Talk:Borg

2378

Just as a note, the events of the "Endgame" episode occurred in 2378, a date which had been set up in a previous episode. -- MiChaos 17:05, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC).

Article overhaul needed

I think that the sections "Overview", "The Borg change over time", and "Origin of the Borg should all be merged, but I'm not sure how. The V'Ger stuff should be condensed to a trivia bullet at the bottom, because the evidence seems to be heavily stacked against any connection with the Borg. Additionally, a section on Borg biology/technology would be nice and could incorporate info from the sections above.--StAkAr Karnak 21:56, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you there, the first few sections of this article is badly written. I am working on an overhaul, we'll see where it leads.

I agree with the V'Ger stuff, though I strongly disagree that "Overview", "The Borg change over time", and "Origin of the Borg" should all be merged. "Origin of the Borg", I think, should contain both a real-life origin (like the Cybermen as an inspiration) as well as what is known of the internal, that is the fictional, origin from a standpoint of actual Star Trek canon. The V'Ger stuff definitely needs to be condensed and I think probably put in some sort of "Fanon" or "Fan speculation" section (which I reiterate should be a very small section). I think some of the stuff in the "Overview" section can be attatched as extra paragraphs in the intro, though I think the the page's opening paragraph is good. The vast majority of what's in the "Overview" section isn't actually an overview, so should probably be in a different section altogether. If we did it right, we could eliminate the "Overview" section completely, since the intro would give a brief, actual overview while the new section (though, what to name it?) would contain the more in-depth info currently taking up the bulk of the "Overview" section. Come to think of it, the in-depth stuff could be put into the fictional "History of the Borg" section along with the stuff currently in "Origin of the Borg" (with the exception of the V'Ger stuff). I don't know; it definitely needs some re-organizing, but I don't think we should merge everything into a single section. Keeping distinct sections, I think, makes it easier to get right to what you're interested in. --Corvun 11:18, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

"Borg" as a term outside of Star Trek.

I question the legitimacy of the term "Borg". "Borg" is certainly not in common usage, and would not even be understood by a Star Trek fan. The number of people who use "Borg", for anything other than the actual Borg race, is so miniscule as to be negligible. There should be no mention of the term "Borg" as a slang, or noun.

A Google search for:

Borg -"Star Trek" -collective -warp -assimilation

yields 5,190,000 results as of the date this comment is being written. --Abelani, 21:02, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree to some extent with the anonymous user above. The word 'Borg' as a noun or the verb 'to borg' are terms never used outside of Star Trek, in my experience. Is it possible for someone to provide evidence for usage of the phrase in non-Trek contexts (for example, inclusion in the OED, or some recognised and authoritive slang dictionary, or multiple (ideally printed) newspaper articles, news reports or other prose)? If not, then at the very least this section should be shortened considerably, if not expunged entirely. Cheers, Badgerpatrol 21:18, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

urbandictionary.com lists several uses. Some are duplicates of the Star Trek definition, and a couple are unrelated. However, there a number of usages that, though derived from the Star Trek concept, have a unique application. In my personal experience, 'Borg' is indeed used in a number of contexts that are not directly related to Star Trek.--Jeffro77 09:16, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, the only problem is that Urban dictionary is itself a wiki (or wiki-like) operation, edited by users in an unregulated way (and as you say, even at that, some of the definitions quoted in the wiki article are not actually present even on the urban dictionary page, suggesting they may have very limited usage). To include a reference to urbandictionary is in itself no more valid than regurgitating anything unsourced from wikipedia, and quoting personal experience may be considered original research. What we need are some links to definitive examples from the wider media; from a quick googling, the Microsoft connection seems to hold up pretty well (it should be possible to get some credible references) but I'm not sure about the others. If none come forward in the next few days I will rewrite the section (delicately, I certainly don't want to step on anyone's toes). Cheers, Badgerpatrol 17:31, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

It is not logical to refuse to accept colloquial sources as evidence for a term used in a colloquial sense. The term is indeed used in various social circles to represent various analogies to the Borg. The Microsoft (and more generally, the allusion to large corporations) usage is verifiable. The (ex) Jehovah's Witness usage is verifiable. Some of the other uses are probably verifiable as well.--Jeffro77 22:03, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi Jeffro- I think you misunderstand. A colloquialism is not the same as a limited use neology. It is common for small groups to invent terms (or even in some cases partially recreate entire language systems, certainly amongst youngsters), but unless these are in common usage, they are not a part of the language, colloquial, slang, or otherwise. Colloquial and slang terms DO appear in printed form; they CAN be sourced properly- and it is perfectly logical to expect that claims made in an encylopaedia should be sourced. The way to demonstrate common usage is to find verifiable reference sources (of a regulated, edited form, verifiably produced by a third-party and intended for mass-media circulation, and thereby likely to actually reflect prevailing language trends). I'm sure you can see that using a wiki source (such as urbandictionary) as a reference for a second wikisource (wikipedia) is obviously not a sensible approach. As it stands, I feel that this section (since it is completely unreferenced) possibly represents original research, and hence ought to be modified. From my research so far, I agree with you regarding the Microsoft/megacorporation analogy. IF the Jehovah's Witness analogy can be verified, ideally using printed sources or a series of very reputable websites, then it is worthy of inclusion. I could not find any OBJECTIVE evidence that the term is a part of the language in any other sense (outside of Trek). It would be great if you could help correct this by finding some objective, verifiable sources (see the links above for guidance) to support the argument. Otherwise, I will revise the section in a few days and we can discuss it again then to agree on a consensus. Cheers, Badgerpatrol 16:58, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

The JW usage is easily verifiable by going to almost any online forum where ex-JWs communicate and asking how the term is understood. A quick Google search can easily demonstrate the point. Jehovah's Witnesses are a relatively small group, and ex-JWs a smaller group again, so the 9000+ references found by Googling "borg jehovah* witness*" is significant.--Jeffro77 05:57, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi again Jethro Jeffro- Again, I refer you to the Wikipedia guidelines on sourcing, particularly verifiability and reliable sources, and such quotes as 'Subjects that have never been written about by third-party published sources, or that have only been written about in sources of dubious credibility should not be included in Wikipedia...', 'We may not use primary sources whose information has not been made available by a credible publication...' and 'Posts to bulletin boards and Usenet, or messages left on blogs, are never acceptable as primary or secondary sources...' (emphasis as written). If you feel you can cite reliable sources, then please do so and make the article better! I should emphasise that I am not necessarily saying you are wrong, I am just saying that, from what we have at the moment, your claim cannot be verified using reliable sources and thus is un-encylopaedic. What we need to do is to find some proper references (as defined by the wikipedia community in the links above) and thereby get this section of the article up to standard, or if this is not possible, remove the claims altogether. I don't make the rules, but I do try and follow them- if you fell current guidlines as to reliable sources are too harsh, then post some comments on the relevent pages, canvass opinions and try and get them changed- that's what wiki is all about! Cheers, Badgerpatrol 12:48, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Firstly the name Jethro is quite different visually from Jeffro, so it would be very easy to assume that you intend some degree of condescension. The concept of verifying something that is colloquially used is not clear cut. The colloquial usage I put forward is empirically verifiable. The term is not used on JW forums in an attempt to assert the meaning of the term, or to argue whether the term is used; it is used in the sense that it is already understood by the reader. There are many other slang terms on several slang-related Wikipedia articles that do not have what you would call "reliable" sources, but the terms are accepted because they are known to be used within the groups that use the terms.--Jeffro77 09:15, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi Jeffro- I apologise for mistyping your username (as you can see, this is a genuine error as I originally did use the correct monicker). It was not an attempt to be patronising in any way. Obviously you feel that this is a slightly more emotive issue than I do. As to the point at hand- it is not a question of what *I* call reliable (=verifiable) references. These standards are arrived at by the wikipedia community through consensus. Please refer to: verifiability, reliable sources, neology, original research, and related guidelines, in order to inform your argument, as it seems from your response above that you have not yet done so. Cheers, Badgerpatrol 15:36, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

It is unclear how your previous correct use of my name indicates that subsequent misspelling was simply a typographical error (it is extraordinarily unlikely to mistype the name that way purely by accident, and the phonetically similar reference is to a fictional person of diminished intellect). Rather, beginning to use the other name after a disagreement implies a deliberate use of the term. That aside, you continue to post the same links about verifiability, however as I have pointed out, the sites I have referred to do not seek to define the term, but indicate that the term is already in usage. If those sites were defining the term, your points regarding verifiability would be valid. If your argument stands, almost all of the Wikipedia slang pages also need to have much of their content removed.--Jeffro77 22:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Jeffro- I am not an expert on wikipedia slang pages and I have no interest in them at present. I have posted (above) numerous links to the guideline and policy pages constructed by the wikipedia community. I agree with the vast majority of those rules, and whether I do or not is in any case irrelevent; contributing in a worthwhile way necessitates that one adheres to these criteria, otherwise the project descends into chaos. If an item does not meet those rules then it should not be included in the encylopaedia (or it should be removed in the interim whilst you petition the relevent parties to change the guidelines). Just because something is done elsewhere on wikipedia does not mean that it is correct. I myself have never heard the term 'borg' used outside of Star Trek. You have enlightened me by pointing out the Microsoft usage, which seems to be verifiable on the web. I have not been able to find any other reliable sources on the web (which as I am quite sure you are aware, consists of billions of pages to which in some way or other a large percentage of the inhabitants of the western world (and beyond) have contributed) to catagorically support widespread usage in other contexts. We do not need a definition per se, we need, for example, newspaper articles or printed, published prose using the term in the contexts you describe. Again, I am not suggesting that you are wrong. There are numerous things that I believe to be true that are not included (as facts) in this or any other serious encyclopaedia. Encyclopaedias are brevia collections of knowledge that has already appeared elsewhere. They should not originate knowledge that has not appeared elsewhere. If you can find a reference (or ideally, multiple references) that support your viewpoint and conform to the agreed, consensus policies and guidelines of wikipedia, then state those sources here or in the article proper. If you wish, we could refer this issue to a mutually-agreed third-party, although it is a shame to waste their time and a bit of an admission of mutual failure on our part if two reasonable people cannot come to some sort of consensus based on rational argument. As to your other, less important point- I was not aware that 'Jethro' actually had any negative connotations. The only 'Jethro' I was ever aware of was the band (based on a folk character I think?) Jethro Tull. The reason why I mistakenly typed 'Jethro' instead of 'Jeffro' (not a huge difference) is because I was paying more attention to your argument than to your username. I can only apologise for this, it was a genuine mistake. Assume good faith. I will alter the article tomorrow unless you (or me, or a third-party) can come up with adequate source or reference material. Badgerpatrol 23:59, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

An article originally written in 1998 at "Witness Aid UK" (http://www.wauk.freeserve.co.uk/control.htm - no longer operating), and currently at http://www.uq.net.au/~zzmstefa/JWMINDCONTROL.htm makes reference to the use of "Borg" to refer to the Witness organization. Also, the 1999 first annual conference of "A Common Bond" (a support group for gay ex-Jehovah's Witnesses) was entitled "Resistance is Fertile - Life In & Out of the Borg" (http://www.gayxjw.org/conference.html ).--Jeffro77 10:02, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Jeffro- Thank-you for the links. I must confess, I still retain serious doubts as to whether this is a term used widely (even by Jehovah's Witnesses- I note that the text on the conference website (designed surely for a very restrictive, expert group) actually explains the term when it first appears, which is not what one would expect if it was in common use). I also note that, so far, no-one has offered any objective evidence whatsoever for use in other contexts (the wiki article mentions 4 or 5 alternative meanings), and I am not really comfortable in the first instance that the two links you provide are credible, reliable sources (as defined here on wikipedia). Nevertheless, in order to avoid argument, I will re-write the piece including the two links as citations and leave it to other editors to sort it out in the future (in the meantime, perhaps better reference sources may become available). Cheers, Badgerpatrol 23:07, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Bad Science: queen ant/Borg queen analogy

'The function of the Borg Queen within the Borg seems to be that of a coordinator, as in an ant colony, and less so of a leader in the traditional sense'

If I understand this sentence correctly, it is a poor analogy. The queens of eusocial insects are not coordinators in their society; they are merely reproductives (egg machines). They only coordinate in the sense that if they exist, the nest exists. Most ant behavior is hard-wired in instinct. Although ants have the capacity to communicate through pheromones and kineasthetic interaction, the organisation is in no way hierarchical; it is more decentralised and anarchic. These adaptions enable ants to antagonistically-respond to environmental factors such as food supplies and seasonal variations. If the queen is removed, the colony does not disassociate into chaos; it continues to function with the specific exclusions of tending to the queen and her offpsring. Of course, its numbers dwindle and it produces no reproductive drones.

A better analogy is that the Borg Queen is the primary hub of a star topology distributed computing network. This analogy is highly appropriate given the idea that the queen is a coordinator, and that borg individuals are fitted with computer-like implants. It is worth noting that the organisation of the borg collective is, in theory, poorly scaleable (adding more drones could create a bandwidth bottleneck). It is also failure prone with dire consequences, as the old captain Janeway demonstrated.

Hope you all like the interesting links:D ChrisJMoor

Interesting links. Remember, this is a discussion about science fiction: though there is always room for improvement, the analogy is appropriate and one that a newbie can easily understand. Perhaps the Borg Queen should be characterised (as well) as a sort of first among equals: one unique drone, among many. The Borg are automata, after all, so the dichotomy between programming and 'instinct' is blurred. Furthermore, the star network analogy may be incorrect: the Borg Queen's function may or may not be integral to the hive (given the Borg's multiple-redundancy), so failures may merely be isolated in nature and not cataclysmic (as they can be in a star network). E Pluribus Anthony 19:19, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I think that the function of the Borg Queen is that of a thought police. If the Borg is a collective, it would be likely that it would collectively decide to disband. In my view, the Borg Queen exists to block "unacceptable" decisions. I also think that it is likely that there is a Queen subcollective, rather than a single Queen. This would explain the continuity of the Queen despite a Queen being destroyed in "Best of Both Worlds".--RLent 05:20, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello! Interesting; though all of this is supposition, I agree with the 'thought police' notion, but I don't think they would disband: they likely wouldn't know what to do at all ... hence the Queen "bring[ing] order to chaos." I also agree about the Queen's multiredundancy, but we don't know the precise form of that. Thanks! E Pluribus Anthony 11:31, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Although there would be chaos, I think that going home would be one of the few common goals that the Bog would have without something to prevent this. Few, if indeed any drones were added to the collective voluntarily. I would guess that if there is a Queen subcollective, the queen drones are distributed aboard many ships.--RLent 02:07, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

It is by technological devices such as Borg vincula (Star Trek: Voyager episode "Infinite Regress") that co-ordinate thoughts in the hive mind to "bring order to chaos". There is insufficient evidence to suggest that the Borg queen fills this role solely. Additionally, the events of Star Trek: First Contact predate the queen's appearance in Star Trek: Voyager, which suggests that it is not necessarily the same individual (except for the provision of a non-linear temporal existence of the Borg queen). It is also speculatively possible that all members of Species 125 are genetically identical and that more than one serves as a Borg queen.--Jeffro77 08:42, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Cultural allusion

I don't really know anything about Star Trek, but thought I'd comment on the cultural allusion paragraph, which I find quite interesting. Is the part about the Borg representing no real world state universally accepted? The whole 'hive mind' and man-machine concept seems to me like a (strongly hostile) take on the ideals of socialism(the hive mind representing the fear that collectivism will eliminate individual thought) - such as one could expect to find in American Cold War culture. In other words, though the Klingons/Romulans may already have represented the Soviet Union and China, to the untrained eye the Borg sure looks like another take on communism. If anyone knows anything about this, it'd be interesting if they'd care to expand on it.

Furthermore, perhaps the sentence about the Ferengi could be improved - as it stands it could be taken to imply that Japanese people are "annoying, but cute comic relief characters", which surely wasn't intended. -83.109.21.112

The way I always interpreted it, the Borg represent socialism at its worst while the TNG-era Federation represents socialism at its best.

---

I take great issue with "There is little doubt that the Klingon Empire represented the Soviet Union and the Romulan Empire represented mainland China in the geopolitical situation of the Star Trek universe in the original series and some of the subsequent films."

The bad guys in TOS is a recreation of WWII good vs evil.

Klingons are recreations of historical Japanese/Samurai. Their ancestry worship, clans, honor system, weapons and martial arts emphasis are clearly extensions of kamikaze and feudal Japan.

Romulans are the Nazis with strict militaristic hierarchy, technological superiority, racial elitism.

---

While there might be something to the Borg being "communists", I think it more clearly tilts toward the Borg being a large multinationalist capitalist organization. The Borg ship even looks like an office building. The mission of the Borg is simple -- to spread Borg-ness and acquire technology -- and that's roughly analagous to globalization. I would argue that the Borg are a dystopic vision of America as a corporate empire, and not supposed to represent another country.

I think the Borg character arises partly from the anxiety people have over losing their individuality to an organization, and the primary organization people contend with is the company they work for. Many of the fears of surveillance, control over your own biology, and invasive technology are expressed via the Borg, and indirectly, I think also reflect fears of corporations and the government.

http://www.geocities.com/PicketFence/5192/isb.html

I think that most science fiction tends to revel in the anxieties of the present. In the TOS, American discomfort over its imperialist past came out as the "Prime Directive", which was a rule that "allowed" for exploration, but only without conquest. This was the dream of liberal democracy, spreading into places with a kinder-gentler expansionism. It must have had great appeal as we were bombing Vietnam.

Guinan

Guinan is certainly present on Earth in the 19th century, but as a refugee? She is seen as one of a whole bunch of refugees in ST: Generations. In "Time's Arrow" she is implied to have run away from home. --Tarquin 20:11, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

That's why I pulled the following section out of the main article;

1. Guinan (played by Whoopi Goldberg) is over 600 years old, and tells Captain Picard that her planet was destroyed by Borg. As she is apparently already a refugee in the 19th century on Earth, this would place Borg within travelling distance at that time. This places Borg far too close to have overlooked Earth, and given their totalitarian expansion philosophy it seems unlikely they would have (although they may still have decided not to, since at least one species (Kazon) has been derided as "unworthy of assimilation" by the Borg)

The reason I did that was because Guinan was not a refugee during her 19th century visit to Earth. In this episode it's implied that she either ran away from home, or she had gone to Earth with the knowledge and permission of her family, in order to listen to the people of Earth. I'm leaning towards she went with the knowledge of her family. I would think if she ran away from home that either her father himself would have come to Earth for her, or a close family member would have gone to Earth for her. That to me makes more sense than sending a complete stranger to Earth for her.

Also, the El Aurian homeworld was not destroyed until just after the events in the sixth Star Trek movie, and the Lakul and her sister ship were near Earth at the same time the Enterprise-B went on what was supposed to be a run around the solar system. They were still fairly close to the Terran solar system when the Nexus hit the Lakul and her sister ship. --JesseG 03:56, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Why did Q do it?

What was the excuse that Q gave to Picard for why he caused the contact between Humans and the Borg? We are in dispute here. I recall that he said something like, "If I did not do it, by the time you would have had contact with the Borg their empire would have been too strong for the Federation to defeat it." The other view is that Q was just trying to teach Picard a lesson and was not trying to help the Federation.

In "Q Who?", Q requests to be taken aboard the Enterprise, because he has been kicked out of the Q continuum. Picard naturally declines. Q insists that the humans need him to be prepared for what they will meet on their journies. Picard responds that he is not needed, and that they are quite ready for what awaits them. (Famous last words.) This prompts Q to move the Enterprise in the path of the Borg cube. After the encounter, Q asks Picard, "Do you still think that you are ready?" In short, Q makes a point of demonstrating human insufficiency, after having been denied "employment" on the Enterprise. That seemed to be his only motivation.

Emblem

The emblem on the front of this article is not the emblem of the "Borg Collective". This emblem was only associated with the rogue Borg that were under the sway of the android Lore. Never since, nor even at that time was it insenuated that that emblem was a designator for the Collective. As such, I am making the appropriate revisions. || THOR 22:37, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Inspiration of the title "I, Borg"

The text states that this episode was named for the Asimov collection. However, the plot is more of a tribute to the (unrelated) short story of the same name (and its appearances on "The Outer Limits" starring Lenard Nemoy). Unless someone really knows what the author was thinking when the title was written, I'm changing the reference. —DÅ‚ugosz

What's a 29th Century?

"In the episode "Drone" the Doctor's mobile emitter combines with Seven of Nine's technology to form a 29th century. Its capabilities include an internal teleporter, speech cababilities, and the ability to reproduce sexually."

I was just wondering what a 29th century was. If it was a mistype, or what? I'm not much of a trekkie (I enjoy it, just don't have time to watch TV), but it seems to be needing a name. Or maybe I'm wrong. Quite possable, honestly.

Feel free to erase this post if it really is supposed to be 29th century. Thanks!

The mobile holoemiter is supposed to be a piece of future technology. In recent Star Treks (Voyager and why-the-heck-are-we-pretending-it-to-be-a-canon-Enterprise) time travel is pretty common, and Voyager got it during one of them. Taw 03:26, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Soviets and Chinese

There is little doubt that the Klingon Empire represented the Soviet Union and the Romulan Empire represented mainland China in the geopolitical situation of the Star Trek universe in the original series and some of the subsequent films.

I call bullshit. There's nothing even remotely Soviet-like in Klingons. The "Klingons as samurai" story has way more credibility. The Romulans are clearly modelled after ancient Romans, not anything close to the Cold War mainland Chinese.

I agree Romulan has a very eerie similarity with ancient Rome empire. Romulus and Remus created the city rome and Romulus is the romulan home planet and remus is the moon. Romulans have senate, centurion, prefect. But klingons, I believe were orginally modelled for mongols and later on to soviet union. In the bonus DVD the director also compare the klingon and federation conflict to israel/palestinian conflict.

I don't know who started this meme, but it must be killed here and now. Taw 20:20, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There were some pretty clear Cold War parallels in Star Trek VI, one that comes to mind is the explosion of Praxis and the Chernobyl disaster.

Do Borg Know about Q?

The Borg think they are perfect yet they seem unaware of The Q. I emailed a long message about this to a friend of Jeri Ryan and a year later Q's son met Seven of Nine on an episode of voyager. Yet, so far The Borg Queen has never met any of The Q and she seems unaware that they exist and are impossible for the borg to do anything about. I think this must be noted somewhere. Thodin 21:38, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Q: If the Continuum's told you once, they've told you a thousand times, Junior...DON'T PROVOKE THE BORG!! -Lordraydens 08:55, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Luddite prophecy?

I googled this phrase and all I got were half dozen copies of this exact article on various other free encyclopedias.

"The Borg, with their frightening appearance, immense power, and most importantly a no-nonsense, totally sinister motive became the signature villains for the Next Generation era of Star Trek. Its strongest definition is most probably the fearful Luddite prophecy."

so what the hell is a Luddite prophecy? Vroman

I don't know exactly, but taking a guess here. A luddite dislikes technological change and the Borg do whatever they can to make change (assimilation). So to a luddite, the borg represent the worst thing imaginable. Cburnett 16:41, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

I made the same guess, but its a pretty obscure reference and should be explained better Vroman

I happen to have a little knowledge relevant to this question. Recently, a newly emergent philosophy known as Transhumanism has begun to develop which advocates the usage of newly developing technologies such as genetic engineering, nanotechnology and robotics/artificial intelligence (all technologies used by the Borg) to enhance human beings beyond their natural state and to create a super-race of posthumans who will take over humanity's role as explorers, discoverers, and subjugators of the world around us, a task that they would be infinitely more suited to due to the fact of their vastly superior collective intellect (Borg Collective) and that they would be able to re-engineer themselves to fit any situation imaginable (Borg Adaptation). Before one dismisses these ideas as science-fictional noodlings taken too seriously, one should note that the majority of Academia involved in the hard sciences now agrees that technology has gathered to it such a momentum that within the next hundred years we will become capable of making human capabilities obsolete. If one does not believe what I say, read the works of many prominent scientific experts; Stephen Hawking's book The Universe in a Nutshell, for one unusually well-known example, has a chapter which analyses whether or not our future might ever be Star Trek-like, in which he concludes "no", stating quite flatly that before we reach the level of Warp Drives and Tachyon Physics, we will be likely to have long ago developed ways of surpassing human abilities, and thusly the only way a Star Trek-world might come about is if such a thing had already happened and natural human beings had somehow managed to miraculously overcome it (a theme dealt with in greater detail in Enterprise than in any other of the series). Back to the point, however; Transhumanism is only one wavelength in the spectrum of philosophical thought which can be accurately defined under the little known term of Cosmism, coined by Hugo de Garis, which believes that human technology is now advancing so quickly that our own technology will invariably overtake us in all ways in the relatively near future, and that this situation is not necessarily a bad one. The opposite philosophy to Cosmism is Terranism, which believes as Star Trek seems to believe, that Cosmism is inherently wrong, and that human beings should attempt to avoid this "technological revolution" and that although technology may be a good thing, that it can only be good when it is used as a tool by natural human beings. Terranism encompasses such diverse philosophies as soft Terranism, which simply believes that when we figure out genetic engineering and Data-like androids, that they should be our servants and not our masters; it also encompasses many hard-line philosophies like neo-Luddism which says that all technologies which go beyond the natural human limits are inherently evil because of the purported fact that humanity is a natural pinnacle and is evolutionarily perfect. As the tension of an inevitable ideological struggle builds between these two emergent philosophies, naturally, both sides have developed epitaphs and bad words for each other. Cosmists commonly call Terrans Luddites because of the perceived aversion to technology, and the inevitable rallying cry of Terrans is the Star Trek-like struggle against an inhuman Borg-force, something which is inarguably superior but which one would nevertheless never what to be a part of. This may help to shed some light on your Borg and Luddite references. -jove

(Superior) transhumanistic technology does not automatically entail a superior (Borg-like) collective intellect. A Borg-like collective intellect will require a lot more (knowledge and intelligence sharing, etc. technology). --Abelani, 21:59, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Of course, nothing automatically entails something else, it depends on how these things go, I'm simply pointing out that like all political movements, Terrans and Cosmists like to generalize each other's philosophies beyond all reason, specifically so that these philosophies do seem unreasonable. Cosmists like to boil down Terranism to "Technology is bad. Let's all live simple lives like nature intended."-style Primitivism, while Terrans like to boil down Cosmism or Transhumanism to the Borg, or Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines or something to that effect. I'm just trying to shed some light on the reference about the Borg as a Luddite prophecy. Such terms can be a bit obscure if you're starting from the standpoint of no knowledge regarding these particular issues; it would be like somebody from the 1800's trying to understand a debate about Abortion, when you're not familiar with the technology or the terminology used to describe it. For more information on the topic, two quick and informative places to visit would be on this website: Transhumanism and Technological singularity, these briefly explore the topics, but the true wealth of information can be accessed from the external links in those sections. -jove

The See Also Section

Hello there. I've added the Reavers, the nomadic cannibals from Firefly into the "See Also" section. They're not exactly the same as the Borg, nor am I aware of what the similarities are (Haven't seen much Trek), but from what I can tell, they're definitely similar. Hydragon 08:27, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Both are similar in that they're juggernauts. :) I also like the other recent addition, "We, Borg." E Pluribus Anthony 05:10, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm familiar with both mythologies, and I would disagree pretty strongly that the Reavers belong here. The Reavers are vicious, brutal, and unthinking--aggression personified. They mortify their own flesh and seek only to kill. They have no philosophy as such, and although they seem to lack individuality, they don't appear to have any overarching organization, either. The Borg are coldly intellectual, organized, and motivated by a distinct, abstract, philosophical goal. Although both possess zombie-like unthinking implacability, I don't think that's sufficient to draw the parallel. I would recommend that the bullet point on Reavers be removed from this section entirely.--216.43.17.100 19:17, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I would like to bring up that my adiition of Death's Head II to this section should not have been removed, as the two concepts are similar. The Death's Head II, as I mentioned in that article addition, is similar yet different, comparable to the Borg in his existence and the fact that he does in fact assimilate others, but is not a collective in the way the Borg are.

The Death's Head II link does not belong here. As you stated in your edit, he is nearly the complete opposite of the Borg. This is not, by any version of the english language, 'similar.' If we are to begin adding any subject to See Also, merely to compare the Borg to them when there is only the slightest connection between the two, I fully expect to see Microsoft and Darth Vader added to the list, as both are closer to the subject material than Death's Head II. - Hayter 17:59, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

While Death's Head II is in most way opposite to the Borg, he IS a cyborg which uses assimilation in order to gain new skills. Which is among the things listed in that edit. I placed it in the see also section because of the similarities between the two, such as the fact that both are collectives, both assimilate others, and of course, both adapt to attacks from opponents. The differences are that Death's Head II is a singular being containing multiple minds and that he is a passionate and emotional being. This was all in that edit. I have never seen any of the other things mentioned in the see also section, and as even the editor who placed the Reavers on the list states, that edit does not truly relate to the Borg in terms of comparable, if not copmpletely similar concepts. Just figured I'd point this out, as that feels like a double standard to me.

Comparison with Islam

Original statements

This section has been deleted many times. The greatest contribution of Wikipedia is to free speech. Unfortunately there are always those that wish to stifle it. To give in to attempts to censor uncomfortable truths and to silence opinions is to submit to those repressive forces that Wikipedia seeks to defeat. If you disagree with this article then write a re-buttle and let the force of your argument show through instead of simply deleting it. Evil succeeds where good men do nothing.

Ideology Many modern commentators have drawn a comparison between the Borg and the ideology of Al Qaeda and fundamentalist Islam. Just as the avowed aim of the borg is to assimilate all non-borg civilisations, so fanatical Muslims desire to make the whole world Islam, by force if necessary. Both the Borg and radical Islam believe not only that other cultures should be assimilated into their own, but that peaceful co-existance with those cultures who refuse cannot be counternanced. It should also to be noted that very few Borg are ever de-assimilated; in a similar way that in radical Islam, the price for converting to another faith is death, so very few convert out.

Capabilities Like modern Islamic terrorism, the Borg are equipped not only with an unshakeable ideology but a decentralised structure with high levels of redundancy that makes them incredibly difficult to defeat. They can adapt very rapidly to measures opponents devise to defeat them, and learn quickly from their adversaries tactics and weaknesses.In a similar way one sees That you should convert or suffer the consequences in this life or the next.

The Borg most strongly resembled radical Islam in their first incarnations. Most Star Trek fans consider the early Borg to be more powerful and truly implacable enemies than they have subsequently become. For instance, in their first encounter with the Borg in Q Who, the Next Generation crew initially see the Borg as another interesting species to study and to engage with, naivelly confident even after the Enterprise is attacked that the Borg will respond to reason once they understand them. This can be read in retrospect as naive western liberal politics coming up against the resolute implacability of Islam. Later in "The Best of Both Worlds" this naitvete is disabused and the Borg are presented an as out and out threat to the very survival of the Federation's way of life,s s striking at its very centre. The creation of the "Borg Queen" has been a rather futile effort at humanising the Borg. The fundimental point here is that the borg are not human and attitute is as unacceptible as it is non-negotiable. A similar state of affairs exists between the West and radical Islam.

Discussion

Criticisms

I personally think that the comparisons between the Borg and Islam should be removed entirely, particularly in the view that the Al Queda wasn't really big in world news during the time the Borg were conceived.--Vercalos 17:58, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Some flaws with the post:

• It is posted in the wrong place. If it has to be posted, it must be much lower somewhere - not on top and above the Overview.
• There are major spelling and grammatical errors in the post.
• Just who are the "Many modern commentators"?
• Fanatical Muslims desire to kill a whole lot more than to convert. The Borg do not by default desire to kill.
• The Borg are truly powerful, while fanatical Muslims are not. Moreover, they (fanatics) do not quickly learn from their adversaries tactics.
• The Borg are not entirely non-negotiable. There was a temporary deal between them and the Voyager crew.
• The Borg only assimilate technology and species that are sufficiently advanced. For example, as extracted from the article, Seven of Nine once stated to Neelix that the Kazon were not worth assimilating because they would not add to the Borg's perfection. In contrast, radical Islamists want to convert everyone to Islam.

--Abelani 2:44, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Hello! Agreed: the comparisons between the Borg and Islam are uncited and POV: any belief set may have parallels to the Borg and singling out Islam just highlights the bias of the user(s) who persist in including it in the article. E Pluribus Anthony 18:51, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Reply to criticisms

I will try to reply to critisms point by point.

Firstly, I am quite happy to correct the grammatical errors and post it in a different section of the article; however I fear that this will not really change your opinion of the article.

Two, your comments that the borg seek to assimilate/convert and not to kill; I would be happy to remove the references to killing. For it is the avowed aim of all true Muslims that the whole world should become muslim. A uniform world of conformity; a Borg ideal.

What I try to make clear is that the article refers to the initial incarnation of the Borg. That implacable, non-negotiable entity that equates with a philosophy that sees all other religions as inferior and ripe for conversion. As this philosophy is so far removed from the norms of freedom of religion that we cherish the writers naturally amended this initial into a form people could more readily identify. A more negotiable, more understandable, more liberal form. And you’re right this has less relevance to radical Islam.

No Muslim country is a signatory to the UN convention on the freedom of religion. Why is this? This is because in Islam the price for converting out of Islam is death. Indeed one receives a reward in the afterlife for killing members of ones family that perform such apostasy. In a similar way few convert from being borg.

I am not saying that the writers when they first created the Borg meant to create an analogy to Islam. Nonetheless in its initial incarnation the Borg were emblematic of radical islam.

So finally, if I amend the grammatical errors, remove the references to killing, make it clear that it refers to the first form/impression of the Borg and site it near the cultural allusions section of the article will you allow it to be included. Or is the actual problem the subject matter? Free speech is total or it is nothing at all. Unfortunately radical Muslims have threatened, cajoled, and silenced anyone who dares to make any direct criticism of Islam. This has resulted in a climate of fear where comedians will refuse to make any jokes about Islam after the death threat issued against Salman Rushdie in the early 90’s. Salman Rushdie wrote a fictional book about the birth of islam. Film makers make no films directly criticising islam, after the killing of Theo Van Gogh. Van Gogh made a film criticising the treatment of women under islam. He was stabbed to death by a muslim.

I don’t know whether or not you’re a muslim. I don’t know whether or criticism of my article is due to the causes listed in your entry or due to the fact that I criticised islam. Whether or not you feel that islam is beyond criticism or you fear Wikipedia will receive a fatwa. But silencing an opinion you disagree with is something that I would never do. For although I may disagree or have distain for your opinion I will always defend your right to hold it.

Hello. Unfortunately, the comparisons between the Borg and Islam are uncited and point-of-view (POV): any belief set may have parallels to the Borg, and singling out Islam is biased. For example, the Borg may also be emblematic of Christians during the Crusades, et al.; perhaps both are better compared to juggernauts instead. Ultimately in Wp, it's not a matter of free speech, or even about truth: it's about including information that can be cited from authoritative or reputable works and verified with a neutral point of view. Moreover, a consensus (or more correctly, a supermajority in this case) must agree to include this or that. The Borg/Islam information added currently fulfills none of these. E Pluribus Anthony 18:51, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Dear Sir/Madam

It is the first created attempt at a rebuttal. I would just point out the following. Your first critique of my article states it to be a biased work. Later you state that it is not the design of Wp to pursue free speech or truth but to create a sourced work that conforms to the consensus view. A basic understanding of consensus would reveal that it varies with culture, ethnicity and most importantly time. So necessarily, consensus is biased. Whether or not you feel the bias is slight or great, the consensus view on all things from Julius Caesar to the nature of time has changed through the ages, based on the current opinion i.e. it was biased. Furthermore, all sourced material is based on a person’s opinion of given evidence, and thus is prone to bias. If you have studied history, law, science, art or religion on you would know that all opinion is biased to some degree, and that degree is most effectively judged in posterity.

Thus, although I don’t feel your point about bias is remotely relevant, I do feel consensus is important. How is consensus arrived at? Well, commonly one issues a piece of work to be read, digested and analysed by ones colleagues, peers and public. Then opinion is canvassed, and consensus is achieved.

Unfortunately, your repeated attempts to delete my entry is simply censorship. If you genuinely wanted to see if consensus exists you would allow it to be read by the widest readership and, if necessary, write your own counter opinion.

Finally, and to be honest the very least, the analogy of the Borg to the Islam is not related to whether or not the writers meant this to exist. It captures a zeitgeist. I don’t strongly believe the ancient Romans or Hindu gods are trying to conquer, oppress and convert, to the repeal those freedoms we most cherish.

I would advice you read a little on the topic. Maybe start with the Quran. Then read about the relationship for islam to other communities in Nigeria, Sudan, Cypress, India, the Caucuses, Western China, Thailand, South-East Asia, the UK and so on.

Consensus is based on free speech and free thought. Consensus without free speech is simply the dictates of the tyrant, similar to those of the borg

• You still need to register and sign-in, so we can refer to you by a name and correctly track your changes. Please consider using common Wikipedia conventions, such as correctly indenting and signing your comments, etc.
• As also mentioned earlier, there are similarities between Borg and a lot of things - just one of which may be radical-Islam. Just a few other things that cherish attributes of the Borg include Microsoft (due to its largely post-innovation-assimilationist nature), Linux (due to its open-source collectivist nature), communism (again due to its collectivist nature), and a lot of other things under the sun. Are we then going to draw detailed comparisons of those because they resemble (just) a subset of attributes of the Borg?
• When making a comparison, you've to consider everything known about the Borg - consider them as a whole, and not just what was known "early-on". There are some serious differences between the Borg and radical-Islam. In addition to those stated previously, here's one more: The Borg often did not assimilate a planet all-at-once, but in rounds, so as to get newer technology every time. Radical Islamists on the other hand would want to convert everyone to Islam at the same time if they could.
• Have you thought that you may actually be elevating radical-Islam to Borg status, given that almost all who read the Borg article are fans.

--Abelani, 21:50, 27 November, 2005

Unfortunately, your arguments are somewhat flawed. I agree with Abelani. In accordance with Wp policies and procedures, and in the course of this discussion, you have not cited anything reputable (providing references) to support your position or contribution. Absence – or minimisation – of bias and neutral point of view are at the core of Wikipedia, and your discussion/argument is lacking in both of these. We cannot verify your information, so it doesn't belong in Wp in its current form. Moreover, in this canvass: at least three users have opposed this information vis-à-vis your sole support of it: this is as close to arriving at a consensus or unanimity, with or without discussion, as there can be. The article has also been locked because of your repeated attempts to include this information without discussion, in contravention of policies and consensus. Lastly: you should refrain from being pejorative in your commentary — read up a bit more on Wp process and historiography before advancing arguments and attempting to build consensus. End communication. E Pluribus Anthony 21:54, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

For additional users' opinions (all of whom are unanimous in their opinions that this has no place on Wikipedia), see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Borg and Radical Islam. --Nlu 23:24, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Unprotecting

Now that we actually do have a conversation going on the topic, anybody object to my unprotecting the article in about one and a half hours (if I don't fall asleep before then)? --Nlu 23:25, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Fine by me! :) E Pluribus Anthony 23:30, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Unprotected. Please note I will reprotect if things go back the way they were before the protection. --Nlu 01:12, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Acknowledged; as well, have decisions been made regarding the related article and its nomination for deletion, which apparently has unanimous support? E Pluribus Anthony 19:46, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Language

I strongly believe the borg communicate with machine language fundementaly. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 12:10, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Transformers? Really?

So much of so many Star Trek races' "histories" are wrapped up in noncanon and fanfics and what have you that it's virtually impossible to be both canonical and comprehensive while satisfying inquizitive minds. However, a lot of the speculation of the origins of the Borg reads like the What If series. Unreconcilable time travel schemes? Megatron City? Conjecture in here, solidify out there. -Unregistered User

Perhaps. However, there is indeed a fanfiction in which the Borg capture and assimilate Megatron, which at one point was available over the internet. And while conjecture is certainly interesting to read, in this case, I had posted that particular passage, along with the Death's head II passage (which DOES in fact relate to the Borg as it is a semi-similar concept, though a study in reversal in terms of his differences from them), because it is a suggestion of how some fans might interpret the 'machine world' to be, given that the Borg's centrul hub resembvles nothing even similar to an actual planet. PlaneTOID, perhaps, but not a planet, whereas V'Ger was said to have been pulled into the Machine Planet via is't gravity. We know that Cybertron has gravity, and so it is a source of possibility that may be explored by fanfiction writers, even if such has not happened yet. After all, historically speaking, the events of Beast Wars are not completely historically possible because the original Voyager probe was launched before the Transformers themselves awoke aboard the ark when Mt. Saint Hilary erupted in 1984.

Telepathy? (!)

The Borg do not use telepathy. As Cybernetic-Organic entites, they use technology. As was seen in Voyager, they blocked their signals to Seven of Nine by shutting off her sub-space radio connection (or something radio). They are not telepathic. If there is no dissent, I move to change the article to reflect the situation as portrayed in the series BoLingua

Picard

Picard was clearly not biochemically assimilated in the standard Borg sense as often seen later. His face remained Picard's, and his skin did not change. Anthony Appleyard 21:28, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

This is supposition. And I beg to differ: in the episode "The Best of Both Worlds", Dr. Crusher mentions (after Locutus/Picard's reabduction) that the Borg implants were infiltrating him on a cellular level (i.e., rewriting his DNA) and, since they got him early enough, she could reverse the damage and remove the implants through microsurgery. In addition, Star Trek: First Contact implies that his assimilation was more than just "cut and paste" (e.g., with the 'spider' implant, a la later assimilations, emerging from his face during a dream, etc.); a retcon of sorts.

Moreover, some recent edits were grammatically incorrect or wanting of style, so I made edits appropriately and (in some instances) restored the status quo. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 21:48, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

There is evidence that Borg techonology remained present within Picard after his removal from the collective. Thereafter, he could feel the presence of Borg. Borg are not telepathic; that he could sense their presence is evidence of remnant Borg technology.--Jeffro77 21:56, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I wonder whether this was truly a technological remnant – which I wouldn't doubt, given that Seven of Nine still retained implants and 'hardware' (e.g., nanoprobes) long after her recovery – or one more related to ... the residual effects of the vast hive mind and related psionics (for lack of a better term). Various episodes involving telepathy, i.e., where technology is not present, have yielded similar residual effects. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 22:04, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

This was still not a typical assimilation as often seen later. His face remained as Picard's."the Borg implants were infiltrating him on a cellular level": In normal Borg assimilations this happens in a few minutes. In a Star Trek movie I saw a human man turning into a Borg inside his spacesuit, after a Borg injected him. With Picard this was happening very slowly, spreading from the implants. OK, the idea of Borg assimilation was still evolving in real time (film studio time), and that may cause inconsistencies in the fictional time line. Anthony Appleyard 07:23, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not saying it was typical: given Locutus' function, it was rather atypical. I'm saying Picard's assimilation occurred on as much a molecular level, as indicated in episodes, as others have (which the prior statements indicated) – the initial method of co-opting differs (and of course the process was refined throughout the course of the numerous series), but the results are the same. You will also note that this is fully addressed later on in the appropriate section of the article and need not be reiterated. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 08:49, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Queen's chambers

when the borg queen takes 7of9 to the unicomplex, the door to her chambers has a symbol on it that looks like the triskelion. any concurs out there? -Lordraydens 07:39, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Borg from V'ger theory

It was mentioned that Voyager 6 could not have made it very far even at maximum warp and therefore could not have gotten to the Delta quadrant. However, in the movie I believe it mentions that Voyager 6 went into a black hole or a wormhole only to emerge on the far side of the galaxy, aka Delta Quadrant. Despite this though, we have no idea where V'ger went after melding with a human. It was postulated that V'ger went off to explore other universes or dimensions, not the delta quadrant which it may very well have already visited in that uberpowerful ship of his.

V'ger from Borg theory

An additional critizism of this theory is that the ship V'ger had was way beyond what the Borg could have produced to give to V'ger at the time, in my opinion at least.

Agreed. The Borg have never shown any weaponry anywhere near as advanced as the giant plasma balls V'Ger used to take out the Klingons, the Epsilon Station, and almost the Enterprise.