Talk:Maquis

PNA

Seems to be lacking a lot of Voyager information. Signed, Tyrant

Misc

In the apocrypha section it is stated that VOyager's Maquis personnel rejoined Starfleet to fight the Dominion. Voyager return to the Alpha Quadrant in 2378, three years after the war ended. How then could they fight the Dominion?--<unsigned>

TIME TRAVEL --<unsigned>

Featured status

Nomination

Maquis

Self-nomination. A long article about the entire history of the Maquis movement. Much longer than the short Encyclopedia blurb about the group! ;-) -- Dan Carlson 22:17, 24 May 2004 (CEST)

Archived as "successful nominations" by User:MinutiaeMan on 12:50, May 27, 2004. --Alan del Beccio 22:40, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Remove featured status?

Should we remove featured status from this article until the citation issues are cleared up? It kinda looks bad to have a big fat PNA in the middle of a featured article... - Renegade54 22:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• agreed--Alan 03:52, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Removed

• See: Removal archive --Alan del Beccio 05:04, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Long Quote

Is the long quote at the beginning of this article really necessary? --OuroborosCobra 07:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

What long quote? --Mac Lover

Well, the comment I made is 2 months old. Obviously, in that time, the quote has been removed. --OuroborosCobra ^talk 15:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. I don't read the date.--Mac Lover 17:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Is This Correct?

From the article: "Ignoring the treaty's restrictions, they launched a massive invasion of the Demilitarized Zone, rapidly and efficiently wiping out every Maquis colony. The Maquis attempted to put up a valiant fight, but the small raiders and fighters they possessed were hardly a match for the fearsome Jem'Hadar attack ships. (DS9: "By Inferno's Light") " I don't believe this happened in "By Inferno's Light", (Maybe I saw an edited version?). Yes, I saw Dukat make the threat, but when was it established that the colonies were wiped out? Should this be amended? 86.41.199.181 15:16, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

The fact that the Maquis were wiped out is mentioned in "Blaze of Glory", "Hunters" and "Extreme Risk". --Jörg 16:04, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Origin

The Maquis is named for a REAL resistance group in France during World War II. 65.163.112.56 03:45, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

We know, in fact the opening paragraph of the article says just that. --OuroborosCobra ^talk 03:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

We know that they share a common name, but we don't know that as a fact, otherwise it would be cited somehow. --Alan 03:52, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Removed Text

I removed the following as speculation and opinion...try as I might, I can't think of any supporting source:

• Only months after the utter destruction of the Maquis, the Federation was plunged into the Dominion War. The Maquis insurrection was to be remembered as one of the primary causes leading to the war, albeit in an indirect way. The Maquis cause, though temporarily successful, had made the Cardassians so desperate that they were willing to sacrifice their independence for the security offered by the Dominion.

• The Maquis cause remains controversial even after its demise; opinions differ on whether the Maquis could ultimately have succeeded in repelling the Cardassians from the Demilitarized Zone and establishing their own independent state. Although they had the Cardassians on the run in early 2373 and victory appeared within reach, many argue that it is unlikely that the Maquis would have succeeded even had the Dominion not annexed Cardassia. Thus, in the aftermath of the Maquis' destruction, many Starfleet officers viewed the movement as a grand, and perhaps noble, lost cause.

Capt Christopher Donovan 08:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the removal, unless a valid source can be found. A pity though; it's well-written and I think the first paragraph is thematically correct. – Cleanse 09:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• In the real world, the Maquis were a French resistance group during World War II.

Unnecessary real world comparison. Though, obvious it may be, perhaps a wikipedia external link might be better. Though I still see no need. — Morder (talk) 06:05, October 18, 2009 (UTC)

That Trek's Maquis were named after the real resistance group can be cited to several sources, including the Star Trek: The Next Generation Companion. It's thus a valid note.– Cleanse 11:57, October 18, 2009 (UTC)

It is valid to note what they were named after, but it should probably say "The Maquis were named for the WWII French Resistance group of the same name", removing the "In the real world" part.--31dot 12:12, October 18, 2009 (UTC)

Well that's a horse of a different color since we have a citation. — Morder (talk) 20:14, October 18, 2009 (UTC)

"The June Offensive"

The article as currently written dates the events of "For the Uniform" to June 2373 (see second paragraph of the section titled "The June Offensive"). I've seen the episode a couple of times and am quite sure the Gregorian month was never specified (which the transcript confirms--yes, I know transcripts are unreliable so it's not necessarily conclusive). Does anyone know if this was stated anywhere, and if so where? Might it be apocrypha of some sort? -Mdettweiler 04:09, June 23, 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like something made up with a stardate calculator. I'd say remove it.– Cleanse ^{( talk | contribs )} 00:47, June 30, 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good. However, since this tidbit is currently in use as a section heading, we'll need to come up with something better to replace it with. Any ideas? Possibly something referencing either Eddington (who led the offensive described in the section) or something particular to the offensive itself, say the biogenic weapons used? Something concise, yet descriptive. -Mdettweiler 04:54, June 30, 2010 (UTC)

I changed it to "The Leadership of Michael Eddington" for now, although I briefly considered "The Wrath of Eddington" :-p

If anyone has a better idea, feel free to change it.– Cleanse ^{( talk | contribs )} 05:15, June 30, 2010 (UTC)

Mike Okuda indicate that starting with Season 1 of TNG, stardates were figured on the basis of the following: First digit 4 (for 24th century), second digit = season of TNG production and the next 3 digits used the basis of 1000 stardates = 1 earth year. This is explained in detail in the Chronology, and the writers used this formula to keep stardates progressing properly throughout TNG, DS9, and Voyager.

Checking the stardate for "For the Uniform", it is 177 days into the year. Using a perpetual calendar, I double checked. 177 days is June 26 for that year. So "June offensive" is correct.Capt Christopher Donovan 08:47, September 10, 2010 (UTC)

The idea that January 1 is the beginning of the stardate year was never established in canon. For all we know stardate years start from some other significant event. Thus "June offensive" is speculation.– Cleanse ^{( talk | contribs )} 09:13, September 10, 2010 (UTC)

Okuda wrote the start date for the modern stardate system into the Writers Guide. (See Stardate article). The modern shows set in the 24th century all followed it. At the very least it's acceptable background.Capt Christopher Donovan 09:18, September 10, 2010 (UTC)

Ships

Since the Maquis in "The Maquis, Part II" use Federation attack fighters, should that ship be listed under the "Ships" section? It's not a Maquis craft in origin, but it is a ship type they used. Perhaps it could be added and the section renamed "Ships used by the Maquis"? —Josiah Rowe 23:01, June 29, 2010 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. D7 class is listed as both a Klingon starship and a Romulan starship.– Cleanse ^{( talk | contribs )} 00:47, June 30, 2010 (UTC)

Done. —Josiah Rowe 04:12, June 30, 2010 (UTC)

Background

It's a bit confusing to use the heading "Background" for an in-universe section. However, I cannot think of a better title. I considered "origins" but that's really what the next section covers. Any ideas?– Cleanse ^{( talk | contribs )} 07:11, September 10, 2010 (UTC)

How about using "Origins", with the lower section becoming "Early history"? Other suggestions for the first section are "dispersal" or "exodus", etc. --Defiant 08:56, September 10, 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I'm happy to keep "Seeds of Resistance" as it is. I'll just change "Background" to "origins" - it works.

Thanks for your input. If you or anyone else wants to play around with the other headers, feel free. ;-)– Cleanse ^{( talk | contribs )} 09:18, September 10, 2010 (UTC)