In the script for "Broken Link" Kira says "the Klingons relinquished their claims to Archanis Four a hundred years ago". That would put the date in the 23rd century, not the 22nd century as stated in the article.
Khitomer accords Edit
I am removing the sentence claiming that the Klingons formally relinquished the Archanis sector in the Khitomer Accords. The episode and script make no such statement. I am guessing that this is based on the time period and likely possible events of the time, but it doesn't jibe well enough to make that assumption. The episode takes place in 2372, 79 years after the signing of the Khitomer Accords (2293), not "a hundred years". Sure, "a hundred years" is probably not exact, but we are talking more than 20% difference, 21 years. Too large a margin of error if you ask me. Far more likely is that the sector was turned over in the Treaty of Organia, which was signed in 2267, or 105 years before the episode. 105 is well within the realm of a statement of "a hundred years ago". For all we know, this system was turned over in circumstances similar to Sherman's Planet.
That said, since neither was stated in the episode, neither should be stated as canon in the article. I am going to place a background note regarding the Treaty of Organia, though. --GO RED SOX 10:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Removed paragraph Edit
Kira Nerys stated that the Klingons had given up their claim "one hundred years" before 2372. The Star Trek Encyclopedia, (3rd ed., p. 19) says the Klingons relinquished the Archanis IV (though remaining silent about the sector) in 2262, which would be exactly 110 years before Kira's statement. However, the vague quote also puts it roughly around the time of the 2267 Treaty of Organia, which involved provisions for the changing hands of planets.
Although the edition number and page number are correct, the date of 2262 is wrong. The Star Trek Encyclopedia stated the date as 2272. "The Klingons had an ancient claim to the planet that they relinquished in 2272."--Memphis77 (talk) 14:57, February 29, 2016 (UTC)
- If the problem is that the wrong year was cited, why didn't you just correct the year? -- Capricorn (talk) 06:16, March 1, 2016 (UTC)
For me, there are two issues with the paragraph - the year and the assertion that what is stated in the episode was vague. For me, Kira Nerys is clear in her statement. I changed the date in the body of the page from the mid-23rd century to 2372 and I created a link between this page and the 2372 page, where this is one of the events listed.--Memphis77 (talk) 11:43, March 2, 2016 (UTC)
- Hmm let's see. True, she says "a hundred years", not "about a hundred years" or something like that, but that doesn't in itself rule out the possibility that she doesn't mean it literal. Like with suspected lies, the best way to deal with multiple possible interpretations is to find a way to write down the information that doesn't contradict either possibility. What follows is just my personal opinion, not policy: what you've done here is hardly new, but I feel we really ought to be moving away from all that overtly literal math with years. -- Capricorn (talk) 07:47, March 3, 2016 (UTC)