Help icon

Maintenance links

Memory Alpha talk pages are for improving the article only.
For general discussion on this episode, visit the DS9 forum at The Trek BBS.

Richard BashirEdit

If Richard Bashir is a civilian why must he be tried before a Starfleet Judge-Advocate General? Does Starfleet really pervade every aspect of society in the Federation and Earth in Particular? U.S. Government would never try civilians in a military court. The Federation sounds more like a totalitarian communist state. Even more so since an Admiral nearly succeeded in overthrowing the Federation president in an earlier episode. The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).

First off, a failed military coup is not evidence of a totalitarian state. Second off, totalitarian and communism are not the same thing. They often go hand in hand, but do not have to. If we just go by the totalitarianism part, then there is still a problem. The Federation is not the same as the United States. Its government operates very differently. For all we know, it could be a matter of jurisdiction. It could also be that rather than a seperate police and judicial system, they are integrated as different legs of Starfleet. That does not make them totalitarian. What would is if there was no trial, no due process, or just a show trial. Also, it is possible that whoever helped Richard Bashir was in starfleet, and therefore tried as such, and Richard was charged in a joint trial. --OuroborosCobra 00:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
The key concession made by the Starfleet Judge-Advocate General was the preservation of Julian Bashir's career, which is definitely under Starfleet jurisdiction. So it makes sense that the plea agreement would be made with Starfleet. In exchange for this, Richard Bashir could have pled guilty in a civilian court with a sentencing recommendation made by the Starfleet JAG -- that would not compromise the independence of the civilian courts and it would be completely consistent with what is said in the episode, which is that Julian Bashir's career is saved in exchange for his father pleading guilty -- it is not specified in which court. 02:21, June 17, 2012 (UTC)
I'm sure Cobra appreciates the response- almost exactly six years later. 31dot 03:19, June 17, 2012 (UTC)
I fall to see why the elapsed time is relevent to the appreciation of the comment. Maybe they've only just read it. :-)
DenniusPrime (talk) 12:27, July 19, 2017 (UTC)

Episode titleEdit

Does the title of this episode have a question mark at the end of it? The list at Wikipedia and at both have the question mark. Jdvelasc 03:44, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

The title card doesn't have a question mark, but the script does. MA always goes with the title card. It's probably a mistake in the title card, perhaps there was no '?' in the font or something. --Bp 05:38, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
In my conversations with Jimmy Diggs (the author) he did always write it with a question mark at the end. -- Kobi 14:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
"Who Mourns for Morn?" - the font has a question mark. 16:38, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Theme: Insecurity Edit

It appears that this episode's theme is insecurity - how it can do you more harm than good.

Even though the Rom and Bashir sub-stories are entirely separate in this episode, they both demonstrate insecurity and we see how it brings them exactly what they try to avoid. Can we incorporate this onto the article somehow? You would agree that insecurity does tend to be the overall theme of the episode, now do you? --K. Shinohara 18:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, Jorg stated that "only if the writers had stated in the DS9 Companion "We wanted to write an episode dealing with insecurity" could we add that info" so thanks for your input, even though it was elsewhere. --K. Shinohara 19:37, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Let me add that without citation from the writers from somewhere like the Companion, this is exactly the type of personal commentary that we have been telling you to avoid. Please, get the message this time. --OuroborosCobra talk 22:13, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Nitpick Edit

  • At the end of the episode, Bashir proves to O'Brien that his genetic engineering makes him superior at playing darts by throwing three bull's-eyes in a row. However, on a standard dartboard, that is not actually the highest-scoring play: a triple bull's-eyes scores 150 points, but throwing three darts in the 20-point section's triple-scoring zone scores 180 points. However, it is possible that they were playing using rules different than the present-day standard, or that Bashir was simply trying to make a point that he could beat O'Brien at darts without necessarily trying for the highest score.

Ok, first, the point of him throwing three bullseyes in a row was to point out his genetically enhanced reflexes and not trying to get the highest score, second, you refuted your own statement by saying "However" so it's best to leave the speculation out. — Morder 22:50, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Eugenics Wars Edit

Near the end of the episode Admiral Bennett remarks: "Two hundred years ago, we tried to improve the species through DNA resequencing. And what did we get for our troubles? The Eugenics Wars.(...)" Isn't this a contradiction? We know that the Eugenics Wars took place in the 1990s, so it's either the writers made a mistake or the Admiral lacks historical knowledge. Or I can be wrong... Nyiz 21:50, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

This is already covered in Background Information, under Continuity.– Cleanse 00:16, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm so blind... Nyiz 20:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Could it be worth mentioning that there was an incident just over 200 years ago (219 to be precise) involving genetic engineering and the augments from the Eugenics Wars? -- 22:00, October 21, 2012 (UTC)
It shouldn't be mentioned just to mention it, as that's covered in the articles about that subject. Is there a certain context you want to mention it in? 31dot (talk) 22:11, October 21, 2012 (UTC)

Zimmerman and Prinadora Edit

Could it be a continuity error that only after a few years of seeing Zimmerman in this episode, we see him in Voyager as dying old man. The Zimmerman portrayed in the VOY episode makes it look like he jumped 10 to 20 years older.

Has it ever explained why Prinadora was never acknowledged until now? A story arc on Nog, his resentment or longing for his mother. Or if Nog has ever seen Prinadora for how long. The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).

He was ill when on Voyager, that is partially why he appeared older. No error. I don't recall any explanations on Prinadora.--31dot 00:44, April 15, 2011 (UTC)
Regarding Prinadora - think of it this way. The shows only document a fraction of the lives of the characters. Not every facet of their lives would come up in the small "slices of life" we see week to week.
In reality, of course, the writers like to leave the back stories of their characters relatively murky so as to leave their story options open in the future. Think of the revelations in the main plot of this episode, for example. There wouldn't have been this episode if the writers had revealed Bashir's enhancements in "Emissary". I know they hadn't thought of it then but that's kind of my point - if they come up with a good idea for back story later, they want to be able to run with it. –Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 01:01, April 15, 2011 (UTC)

Eugenics theme in Halo 3? (musical reference @-5 min)?Edit

Did Eugenics figure into the plot-line for Halo 3, and is there any "known in-jokes" involving the musical scoring? I was just re-watching DBIP, and realized that the beginning of the string theme toward the end sounded quite like the the "Never Forget" theme (albeit about six or so quarter-notes of it (the exterior shot of the station after the meeting with the Rear Admiral Bennett) Jswitte (talk) 02:17, November 5, 2012 (UTC)

If Halo 3 is referencing this episode, it could be mentioned on one of the Star Trek parodies and pop culture references pages. Those pages are for instances where other properties reference Star Trek. 31dot (talk) 03:01, November 5, 2012 (UTC)

Fourth wall Edit

The interviews are breaking the fourth wall, at least as much as «Rules of Engagement»

Gonioul (talk) 00:23, February 19, 2015 (UTC)

That's not what breaking the fourth wall means. The interviews may have been delivered while facing the camera but they were not addressing the audience, they were talking to Doctor Lewis Zimmerman.
DenniusPrime (talk) 12:41, July 19, 2017 (UTC)