Vandalism - admin please investigate Edit

Does anyone see the ASCII art vandalism on this page? I don't see it in the edit history or wikisource but something is going on here... the vandalism looks like the Confederate battle flag and ASCII big text saying "The south will rise again..." --TribbleFurSuit 03:54, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

This has already been brought up; see this page. For the record, though, I don't see it. --From Andoria with Love 03:55, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Status Edit

Her sidebar lists her status as "discredited". Shouldn't it be "retired"? Officially, she was a Rear admiral, who, the last we heard/saw of her, had retired from active Starfleet duty and joined something like a JAG (or maybe a UFP civil prosecution office). No one listed her as "discredited"; even when she went nuts, the only thing we heard about her status is that "she [had] left the USS Enterprise." For all we know, she could have been merely reprimanded, mended her ways, and continued working as a prosecutor.

Moreover, I don't believe there's an official status of "discredited". While the one particular investigation we saw her in action became an embarrassing stain on her record, it might have been an aberration in her otherwise (stated) illustrious career – it's not as though she and her body of work became discredited like some obsolete scientific theory. If she were truly discredited, wouldn't that suggest all her work, including her supposed help in unmasking the parasitic beings' attempted takeover, be seen as dubious? Just b/c she blew one investigation, we shouldn't consider all her work (before or after) as suspect. That'd apply more to the Romulan spy who posed as a Vulcan Ambassador in "Data's Day".

As far as we know, the UFP/SF doesn't "discredit" people; the closest thing is Klingon Discommendation. Listing her status this way seems speculative and arbitrary.

Sorry for the length. I can't sleep so I went on MA: I can't think clearly enough to employ brevity and still say what I mean! :-/ Plus, I could be very wrong in my reasoning! Cepstrum (talk) 06:29, March 6, 2011 (UTC)

This would be something to look into, the article itself too, states that her credibility was destroyed (which is likely where the discredited status came from), and it plausibly could be wrong. At least, I think it could be, after all it has been some time since I have seen the episode (and off the top of my head, I'm not certain on whether or not I have that particular season on DVD). One thing I will note onto where such a status came from, is that her conduct during the investigation would being many things into question, and even if this were the only time it had happened, it's likely there is a problem of trust into future investigations. Not that that line of thinking is really anymore factual then potentially listing her as discredited as, in regards to the episode and what her ultimate fate is. In short, I would say someone needs to look into this, perhaps re-watch the episode (or be able to cite from memory, confirming what happened) to bring about a satisfactory answer. --Terran Officer 06:53, March 6, 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, TO. To respond, I just watched the ep, then came here. The worst thing said about her afterwards was that she had left the Enterprise (aside from Picard's lecture warning Worf about drumheads in general). I think the line about her "credibility being destroyed once and for all" in the article is over-the-top. It sounds like something her political opponents might say – as well as flagrant speculation.

If I were to speculate based on what the ep depicts, I'd say she either retired permanently, took a long vacation to "cool down", and/or received psychological testing/help. Judges might've revisit her recent cases with more scrutiny, but she committed no crime (except perhaps the civil offenses of wasting resources and possibly slander – though I doubt it, for she seemed genuinely delusional, not set out to defame Picard or Tarses with malicious intent).

It's a little different from McCarthyism, for she didn't rise to prominence b/c of her witch hunt; she was already well-accomplished. She just went bonkers in this one case (as far as we know).

If I'm able, I'll try to "be bold" and change it, though someone else might have to. Cepstrum (talk) 13:10, March 6, 2011 (UTC)

I'm betting the "discredited" bit is coming from a line in the episode, I don't remember exactly if it was Worf or Picard who said it, but the line said something about people not trusting her so easily from now on. So we could say pretty fairly that she's "distrusted" now for sure, I would think. leandar 15:27, March 6, 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. I just saw it and don't recall hearing that; it seemed more like these kinds of "investigations" would be curtailed/under greater scrutiny. I guess someone should check the transcript and shooting script. Even so, is "discredited" really a status? Cepstrum (talk) 16:52, March 6, 2011 (UTC) The shooting script has Picard surmising that people might be less willing to trust her. It doesn't say whether she was reprimanded or anything; Picard's just guessing that when Satie conducts another investigation, people will be watching her closely to ensure she doesn't go on a witch-hunt again. Actually, that suggests her career is not over. Starfleet might just have her prosecute less "big deals", or if they do, they'll be more careful in giving her carte blanche power. She still had done a lot of good work for SF in the past. Who knows? Maybe she was suffering from a psychiatric disorder at the time (monomania?) Cepstrum (talk) 17:03, March 6, 2011 (UTC)

Status changedEdit

Just a heads-up: I did change her status from "discredited" to "alive" (2367). Whoever put the "discredited" in originally, or anyone else who disagrees with my reasoning, please discuss here. I probably won't argue for my change, though, so no worries about an "edit war". Still, it'd be interesting to hear why her status should be "discredited". Do we have anyone else with that status? (Not that that's a valid argument to change it) I merely think "discredited" is artificial, subjective, and doesn't fit the show. (Picard merely stated he thought she'd lose some trust.) Cepstrum (talk) 17:02, March 7, 2011 (UTC)

Removed Edit

"While no canon information about this is available, Rear Admiral Satie's reputation – perhaps even career – possibly suffered irreparable harm. Captain Picard later did surmise that, henceforth, Satie would likely have a harder time being trusted in such matters. There was no indication she received any discipline, and Picard's supposition implies she continued working in some capacity."

Speculation. - Mitchz95 (talk) 20:32, July 13, 2014 (UTC)