Talk:Borg/Archive 1

message: Just as a note, the events of the "Endgame" episode occurred in 2378, a date which had been set up in a previous episode. -- MiChaos 17:05, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  2378 

message: I think that the sections "Overview", "The Borg change over time", and "Origin of the Borg should all be merged, but I'm not sure how.  The V'Ger stuff should be condensed to a trivia bullet at the bottom, because the evidence seems to be heavily stacked against any connection with the Borg.  Additionally, a section on Borg biology/technology would be nice and could incorporate info from the sections above.--StAkAr Karnak 21:56, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the V'Ger stuff, though I strongly disagree that "Overview", "The Borg change over time", and "Origin of the Borg" should all be merged.  "Origin of the Borg", I think, should contain both a real-life origin (like the Cybermen as an inspiration) as well as what is known of the internal, that is the fictional, origin from a standpoint of actual Star Trek canon.  The V'Ger stuff definitely needs to be condensed and I think probably put in some sort of "Fanon" or "Fan speculation" section (which I reiterate should be a very small section).  I think some of the stuff in the "Overview" section can be attatched as extra paragraphs in the intro, though I think the the page's opening paragraph is good.  The vast majority of what's in the "Overview" section isn't actually an overview, so should probably be in a different section altogether.  If we did it right, we could eliminate the "Overview" section completely, since the intro would give a brief, actual overview while the new section (though, what to name it?) would contain the more in-depth info currently taking up the bulk of the "Overview" section.  Come to think of it, the in-depth stuff could be put into the fictional "History of the Borg" section along with the stuff currently in "Origin of the Borg" (with the exception of the V'Ger stuff).  I don't know; it definitely needs some re-organizing, but I don't think we should merge everything into a single section.  Keeping distinct sections, I think, makes it easier to get right to what you're interested in. --Corvun 11:18, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
I just stumbled upon this article, and I agree that it needs a major overhaul.  The two sections on V'ger seem to be mostly speculation on the part of the author of the text, and it's not clear that either of these theories have appeared in this much detail in print. No matter what, the section should be drastically shortened and moved farther down.  The "nanobot theory" section is also speculative, and there is no reason to feature the plot of a single non-canonical short story so prominently.  (It may, however, be reasonable to include a section on "the Borg in Star Trek fiction" or some such, giving a brief description of this short story as well as describing the role of the Borg in Star Trek novels and other media.)  The "Urban Myths About the Borg" section is flat-out terrible. In both subject matter and tone, it reads more like an extended message board post than it does like an encyclopedia article. I'm sorry to be so negative, but I've probably read a few dozen Wikipedia articles on Star Trek in the past few years, and this was the only one that jumped out at me as needing a rewrite. Jim 23:21, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Article overhaul needed

message: I question the legitimacy of the term "Borg". "Borg" is certainly not in common usage, and would not even be understood by a Star Trek fan. The number of people who use "Borg", for anything other than the actual Borg race, is so miniscule as to be negligible. There should be no mention of the term "Borg" as a slang, or noun.
:A Google search for:
:Borg -"Star Trek" -collective -warp -assimilation
:yields 5,190,000 results as of the date this comment is being written. --Abelani, 21:02, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree to some extent with the anonymous user above. The word 'Borg' as a noun or the verb 'to borg' are terms never used outside of Star Trek, in my experience. Is it possible for someone to provide evidence for usage of the phrase in non-Trek contexts (for example, inclusion in the OED, or some recognised and authoritive slang dictionary, or multiple (ideally printed) newspaper articles, news reports or other prose)? If not, then at the very least this section should be shortened considerably, if not expunged entirely. Cheers, Badgerpatrol 21:18, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

text: urbandictionary.com lists several uses. Some are duplicates of the Star Trek definition, and a couple are unrelated. However, there a number of usages that, though derived from the Star Trek concept, have a unique application. In my personal experience, 'Borg' is indeed used in a number of contexts that are not directly related to Star Trek.--Jeffro77 09:16, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

text: OK, the only problem is that Urban dictionary is itself a wiki (or wiki-like) operation, edited by users in an unregulated way (and as you say, even at that, some of the definitions quoted in the wiki article are not actually present even on the urban dictionary page, suggesting they may have very limited usage). To include a reference to urbandictionary is in itself no more valid than regurgitating anything unsourced from wikipedia, and quoting personal experience may be considered original research. What we need are some links to definitive examples from the wider media; from a quick googling, the Microsoft connection seems to hold up pretty well (it should be possible to get some credible references) but I'm not sure about the others. If none come forward in the next few days I will rewrite the section (delicately, I certainly don't want to step on anyone's toes). Cheers, Badgerpatrol 17:31, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not logical to refuse to accept colloquial sources as evidence for a term used in a colloquial sense. The term is indeed used in various social circles to represent various analogies to the Borg. The Microsoft (and more generally, the allusion to large corporations) usage is verifiable. The (ex) Jehovah's Witness usage is verifiable. Some of the other uses are probably verifiable as well.--Jeffro77 22:03, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Jeffro- I think you misunderstand. A colloquialism is not the same as a limited use neology. It is common for small groups to invent terms (or even in some cases partially recreate entire language systems, certainly amongst youngsters), but unless these are in common usage, they are not a part of the language, colloquial, slang, or otherwise. Colloquial and slang terms DO appear in printed form; they CAN be sourced properly- and it is perfectly logical to expect that claims made in an encylopaedia should be sourced. The way to demonstrate common usage is to find verifiable reference sources (of a regulated, edited form, verifiably produced by a third-party and intended for mass-media circulation, and thereby likely to actually reflect prevailing language trends). I'm sure you can see that using a wiki source (such as urbandictionary) as a reference for a second wikisource (wikipedia) is obviously not a sensible approach. As it stands, I feel that this section (since it is completely unreferenced) possibly represents original research, and hence ought to be modified. From my research so far, I agree with you regarding the Microsoft/megacorporation analogy. IF the Jehovah's Witness analogy can be verified, ideally using printed sources or a series of very reputable websites, then it is worthy of inclusion. I could not find any OBJECTIVE evidence that the term is a part of the language in any other sense (outside of Trek). It would be great if you could help correct this by finding some objective, verifiable sources (see the links above for guidance) to support the argument. Otherwise, I will revise the section in a few days and we can discuss it again then to agree on a consensus. Cheers, Badgerpatrol 16:58, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The JW usage is easily verifiable by going to almost any online forum where ex-JWs communicate and asking how the term is understood. A quick Google search can easily demonstrate the point. Jehovah's Witnesses are a relatively small group, and ex-JWs a smaller group again, so the 9000+ references found by Googling "borg jehovah* witness*" is significant.--Jeffro77 05:57, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Hi again Jethro Jeffro- Again, I refer you to the Wikipedia guidelines on sourcing, particularly verifiability and reliable sources, and such quotes as 'Subjects that have never been written about by third-party published sources, or that have only been written about in sources of dubious credibility should not be included in Wikipedia...', 'We may not use primary sources whose information has not been made available by a credible publication...' and 'Posts to bulletin boards and Usenet, or messages left on blogs, are never acceptable as primary or secondary sources...' (emphasis as written). If you feel you can cite reliable sources, then please do so and make the article better! I should emphasise that I am not necessarily saying you are wrong, I am just saying that, from what we have at the moment, your claim cannot be verified using reliable sources and thus is un-encylopaedic. What we need to do is to find some proper references (as defined by the wikipedia community in the links above) and thereby get this section of the article up to standard, or if this is not possible, remove the claims altogether. I don't make the rules, but I do try and follow them- if you fell current guidlines as to reliable sources are too harsh, then post some comments on the relevent pages, canvass opinions and try and get them changed- that's what wiki is all about! Cheers, Badgerpatrol 12:48, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Firstly the name Jethro is quite different visually from Jeffro, so it would be very easy to assume that you intend some degree of condescension. The concept of verifying something that is colloquially used is not clear cut. The colloquial usage I put forward is empirically verifiable. The term is not used on JW forums in an attempt to assert the meaning of the term, or to argue whether the term is used; it is used in the sense that it is already understood by the reader. There are many other slang terms on several slang-related Wikipedia articles that do not have what you would call "reliable" sources, but the terms are accepted because they are known to be used within the groups that use the terms.--Jeffro77 09:15, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Hi Jeffro- I apologise for mistyping your username (as you can see, this is a genuine error as I originally did use the correct monicker). It was not an attempt to be patronising in any way. Obviously you feel that this is a slightly more emotive issue than I do. As to the point at hand- it is not a question of what *I* call reliable (=verifiable) references. These standards are arrived at by the wikipedia community through consensus. Please refer to: verifiability, reliable sources, neology, original research, and related guidelines, in order to inform your argument, as it seems from your response above that you have not yet done so. Cheers, Badgerpatrol 15:36, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is unclear how your previous correct use of my name indicates that subsequent misspelling was simply a typographical error (it is extraordinarily unlikely to mistype the name that way purely by accident, and the phonetically similar reference is to a fictional person of diminished intellect). Rather, beginning to use the other name after a disagreement implies a deliberate use of the term. That aside, you continue to post the same links about verifiability, however as I have pointed out, the sites I have referred to do not seek to define the term, but indicate that the term is already in usage. If those sites were defining the term, your points regarding verifiability would be valid. If your argument stands, almost all of the Wikipedia slang pages also need to have much of their content removed.--Jeffro77 22:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Jeffro- I am not an expert on wikipedia slang pages and I have no interest in them at present. I have posted (above) numerous links to the guideline and policy pages constructed by the wikipedia community. I agree with the vast majority of those rules, and whether I do or not is in any case irrelevent; contributing in a worthwhile way necessitates that one adheres to these criteria, otherwise the project descends into chaos. If an item does not meet those rules then it should not be included in the encylopaedia (or it should be removed in the interim whilst you petition the relevent parties to change the guidelines). Just because something is done elsewhere on wikipedia does not mean that it is correct. I myself have never heard the term 'borg' used outside of Star Trek. You have enlightened me by pointing out the Microsoft usage, which seems to be verifiable on the web. I have not been able to find any other reliable sources on the web (which as I am quite sure you are aware, consists of billions of pages to which in some way or other a large percentage of the inhabitants of the western world (and beyond) have contributed) to catagorically support widespread usage in other contexts. We do not need a definition per se, we need, for example, newspaper articles or printed, published prose using the term in the contexts you describe. Again, I am not suggesting that you are wrong. There are numerous things that I believe to be true that are not included (as facts) in this or any other serious encyclopaedia. Encyclopaedias are brevia collections of knowledge that has already appeared elsewhere. They should not originate knowledge that has not appeared elsewhere. If you can find a reference (or ideally, multiple references) that support your viewpoint and conform to the agreed, consensus policies and guidelines of wikipedia, then state those sources here or in the article proper.  If you wish, we could refer this issue to a mutually-agreed third-party, although it is a shame to waste their time and a bit of an admission of mutual failure on our part if two reasonable people cannot come to some sort of consensus based on rational argument. As to your other, less important point- I was not aware that 'Jethro' actually had any negative connotations. The only 'Jethro' I was ever aware of was the band (based on a folk character I think?) Jethro Tull. The reason why I mistakenly typed 'Jethro' instead of 'Jeffro' (not a huge difference) is because I was paying more attention to your argument than to your username. I can only apologise for this, it was a genuine mistake. Assume good faith. I will alter the article tomorrow unless you (or me, or a third-party) can come up with adequate source or reference material. Badgerpatrol 23:59, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: An article originally written in 1998 at "Witness Aid UK" (http://www.wauk.freeserve.co.uk/control.htm - no longer operating), and currently at http://www.uq.net.au/~zzmstefa/JWMINDCONTROL.htm makes reference to the use of "Borg" to refer to the Witness organization. Also, the 1999 first annual conference of "A Common Bond" (a support group for gay ex-Jehovah's Witnesses) was entitled "Resistance is Fertile - Life In & Out of the Borg" (http://www.gayxjw.org/conference.html ).--Jeffro77 10:02, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Jeffro- Thank-you for the links. I must confess, I still retain serious doubts as to whether this is a term used widely (even by Jehovah's Witnesses- I note that the text on the conference website (designed surely for a very restrictive, expert group) actually explains the term when it first appears, which is not what one would expect if it was in common use). I also note that, so far, no-one has offered any objective evidence whatsoever for use in other contexts (the wiki article mentions 4 or 5 alternative meanings), and I am not really comfortable in the first instance that the two links you provide are credible, reliable sources (as defined here on wikipedia). Nevertheless, in order to avoid argument, I will re-write the piece including the two links as citations and leave it to other editors to sort it out in the future (in the meantime, perhaps better reference sources may become available). Cheers, Badgerpatrol 23:07, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Borg" as a term outside of Star Trek. 

message: 'The function of the Borg Queen within the Borg seems to be that of a coordinator, as in an ant colony, and less so of a leader in the traditional sense'
If I understand this sentence correctly, it is a poor analogy. The queens of eusocial insects are not coordinators in their society; they are merely reproductives (egg machines). They only coordinate in the sense that if they exist, the nest exists. Most ant behavior is hard-wired in instinct. Although ants have the capacity to communicate through pheromones and kineasthetic interaction, the organisation is in no way hierarchical; it is more decentralised and anarchic. These adaptions enable ants to antagonistically-respond to environmental factors such as food supplies and seasonal variations. If the queen is removed, the colony does not disassociate into chaos; it continues to function with the specific exclusions of tending to the queen and her offpsring. Of course, its numbers dwindle and it produces no reproductive drones.
A better analogy is that the Borg Queen is the primary hub of a star topology distributed computing network. This analogy is highly appropriate given the idea that the queen is a coordinator, and that borg individuals are fitted with computer-like implants. It is worth noting that the organisation of the borg collective is, in theory, poorly scaleable (adding more drones could create a bandwidth bottleneck). It is also failure prone with dire consequences, as the old captain Janeway demonstrated.
Hope you all like the interesting links:D ChrisJMoor
:Interesting links.  Remember, this is a discussion about science fiction: though there is always room for improvement, the analogy is appropriate and one that a newbie can easily understand.  Perhaps the Borg Queen should be characterised (as well) as a sort of first among equals: one unique drone, among many.  The Borg are automata, after all, so the dichotomy between programming and 'instinct' is blurred.  Furthermore, the star network analogy may be incorrect: the Borg Queen's function may or may not be integral to the hive (given the Borg's multiple-redundancy), so failures may merely be isolated in nature and not cataclysmic (as they can be in a star network).  E Pluribus Anthony 19:19, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello!  Interesting; though all of this is supposition, I agree with the 'thought police' notion, but I don't think they would disband: they likely wouldn't know what to do at all ... hence the Queen "bring[ing] order to chaos."  I also agree about the Queen's multiredundancy, but we don't know the precise form of that.  Thanks!  E Pluribus Anthony 11:31, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Although there would be chaos, I think that going home would be one of the few common goals that the Bog would have without something to prevent this. Few, if indeed any drones were added to the collective voluntarily. I would guess that if there is a Queen subcollective, the queen drones are distributed aboard many ships.--RLent 02:07, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It is by technological devices such as Borg vincula (Star Trek: Voyager episode "Infinite Regress") that co-ordinate thoughts in the hive mind to "bring order to chaos". There is insufficient evidence to suggest that the Borg queen fills this role solely. Additionally, the events of Star Trek: First Contact predate the queen's appearance in Star Trek: Voyager, which suggests that it is not necessarily the same individual (except for the provision of a non-linear temporal existence of the Borg queen). It is also speculatively possible that all members of Species 125 are genetically identical and that more than one serves as a Borg queen.--Jeffro77 08:42, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bad Science: queen ant/Borg queen analogy

message: I don't really know anything about Star Trek, but thought I'd comment on the cultural allusion paragraph, which I find quite interesting. Is the part about the Borg representing no real world state universally accepted? The whole 'hive mind' and man-machine concept seems to me like a (strongly hostile) take on the ideals of socialism(the hive mind representing the fear that collectivism will eliminate individual thought) - such as one could expect to find in American Cold War culture. In other words, though the Klingons/Romulans may already have represented the Soviet Union and China, to the untrained eye the Borg sure looks like another take on communism. If anyone knows anything about this, it'd be interesting if they'd care to expand on it.
Furthermore, perhaps the sentence about the Ferengi could be improved - as it stands it could be taken to imply that Japanese people are "annoying, but cute comic relief characters", which surely wasn't intended. -83.109.21.112
:The way I always interpreted it, the Borg represent socialism at its worst while the TNG-era Federation represents socialism at its best.
-----------------------------------
I take great issue with "There is little doubt that the Klingon Empire represented the Soviet Union and the Romulan Empire represented mainland China in the geopolitical situation of the Star Trek universe in the original series and some of the subsequent films."
The bad guys in TOS is a recreation of WWII good vs evil. 
Klingons are recreations of historical Japanese/Samurai. Their ancestry worship, clans, honor system, weapons and martial arts emphasis are clearly extensions of kamikaze and feudal Japan. 
Romulans are the Nazis with strict militaristic hierarchy, technological superiority, racial elitism.
:I don't know whether I'd agree that Romulans are supposed to be Nazis.  At least, only inasmuch as the Nazi regime modelled itself on ancient Rome - which, I suspect, is the intended real-world parallel on which the Romulans have been designed.  The name would seem to support that.  And it might be worth remembering that the modern USA is also consciously modelled on Rome, and that's hardly a Nazi-type society.  Besides, many of the worst characteristics of the Nazis are demonstrated by other races in the ST universe, such as the Cardassians. - Adaru 21:52, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cultural allusion

message: The emblem on the front of this article is not the emblem of the "Borg Collective".  This emblem was only associated with the rogue Borg that were under the sway of the android Lore.  Never since, nor even at that time was it insenuated that that emblem was a designator for the Collective.  As such, I am making the appropriate revisions.  ||  THOR 22:37, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Emblem

message: "In the episode "Drone" the Doctor's mobile emitter combines with Seven of Nine's technology to form a 29th century. Its capabilities include an internal teleporter, speech cababilities, and the ability to reproduce sexually."
I was just wondering what a 29th century was. If it was a mistype, or what? I'm not much of a trekkie (I enjoy it, just don't have time to watch TV), but it seems to be needing a name. Or maybe I'm wrong. Quite possable, honestly.
Feel free to erase this post if it really is supposed to be 29th century. Thanks!
:The mobile holoemiter is supposed to be a piece of future technology. In recent Star Treks (Voyager and why-the-heck-are-we-pretending-it-to-be-a-canon-Enterprise) time travel is pretty common, and Voyager got it during one of them. Taw 03:26, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's a 29th Century?