FA status Edit

Nomination (10 May - 16 May 2004, Success) Edit

A well-written article covering what's probably the most controversial development in DS9 for the last two seasons. -- Dan Carlson 18:40, 10 May 2004 (CEST)

  • Seconded. A little more media would be nice though. Improves layout and provides some recognition for the not-so-fanatic fans. -- Redge 15:52, 13 May 2004 (CEST)

Reconfirmation (07 Apr - 14 Apr 2012, Success) Edit

A FA from back in 2004. I haven't had the time to take a look at it yet. - Archduk3 18:02, April 7, 2012 (UTC)

  • Support. Did a once over on text, and I think it's still FA material. The Apocrypha section could maybe be arranged better though. - Archduk3 17:52, April 10, 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - I added some background information and think it now looks ship-shape.–Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 11:03, April 11, 2012 (UTC)
  • Support as well. Still looks good. 31dot 11:38, April 11, 2012 (UTC)
  • Support, after giving the article a very minor tidy-up. --Defiant 12:29, April 11, 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. Tom 19:16, April 11, 2012 (UTC)

Pegasus and Section 31? Edit

I don't remember any mention that Section 31 was involved with the interpasic cloaking experiment. Was this mentioned on screen elsewhere or was it in a novel?

Section 31 definitely wasn't mentioned on screen, although it seems it would be a perfect fit. That bit of speculation probably belongs on this talk page rather than in the main article itself.
If we are going to add information based on a perfect section 31 fit, should we also mention TOS: "The Enterprise Incident", when Kirk is ordered to steal a Romulan cloaking device, and Khitomer Conspiracy in Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country?Jaz 03:07, 13 Sep 2005 (UTC)
We could argue against the Star Trek VI referance, as S-31 is only out to keep the Federation safe, inciting a war with the Klingons is completely out of their character.(Lightningbarer 12:41, 8 February 2009 (UTC))

Removed stuff Edit

Recently removedEdit

For what it's worth, the following URL was added to the article as "cannon and believable". See for yourself...: [1] -- Cid Highwind 19:22, 28 Dec 2005 (UTC)

It is not cannon. If you listen to the first link under welcome to the section 31 files. It said it is a work of fiction, and in no way affiliated with paramount. He went on to say this site was to put his own spin on the star trek universe. – Randomname 13:09, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Redundant speculation Edit

I removed the following information:

Although Section 31 was an invention of Deep Space Nine writers Bradley Thompson and David Weddle, and therefore could not possibly have been intended by any previous writers, there are several events which are similar to Section 31's operations in mode and motive.

The above is repetitive speculation. Pressman's possible involvement with Section 31 is stated in the main article, while Cartwright and Dougherty's association is mentioned in the apocrypha section. --From Andoria with Love 07:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

what shran said above. — Morder 04:34, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Pity the STNG/STDS9 ended-which shows that UFP prisoners such as Valeris and Pressman are sentenced to Prison colonies-which actually show that Section 31 has secretly "rescued" and uses them in covert spy/assassian operations

Huh? --OuroborosCobra talk 15:47, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Simply speculation that cliffhanger stories with no endings --such as the fate of Thomas Riker, Valeris and Pressman -have a possible connection with Section 31! The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).

Uncited text Edit

Removed the following: Section 31 isn't limited to Humans. They can also include Romulans.

as there is no citation given. It can be restored if one is found. I'm not sure, but I believe the writer of that line was thinking of Koval, but he was not a member of 31, he simply worked with them(much like the Klingon working with Harris on ENT).--31dot 00:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


I removed:

It may be presumed that when the United Federation of Planets was founded in 2161 and the Federation Starfleet established, the agency later known as Section 31 either transferred its purported loyalties to the UFP or was founded as an off-shoot of its United Earth Starfleet predecessor – and, possibly, any potential Vulcan, Andorian, and/or Tellarite – counterparts.

as being speculation and, quite frankly, completely unsupported by anything in canon -Angry Future Romulan 19:31, May 27, 2010 (UTC)

Also removed:

In 2358, Captain Erik Pressman of the USS Pegasus was assigned the task of testing an illegal phasing cloaking device which, according to William T. Riker, had been developed by a "secret section of Starfleet Security". (ENT: "These Are the Voyages...")

Although Section 31 was an invention of Deep Space Nine writers Bradley Thompson and David Weddle in 1998, and therefore could not possibly have been intended by the writers of "The Pegasus" in 1994, it is likely that Riker's line in 2005's "These Are the Voyages..." was meant to suggest Section 31's involvement.

for the same reason. -Angry Future Romulan 19:33, May 27, 2010 (UTC)

Removed quote Edit

I've removed the following:

"Elsewhere, Moore commented, "We like pushing the concept of Starfleet and the Federation itself into uncharted territory. We like to question the ideals and beliefs of the Trek universe and put our characters into difficult situations that may not have easy answers. To be sure, we like Trek and enjoy working in this universe, but we're not satisfied with just painting the UFP as a happy-go-lucky place where everyone gets along and the Prime Directive is always right." (AOL chat, 1998)"

This info seems far more suited to the United Federation of Planets article than this particular page. In fact, it doesn't really say anything specifically about Section 31 at all. --Defiant (talk) 11:32, July 20, 2015 (UTC)

More removed stuff Edit

"Loosely speaking, it was Starfleet's black-ops division, operating separately from and usually without the knowledge of Starfleet Intelligence (though it often recruited members of Starfleet Intelligence)."

From the intro section no less. It was never said to be affiliated with Starfleet, and I don't think we have a single example of it recruiting Starfleet Intelligence members. -- Capricorn (talk) 20:11, March 26, 2018 (UTC)

Section 31 was clearly said to be affiliated with Starfleet, since it's named after and created by the original Starfleet Charter, though it's relationship to Starfleet Intelligence is only inferred, and nothing is even implied about recruiting. - Archduk3 21:44, March 26, 2018 (UTC)

The actual "Section 31" Edit

Does anyone know what Starfleet Charter 14-31 actually says? For that matter, is there any canon source on the Charter at all? Gracias - signed, D.

From ENT: "Divergence":
"Reread the Charter, Article 14, Section 31. There are a few lines that make allowances for bending the rules during times of extraordinary threat." -- Harris to Archer.
Nothing more was said beyond that, although I think Archer was reading the charter later in the episode (can't remember if it was seen clearly or not...) --From Andoria with Love 07:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Bureau 13 Edit

No mention in here of Bureau 13, the organization mentioned in (and only once) in a 7 December 1994 episode of Babylon 5, the show that in so many other ways so closely resembled the DS9 that later mentioned Section 31?

We never really got an understanding of what Bureau 13 was, and this isn't the Babylon 5 Wiki (or the Babylon Project, as they call it). Without confirmation (i.e. production source) that it was meant to be related, we probably shouldn't have a mention about it in this article. --OuroborosCobra talk 05:26, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
I could also mention Section One from the TV series "La Femme Nikita. -- 07:07, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that citing a reference to Bureau 13 is appropriate as Section 31 clearly builds on the concept, and the number 31 is clearly a veiled reference to 13. A study of the ways that DS9 drew on and was influenced by the darker themes in B5 (wars involving multiple races, genocide, black ops, conspiracies at the highest level of government, beings that inhabit hyperspace) is relevant, at least if this wiki is to demonstrate objectivity and to help position Star Trek within the broader domain of science fiction.The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).

It is still a fact that you have no way of knowing if the producers or writers intended to do what you describe, and as such it consitutes original research. Unless you have hard evidence that B5 was an influence on DS9, such as a statement from a writer, it cannot be in the article.--31dot 21:51, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

confusing sentence Edit

This has got some weird syntax - "A select few are chosen to carry 31's near limitless knowledge of their operations." -- 14:35, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, what is this sentence trying to say? Section 31's knowledge is nearly limitless, or the individuals recruited have limitless knowledge of section 31? Neither possibility makes much sense. If there are no objections I intend to edit it to "A select few are chosen to carry out Section 31's operations."

Vivec 09:48, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Black Ops?Edit

I have seen this. Do they carry out operations so secret that one could call these "Black Ops" ? 19:28, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

One could, but it wouldn't be canon. --Alan 19:30, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Section 31 Operative{?}Edit

Although not proven, it is possible that Colonel West who tried to kill the President of the United Federation of Planets in 2239 was a secret Section 31 Operative. Possibly it sounds like a Section 31 "Black Ops"-kill the UFP President and blame the Klingons-thus insuring a permenent break between the UFP and the Klingon Empire. The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).

You're absolutely right. It does sound like that...or was the Klingons who hired Colonel West to kill the president because he would have easier access than a klingon would and thus incite war and remove the president from their opposition. Speculation is fun isn't it...that's why we don't do it. — Morder 23:00, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
In addition, to what end would Section 31 have done this? During the the Klingon augment crisis, Section 31 could have simply let the Klingons die, despite the threat of short term (and violent) war with them. Yet, Section 31 saved the Klingons. Their interest is in protecting the Federation, and such. Peace with the Klingons would have helped bring that about. Killing both the Klingon and Federation leaders, far from protecting the Federation, would have thrust it into war. As it is, without the cooler heads of Azetbur and the Federation president, war would have happened with only the assassination of Gorkon. Both sides were calling for it, the Romulans were calling for it, etc.
Just because Section 31 is "unsavory" does mean they did this. --OuroborosCobra talk 23:19, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
If we're talking about a threat to the Federation that Section 31's involvement would make it safer, could we speculate that they had some connection to the attack on Khitomer, to try and spark a war between the Romulans and the Klingons?(Lightningbarer 12:49, 8 February 2009 (UTC))
We can't speculate on this site - it's not encyclopedic. Trouble with speculation is everyone has an idea and we can't host them all. — Morder 12:52, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
You are wrong,Colonel West tried to kill the President of the United of Planets in 2293 not 2239.-- 12:06, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Starfleet Edit

The article mentions that the original 31 was part of the Starfleet charter, therefor Section 31 agents are members of Starfleet, just off the record. - Archduk3:talk 02:49, October 7, 2009 (UTC)

Section 31 and the Maquis Edit

Is there any evidence that section 31 aided or opposed the maquis before the Dominion involvement? If not, can anyone speculate what section 31's stance would have been? The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).

No evidence either way. Speculation is merely that. Speculation. -- sulfur 16:29, January 30, 2010 (UTC)

Real-Life Section 31 Edit

In the real world, Section 31 of the Broadcasting Act in Ireland forbade Irish TV from using the voices of people belonging to Sinn Fein - seems like that could be an explanation of the name, wonder if it could warrant a background mention.--Ten-pint 21:58, March 14, 2011 (UTC)

Only if it can be cited to a production source. -- sulfur 22:03, March 14, 2011 (UTC)