Talk:Surak

Alternative Vulcan Salute?

White & Nerdy page refers to Surak as having an alternate form of vulcan-salute without a source, if this is the case it should be described here. Possibly the same as the V-sign? --Osndok 22:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

In case anyone else reads the above comment. The White & Nerdy article has since changed and no longer mentions Surak. In February 2007, after User:NeilFraser had added a statement about Yankovic's incorrect thumb position, an IP editor added the claim about Surak's alleged alternative Vulcan salute. Surak's salute, however, was correct and (thus) not like Yankovic's salute. Surak's salute can be seen in this (mirror) footage and in this image. Surak did not use an alternate form of the salute. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 13:28, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Links to analogous real-world philosophies?

1. I've added internal and external links to historical and modern real-world analogs of Surak/Vulcan philosophy, for readers who may want to learn about how such philosophies have been or are being applied in real life. I would welcome editors' consensus on whether such links to real-world analogs of Surak's philosophy are appropriate for this page (I, of course, believe they are appropriate, as well as important). The links I added are, first, the "Related topics" internal link to the historical, Surak-like philosophy, Stoicism; and, second, two "External links" to modern-day Surak-inspired or -analogous philosophies or movements, The Logic of Surak (www.surak.org) and The Circle of Reason (www.circleofreason.org).

2. Also, I'm a member and maintain the website of The Circle of Reason -- which I believe would represent a deletion-worthy conflict of interest were this group not expressly begun as a precise analog of Surak/Vulcan philosophy. Although I think this link merits inclusion objectively, I'm asking for a third party consensus on whether this link should be deleted, retained, or third-party re-posted later (if deleted in the interim). Also, noting additional organizations with potential Surak/Vulcan-like missions would be a fourth possibility, but all other such organizations of which I am aware trend either toward not expressly emphasizing reason as a primary goal (e.g., humanism and Universal Unitarianism); not encouraging the mastering of emotionality as a primary goal (e.g., Objectivism, which believes that emotions are a valid reflection of self-image, rather than potentially irrational biological impulses); or not permitting an agnostic or religious perspective in lieu of expressly encouraging atheism (e.g., strongatheism.net) -- a stance which seems incompatible with the more agnostic Star Trek/Vulcan/Katra/IDIC mythos. I now realize, after further reading of Wikipedia's "External link guidelines," that the most appropriate action when a potential conflict of interest exists would have been not to post the external Circle link unilaterally, but to have proposed to the Talk section that third parties consider posting it. In the spirit of trying to improve the impact of the Surak page for readers enticed by Gene Roddenberry's fictional philosopher, I've decided not to delete the Circle of Reason link outright, but to subject its existence to third-party consensus editorial judgment. So, should the link stay or go? In this regard, the Circle group will not be posting any Wikipedia page about itself, rather than this relevant link -- the group agrees with Wikipedia's "importance" policy stating that Wikipedia pages about new organizations are best created by unaffiliated third parties, as the group in question becomes more influential and noteworthy.

Fhburton 20:54, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Cultural Impact section is irrelevant

If Surak was a real person, and were he the originator of the Vulcan philosophy, then everything written about him in this section would apply to him personally. But he isn't, and the philosophy originated with Roddenberry and the rest of the producers of the original Star Trek. The paragraph is about the supposed effects of Surak's teachings on the real world, but it actually about Star Trek's impact on the world. Nowhere in the article does it say the character of Surak actually inspired real people in any way. Despite the sources (which don't really prove the point of the section), the whole section smells like original research to me and should be removed. hateless 11:18, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Hateless, we do not dream of Homer -- we dream of Odysseus, Helen of Troy, and Achilles; we do not dream of Bob Kane, we dream of The Batman; and we are not influenced by the poet, but by their poetry. Does not the fact that there exists a real, citable organization that is called "STARFLEET" and not "The Gene Roddenberry Fan Club" refute your above assertion that there has been no philosophical impact of specific Star Trek fictional entities and characters? Also, the warning against original research refers to primary scholarship, not to citing public data that fulfills Wikipedia's guideline that entries on fictional works or characters need to include information on their real-world Cultural Impact -- if there has been any. And the very presence of, for example, referenced documentary movies about Trekkers (which document many fans not just of Star Trek's science, like transporter technology, but also fans of Vulcan and Klingon characters and their ways of life) refutes both the implication that there has been no cultural impact of fictional Starfleet or Vulcan characters, and that such influence has not already been documented. If you are concerned with people mistaking the character of Surak for a real person, then your deleting references to Surak and Vulcan being "fictional" earlier in the article (which was clearly written to avoid the common fiction-review pitfall of an In-World perspective) while also recommending deletion of real-world cultural impact citations seems contradictory -- does it not? In any case, I would recommend that the Cultural Impact section remain, to fulfill Wikipedia's recommendation such treatments be present in articles on noteworthy fictional characters. And if you think an encyclopedia entry on the literary character of Surak should be deleted entirely, then so should not most other Star Trek character entries (live long and prosper, Spock?), all comic book entries (the death of Superman?), and many fictional characters in historical literature (get lost, Odysseus?). Deleting our dream worlds would make a very barren Wikipedia, would it not? Fhburton (talk) 00:49, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

You're misreading my comment. I never said the article on Surak should be deleted, only the Cultural impact section. Nor did I say Star Trek or its philosophies never affected anyone, as clearly it does. But we're not talking about Darth Vader here, who clearly deserves a section on their cultural impact--Surak is a very, very minor figure in the Star Trek canon, who barely passes the notability criteria. Surak is credited with the origination of Vulcan philosophy in the storyline, but in real life it did not originate from him. Nor do real people encounter Vulcan philosophy from the character of Surak, that can be instead credited to Spock. As for deleting "fictitious" in the copy, it's a copywriting issue, the multiple instances of "fictitious" were like beating a dead horse, only one suffices to make the point, and no meaning is changed. And it's very much besides the point: keeping the excessive use of "fictitious" in the copy while keeping the current tone of the Cultural impact section would make the article self-contradicting (not that it isn't still self-contradicting right now). I don't fear anyone taking Surak as a real person, but that doesn't excuse the article for implying that he is. hateless 16:56, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Although the article (correctly) notes there has been a real-world cultural impact from the philosophy espoused by this character, it nowhere implies that the character is real, particularly when great care is taken to note this is a work of fiction (compare this entry's treatment of the character to that of the Surak-Memory Alpha archive.) Perhaps you assume that a "fictional" philosophy (whether espoused by the fictional device of Surak, Starfleet, or Spock) can have no cultural impact? To presume fictional philosophies can have no real-world impact would not be a valid assertion -- which you noted yourself by bringing up Darth Vader (and, one presumes, his Jedi Knight/Zen-like pantheism.) Consider, as other examples, the 60's rejection of authority espoused by the lead character in the novel, The Catcher in the Rye, or the existentialism espoused in Nietzsche's novel, "Thus Spake Zarathustra," or John Galt and Howard Roark's philosophies in Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead. Did Ayn Rand's Libertarian philosophy have no impact on society until she finally compiled her non-fictional recaps of the main principles espoused by her fictional characters? Fiction is considered a legitimate way for its writers to espouse real principles and values -- that's the very reason why Wikipedia wants cultural impact sections for its fiction entries. Deleting such entries would invalidate the reality that this Star Trek character's philosophy, as the fictional vehicle reflecting the humanistic philosophy of Star Trek's creator and writers, touches a nerve with many Star Trek fans. That impact is real and major (even if the founding character is merely a footnote in Vulcan backstory) and thus should be noted. And if you cannot put aside the concern that a major fictional philosophy, reflecting the message of Gene Roddenberry and later Star Trek writers, is put in the mouth of a "minor" character bordering on un-noteworthy, simply moving the cultural impact section to the Spock or Vulcan Wikis and turning this Surak entry into a stub would still force one to recap the philosophy of the Spock character and or the Vulcan backstory from which their philosophy of logic was elaborated. So, it should be considered that there is more than one way to evaluate how minor a character is -- it can be minor to a plot sequence, but major in terms of the message of the writers. So I still vote to keep the Cultural Impact section. The philosophy is real, even if presented by Roddenberry only via a literary device. Fhburton (talk) 00:49, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe you actually read or understood any of my comments.hateless 01:56, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, then I'll try again; you're arguing that inclusion of a Cultural Impact section for the Surak wiki would better pertain to the Spock (or even Star Trek) wiki, because Surak was only a minor character. You also argue that there is no (or insufficient?) documentation, via, say, the Trekkies documentary movies' citations, that this specific Surak character or its fictive philosophy has had any real world impact on people. If that is an accurate summary of your arguments, then I would respectfully still disagree, arguing in reply that in fact the documentary interviews indeed do illustrate there are many people influenced by the Surak character or its philosophy -- either directly, or through the characters of Spock, Vulcans in general, or Starfleet, who adhere to and reflect that fictive philosophy. And I would likewise still suggest that, rather than devoting one large Cultural impact section only to an entire saga (e.g., Star Trek), it is best to additionally supply an individuated Cultural impact section to each individual character within the saga whose portrayal and associated fictitious elements (e.g., character quotes, philosophies, or stories) have had any individuated (character-related) cultural significance or impact. For example, the characters of Spock and Worf largely differ but have some shared cultural impacts (e.g., public awareness of racial intermarriage vs. xenophobia, seeking balance between logic and emotionality). Other social impacts are shared by, say, Spock and Surak (e.g., adherence to logic), with each character also having individuated cultural impacts (e.g., Spock's ability to transcend differences in common purpose with very different people [like Kirk and McCoy]; Surak's teachings of societal commitment to logic, reason, and non-violence; Worf's [and Kahless'] warrior philosophy of honor free from deception) -- all of which would seem most appropriately treated in Cultural impact sections within their individual Wiki entry (as generally recommended anyway for fictional Wiki entries.) So I think I understand what you're proposing, Hateless -- but I do disagree, and recommend we await others' opinions. Fhburton (talk) 23:34, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

How about a compromise? Maybe we should keep all the info (including the cultural impact) and relocate it somewhere else? I have found this article through a google search and was kind of surprised it existed. Not that I would mind, it is a nicely written article, and I am of course interested in Surak and his philosophy, or I would not have googled him, but – I did not expect him to have his own entry on Wikipedia, therefore I did not even try a search here. I may not be the only one – don't you think that maybe more people would benefit from the work that has been done on this, if it is merged with a larger article? Also, it may be nicer to have everything in context, resulting in one encompassing entry that may be listed as a “good article”, instead of a whole bunch of (more or less) stubs. Including it in "Star Trek" would only confuse things, it's too minor in the context, and the entry is nice as it is. But the article on Vulcans (which has been marked "of high importance" in the Star Trek project, and rightfully so) would benefit a lot from these informations, imho. Suraks philosophy is largely missing there, even though it is the basics of their whole culture. I would put Suraks teaching first under "Culture", including IDIC and emotional control (the latter is now mingled under the rather arbitrary heading "psychology" together with "telepathy", which should actually be part of the "Biology" section). Surak himself is already mentioned in the history section of that article, so the information here is largely redundant – a search could just be forwarded there instead (and missing details added). Relocating the informations would also solve the problem of who actually inspires people interested in Vulcan philosophy - is it Surak? Spock? Sarek? Syrran? Isn't it rather the whole of their race and their culture? The same argument could, by the way, be applied to the entry about Kahless, and the one about the Klingon people.Aishalanea (talk) 08:40, 24 October 2009 (UTC)