FA nomination 20 Nov - 27 Nov 2005, Successful)Edit

Collaborative nomination (I guess, since it's not solely myself). Zsingaya and I, as well as a couple of others, participated in a lengthy peer review discussion on it and I think it's ready to be featured. One of the darker elements of the DS9 universe, and one of the most intriguing to me. Sloan 19:37, 20 Nov 2005 (UTC)

I support this nomination, and I'm very happy with the whole "community-spirit" that went into writing this article. Well done to everyone involved. Zsingaya Talk 19:39, 20 Nov 2005 (UTC)
Support. I participated (briefly) in the peer review and think it's definitely a quality page. --Vedek Dukat Talk | Duty Roster 20:04, 20 Nov 2005 (UTC)
Support. Logan 5 16:33, 21 Nov 2005 (UTC)
Support, though I think it could use a list of appearances. --9er 18:59, 21 Nov 2005 (UTC)
Support Tobyk777 06:27, 26 Nov 2005 (UTC)
Support (belatedly). Good work everyone. Weyoun 20:39, 26 Nov 2005 (UTC)
Support. A very nicely written article --Starchild 22:22, 26 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Luther Edit

Why remove the "Luther"? Ottens 12:58, 27 Feb 2005 (GMT)

Image Edit

Can someone find a picture from Inter Arma Enim Silent Leges of him sitting in Bashir's quarters? That'd make a great pic as long as it's not wicked dark. The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sloan (talk • contribs).

Found one and updating. Wowbagger, 25 Jan 2006

Peer review Edit

I think this is a great article about one of the most intriguing characters, although he didn't get much exposure and that episode inside his head was kind of flat. But about the article, I think it needs another picture or two, other than that what do you think? Sloan 04:35, 11 Nov 2005 (UTC) +

Couple of things. First, like you said, it needs another pic or two. Not sure what though, I haven't seen those eps in a while. I'd also like to see a sidebar put on his page (although MA has no template for such things). The "Questionable Information" seems too quasi-background in its current incorporation, and also, some of the existing background info seems like it belongs on the page for Section 31. Well written however, and I like the way it makes use of the pictures it has. --Broik 06:16, 11 Nov 2005 (UTC)
I put in a sidebar, similar to the other main character's ones. There's not much solid background information on him, but perhaps we could guess his age? Roughly 40? Zsingaya Talk 07:17, 11 Nov 2005 (UTC)
I've kept my eye on this page for a while, and I like it but agree with most of what Broik said. The exception is the sidebar, which I think makes this particular page look a little cluttered. It doesn't give us enough real information since like Zsingaya said there's not much to tell. I don't think we should speculate on age and such though. I do think the "Questionable Information" section is very appropriately placed, however. --Vedek Dukat (Talk) 18:18, 11 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I like the Questionable Information as it is, instead of noting in a bunch of places "this might be questionable because ABC said XYZ". The sidebar looks good, and I think some of the BG info could be moved. Other than that, it sounds like it's about ready to be featured once it has more pictures. Sloan 20:01, 12 Nov 2005 (UTC)

What type of other pictures do you mean? Zsingaya Talk 20:37, 12 Nov 2005 (UTC)

I was thinking a picture of some kind (maybe his "good" personality from when they were in his head or him unconscious with that probe on him) for the genocide part and a picture of him looking mysterious in Bashir's quarters for the Questionable Information section. Sloan 20:42, 12 Nov 2005 (UTC)
Hopefully those pictures should help. Perhaps the references should be included in the text, rather than at the bottom. Zsingaya Talk 21:42, 12 Nov 2005 (UTC)
Oh, I didn't even notice they were gone. But yes, those help a lot, and maybe the "inside his mind" pic works better than the shot I was thinking of anyway, since the one in Bashir's quarters would have been awfully dark. Sloan 22:00, 12 Nov 2005 (UTC)
I wasn't sure if the picture of Sloan in Bashir's room actually showed anything new (we'd already got one with his special uniform). I think the inside-his-mind one is good, because it shows something new. Does anyone know how Sloan was referenced in "Tacking Into the Wind"? Zsingaya Talk 22:08, 12 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Is it bad form to nominate something for featuring when it's still in peer review? According to the PR page, it's not inactive unless it's been seven days since the last comment. Sloan 22:04, 12 Nov 2005 (UTC) +

There are still possibly a few issues to resolve before we submit it to featured nomination status IMHO. Is the side-table ok with everyone? Zsingaya Talk 22:08, 12 Nov 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't mean immediately, but once everything is settled. Since this discussion will likely end with us agreeing it's ready, is it okay at that point to "close" the peer review? I'm not familiar enough with Wiki stuff. (And I think the table looks fine.) Sloan 22:12, 12 Nov 2005 (UTC)
So, do we think this is good enough to be eligible for nomination as a featured article yet? Zsingaya Talk 20:02, 16 Nov 2005 (UTC)

I think it's ready, but there seems to be a lack of interest or something lately - not this article in particular, but MA in general. Must be the holiday season or something. Sloan 03:11, 17 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, what was the "other reference" in "Tacking Into the Wind"? A minor note about Sloan or something like that? If it was info that can be used here, or is used here, it should be cited. Weyoun 07:19, 20 Nov 2005 (UTC) +

I currently have no idea what the reference to him is, but he's linked in the References section to that episode. I'm going to watch that episode this evening, to check it out (any excuse!). Zsingaya Talk 17:05, 20 Nov 2005 (UTC) +
OK, I've just watched it, and while Julian is working on a cure for the Founder's disease, Miles suggests telling Starfleet Command that they'd come up with a cure, and Julian says: "Well, Section 31 would probably send Sloan or someone to the station to destroy the research." There's the reference to "Tacking Into the Wind". I've moved the reference to the episode into the main body of the text, and that just about wraps this article up! Zsingaya Talk 19:22, 20 Nov 2005 (UTC)

One more thing before we wrap it up: My compliments on not creating a superfluous hyperlink to DS9 every time you cite an episode, Zsingaya. That always bugs me for some reason. ;) Sloan 19:34, 20 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Validity of lost SonEdit

If the entire incident was a simulation, and there was no trace of Sloan in Federation Records, then its likely that him having a son being killed by Jem'Hadar was part of the simulation, part of the act? The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).


Removed info Edit

I removed the following from the background section:

It is highly unlikely that Trek creator Gene Roddenberry would have condoned the idea of a covert organization that answered to no one; Roddenberry's vision of the future was an optimistic and Utopian one in which mankind had grown past its infancy and matured into creating a world in which species of diverse backgrounds had come together in cooperation to create an interstellar alliance known as the United Federation of Planets, aimed at maintaining that cooperation and peace based on the highest moral standards. Nonetheless, Section 31 has permeated the rest of the Trek franchise, appearing in Enterprise, as well as several TNG and DS9 novels.

for being opinion, speculation, somewhat snobby, and a horrible run-on sentence. - Angry Future Romulan 21:53, November 13, 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. Sentence structure aside (which can be reworded) there is nothing novel about the idea and it has been mentioned many times in various DS9 episode background/continuity sections. As a matter of fact "grown past its infancy" is a line used by Picard in the TNG episode "The Neutral Zone". I think maybe the first sentence starting with "it is highly unlikely..." can be removed, while the rest can stay. Something like:
"Roddenberry's vision of the future was an optimistic and Utopian one in which mankind had grown past its infancy and matured into creating a world in which species of diverse backgrounds had come together in cooperation to create an interstellar alliance known as the United Federation of Planets. Section 31 and the Maquis represent the darker side of the Star Trek universe and Section 31 itself has permeated the rest of the Trek franchise, appearing in Enterprise, as well as several TNG and DS9 novels." – Distantlycharmed 22:13, November 13, 2010 (UTC)
Such a passage should only be based on comments from DS9 staff(which I'm pretty sure exist, perhaps in the Companion) and not just a statement of the views given. -- 31dot 23:23, November 13, 2010 (UTC)
In addition to what Blair and 31dot said, the removed note is irrelevant to this page. This page is about Sloan, not Section 31 in general. – Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 02:50, November 14, 2010 (UTC)

Removed Quote Edit

I removed the following as I think it is too long to be considered memorable. However I have take a piece from it to use as his describing quote :

"As I stand here, reunited with my friends and my family for one last time, I want you, the people I love, to know how sorry I am for all the pain that I've caused you. I've dedicated my life to the preservation and protection of the Federation. This duty, which I carried out to the best of my ability, took precedence over everything else: my parents, my wife, my children. I lived in a world of secrets, of sabotage and deceit. I spent so much time, erasing my movements, covering my tracks, that now as I look back on my life, I find nothing. It's as if I never really existed. I cheated you all out of being in my life, and what's more, I cheated myself as well. Now I know a simple apology won't change that. Still, I feel the need to apologize anyway. No tears, please. My death isn't a tragedy. It's a celebration. In death I can finally step out of the shadows, and prove to myself that I existed, that I lived."

--BorgKnight (talk) 02:41, January 28, 2014 (UTC)

Removed irrelevant info Edit

I've removed the following info, since it's highly speculative and irrelevant, not even mentioning Sloan once: "Section 31, along with its morally questionable actions, is one of the elements that have made DS9 highly controversial among Star Trek fans; the other being the introduction of the Maquis and Sisko's infamous speech to Major Kira about how easy it is to be "a saint in paradise". (DS9: "The Maquis, Part II") As Ira Steven Behr said: "We need to dig deeper and find out what, indeed, life is like in the twenty-fourth century. Is it this paradise, or are there, as Harold Pinter said, "Weasels under the coffee table." Sisko's speech in this episode - ("The Maquis, Part II") - was the beginning of our really starting to question some of the basic tenets of Star Trek philosophy." (Star Trek: Deep Space Nine Companion) The introduction of a somewhat darker and less optimistic side to the Trek universe culminated in the creation of Section 31. Furthermore, Section 31 may have existed under the umbrella of Internal Affairs, at least, unofficially, especially since Dr. Bashir had concluded that the virus was introduced to Odo by Section 31 when Odo was on Earth, at Starfleet Headquarters." --Defiant (talk) 16:05, March 26, 2018 (UTC)

Sloan's Son? Edit

The article states as a matter of fact that Sloan's son was killed in an attack by the Jem'Hadar. Considering that entire episode was a holodeck fantasy designed to test Bashir, there is no evidence Sloan actually had a son at all. It was just a story to make his hatred of Bashir believable during the 'test'. Maybe it should read something like "Sloan, during a holographic test of Dr. Bashir's loyalty to the Federation, claimed to have had a son who was killed in an attack by the Jem'Hadar." The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).

I don't think a reword is necessary; we already state near the beginning of the article and in a significant section near the end that many details about his life could be questionable and not necessarily true. 31dot (talk) 02:24, April 5, 2013 (UTC)