Talk:Law in Star Trek

Sourcing : an example of a problem

I shall assume for the moment that

"Military law is influenced by the actual Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)"

is a true statement. What sources are needed to substantiate this statement? In order to verify this statement, we need to

• find a quote by a member of production staff that this was their intent

or to

• find a quote by a reliable source, which considers the military law in Star Trek, compares it to the UCMJ, and then notes that it was evidently influenced by it

If we are doing that comparison ourself, then this is original research. The comparison needs to be sourced. Adding "The Drumhead" here as a cite does not address the issue of sourcing, and in fact makes it seem even more like original research than decent unsourced material. Morwen - Talk 14:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

One can argue both sides of the point. I can see why Husnock says this. I've been to the green table (Captain's Mast) and Court Martials (general and special) myself, and everything seems to indicate that whoever wrote this stuff probaby copied it from existing military law. But on the other hand, without a source to prove this , it's OR. Husnock, the frustration you have regarding this issue has to do more with the fact that no sources touch on this topic aside from the shows themselves. Aren't there any kind of publicized production notes or something? --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 14:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure there are, I will research and find them. I jut need time to find them and its hard right now as I am in the Middle East. I will back home next summer. -Husnock 14:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't really know how to explain how wrong that is. We can't just leave uncited material there for months in the hope you will remember it. If you don't have access to sources, then you simply should not be adding this type of stuff from your memory, please leave it to those of us who do. -Morwen - Talk 15:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Not to go into a very toucy subject, but I would be careful telling a deployed member of the military they shouldn't edit on Wikipedia for whatever reason. I am certianly not going to curtail my editing Wikipedia because I'm in the Gulf, P.S. I'm not thinking you meant it badly, it just sounded like that. No one is saying "leave uncited material for four months". I am just saying I can't give exact sources until I get home and can look them up. This also isn't trying to become an FAC and general sources can do name of books episodes, etc until specifics can be provided. My main goal right now is to get this up and running and save it from the AfD. -Husnock 15:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not disputing whether it's actually true or not, it's just that replacing a {{fact}} tag here with a reference to an episode is not really providing the requested reference. It is difficult to try to improve articles and the sourcing of articles in an environment where not every editor is on the same page regarding sourcing. Also, yeah, how can "civil law is modeled after the the United States legal system" can be substantiated by a reference to the episode "Court Martial". The very name of the episode rather gives away that it deals, with, well, a Court Martial? Morwen - Talk 15:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Samuel Cogley directly states that the law of Federaton is based on several older documents, among them the Constitution. -Husnock 15:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

(after THREE edit conflicts) But these sources do exist, Husnock? Isn't there someone else here who would have access to such things, who could concievably source the article now? (Your predicament is precisely why I didn't re-enlist , aside from the fact that I didn't wanna screw around with trying to make chief.) --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 15:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, they do exist. There is at least one that I know of which talks about the "Samual Cogley" style of lawyering. its out of some law essay written by a law firm in St. Louis. Will find it when I have time. -Husnock 15:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

What the hell, I'll see what I can remember from the Klingon side and try to add something in the next couple of days, wherever it ends up in the end. (Off topic, I'm in the reserves myself (diff. country, but :-p), just like to send out some respect to everyone who's on the job for real.) Quack 688 15:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Not bad faith

"Klingon Law revolves around trial by combat (DS9 "The Way of the Warrior") but with a formal trial procedure in place as well (Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country)."

I think the contention is that this statement is a generalization about Klingon law as a whole based one incident in a TV show and one trial in the film. I don't remember Way of the Warrior (Rules of Engagement probably mentions it, too), but certainly there's nothing in ST6 (or the Enterprise episode with similar events) from which to make an across the board statement about Klingon law. More appropriate phrasing would be along the lines of, "In one instance, X happens" or some such. --EEMeltonIV 20:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

* Cite a reputable secondary source, or remove it.  Guy (Help!) 22:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Sourcing

No. No, no, no. When I say that the comparison with the US military code needs sourcing, I do not mean "quote an episode", I mean cite a secondary source that makes this inference. The whole of the JAG section is still sourced to episodes which means it is still original research. Somebody really does not seem to be getting this simple point. Guy (Help!) 22:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

You never replied to my post regarding this on the AfD, so I'll just copy-paste it here:

Guy: The primary sources are the canon sources. If it's shown in the original Star Wars movie that Luke blew up the Death Star, then that's it - it's part of canon. Done. You don't need a newspaper review saying "Luke blew up the Death Star" before you can accept it. OR would be "What was Luke thinking when he fired the torps?", "How fast was his X-Wing going?", or "How big is the Death Star, anyway?"

How does that relate to this article? Statements of fact within a work of fiction, like "Lieutenant Areel Shaw prosecutes Captain James T. Kirk in his 2267 court-martial for alleged negligence in the death of Lieutenant Commander Ben Finney". are fine, as long as they source the episode. The UCMJ issue is different, because it involves both the fictional universe and the real world. I don't think it's OR to simply refer to the events in "TOS: Court Martial" as a "military court-martial", since it's described as such, and Kirk et al. are in the 23rd century military. To link it to a specific code, like UCMJ, you'd need to find references from both sides (e.g. in-universe quote mentioning the Starfleet policy on lampshade wearing , and a real-world UCMJ section that deals with lampshade wearing), then show they deal with the problem in the same manner. Stupid example, but I hope you get the point. Even so, the best you could say is that they're somewhat similar. The only way to say conclusively that "Starfleet law is based on the UCMJ" is to get a quote from the production staff explicitly saying that. Quack 688 03:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

A Source! My Kingdom for a Source!

The entire OR issue and lacking a source just got attacked by a Klingon armada and completely destryoed. Survivors are in an unorganized retreat towards the Tholian Neutral Zone...a PRIMARY LITERARY SOURCE...has now been added to this article. -Husnock 05:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

That's quick : wonder how you got access to it. I can't find it to download, and it doesn't seem to be on amazon.co.uk. Did it confirm everything that has been written here? Morwen - Talk 07:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I ordered it. Exerts of it were sent to me by a lawyer I know in St. Louis. It looks very interesting. -Husnock 08:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC)