Skin toneEdit

Removed the note that all Kobheerian females have lighter skin and hair. We've seen one, they were a extra, and it's not confirmed to my knowledge that they're gender dimorphic. So I changed it to read that some Kobheerians are lighter skinned and have hair. If I'm wrong, feel free to edit it back. --Golden Monkey 16:44, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Yep, the one in "Dramatis Personae" is clearly more purple/white, while the skin tone of the one on Unnamed Kobheerians is not and is similar, if not the same, as that of the males and don't have hair that I can see. --Golden Monkey 16:46, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Federation members?Edit

Is it actually stated that the Kobheerians are members of the Federation? The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).

The only claim that Kobheerians are Federation members comes from a throwaway line in "Duet", where Sisko, referring to the (Kobheerian) ship that Marritza arrived on, says that Marritza was traveling "on a Federation ship." Note that Sisko never says that the Kobheerians themselves are actually Federation members, only that their ship is a Federation ship. It is possible that this particular ship is registered with the Federation, etc. -- perhaps manufactured by Kobheerians and manned by Kobheerians under the Federation flag and hence referred to in passing as a "Kobheerian freighter" (just as many ships today are manned by crews who do not originate from the country whose flag flies on the ship) -- without the Kobheerians themselves being members.
Further, it is highly doubtful that the Kobheerians are Federation members given "Second Skin", as it would make no sense for Sisko to pose as a Federation-member Kobheerian to infiltrate Cardassia -- especially considering that Dax told him just seconds before that she could make him look like anything, including "a three thousand ton screech rhino." If he could be anything, why pretend to be another Federation member rather than some other neutral species?
I think if the community has agreed that Trill has not been established as a Federation world satisfactorily enough to meet Memory Alpha's standards, despite the fact that a Trill served as a Federation ambassador to one of the major powers in the Alpha Quadrant (see Talk:Trill), neither have the Kobheerians been established as Federation members based on even the skimpier evidence regarding only a ship -- without necessarily any comment on its crew -- presented in "Duet" and the strong counter-evidence against. Puritan 03:16, June 17, 2010 (UTC)

addition of second theory to the page Edit

I've tried to add a second in-universe explanation for the Kobheerian/Dopterian similarity (simple coincidence) to this page twice, and both times it has been reverted without explanation by two separate editors. Hopefully one or both of the editors will respond here to explain why what I added is not acceptable. I posted the following on one of their talk pages explaining why I think my edit was warranted:

The fact remains that there is no clear in-universe explanation whatsoever for the similar appearance, so both the "they are related" vs. "it is a coincidence" theories should really be equally acceptable for mention. Examples exist elsewhere in Trek to support each idea (vulcanoids vs. identical-to-humans species) with no reason for accepting one over the other. Alternatively, the whole thing might be better off removed entirely, as it is rather speculative; or shifted into a background section that mentions the most likely real world reason, that of the re-using of makeup for budget reasons.

If this isn't replied to in a few days I'll assume that the reversions were a mistake and re-add the material. --Andorian Blues 03:34, September 13, 2010 (UTC)

Sulfur gave an explanation in the edit history: "extra speculation. we don't know, so we can't say any more", and I agree. We really should have as little speculation as possible, and the portion in this article could possibly be removed outright.31dot 12:41, September 29, 2010 (UTC)
Andorian Blues appears to have ignored the edit summary, stating:
restored content; after over two weeks with no responses on the talk page I can only assume previous reversions were in error :)
All of the bgnote was speculation, so I removed the entire bit. -- sulfur 12:46, September 29, 2010 (UTC)

You did not in fact remove the entire note, only the stuff about the Ferengi. You kept the note about Vulcanoids. I took this to mean that some speculation was appropriate - and the Vulcanoid material is just as valid as the speculation that I added. Either they both belong on the page or neither does, because both are equally speculative. Andorian Blues 12:53, September 29, 2010 (UTC)

Correction, I meant you did not remove the entire note when you first edited. I did not ignore that edit summary, but assumed it was not relevant because you were referring to the much more speculative stuff about the Ferengi, not the note as a whole. Either way it's good now, I agree removing and rewording was the best thing to do :) Andorian Blues 12:56, September 29, 2010 (UTC)

Thus the rest has been removed now. Just because some speculation is there doesn't mean we should add more. I wasn't 100% certain on the rest at the time, but it's obviously all speculative, so has since been removed. If a production person states somewhere that they were intended to be related, we will definitely add something back in. -- sulfur 12:58, September 29, 2010 (UTC)