation. --EEMeltonIV 04:38, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

• The agency is also responsible for maintaining and enforcing Starfleet Security regulations, procedures and policies on all Starfleet and affiliated facilities, outposts, and vessels. --EEMeltonIV 06:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  • removed as part of Morwen's copyvio cleanup(?). --EEMeltonIV 04:46, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

• In addition, this agency is responsible for security clearances of all Starfleet and Federation personnel (I see the ST3 "citation" -- remind me where this is in the film) --EEMeltonIV 06:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I think it was in Star Trek IV actually. Don't know. Why the semi-sarcastic tone using ""? Do you not consider that a proper citation. Then just say so. --—Preceding unsigned comment added by Husnock (talk • contribs)
  • removed as part of Morwen's copyvio cleanup(?). --EEMeltonIV 04:46, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

• By the time frame of the 24th century, Starfleet Security was also the primary source of Federation ground troops
• The Starfleet Security chain of command included several division and brigade sized formations capable of assaulting a planet (I know all those troops showed up in the episode, but you're extrapolating size and capability). --EEMeltonIV 06:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  • The episode speaks of declaring martial law and occupying all of Earth to defend it against a full scale invasion...you need troops to do that. Security Division and Brigade structure also mentioned in numerous sources. --—Preceding unsigned comment added by Husnock (talk • contribs)
    • The leap from a line of dialogue about an occupation to it actually being Starfleet Security troops is WP:OR, since the dialogue does not say "Starfleet security will occupy the planet." Maybe the seabees are just really gung-ho in the 24th century and it's their thing to do. At least one of these "numerous sources" about the size of their units needs citaton. --EEMeltonIV 14:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Changed it from generalization about the group as a whole and nature of career field to specific instances in specific episodes. --EEMeltonIV 04:46, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
• Starfleet Security is also one of the few non-command career fields in which it is capable to rise to the rank of full admiral. --EEMeltonIV 06:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Specifically mentioned in the Pegasus episode, several Starfleet security admirals mentioned in Pocket Books, most notable "The Lost Years". --—Preceding unsigned comment added by Husnock (talk • contribs)
    • The existence of Starfleet security admirals is not a point of dispute -- sorry if it wasn't clear. My contention is with the "one of the few" -- where in dialogue does someone make this subjective assertion? This could easily be tweaked to "Starfleet Security is a non-command career field in which..." --EEMeltonIV 14:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Whittled down from generalizations to to specific instances. --EEMeltonIV 05:02, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

• Starfleet Security often works jointly with Starfleet Intelligence - please cite instances other than Pegasus to justify "often" --EEMeltonIV 06:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Consolidated with other material; generalization -> specific instance. --EEMeltonIV 05:02, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

• and the Federation Marine Corps - cite their existence --EEMeltonIV 06:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Very clearly mentioned in Star Trek VI and expanded upon in the novel --—Preceding unsigned comment added by Husnock (talk • contribs)
    • Not at all mentioned in Star Trek VI and I'm dubious about your assertion that the novel talks about the Marines. I'll thumb through it when I'm home for Christmas. I knew there was a good reason for me not to donate all that scrappy old books... --EEMeltonIV 14:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I just read through those scenes and...Ha! It's a "young lieutenant" and there's no mention of the Marines. Given Husnock's other assertions about, "Oh, it's in the novels," I've also removed similar assertions. --EEMeltonIV 04:55, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

• In the 23rd century, the civilian equivalent of Starfleet Security was known as "Federation Security", seen briefly in the film Star Trek III and appearing to be some type of CIA equivalent orgaization. - cite material that explains transition from one to the other --EEMeltonIV 06:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Very clearly mentioned in Star Trek III, a character is seen, and this is explained in greater detail in the novel. Rewording could be used about CIA, intent was to demonstrate its a secret agency. --—Preceding unsigned comment added by Husnock (talk • contribs)
    • Again, I don't doubt Federation Security's its existence -- that's how the guy introduces himself. My contention is with your supposition that "Federation Security" became "Starfleet Security" -- what source explicates that transition/renaming/rebranding? --EEMeltonIV 14:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Phrasing was already thinned out, and was just a reference to Federation security appear in Star Trek III. However, without any material to explain a connection or interaction b/t Federation and Starfleet Securities, I don't see a reason to mention the former. --EEMeltonIV 04:55, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

• Starfleet Security is also responsible for the security of the Federation President, as well as members of the Federation Council and visiting alien dignitaries (Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home). - extrapolating presence of guys in costume with duty - who's to say they weren't avid spectators? there to protect Kirk from the rampaging hoards? walked into the wrong room and held very still to avoid being noticed? --EEMeltonIV 06:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  • removed as part of Morwen's copyvio cleanup(?). --EEMeltonIV 05:02, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

• Section 31 has been suspected of being involved with the Khitomer conspiracy as well as the illegal cloaking device development onboard the USS Pegasus. - cite something beyond fanboy hardon speculation . . . possibly connected to Section 31. --EEMeltonIV 06:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I believe an entire comic book series was written about this. Fleet Admiral Cartwright article mentions this in some detail. --—Preceding unsigned comment added by Husnock (talk • contribs)
    • Your belief that a story exists is not compelling evidence. The Cartwright article mentions it in minimal detail, also without a citation. I added a citation tag to that article; the assertion here needs it, too. --EEMeltonIV 14:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Removed vague assertion; put Section 31 in a See also. Please cite a specific story, whether canon or not, before asserting connection between the two groups. --EEMeltonIV 05:02, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Please also articulate why the following are not WP:OR:

• .... apparetly an entirely separate career path from regular (or "Line") personnel of the Starfleet. --EEMeltonIV 06:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Pretty clearly shown in the series that these people are separate from the command path of Captain Picard and the like. DS9 explores this greater with Eddngton and there was a first season character ("Move Along Home") who says he is a 'career security officer' --—Preceding unsigned comment added by Husnock (talk • contribs)
  • Gone --EEMeltonIV 05:02, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

• In the capacity of security guards, Starfleet Security members act in ways analogous to local and regional police agencies. --EEMeltonIV 06:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Gone --EEMeltonIV 05:02, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

The following appear to have traces of non-NPOV (i.e. subjective observations) and also need citing

• The task of Starfleet Security was also extremely dangerous, especially when providing security to landing parties on unexplored planets.--EEMeltonIV 06:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Watch the series...they die every other episode. The Pocket Book novels also have numerous reference to how dangerous the work is and there are several lines of dialouge from NG and DS9 where this is discussed as well. -Husnock 07:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC) --—Preceding unsigned comment added by Husnock (talk • contribs)
  • Cleanedup; non-npov. --EEMeltonIV 05:02, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

• a noticable number (suggests "a lot", but that's subject) --EEMeltonIV 06:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Don't really follow what you're trying to say. --—Preceding unsigned comment added by Husnock (talk • contribs)
    • Unless a character in the show called it "notic[e]able", then it's your subjective assertion. --EEMeltonIV 14:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Cleanedup; non-npov. --EEMeltonIV 05:02, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I sure we can

I'm sure folks can research that for you, it may take time. However, we're not trying to make an FAC here. I answered most everything I know up above; a lot of source material is not with me and some of that material was added by others. Give the article a chance, at least. Looking up above, it almost seems like you are *trying* to find things wrong with this article. Unsettling with the evidence that you've been heavily involved previously with deleting two Star trek rank articles under the same platform of original research and no sources. I hope you do not have similar designs on this article. -Husnock 07:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Why are you actively making the article worse? You respond to calls for sources by saying "everyone knows that", and then put in misinformation like the existence of a "Federation Marine Corps" (all we got from that movie was that one character had the rank of Colonel. no explanation at all. if you mean to cite the book, cite the book. i shall do that for you). Thinking about it, you are probably doing this in good faith, so I will not assume malice on your part, but can you see that adding this sort of uncited, in-universe perspective material does not improve Wikipedia one iota? Morwen - Talk 09:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I was trying to expand and improve the article, not make it worse. The door is open for others to help and make the article even better. Slamming someone for doing thier best is not what this site is about. Let's work together to make it better. -Husnock 19:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, I am very concerned about the image uploaded here - Image:StarfleetSec.jpg. As far as I can make out, this is an original design by Kristian Trigwell. The current templateTemplate:Coatofarms does not apply to this image. Obviously Starfleet Security does not exist - Template:Seal, Template:Coatofarms and Template:Logo are intended for actual seals/coatofarms/logos, not for fictionalised ones. It's possible a logo resembling this design has been seen in the show - if so the original art may have been printed somewhere - but this particular design is Trigwell's re-rendering of it. I can't see any justification for claiming this piece of fan art under fair use. I have emailed the creator of the image to see if this is their original art or was based off a piece of scenic art from the show. Morwen - Talk 15:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Durin could probably help you there. -Husnock 19:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

"it almost seems like you are *trying* to find things wrong with this article."

I am, and it's pretty easy. I see these as substantial weaknesses in the article -- hopefully you see them as areas of improvement. I wouldn't put this up for AfD, seeing as how the group exists in mainstream Star Trek canon.

"Unsettling with the evidence that you've been heavily involved previously with deleting two Star trek rank articles under the same platform of original research and no sources."

Deletions that got a thumbs up from more than me and people beyond the Trekkie realm of interest.

In general, I think most of the generalizations and suppositions you're making continue to be hogwash and OR. "It's common knowledge" is not sufficient citation. Most of your edits seem more apt for Memory Alpha than Wikipedia. --EEMeltonIV 14:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for calling my edits hogwash. To date, you've called me a "squid" and a "dick" [1], called some articles I've worked on "crap" and are now saying that my edits are "hogwash". You appear to have some issues with not only these edits but perhaps even the people who are writing them. I was also very civil up above, answering all of your questions that I can remember. Even so, your response contained some questionable tones, such as in one case you pretty much said that I was making things up about reading it in a novel (i.e. "I doubt your assertions"). How about losing the attitude? I am trying to write a better article and invite you and others to help. If you have issues with the way the article is written, make some changes for the better. But slamming the person who wrote it, calling thier edits names, and then stating they are not telling the truth is very uncivil. -Husnock 19:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I stand by my assertion that the across-the-board revert for whatever-article-it-was was a dick move (not that I haven't done my own), and I think some of your assertions *are* hogwash/crap because they are generalizations/suppositions/extrapolations without a reliable primary or secondary source. While your edits are well-intentioned, from the areas we overlap, I think you consistently miss the burden of proof when it comes to offering verifiable sources for what you're adding. As I posted in some other talk page, I'm sympathetic to you not having sources at hand, but it nevertheless is not a compelling refrain for having reliable citations. Rather than putting many of these "they can be verified by what I have at home" materials in the main wikispace, I think a better course would be either to <!-- ---> them out until there's a citation, on your own insert the {{citation needed}} tags, or temporarily save them in your user space until you can offer bolstering, specific citations.

That said, this is the third time I've offered to hit up the Barnes & Noble to look for whatever materials you don't have at hand. Trek material on wikipedia takes enough flak for issues of notability; it only hurts when it's also open to criticism for (lack of) verifiabilty.

As for the squid thing, across my assorted postings and path-crossing with Navy folks, you're the first one I've met to take umbrage to it -- and I haven't brought it up again. --EEMeltonIV 20:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The other thing is, this article seems to be tending towards portraying Starfleet Security as an independent division within Starfleet, with its own chain of command. On the Enterprise, who did Worf report to? Picard, not to some officer behind a desk at a starbase, which I would expect. "apparetly an entirely separate career path from regular personnel of the Starfleet" is making this point. We really don't have enough datapoints to speculate that, and we shouldn't be speculating in any case. The multitalented Mr. Leslie, pictured in the article, would disagree. Starfleet Security has never been portayed as analogous to the Military Police, which the article seems to be taking as a model. Morwen - Talk 14:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

copying from memory alpha

The article looks like it has its origins in a copyvio from memory-alpha, anyway.

this is the first revision, which is essentially identical to this revision from memory-alpha. Looking at the history of the memory-alpha version, various different sentences have been added by different people - the initial revision contains several sentences our version has. I see no evidence this text was dual licenced by these folks. Morwen - Talk 15:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I've marked the article as a copyvio. Morwen - Talk 15:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I have rewritten the entire article with entirely new material and original sourcing. The article in its current form contains far more information than the Memora Alpha version and does not appear to be a copyright violation. I agree though, that the version months ago when the article started was a copy, but this is not the case now. I there are still stary senences that are identical, by all means change them but the entire article as a whole does not appear to be a copyvio. -Husnock 19:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, the entire edit history contains copyvio. The accepted procedure here is to stick the copyvio thing on, wait some days. If you wish to start a new non-copyvio article, the place to do that is Starfleet Security/Temp, as the message says. Morwen - Talk 19:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

If you want to be that way, fine. But, as a adminsitrator, I reviewed the matter and this article does not all resemble the other one on Memory Alpha. In fact, I linked it at the bottom of the page to compare. I will ask other adminsitrators to come look at this, I'm sure they will say the same thing. -Husnock 19:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

As I have noted, it started off as a literal copy and paste from memory alpha, and pretty much every sentence (apart from the one mentioning "Raner", which has been transformed beyond recognition) in the original version is in the present version. Some have had minor changes, to be sure, and a lot more material has been added, but that in no way constititute "does not resemble the other one on Memory Alpha". I urge to to reexamine this and admit you made a mistake, otherwise I will have little choice to take this upstairs. Morwen - Talk 20:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I've already asked other administrators to look at this. When I did the rewrite, I never even looked at Memory Alpha, much less copied from it. What are your motives here? First the very harsh review up above and now talk of "taking me upstairs?" Do you have some kind of problem with me and my edits? I was trying to improve the article, not harm it. In any event, the vio notice can stay up, I won't touch it, I've asked other administrators to look into it. -Husnock 20:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The current version of the article looks fine, so I removed the copyvio notice. I don't see any sentences or anything of the sort directly copied from the Memory Alpha version of this article unless I'm missing anything. If there are, do elaborate here, but I'm seeing nothing. Cowman109^Talk 20:12, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

"that is responsible for security aboard Starfleet and Federation outposts, vessels, and territories." and "Starfleet Security is also responsible for the security of the Federation President, as well as members of the Federation Council and visiting alien dignitaries " are directly copied from it. Other than that I didn't see anything. Just change those sentences or remove them and this should be fine. VegaDark 20:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

There are lots of sentences copied from memory-alpha. I shall go through the sentences from the m-a version I identified, if this is they hard to spot.

1. "The Starfleet Security ... territory" : used as our intro, with some grammar changes
2. "In this function ... agencies" : this is in our article word-for-word, the original ending "...much further than that" has been chopped off
3. "The agency is ... outposts & vessels" : we are using this sentence word-for-word
4. "In addition ... Federation personnel" : we are using this word-for-word
5. "The agency ... counter-intelligence operators" : we've got rid of this one, actually, now
6. "The agency ... Federation President ... visiting alien dignitaries": we are using this one word-for-word
7. "In 2370 ... " we are not using this one

My motives here are ensuring quality articles and lack of copyvio on Wikipedia. I have been recently looking at Star Trek articles a bit more after getting burnt out with counties and am frankly shocked by what I've seen, and also rather bemused by the defensive rearguard action being fought against attempts to improve quality. Morwen - Talk 20:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, unless I'm mistaken, I don't think it's an issue if earlier versions were copyvio if the problem as been fixed in the current version. The article in its current state is clearly redeemable so just go ahead and remove any copyvio sentences as most of the article looks fine. Cowman109^Talk 20:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

ooh, that sounds vaguely like an acknowledgement that I am correct. I followed procedure for articles which have always had copyvios in them - if you are not familiar with this procedure please see Wikipedia:Copyright problems#Instructions. The history at this point is effectively useless, because it has always had copyvio. It is probably best just to start with a blank slate. This has been procedure pretty much forever. Morwen - Talk 20:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Yup everything would be a derivative work of the original so can't be GFDL. Therefor the article could be speedied under G12.Geni 20:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't see a reason to delete the previous history - Wikipedia:Copyright problems specifically states that "The infringing text will remain in the page history for archival reasons unless the copyright holder asks the Wikimedia Foundation to remove it." The only issue this article has now would otherwise seem to be its utter lack of sources and verifiability. Has the article been fixed now? Or are there still issues. Cowman109^Talk 21:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

deleting the history shows we are not createing a deriviative workGeni 21:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The quotation you cite there specifically refer only to where infringing text has been added to a page. In this case, the infringing text has always been present, so the second procedure, which involves blanking the page and starting a new one, should be followed. Morwen - Talk 21:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Caveat: I haven't even looked at the policy. Take this with a grain of salt.

But -- blanking the page and starting over? That seems silly, especially since the plagiarized material was largely supposition to begin with that should have been slashed as OR. There seems to be (a framework of) worthwhile stuff buried in here that might be related to what came from MA but is not necessarily derivative. --EEMeltonIV 22:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

A derivative work, in the sense of copyright, is one that incorporates previously published copyrightable elements. In the copyright sense, a work ceases to be derivative if all previously published elements are removed. It is still derivative in the colloquial sense, i.e. this work was based upon that other work, but it is not a copyright violation if they are no copyrightable elements attributed to the original. One can make an argment that the history should be deleted, as it contains prior versions that would be copyright violations, but we don't routinely remove copyright violations from article histories unless asked to do so by the copyright holder. GFDL integrity requires an author list, which would need to be preserved seperately if the history is deleted. The alternative, of course, is to start completely over. This is certainly possible, but I do not believe it is strictly necessary in this case. Dragons flight 22:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

We do routinely delete copyright violations from histories, where the page has always been a copyvio. Which this was. The instructions at Wikipedia:Copyright problems#Instructions tell people to do this. You can debate the wisdom or merits of that guidelines, but I my actions were by the book. Morwen - Talk 23:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The problem is as soon as you start deleting problem revisions you start hitting GFDL violations.Geni 23:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Contrary to popular perception, the GFDL does not require that the present version be accompanied by a full history of all historical revisions. We are however required to maintain the list of authors. Dragons flight 04:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

which is hard to do if we start deleting and causes problems down the line in figureing out who the significant authors are.Geni 14:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Real-world sources

In order to demonstrate the notability of this subject, please cite non-trivial real-world (not in-universe) sources that show that the subject is notable. If the subject is notable only in the Star Trek unverse but has no significance in the real world, it has no place in Wikipedia. -- Ekjon Lok 00:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• The sources listed in the article cannot really be called trivial as they are published books on the subject by the producers of the actual show. Also, see the very heated debate on the deletion page where the subject of this article's notability was beaten from every corner. Starfleet Security appeared in most fo the TV series, nearly all of the films, and is mentioned heavily in Star Trek lierature. Also, the group is known for creating the "redshirt" character. The artice could use expanding, though, with some more real world references. -Husnock 05:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we still don't have a source for saying is "is an agency" with capital letters and everything, rather than just a shipboard department. As I raised on the AFD, note the difference between starfleet engineers in general and the Starfleet Corps of Engineers. As far as I can determine, this would be because no such source exists. Morwen - Talk

Also, we don't have a source" for 2apparetly an entirely separate career path from regular (or "Line") personnel of the Starfleet". This is also just not borne out by the show, which (a) has identical uniforms for all 'ship operations' characters, whether they be engineering or security, and (b) characters such as Lt. Leslie who freely appear in different jobs throughout the show. What is the source for that sentence? Certainly not an episode. Morwen - Talk 08:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Starfleet Dynamics and the Klingon Covert Operations Manual speak in heavy detail about the branch of Starfleet which is Starfleet Security. Also, there was an episode of Deep Space Nine which showed a gold shirted Starfleet Admiral (the *only* admiral to date not appearing as a Command Redshirt) demonstrating that the gold shirt security branch is a separate career path where you can rise to the rank of Admiral. Dont remember the name of the episode, it was part of the Eddington story arch ending in his betrayal to the Maquis. -Husnock 08:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Watching episodes and drawing conclusions like that from them is certainly original research or speculation - you have extrapolated from the colour of a costume in one episode to "there is a separate career path"!

Also, taking 15 year old roleplaying manuals and then writing about their material in-universe also seems dubious. "Starfleet Security" derives its fame from a TV show. The article should be focused on its (very limited) depiction on the TV show, with addenda for speculation by books about how exactly it works.

You appear to be remembering the episode "The Die is Cast (DS9 episode)", which features an Admiral Toddman from Starfleet Security, wearing a gold uniform. We've seen othe Starfleet Security admirals, though, and they've not worn gold. Morwen - Talk 08:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Starfleet Dynamics

What is this precisely? I'd presumed it was one of the role playing manuals, but apparently it isn't. according to this it is a fan publication! So are we citing unlicenced fan fiction now? Morwen - Talk 08:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

My understanding is that it was a tech manual published right after Star Trek VI came out in coordination with the producers of the film (this is why it has permission to use the 25th anniversary logo on its cover). I guess it depends on how you define "unlicensed fan fiction". In this case, I think it would be a step above that at the level of a non-canon Star trek literature work. It really is a fascinating work and introduces readers to the USS Belknap, which has appeared since in several Star Trek Pocket Books novels. -Husnock 09:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The cover designs I can find of it does not have such a logo. this also indicates that it is a fan publication. Yes, fan publications have historical significance. But regardless of whether it got tacit consent or whatever, I feel we should not be citing things from this as if they were established facts. Do you agree with this? What about the Klingon Covert Operations Manual? This seems to be even more obscure than Starfleet Dynamics, and I'd bet that it has been contradicted hugely by the subsequent 16 years worth of Klingon stories. Morwen - Talk 09:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The cover clearly reads "25th Anniversay Edition" -Husnock 10:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Please also understand that noone is try to push bad info in these articles or state things that are untrue. The article was slammed for not having sources, so sources were provided. If the sources themselves are then questioned, I don't know where one can go from there. -Husnock 09:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, you seem to be taking an attitude of "how can we justify having this writing here?" rather than considering answering the question: "should we have these sentences here at all?". If you would allow myslef and User:EEMeltonIV to edit the article this would be a good step forward. I am presently afraid to. Morwen - Talk 09:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I havent prohibited anyone from editing anything, I have no idea what you are talking about it. I have reverted some blanking as well as a user who put untrue tags at the top stating the article was unsourced. In fact, this last time I logged onto this site was 8-9 hours ago. During that time, noone edited the article in the ways you suggested and I certianly didnt stop anyone from editing this or any other page. -Husnock 10:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

You've reverted attempts to removed improperly sourced bits before on plenty of articles. You still haven't acknowledged that I was acting in good faith when I tagged this as a copyvio - which it was. And frankly, your comment on Talk:Law in Star Trek that I should be careful advising you what to do because you are a "deployed member of the military", put me in fear of my life (and this comment from somebody who deplores bullies on his userpage!). I'm not prepared to edit articles under these conditions. Morwen - Talk 10:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

"Fear of your life"? Hmm. Intent was to demonstrate you shouldnt tell someone who is deployed away from home that it is wrong that they be allowed to edit Wikipedia. To infer a death threat from that is a bit out there. No threat was ever made against you, if you feel it was, you should report so at once to the proper Wiki authorities. And, okay, sure you were acting in good faith when you tagged it as a copyvio (I cant even remember that far back). As far as "reverting bits on this and plenty of other articles", this isnt a discussion about my edit contributions on other articles, its about what I've done here and I havent reverted much of anything, rather expanded the article to its fullest and asked others for help. -Husnock 10:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

It is perfectly valid to say that you should not add stuff based on your memory of sources which. If you want to throw around your job as if it should commend some respect, then feel free to, but I don't see the relevance. Whether you be in the Middle East, Antarctica, an oil rig, or the moon, you shouldn't be citing sources from memory. Especially not really obscure ones like the Starfleet Dynamics and Klingon Covert Operations Manual, which will be very difficult for other people to track down and actually verify. And yes, saying that people shouldn't do something because you are in some kind of military organisation, is not very collegiate and carries sinister undertones.

I'm saddened that you don't remember that, considering it was only a few days ago. I am proud of my unblemished reputation, such as it is, on Wikipedia, and I consider accusations that I have acted in bad faith an affront against me.

I have made a small edit to remove some unverifiabile information from this article. I shall see whether you summarily revert it or not. On Talk:Star Trek Expanded Universe, I presently am of the opinion that I have finished merging anything useful from that article to Star Trek spin-off fiction, but again, I am reluctant to do so without your explicit approval, because I have no desire to get in an edit war. Morwen - Talk 10:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

See, you reverted! Sigh. I don't know why am I even bothering with this? Morwen - Talk 10:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I didnt revert, I rewrote it to include the Deep Space Nine episode as a reference that there were Starfleet Admirals in the 24th century who wore yellow shirts and were part of a separate branch outside of the normal "red shirt" command characters. I added the source to the line as well. I will research exactly what episode that appeared in when I have the time. It was part of the Eddington-Defector arch. -Husnock 11:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

You did too revert, please examine the edit history. I added text about the "operations division" wearing red, which wasn't there before, and your edit removed this, for example. I told you what episode it was in above!!! 11:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

If my edit removed some valid info, then by all means put it back in. But, the 24th century gold shirt Admiral was a confirmed sighting and he is stated to be a part of Starfleet Security. -Husnock 12:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)