Does anyone have a copy of the seal of United Earth, seen in Season Four of Enterprise? -- Sci 22:40 6 October 2005 UTC


Where at the site does it give 2113 as the date that the United Earth government was formed? I've been trying to find the specific article but have been unable to do so. --Jean Prouvaire 12:01, 14 Mar 2005 (GMT)

Key Events in Exploration History: [1](X) Ottens 15:53, 14 Mar 2005 (GMT)

Thank you again. Jean Prouvaire 21:52, 14 Mar 2005 (GMT)

Thank you Ottens, I was searching for that chronology since's layout update (the old homepage was much better) -- Kobi - (Talk) 09:28, 15 Mar 2005 (GMT)
According to the Chronology, First Contact identifies the United Earth (or planetary) government as being created in 2113. As for the nature of the government to begin with, I am reminded of the Orson Scott Card Ender's Shadow series, where Peter Wiggin creates the "Free Peoples of Earth," or "FPE" government first, then proceeds with the assistance of Julian Delphiki to play chess with the major intraplanetary alliances of the story, and ultimately unite it. Long story short, United Earth could easily have been a "visionary" government founded only by certain nations after contact with Vulcan that eventually succeeded in the end. --ChrisK 13:23, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
The date from the chronology is irrelevant as it was not in the final episode. (the same argument is currently used to remove the USS Garuda from our database.) -- Kobi 18:14, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Foundation 2113/2150 Edit

Ok, here we have the very same dilemma as everywhere in the web. Without checking the source the 2113 date from (though here turned into 2110s) is used as the foundation date, while the 2150 date is omitted! And even the completely wrong statement, that Australia was the last state to join is inserted. Star Trek Encyclopedia might be semi-canon, but it is also full of errors. -- Kobi - (Talk) 15:24, 14 Mar 2005 (GMT)

Yup. The quote by Beverly in "Attached" used to erroneously justify Australia's supposed recalcitrance is clearly hypothetical:

BEVERLY Think about Earth -- what if one of the old nation-states, say Australia, had decided not to join the World Government in twenty-one fifty? Would that have disqualified us from being a Federation member?

Jean Prouvaire 23:14, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

My conclusion that the process of the independent nation-states forming an unified planetary polity occured bewtween 2113 and 2150 ce. Timucua 15/9/2011

Establishment of an United Nations of Earth or United Earth occured between 2084 and 2148 ce ( Timucua 11/10/2011

United Earth in UFPEdit

The article notes that, presumably, the UE continued to function in the UFP. As a federation, the UFP does not replace the government of Earth or any other member states. It simply provides common governance over certain function, i.e. trade, security. Similarly, it should be no surprise that the European Alliance or African confederation continue to exist and governance those respective regions of the United Earth well in the 23rd century, presuming the United Earth is a world federation, as has been promoted by a number of organizations, some of which play a leading role in the development of international criminal law and United Nations reform today. Tfleming 19:38, 25 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Needs ImprovementEdit

As I was told by User:Gvsualan a couple of months ago, this article needs improvement, and expansion. First of all, a mention of UESPA within the article would be nice. United Earth was first mentioned, I believe, in "The Corbomite Maneuver" ("United Earth Ship" Enterprise). It was also mentioned in "Encounter at Farpoint" ("United Earth nonsense") and perhaps other TOS and early TNG eps. I don't have all the refs, but those are necessary ones that stick out. Unfortunately, I may be unable to accomplish this for a while (like Gvsualan, I am going through a hiatus period, I guess), but I am just throwing these references out there if anyone wants to work on it.--Tim Thomason 00:45, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Samuels Edit

Beside that I cannot remember the exact situation with Samuels I removed the following added by Sci: "Samuels himself could not be the United Earth Prime Minister, however, because he was not able to give orders to the Enterprise crew." -- German chancellor cannot issue orders to the military either, because despite being head of government he is not the commander in chief. Same principle is in France if I remember correctly, where the commander in chief is the president of the republic. -- Kobi 14:25, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Basic Stucture of the UE Edit

Hello, I have provided what I think could be a reasonable stucture and division of powers of the United Earth Government in the article. The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fuzionman (talk • contribs).

This has been removed. Just so that you know, material here on Memory Alpha must be from canon, and not speculation (see content and resource policies). --OuroborosCobra talk 00:05, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Real World Background Edit

I added a possible real-world background on to the end of the article -- and as for the seal of United Earth, there is one in the video. Although I do not think it is the one you're looking for. The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).

No, it isn't at all. In fact, other than sharing the name, it really has nothing to do and is nothing like the United Earth in Trek. It isn't a nation-state, it is an environmental organization. --OuroborosCobra talk 12:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

United Earth & Earth-Romulan War Edit

I just noticed, that the page United Earth does not seem to mention the Earth-Romulan War someplace on the page. Shouldn't it? After all, it'd be an important mention in the governments history, wouldn't it? I wouldn't know exactly where to mention it, most likely in the history area, but it was just a thought. --Terran Officer 21:36, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Although it was very likely that the United Earth government was involved with the war, the only canon evidence we have regarding the war states it was a conflict between Earth (not United Earth) and the Romulan Empire. Granted, one would think since Earth is United Earth (essentially), obviously they were involved, but regardless of how likely it is, it would still be an assumption. --From Andoria with Love 08:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I...suppose that makes sense...the page seems to say that like you said United Earth is Earth. Not to mention, the page about the war mentions United Earth being a combatant (In different terms of course...). UE, is it a government, or the planet?--Terran Officer 00:33, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Jurisdiction Edit

Where was it stated that Alpha Centauri fell under United Earth's jurisdiction??? - AJ Halliwell 19:56, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, in ENT: "Twilight", Alpha Centauri is said to be (or at least contain) a Human colony. Of course, that doesn't necessarily mean it was under the jurisdiction of United Earth... unless there's an episode stating all Human colonies were under the jurisdiction of United Earth. I don't recall such an episode; "Terra Nova", maybe? --From Andoria with Love 21:23, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I would think it would be the opposite, but this should be looked into - because this article takes alot of creative licence when it comes to colony jurisdiction. "United Earth" not "United Humans", it seems to me the colonies would have their own government and making Earth's colonies such a big portion of the article is assuming without citation. In fact, have the colonies and UE ever even been mentioned together? Seems to me the article needs trimming. - AJ Halliwell 21:43, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't recall it ever being stated that all (or any) Human colonies fall under the jurisdiction of United Earth. Unless someone finds a reference to support such claims, I agree, the article should probably be trimmed. I think the territory section is getting a wee bit too extensive anyway (extensive meaning going off on a tangent and discussing colonies rather than United Earth itself). --From Andoria with Love 21:48, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
A colony is by definition a settlement that lacks sovereignty and falls under the legal jurisdiction of a larger polity. There has been no indication that any of those colonies are independent. Ergo, they must be divisions of United Earth. -- Sci 19:20 19 MAY 2009 UTC

Status of Deneva colony Edit

The following text was originally added to the main article United Earth. As it is a mere theory und conjecture I hereby place it here:

It is not clear what the status of "Deneva colony" was in the 2150's. The Original Series episode "Operation -- Annihilate!" stated that Deneva was colonized by the 2150's, as it had been in operation for "over a century" by 2267. The status of Deneva in Star Trek: Enterprise is uncertain, but the writers actually do acknowledge this earlier continuity from TOS on occasion: it is stated that Earth Cargo Service trading ships were making runs to the colony in 2153 (ENT: "Horizon"), and T'Pol compares the ecosystem of the planet Dakala as being similar to the grottoes on Deneva (ENT: "Rogue Planet") implying that the Starfleet database was at least familiar with the system. Still, T'Pol does not include Deneva in her list of major Human settlements given in "Twilight". Given that the TOS episode says that mining operations on Deneva had been in operation for over a century in 2267, it could be that major mining operations and civilian settlement began in the 2160's, a decade after the events of Star Trek: Enterprise; thus during the events of the series, it could be that some initial Human presence or outposts have been established on Deneva, enough that cargo vessels make supply runs there, but not enough of a presence for it to be self-sustaining or have a significant population.

I for myself do not see any reason to distinguish between Alpha Centauri, Vega or Deneva considering their political relation to United Earth. Just because T'Pol does not mention ALL Human colonies and outposts in 2365 of the alternate timeline, this does not mean Deneva is something special. After, Luna is not mentioned by her, too. --36ophiuchi 22:30, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Starfleet <> Military Edit

Picard states "Peak Performance" (TNG Season 2) "Starfleet is not a military organization." Perhaps Starfleet should be moved from the Military field in the infobox. Leirith 00:07, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Picard said UFP Starfleet is not a military organization, doesn't mean UE Starfleet is not. RayYung 00:41, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
No, but dialog from "The Expanse" would seem to indicate that.
ARCHER: "Some haven't decided yet, but I don't think more then eight or nine will be leaving. I talked to General Casey a few hours ago."
FORREST: "His team should be arriving at eighteen hundred hours. I was surprised you asked for them. You think you'll be comfortable with the military on board?"
ARCHER: "I don't have a problem with non-Starfleet personnel. The General tell me these are the best he has. I'm going to need all the muscle I can get when we cross into the Expanse."
Seems to make a clear distinction between Starfleet personnel and the military. --OuroborosCobra talk 00:46, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
The United Earth Starfleet may not have been a de jure military, but when it undertook responsibility for planetary defense in Seasons Three and Four, it certainly became a de facto military. -- Sci 01:57 19 MAY 2009 UTC
So did the UFP Starfleet, for that matter, any number of times. Wars with the Klingons, the Dominion War, the Cardassian War, etc. --OuroborosCobra talk 01:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
The canon has been contradictory about whether or not Starfleet is a military. Picard refers to it as not being a military organization in "Peak Performance," yet it uses a military-style command structure. It has the legal authority to force its members to adhere to an internal set of laws and to use force against them when they disobey that internal code, something that only militaries have the legal right to do. When its officers violate that code, they're put on trial in courts-martial. The Federation President is described as their "commander-in-chief" in DS9's "Paradise Lost," and the idea of putting Starfleet in charge of the government is described as a "military dictatorship." When Jaresh-Inyo puts Starfleet officers on every street corner on Earth, it's called " martial law." Kirk and Nog both refer to themselves as "soldiers" in "Errand of Mercy" and "Valiant," respectively. And, of course, Starfleet is responsible for the defense of the Federation and waging its wars -- the defining trait of a military. Picard may not like it, but the preponderance of evidence indicates that while Starfleet may not be militaristic, it possesses all of the legal traits of a military and therefore is a military. -- Sci 19:17 19 MAY 2009 UTC

Capital: Earth?? Edit

I know UFP's Capital is Earth. But I don't think UE's Capital is Earth. Should it be somewhere within Earth?? RayYung 00:49, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

United Earth was more than just "Earth," it included offworld colonies throughout the solar system and beyond. Perhaps its center of government is a city, just as the UFP is Paris. --OuroborosCobra talk 00:57, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
No, because Earth and United Earth are not the same thing. United Earth is also the state to which the Human colonies on Luna and Vega belong, for instance (as per "Twilight"). Obviously, then, Earth must be cited as the capital planet of United Earth. Sci 01:57 19 MAY 2009 UTC

The Date of Founding of United Earth Edit

In Star Trek"Federation" by Orson Scott Card, the author establishes the founding of the United Earth government by 2113.

However, what is perplexing is that after 2150, the British Royal Navy exists. Source: Star Trek Enterprise. The preceding unsigned comment was added by Anglicandeacon (talk • contribs).

First off, Federation is a non-canon novel. Secondly, just because there's a united Earth government, it doesn't mean that some of the navies out there might still be individual. -- sulfur 03:21, November 14, 2009 (UTC)

thanks just curious. the star trek universe has scant information about this. The preceding unsigned comment was added by Anglicandeacon (talk • contribs).

Orson Scott Card also hasn't done any Trek novels, let alone that one. --OuroborosCobra talk 18:03, November 16, 2009 (UTC)