Talk:United Federation of Planets/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Human prominence in the UFP

I deleted the section talking about how the defense of the Federation fell solely to Humans. The United Earth Starfleet is different from the Starfleet of the United Federation of Planets which has officers/crew from all Federation member worlds and not just Earth.

I added a fact some time ago that was deleted by you geeks. Yes Geeks. You take fiction far too seriously. Here is the reality> Star Trek was limited by time and real money. Roddenberry himself lamented that he could NOT have more aliens because of a limited budget. SO BY DEFAULT (get this through your thick skulls) Humans appear to dominate. The WIKI article should be changed to reflect this FACT, and you geeks should all find something better to do with your time.

Okay, here is a ST universe compromise (not canon, but the best way to solve this), because we cannot have real-world answers to fictional problems (otherwise we might as well all forget about documenting the fictional world). There is one of two ways to solve this in the ST universe. One: humans dominate Star Fleet and the Federation, and other member planets either do not care about this or are discriminated against. Two: There is no such thing as human domination of the Federation, but the stories we have been presented randomly happen to include a primarily human crews. It so happens that DS9 somewhat confirms this, it only includes three humans in the primary crew (Sisko, O'brien, and Bashir - but the last is debatable). I dont know about the novels and other media of ST, but it is equally likely that other races form an important part of the Federation, but we just don't hear those stories. SHarwood 14 Feb 2007

The sad fact is that it would cost to much to show as much aliens as we’d like. There’s nothing behind it except for that… Joe Cannibal 04:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

thumb|Flag of the United Federation of Planets

Flag

Could we get an SVG or otherwise vector-based version of this flag? --Gadren 01:29, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Added --Thetoothpick (talk) 09:18, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Government, etc.

At what point in time does the Federation have 150 members? If it is Kirks time (original 5 year mission) then there could be more members even by the time his movies come to a close. And even more by 'Encounter at Farpoint' and even more by the end of Voyager's travels. Also do these 150 members (regardless of time) only include different species or does it include the various (and numerous) colonies, such as Earth colonies? (sharwood April 15, 2006)

Does the Federation have a national legislature? I seem to recall a mention of the "Federation Council" and the "Federation Assembly" from reading some DS9 scripts I bought off eBay. The Federation anthem was played during DS9 "Take Me Out to the Holosuite." A map of Federation space would be nice. --blue

It is irritating to have to continue to cite the United States as a government structure which is similar to the Federation's. The Federation is a federal state similar to the United States. I am not saying the the United States was the inpiration for the Federation. It has been established in several episodes and movies of Star Trek that there exists an 1) Executive Branch, 2) Legislative Branch and 3) Judicial Branch (a DS9 episode referred to the Federation Supreme Court). This canon evidence would allow one to cite an analagous real life organization as being similar to the Federation, i.e. the United States. I am perfectly aware that there are many of you out there who do not agree with US policy in the world and are thus hostile to having the United States mentioned in an article about the UFP, but you must realize that this is a credible analogy and helps to illustrate to the uninformed reader just what the United Federation of Planets is.

Whether or not anyone out there disagrees with U.S. policy in the world is irrelevant as to whether or not the structure of the Federation's government is actually based on the structure of the U.S. government. I'm an American and a supporter of U.S. foreign policy, and quite frankly I'm offended by the notion that the Federation government is somehow based on the U.S. government. The United States has a bicameral Congress composed of officials elected by the people of their respective states, whereas the Federation has a unicameral "Council" composed of "Ambassadors" who seem to have been appointed by the governments of their respective worlds rather than elected. Furthermore, the people of the United States elect their President directly (or at least through the Electoral College), whereas the DS9 episode "Homefont"/"Paradise Lost" would seem to suggest that the Federation President is chosen by the Federation Council, possibly FROM the council itself. In this manner the Federation represents a Parliamentary system such as that which exists in the United Kingdom much more closely than it does the United States's government--which is, quite arguably I think, a lot more democratic and a lot less bureaucratic (not to say that the U.S. Government isn't quite bureaucratic enough as it is) than the government of the Federation. Antodav 03:14, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Antodav, you need to read what I have said carefully before you respond with such an uninformed, poorly written response. I stated that the United States is a federal state similar to the Federation. I stated that it has a legislative branch, executive branch, and a judicial branch. All of which are independent of each other. I did not specify as to the particular composition of the legislative branch of the Federation, only to see that the Federation has a separate and distinct legislative branch. Please do not lecture me about the bicameral or unicameral nature of either state, that is irrelevant. And no, the United Kingdom is a unitary state very much unlike the Federation, which as a federal state (as cited in the article itself) is composed of lower-level distinct regional governments (United Earth, Andorian Empire...) that are united by a strong central government (once again, composed of a separate executive, legis., and judicial branches), hmm I dunno, but that sounds quite similar to...Your dislike for the United States is irrelevant to the purposes of this article. Please leave your personal feelings at home. --Adarredo 06:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Map added from http://www.stdimension.org/int/Cartography/Atlas.htm Fosnez 01:10, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I've nixed the map recently added. It's nice (and I've seen it around online) but, unfortunately, it's also fanon speculation. A political map from Star Trek Star Charts – which is at least semi-canon (i.e., a Paramount-sanctioned work) – is preferred. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 06:00, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I think that map should be put back, but with a warring saying that it's not official. Just say it is an estimation (and a pretty good one I think) of what the Federation might look like.

--Hibernian 15:33, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

No: though helpful, the map is fanon speculation – original research in the basic sense of the word – and also differs from map details in Star Trek Star Charts, et al. If we want to include a map, it should be from a Paramount-sanctioned source. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 06:16, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Star Trek: Star Charts is a useful tool for writing Fan Fiction, but it's definitely not canon. In fact, there are some glaring errors in Star Charts, for example the absence of a Klingon/Cardassian border and the placing of the capitals of the Klingon and Romulan Empires in the Beta Quadrant even though it's been stated quite frequently on DS9 and Voyager that those are Alpha Quadrant civilizations. The Ktarian homeworld is also, quite disappointingly, missing, and the size of all the major civilizations of the Alpha Quadrant are greatly understated. Geoffrey Mandel's book could be used as a guide for drawing the Federation, but it shouldn't be considered to be canon or law by any means Antodav 03:28, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

• Even though the Romulan and Klingon Empires are known as Alpha quadrant entities, they are almost universally made Beta Q empires in semi-canonical sources. Because Earth (well at least the Sun) is on the border of Alpha/Beta, in theory half of the events in star trek take place in the beta q. According to the Star Trek Encyclopedia and Star Charts, most of the Fed and some of the Rom/Kling empires are in the Alpha Q (along with the Cardassions/Ferengi). In real life we see this happen, Europe is known as the western world, even though most of it is in the eastern hemisphere. This is because the concept of West came before the official divisions with the Prime Meridian. Perhaps something similiar happened in Star Trek history with the concept of Alpha Q, but this is only speculation. As for the lack of a Klingon/Cardie border, the star charts are 2-D, and space is 3-D, maybe the Klingon Empire and Cardassian Union loop under/over Federation Space and touch. Anyway - these are just some ideas to help solve these problems - Sharwood, april 15, 2006

• • Sourcing notwithstanding, I somewhat agree with this. The Klingon/Romulan situation is analogous to actual transcontinental nations that straddle continents but are often reckoned in just one based largely on either area or population: Egypt, Panama, Indonesia, Russia, et al. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 19:54, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

As reiterated in the ST wikiproject, ST:SS and any other printed compendium – by virtue of being sanctioned by Paramount (owners of the franchise) – are legitimately semi-canon (not canon) and, thus, can't be discounted; these works are obviously superceded by canon references and, particularly, when there's a clear contradiction. And, no matter what way you skin the Circacian cat, it's far more authoritative than the prior map in place which (though nice) is unquestionably a fanon work and doesn't generally belong in Wp. Moreover, I can't attest to other commentary regarding the size and positioning of the various powers and systems (though I can at length), since to do so is arguably also speculative. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 03:44, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Well why not add a section like "Fan speculation on the Federation" or something like that, and include the map and other things there? (Stating that it is not official) --Hibernian 17:36, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Why? There exist more than enough canonical/semi-canonical references regarding the limits of the Federation. Moreover, who's to say what sort of speculation should be included? Any fanon speculation is, effectively, original research and should not be included. Easy: obviate any of that ambiguity, as prescribed in the wikiproject guidelines, and limit references to ones that are legit and verifiable. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 18:03, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I have had to add the analogy of the federal governmental structure of the Federation to the federal system of the United States. E Pluribus is committing vandalism each time he deletes my analogy. This is a community page, and he does not have the right to judge by himself the content of this page. This is not his page. I consider it vandalism on his part that he does this. The US has executive, judicial and legislative branches. The Federation has executive, judicial and legislative braches. That is canon.

As discussed elsewhere on the talk page, this analogy is unsourced and fanon speculation. Any (federal) state has the three branches noted, and this comparison with the US (though not unreasonable) is speculative. Said notions will continuously be edited or judiciously removed until they can be substantiated/verified or unless compelled otherwise.

Moreover, read up on the structure of federal and other states – and Wp policies regarding vandalism – before insinuating a point of view and unsourced content. Apropos, anon accusations/insinuations about this or that will not be addressed further until there's reason to do so. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 00:15, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

You continually fail to understand the actual proposed text. The contributor cites the United States as an analagous government, that is to say, the structure of the Federation government is functionally similar to that of the United States. The contributor does not reach outside of his bounds and claim that the US government served as inspiration for the Federation, nor does the contributor insinuate any shared ideology between the two entities. I fear the root of this contentious debate lies in contemporary politics, and this particular proposed comparison is held to a higher standard, than that, say, of the Romulan entry. That entry makes no bones about comparing the Romulan empire to the Cold-war era Chinese. Informal interviews with cast and crew aside, would you really demand explicit episode-based evidence that the Romulans bear a Sinological resemblance? Because you won't find any.

Only with our knowledge of political-historical relations between the Cold war powers could that Romulan-Chinese inference be possible. Indeed, the contributors made that comparison so that modern-day readers could better understand the roles and relations of the Star Trek powers, as understood through real life political situations. And yet, I do not see you on that discussion board striking out lines, claiming "unsourced fanon!". The proposed UFP-United States comparison merely continues in that same Wikipedian spirit, of assisting newcomers to appreciate the context of the UFP, by utilizing a modern-day political comparison for readers to better understand the format and structure of the UFP government. And as I said before, he does not step outside of his bounds and add any partisan elements to the post, but instead sticks to the basic elements, citing the federal structure of both governements (most revealingly, you even concede his point). I am left only to conclude that your continued refutation of the proposed text lies not in any real criticism, but a deep-seated bias against the United States itself. I can only respond in bewilderment, and somehow feel that by resorting to such petty debate, we have somehow set ourselves that much further from what the Great Bird himself envisioned Star Trek to serve as: a shining light to a more enlightened world. - user ALEwsi

I will continue to add this analogy to this page. It neesd no citation from the show as it is a credible analogy made to help the reader understand how the Federation is organized. Please do not try to tell me how a federal goverment is structured, you are no authority on the matter, if you were you would understand this analogy- DavidSanGabriel

I'm unconcerned with what happens on a non-descript discussion board. Everything in Wp requires citation: if you can't find any, promulgate your point of view at Memory Alpha instead ... which has policies about inclusion of non-canon information and where the US analogy isn't noted in their article about the Federation, either. I defer to prior statements, none of which have been allayed by the above verbiage. And yes: I would demand sourcing for comparisons of the major races in Star Trek with actual ones ... and note that they are, to some degree, in the Romulan article. Such unsourced fanon contributions will be nixed herein. Get back to us when you can provide reputable sources we can verify.

Moreover, supposed and continued sockpuppetry – demonstrated by three anonymous users, arguably the same, that are making the same Americentric argument – and said edits will be dealt with expediently. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 13:42, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I have to put another comment in. While the US AND the UN seem both to be legitimate legal sources of the Federation, niether are completely correct. The Federation (in my humble opinion) seems to be more of a US BEFORE the Civil War, when state's rights were more paramount to the Federal government. In the ST universe, the individual planets seem to have near complete control over their own area (including colonies - this answers my previous comment, I looked it up), but the UFP has jurisdiction over the sovieriegn nation of the UFP, including military and economy. Thus, the current USA seems to be much more of a top-down entitiy as compared to the UFP, and the modern UN is obviously too weak to compare the UFP to (regardless of conspiracy theories to the contrary). The best compromise I can think of in modern day terms is the European Union, BUT, with universal control over the military, something the EU does not currently have. Based on the ST universe, the UFP does have control over the economy AT CORE PLANETS, but because of the use of various Fed Credits nearer the border areas (DS9), this economic control does not yet extend to these areas, indicating a lack of economic harmonization throughout (just like the EU). However dont think that the EU is the solve-all for this, it was not in existence for all of Classic Trek (save a couple movies) and was still evolving the economic aspect during DS9 and some of Voyager. The writers could not have used the EU in creating the UFP, but as I said, it is the best modern equivalent we have - adding in the military control. BUT, we cannot completely base the UFP on either the US or the UN until there is a definate text of the Constitution (or whatever it is officially called) of the UFP -Constitutional Law Graduate - Sharwood 14 Feb 2007

E Pluribus Anthony is a dork and probably hasn't seen a naked girl in his life. - E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 13:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

(This comment seems to have actually been posted by anon user 128.97.245.111 at 07:42, 14 June 2006)--Hibernian 01:10, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Possible future

Borg conflict

I added the suggestion about the inevitability of the Federation-Borg war (whether or not we see it on-screen). Any criticisms/comments/expansion?

The state of the Collective is unclear after the events of VOY "Endgame". Also, the Borg didn't seem to be much of a threat in any of the futures we've seen, especially "Timeless" and "Endgame". --StAkAr Karnak 03:35, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

What you say about the future timelines is true...perhaps this is because the war has already been fought and won by the Federation by the time of those futures (esp. likely now Starfleet has the advanced weapons Voyager brought back). But I think, whatever the state of the Borg as of 2377, I don't see any reason for their intentions to change...and even if they decide to leave the Federation alone as an unconquerable enemy, I think Starfleet might still begin the war themselves, to be sure. --Pomegranate 15:13, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I think Starfleet is probably more likely to seek some kind of armistice with the Borg than try to take them on and destroy them directly. Even the most hawkish members of Starfleet Command must understand that deliberately going to war with the Borg would lead to little more than an extremely bloody stalemate. Plus the Federation has no way of getting at the Borg at this time--the development of transwarp drive, though it may be facilitated by some of the technology and know-how brought back by Voyager from the Delta Quadrant, is still a few years away. While the Borg may not have seemed very threatening on Voyager (blame this on Rick Berman and Brannon Braga's overuse of the Borg to the point that they became cliche), take into consideration that, as of "Endgame," the Borg had assimilated Admiral Janeway--and with her, all of her advanced knowledge of 25th Century military technology. Though it may take some time for the Borg to rebuild, when they do they may prove to have transformed into a more formidable force than the Federation has ever faced before. I predict that the Borg will attempt to invade the Federation at least one more time in the future, though it may be a few years before that actually happens. After that, if the Federation survives, there may even be the opportunity for detente between the galaxy's three (or four) major superpowers, depending on how pragmatic future leaders of the Federation choose to be.--Antodav 04:32, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

The Federation will eventually encompass the Galaxy and rename themselves to the Old Republic... just kidding, I couldnt help it - Sharwood Feb 17, 2006

Fate of the Federation

It says "By the 31st century, indications are that the Federation no longer exists." What on earth happened to it? Did it get wiped out, or did it move on to something greater?

I added that. It is based on comments from Daniels, from, IIRC, "Shockwave, Part II." He says that there was a statue dedicated to the Federation on Earth, with an implication that it no longer existed in the 31st century. --StAkAr Karnak 01:10, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

What reasoning are you using to draw the conclusion that because there's a monument to the Federation in San Francisco in the 31st Century, that the Federation must no longer exist? Isn't it possible that the people of the Federation erected a monument to their own government, perhaps at a significant anniversary of its founding (the Federation's Quinticentennial would have been in 2661; that's between the time of the Next Generation and the time that Daniels is from). That's like saying that because the Statue of Liberty was erected in New York harbor, the United States must no longer exist. I see no canonical evidence that the Federation does not exist in some shape or form in the 31st Century. Antodav 03:20, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, it might be interesting to consider, given the widespread corruption evident in Starfleet and the Federation on DS9 and in the film Star Trek: Insurrection, the possibility of a Federation Civil War happening sometime in the late 24th Century. If we're going to engage in idle speculation, why not go all the way out? Antodav 03:20, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

The fact is that no empire lasts forever, either something replaced the Federation or it went the way of Rome. Joe Cannibal 05:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, first of all the federation isn't an empire. And China exists and has existed in different forms ever since 1000BC. And there was an episode where Daniels and Archer are in the 31st century in ruins of some kind with a library. How do we know this means the Federation is gone? Daniels also mentions that all their time portals have been destroyed, could this ruination (whether or not it did or didn't mean the demise of the Federation) could be a result of the temporal cold war and time meddling? That's what I thought it was. The snare (talk) 00:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

President's Name

Is the president's name canonical? I think the one listed is the president featured in the DS9 Homefront episode, but wasn't there another one after him mentioned? 23skidoo 13:52, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Jaresh-Inyo is as far as I know canonical. I did some googling and found out that Nanietta Bacco isn't canonical.--84.26.109.69

Jaresh-Inyo is indeed canonical, but one of the last episodes of DS9 made it clear that as of 2375 he was "former" President Jaresh-Inyo, so canonically we don't know who is President at the last point at which we left 24th Century Star Trek.--Antodav 04:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Mid-24th century

I made two minor changes to this section. First, I removed "Jem-Hadar" from the line about who the Federation Alliance fought against in the Dominion War. Mentioning the Jem-Hadar separately there alongside the Cardassians, Dominion, and Breen implies that they're an allied race, when in fact they are the genetically engineered shock troops of the Dominion. They should not be listed as separate from the Dominion. The other change I made was to note that the "substantial casualties" previously mentioned occurred on both sides. Toroca 17:36, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I changed "Jem-Hadar" back to "Dominion" again. The Jem-Hadar are NOT a separate entity like the Cardassians and Breen and should NOT be referred to as such. The Jem-Hadar do not have their own empire, they do not have a homeworld, they do not have a government of their own. They are the genetically engineered soldiers of the Dominion. Saying "The Federation fought the Jem-Hadar, Cardassians, and Breen" is as dumb as saying "The Dominion fought the Humans, Klingon Empire, and Romulan Empire." Humans are not the only race that make up the Federation; they may be a majority, but there are dozens of other races. Same with the Jem-Hadar and the Dominion. Because they're the troops, they make up the majority of the representatives of the Dominion that we've seen, but even so, they are one of many member/subject races. If your viewpoint differes, please explain your reasoning. Toroca 00:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Irony?

Am I the only one who finds the sentence 'Loosely based on the United States, the Federation stresses the values of peace and cooperation.' ironic at best?

It used to say "loosely based on the United Nations" at one point, but that wording would appear to have fallen victim to the black-helicopter brigade. –Hajor 22:25, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

If that statement were true--of the Federation--then no, that wouldn't be considered ironic. As is though, yes, I'd have to agree, quite wholeheartedly in fact, that that statement is the most ironic thing I've read all week.--Antodav 03:34, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Ironic only in the sense that the Federation does stress the values of peace and cooperation but the United States doesn't. I believe it is much more accurate to say that the Federation is modelled on the United Nations than the United States. - cyl

Here is the irony. The Federation would be the United Nations and the humans would be the United States. And one of the issues is that the Humans run the Federation, just like the U.S. running or having power over the U.N.

-G

I always found it slightly amusing that star trek managed to become so popular in America, since the federation is basically the ultimate ideal of communism. That's the irony. 86.28.197.238 (talk) 23:42, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Everyone, even the people that posted four years ago, should remember that this is not a forum. See WP:NOTFORUM. Dbrodbeck (talk) 16:28, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism?

Every edit that User:128.97.180.124 has made is changing the comparison to the "United Nations" into "United States" on this page (a total of 3 times so far). I've gently warned them that it could be seen as vandalism. - JVG 09:35, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

EU

OK, I completely realize the EU was in no way, shape, or form around when Gene Roddenberry was, but hear me out on this. I stated that the UFP is loosly based on the EU due to the EU's member states retaining virtually complete sovereignty while in the EU, and merely sceeding very limited aspects of their affairs through the use of treaties and (eventually hopefully) a constitution. Perhaps I'm getting too ahead of my self, in that this addition of the EU mention would rather forcast and assume what the UFP was modeled/made after, vs. more "official" cannon from the actual shows (the EU would still have existed in any UFP timeline though, right?!?). —akghetto ^talk 16:56, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

The European Community was founded in 1957. In the episode "Up The Long Ladder" of the second season of TNG Picard makes an allusion how the "European Hegemony" was a forerunner of a united earth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.123.73.5 (talk) 22:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Can you cite any reliable, authoritative source that we can verify to support this argument/comparison? If you can or cannot – and I suspect the latter – then that should determine if this comparison should be included. More to point: the EU is arguably not a federation per se (at least yet or fully by various sources), while the titular Federation is (or a vastly decentralised one). The same can also be said of the UN, but I believe this at least has been cited by Roddenberry et al. as a model upon which the political union in Star Trek is based (TBD).

Relatedly – and maybe more inline with what you were thinking – in "Up the Long Ladder", Picard notes that the European Hegemony (in reference to a comtemporaneous beacon used between 2123 to 2190) "was a loose alliance that formed in the early twenty-second century. It was the first step toward a world government." I hope this helps. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 17:23, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Did one more revert of UN vs. US today. I agree that whoever wants to change this needs to WP:CITE Star Trek creators. I'm not an expert but I'm sure plenty of fans reading this page can do their homework and find a few sources to clarify this.

As I'm from Europe, I can shed some more light on your questions. From a historical and political perspective, indeed the current EU is explicitly not a federation, i.e. member states have final authority on everything. They don't even really delegate some powers to a super-state, so Europe is not a confederation either (Switzerland is one). Member states send representatives (both elected and non-elected) to various EU bodies to negotiate EU-wide laws and regulations on their behalf. The scope of cooperation is defined in complex treaties. Because unanimity is the rule, every single country has veto power, and with 25 members now, decision processes are slower than ever. In recent years, a mildly ambitious constitutional project was devised to introduce some majority rules, as a first step towards an eventual political union. After months of intense haggling, all 25 governments approved it, BUT the project was shelved in June 2005 after the people from France and the Netherlands voted against it; citizens of other countries were not even asked their opinion... So, the words of Captain Picard "a loose alliance" sound rather correct to me; I bet this episode was written at a time when the EU was negotiating some important treaty (e.g. the 1992 Maastricht Treaty establishing freedom of movement for people and goods among all member states). Oh, I lost my bet, that episode was aired in 1989, even before the Iron Curtain fell down... but the EU was an even looser alliance back then ;-) -- JFG 00:53, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... ok, I understand a bit more now. I withdraw my EU idea. —akghetto ^talk 04:32, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Another revert... I looked on Startrek.com and there is no page. Memory Alpha probably has the best page on the UFP so have a read of that and compare the structure to that of the UN and the USA. Not being American, I can't be sure that USA isn't an accurate comparison but I do think that the UN fits better. - JVG 10:03, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, another comment. And this whole section really seems to fall under the government portion. But while the EU is obviously not a source of government when ST and the UFP was envisioned, it is the closest thing in existence on the planet today, in my opinion. We Do Not have any canon information on the internal workings of the UFP, that either explicitly tie the politics and constitution to that of the US, nor does the power of the UFP compare to the UN. For the US side, planets seem to have their own ability to create colonies, local military (ST: motion picture), and control their own governments (as long as they are in control of the entire planet) - some seem to still have a monarchy (Betazed and others). These are things that the states have long given up on. In the modern US, the Federal government controls most of the local governments as well, through grants and gifts of money in exchange for obediance (Think highway money in exchange for a 21 year old drinking law). The UN does not have any real power except when the Security Council agrees on something, and even then it is usually just a polic matter. The UN does not have a standing military (Star Fleet), taxation power, ability to tell individual member states what to do, and do not have a court system that is mandatory. Thus, the UFP, without canon sources to confirm either way, it is definately greater than the UN (while the creator may have sited it as a source for political reasons), and possibly less than the US in modern times. But even this is hard to confirm. My opinion is that the UFP is similiar to the US before the Civil War, when states' power was equal to Federal power, or similiar to the EU, (forgetting exact history and political manuervering) with full power over the military. The UFP was based on 5 governments consiladating their power to protect themselves from common enemies, something different from the beginning of the US, the UN, or the EU, so none of those examples will completely suffice. Sharwood 14 Feb 2007

I am the one responsible for changing the comparing of the Federation from United Nations to the United States. If any of you bothered to understand the various forms of government, you would realize that the United Federation of Planets in no way, shape or form resembles the United Nations. First off, the Federation can best be described as one large wholly united political entity in the galaxy. It forms one government, with a central federal government in the shape of a legislature- the Federation Council, a judiciary, in the shape of the Federation Supreme Court, and an executive, the Federation President. This sounds like a presidential style of government, akin to the US. It's laws are BINDING on every world in the Federation. When was the last time the United Nations General Assembly passed laws that were binding on every country on this planet? Does the UN have legal jurisdiction in the US, in Japan, in South Africa? A federation by definition is a state that is composed of a several different regional governments united by a strong central government. These individual member states have limited regional authority over themselves, but in the end they are subordinate to the central government. They may not form their own military or foreign policy or any law the supercedes the laws of the central government. Does this sound familiar? It should, it's the setup of the United States, which is a federation. This is quite comparable to the setup of the Federation, which has its own constitution. Earth, Vulcan, Betazed are comparable to say, California, Florida, New York etc...The UN is NOT a federation in any sense of the word, it has no say-so in the SOVEREIGN politics of any nation-state. It has no military, its "legislature" the General Assembly, is not elected, and does not have any legal authority over any country on the planet. Though it is politically correct it seems to compare the UFP to the UN, it is not in the least bit accurate to do so. Any attempt to alter my UFP-US comparison will be edited back.

Taking the opposite point of view, I would say that the Federation in NO WAY resembles the United States, not the United Nations (see above for this reasoning). The United Nations is a far closer analogy for the Federation, with the way in which the worlds of the Federation seem to maintain a certain degree of sovereignty (and in some cases, their own military force separate from Starfleet), the way that worlds in the Federation are represented in the Council by Ambassadors rather than Senators or Congressmen, etc. It's true that the Federation does indeed represent a more centrally organized government than the United Nations in its current form, but that does not necessarily make it more like the United States. It would be better to say that the Federation is similar not to what the United Nations is today, but rather, what it aspires to eventually become: a united, global Earth government.--Antodav 03:38, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

There's a simple question/solution to determine if this or any analogy should be included: can you cite one reliable source that supports your position and that the rest of us can verify? I see none of that in the text above. If you can or cannot, that should guide our edits. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 14:43, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm seriously not trying to be an ass, so please don't take this the wrong way, and I realized you're probably looking for a cannon cite, but [1] ? (don't kill the messenger  ;) ) —akghetto ^talk 18:15, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks ... but I don't think this is it. Any dictionary will reiterate and describe what a federation (federal union) is (as the article and above states already). What we need, however, is a citation from a reliable source that compares the UFP to an actual political entity ... either the UN, US, or Canada for that matter. The closest thing I could find – and this doesn't cut it (and actually may support both) – is in The Making of Star Trek by Stephen E. Whitfield and Roddenberry (paperback), which states on pp. 44-5 (appropriate terms wikified):

But it was believed reasonable to assume that a "Federation" will exist—a "United Federation of Planets." Some of the member planets would be Earth Colonies, while others would be friendly aliens.

There is nothing strange or new in the concept of a galactic-wide federation. It is a normal, logical progression from what we know today. The history of the Earth is replete with examples of small city-states, countries, and even religious groups joining together in a "union," "congress", or "federation". . . . it is entirely probable that some sort of cooperative union will result—if not from a need for mutual self-defense, then certainly to enjoy the benefits of interplanetary trade and commerce.

Moreover, The Star Trek Encyclopedia indicates only that Picard's mention in Star Trek: First Contact of there being 150 member planets in the UFP was meant to hark of the number of members of the UN, not necessarily a parallel structure with it (though I don't dispute this analogy).

Perhaps some of the above can be included instead? Until then and unless a citation is forthcoming for the other positions above, I believe it is correct to nix it. Thoughts? Thanks! E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 19:58, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I support that, it'll hopefully save the endless reverts... - JVG 17:03, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Great – and take a look at yesterday's history and you'll note that it didn't stop an anon IP (sockpuppet?) to insinuate the unsourced US analogy again. I reverted. Ah well: we just have to be diligent. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 18:12, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Just passing through via Technological singularity - nice article. :) I feel it's worth mentioning that repeated hobby-horse edits by one user, against consensus, might be considered vandalism. Vashti 05:23, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Would anyone like me to add in the Federation member races from the Titan, A time to, and related period novels? I have the lot of them on .Lit file... I just dont want to step on any toes to add them in. HawkShark 15:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Sourcing and style

This article sources only a few things to episodes. It doesn't even mention what episode the Federation was first mentioned in, etc. It picks out the random trivia that we know about the Federation from episodes and tries to create a narrative from it. This is something that fictional reference works like the Star Trek Encyclopedia do, but isn't the type of thing that a real-world encyclopedia should be engaging in. This a common problem to the Star Trek articles and indeed articles about large fictional worlds in general. Morwen - Talk 20:06, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't disagree (see above!); also note, however, that this is a problem with non-fictional articles too. For fictional articles like the many that exist for Star Trek topics (and plethora of background material), and per the WikiProject guidelines (in lieu of obviating the need for 'lengthy' Harvard referecing), it's good and still proper to merely include/embed a piped link or hyperlink to the appropriate episode ... or to sanctioned works like The ST Encyclopedia ... after a notion. And though this should really be done by the incipient contributor, Wikipedians with a hawkish eye can then verify or nix information. For truly contentious notions, cite additionally below (Harvard, et al.) and discuss as we are now! :) E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 20:14, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Maquis Criticism

If there's more problems there, let's try to have a positive collaboration and move towards a solution bit by bit, the previous edit sounded like a Pro-Federation POV Essay. Karmafist 18:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

The entire article sounds like a pro-Federation POV essay. Has anyone stopped to consider that Gene Roddenberry's "utopian" vision of the future might not be quite so idyllic and perfect as we've always been encouraged to believe, if it was ever actually put into practice? Some elements of the Federation are downright Orwellian...this article could do with a large dose of objectivity added to it.--Antodav 03:41, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Military Strength

I would like to have an idea of mine clarified. I believe that the Federation could very well be the most powerful single entity in the galaxy; here's my reasoning. The federation focusing its ship designs on explorationand so forth, yet their vessels are very formidable to many other species including waring ones such as the Dominion. However, if their vessels can stand up to a purely military vessel when they are designed for exploration, if the Federation decided to build purely military craft, I believe that they would have a much higher offensive cabality. This assumption is of course neglecting the possible political ramifications of such a course of action.

Well I would say that the federation is certainly the biggest military power in the Alpha Quadrant, but I doubt it is the most powerful in the Galaxy, The Dominion very nearly won the war and it was only with the help of all the other races that Starfleet was victorious. Also the Dominion were hampered by the fact they could only get ships in through the wormhole and later not at all, if they had been able to bring all their forces to bare the federation would have been easily conquered.

Then there is the Borg Collective, remember how it took Dozens of Starfleet ships to combat just one Borg Sphere! Well the Borg probably have thousands of such vessels, the federation is no match for them in a real war.

As for you suggestion that the federation might be holding back on their potential military might, there is probably some truth to that, as was seen in DS9 the Defiant was build purely for war, and it did seem to be a more effective craft. However I'd say that even if Starfleet were fully Militarised it would still be no match for the Dominion or Borg in a full-scale war.

--Hibernian 17:54, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

At the end of the 2370s I would say that the Federation, the Borg, and the Dominion were all just about equally matched in power and influence in their respective quadrants of the galaxy. There may in fact be a fourth civilzation that serves as their counterpart in the Beta Quadrant (the last episode of Voyager briefly mentioned a species known as the Fen Domar) but until canon establishes it we cannot know for sure. The Federation is definitely a galactic superpower, far outstripping in military and political might any of its neighbors (including the Klingons and the Romulans, who were greatly diminished as a result of the Dominion War and the events of Star Trek: Nemesis), but I would not go so far as to say that it's the most powerful force in the entire galaxy. Not that the megalomaniacal bureaucrats in San Francisco might not think of themselves that way, of course.--Antodav 03:46, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with this and previous comments. But without canon to support it, it is just guesswork. Based on the ability of the UFP to deal with the Dominion and the Borg, they could match their abilities. For the Dominion, if the wormhole was controlled and efficient warships were built (like the Defiant), the UFP could hold them back (ignoring the effects that Odo had on the founders after the end of DS9). The Dominion was strong because they had a foothold in the Alpha Q, but lacking this, they would have a serious supply line problem in the wormhole, which could be shut down easily (either through conventional means, or the wormhole aliens). Next, assuming the Borg survived the last episode of Voyager relatively unharmed, the Federation has learned how to deal with them effectively (through Voyager's travels, the Dominion War, and other developements). Even if a full scale Borg invasion was immeniant, I think the Fed could handle it if enough warning was given. Based ont he events of DS9 and Nemises, it is implied that the UFP is the most powerful government in that area of the galaxy, with the ability to handle threats from other remote areas (given the tech that Voyager brought back After DS9 was completed). Sharwood Feb 14 2007

Can someone remove the fact that the USS Enterprise is the flagship of the Federation? It is NOT the flagship of the Federation, but instead is the flagship of Starfleet. Click on the Flagship link next to it and it states the following

A flagship is the ship used by the commanding officer of a group of naval ships. The term originates from the custom of the commanding officer (usually, but not always, an admiral) to fly a distinguishing flag.

--Feelgood 01:09, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

It has been mentioned several times on TNG that the Enterprise is the flagship of the Federation. Both Captain Picard and La Forge have said this.

--TJ Spyke 21:15, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

At the time of Nemesis that was probably still true, but that doesn't necessariliy mean it always will be. For example, if Picard were ever to accept promotion to Admiral and take the Enterprise as his own personal flagship, some other vessel might become the flagship of all of Starfleet itself. --Antodav 03:49, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Anyone else remember the line in First Contact during the battle at 001 where someone mentions "Defiant and Flagship move..." whatever, it just goes to show that there maybe multiple flagships with differing jurisdictions... We know the Enterprise often serves along the Romulan Neutral zone, so perhaps its simple the flagship of whichever Fleet patrol the NZ... HawkShark 15:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Federation Credit

I see people have been adding more about this mythical "Federation Credit", now unless someone can give an actual reference to anybody in Star trek actually using that name, or credits at all, then it has to be removed.

It is well known that the Federation does not use any form of Money or currency or anything like that, it has been stated on screen many times, and I'm pretty sure gene Roddenberry said it himself.

I've been trying to rewrite (or get rid of) the article Federation_credit, but this article is just so wrong I don't know where to start.

The only confirmed reference to a "credit" in star trek that I know of is Sisko's remark about "transporter credits", however it should be plainly obvious that he is not talking about any kind of currency but simply an allotment of transports that citizens of the Federation are given.

--Hibernian 19:52, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

It is not mythical, it is quite canonical. The myth is that money does not exist in any form in the Federation. I cited numerous episodes in my additions. It does not have to be removed, and I will restore the information if removed, because it is quie canonical and official. It is a fallacy that the Federation uses no money whatsoever, when they explicitly say so in both TOS and TNG. They also say that the gathering of money is not central to life, and economics work quite differently, and that money does not exist in the same form as the 20th century. It's clear money is not used in everyday life, but Federation Credits have been mentioned on multiple canonical occasions. The "transporter credits" could be whatever you make them out to be, but it is clear that they do have a finite allotment of something, and it has to be allocated some way, and that way is called credits. I added that as a reference, but it is the least strong one admittedly. While Gene Roddenberry said it in his later years, he also said the exact opposite during the making of the original series, he changed a lot of his opinions and ideas about Star Trek in the mid 1980's, and it's well documented he waffled on a lot of issues. If anything, noting the contradiction in sources may be appropriate.

Explicit references to Credits as Federation currency:

TOS: The Trouble with Tribbles. Uhura offers to buy a Tribble for 10 Credits.

TOS: Errand of Mercy. Spock notes how much the Federation has invested in training him, citing an exact figure of 122,200 Credits to date.

Star Trek III: The alien McCoy is negotiating with on Earth says it will cost "credits" to hire his ship.

TNG: The Price. The Federation bids over 1,000,000 credits for the rights to the Barzan Wormhole.

--Wingsandsword 20:18, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Those are all very interesting examples but they in themselves do not prove that the Federation uses a form of Money or Currency, you are simply assuming that there is nothing else they could be, however they can be explained in an alternative way.

Firstly you have not presented any evidence that the term "Federation Credit" has ever been used, only the vague term "credits", which is exactly why I said Federation credit is non-canonical, as it has never been said on screen (unless you can show that is was?).

Ok let's go through the examples, firstly I believe the person selling the tribbles was an alien or at least not a Federation Citizen, so using a form of exchange with an alien culture is not evidence that the Federation uses money.

Again McCoy negotiating with an Alien also does not prove money is used in the Federation.

The Barzan Wormhole bid, again these "Credits" could mean anything, they could be "Barzan Credits", Some kind of "Interstellar Credit", or it may be that the Federation is offering Recourses that have a value of 1 Million "Credits" to the Barzans. It does not mean that they are offering "Federation Credits".

The Beverly Crusher Example from Farpoint also does not confirm Federation Credits, she attempts to buy something from an Alien on a Non-Federation World, these Could have be "Bandi Credits" or anything, you are merely extrapolating that they are "Federation credits".

Now the Spock figure is I'll admit the hardest to explain away, however again he does not say what these "Credits" are, you are assuming they are Federation Money, he could be giving an equivalent in some interstellar currency credit. Actually if you think about it further Spock's statement makes no sense in UFP economic terms, if you assume these 122,200 Credits are money, How could Starfleet have spent this supposed money? As we have learned many times, people in the Federation are not paid for their work, so they certainly didn't spend it on Spock's teacher's salaries (as there is no such thing as payrolls in the UFP). Starfleet certainly couldn't have spent this on building or maintaining starships for Spock to train in, as we know from what Picard said in First Contact, that Starships are also not built with money and have no monetary equivalent value (this should therefore go for anything the Federation constructs, Vessels, buildings, Colonies, etc.). So a monetary explanation for this 122,200 "credits" makes no sense, why would Starfleet create money it cannot possibly spend.

The only explanation left is that these Credits are in-fact not a form of money at all but are something else, what that something else is, is speculation. But if you read my post on Federation credit, you will see I have suggested what these Credits may be. I believe that these credits are in-fact similar to (if not identical to) Energy-credits, read this and the other Technocracy related articles and you will see what I mean.

This explanation (unlike yours) is in agreement with all of the many, many statements made on and off screen that the Federation doesn't use money.

--Hibernian 04:12, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm just an unenlightened, 21st Century neanderthal, but I find it very hard to believe that any civilization, even one as utopian (or dystopian) as the Federation, could possibly exist without any money of any kind. Even communist societies, to which the Federation bears a remarkable resemblance, have some kind of money or currency that is used for basic transactions, both by the government and by the people. Therefore, even if it hasn't been firmly established that the Federation has some form of money or "credits" that is used in at least an intangible way, one could reasonably deduce that such currency does in fact exist. My guess is that Federation credits do exist, but not in any kind of concrete or tangible form (for example, there is no paper or coined money in the Federation), and that the people themselves have minimal access to it; Federation Credits would be controlled mainly by the powerful elite, used primarily for government transactions or other matters directly related to the day-to-day management of the Federation's massive bureaucracy. The people may, just as an illustration, actually recieve some quantity of "pay", so to speak, for the jobs that they perform for the Federation government and society as a whole--but instead of being able to deposit those credits into a personal account to do with as they please (as that would be the the equivalent of capitalism, or, as it was thought of in the mind of Gene Roddenberry, greed), the credits would instead go directly back to the government, which would then provide the people with goods and services on the basis of how valuable it judges those people's contribution to society. Essentially, the Federation probably has what amounts to a 100% income tax on all citizens, which they don't complain about because...well...who wants to be a dissident in paradise?

But of course, that's all just conjecture...--Antodav 04:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with Antodav's opinion about 100% income tax, and with Hibernian's about the nonexistence of the Federation credit, and I can refute both with one example of the use of money in the federation that makes it very hard to support either stance. As Hiberian mentioned previously, Dr. Crusher bought something at Farpoint station in TNG's pilot episode. Hiberian says that she could have been using Bandi Credits. I disagree with that, because she had the cost charged to her account on the Enterprise. Why would Dr. Crusher have an account of Bandi Credits on the Enterprise? Bandi Credits would only be usable in a very limited area. I propose that Dr. Crusher had an account of Federation Credits on the Enterprise, which would be redeemable in a much wider area. Similarly, Dr. Crusher having an account on the Enterprise disproves Antodav's theory that the Federation has an 100% income tax. How would Dr. Crusher have an account if the Federation's government took all her money away? And also, should I have posted this at the bottom of the section?--Star Trek enthusiast (talk) 17:02, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Well just because you can't imagine a society without money doesn't mean Gene Roddenberry couldn’t, which is the issue. I've put forward my case, which I believe explains and agrees with the general consensus that money is non-existent in the UFP. Weather you believe it is feasible or not is not the issue, it is fiction after all, lots of things in it are unfeasible, like Faster than light travel etc. (although personally I think a money-less society is quite possible). And I think there still needs to be major changes to the Credit article. --Hibernian 06:56, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

There is no "general consensus" that money is non existent in the United Federation of Planets. If there was, we wouldn't be having this dispute with other users also putting it in the article, and creating an article on the Federation Credit, it wouldn't be talked about in the Star Trek Encyclopedia (it has an entry there, the most official source referencing the Credit), it wouldn't be constantly talked about in novels and other licensed works. Occasionally you get references that there is absolutely no money whatsoever in some episodes, then in other episodes they talk about spending "credits" for things, both fully canonically. There is a conflict there in the source material, and the middle ground to reconcile the two appears to be that there is a unit of currency in the Federation called the Credit (or "Federation Credit" the same way we have "United States Dollar" or "Japanese Yen"), but it is not used in everyday life, and the normal Federation citizen never has to worry about or even deal with them thanks to the social structure and advanced technology of the Federation. --Wingsandsword 07:46, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Every Person who I've ever talked to about Star Trek was in no doubt about the absence of money in the Federation, that's what I mean by a general consensus. I can indeed see that there is a conflict in the Source material, where some times characters appear to be using some kind of money, however I believe these instances are explainable in a non-monetary context. I think we can agree that the Federation is, on the whole a Money-less society, but that on some rare occasions Something called Credits is used for certain transactions (mainly concerning Aliens).

Again the Term "Federation Credit" is absolutely non-canonical, as it has never actually been used, it may appear in books or games but they to are, of-course non-canon.

I suggest the Article be renamed to something like Credit (Star Trek) or Credit (Federation). Furthermore the Article must give the different interpretations of what these Credits are believed to be (because remember it has never been explained on-screen). (i.e. a monetary explanation and a Non-Monetary one).

--Hibernian 08:32, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Hibernian -- why in the world do you say "I think we can agree that the Federation is, on the whole a Money-less society"? Wingsandword clearly disagrees with you, and his arguments cannot be so easily dismissed, as he is providing examples that are clearly from canon, despite your oddly repeated claims that he has no canonical sources to back him up; he's provided several, and your dismissal proves to me that maybe you don't know as much about Star Trek as you think you do. (For example, despite what you say to the contrary, the person selling tribbles was human, not alien.) As I review this argument, it seems to me that Wingsandword is the one who wants to adhere to canon and (more to the point in a Wikipedia article) cite specific resources, while your argument seems to consist of repeating your original view over and over again and then backing it up by making the false claim that "well everybody agrees with me." -- Minaker, Aug 21, 2006

Firstly if Wingsandword (or anyone else) agrees or disagrees me, then he can tell me himself, surely he doesn't need you to explain his position. Secondly I think that Wingsandword has pretty much agreed that the Federation is, for the most part, a Money-less society, as that's basically what he's put in his edits.

I don't want to go over my position again (just read my above posts, I’ve gone over it in detail), but I will mention once again the glaringly obvious fact that the term "Federation Credit" is Not Canonical, for the simple reason that it has never been said on-screen. Thus the term is an inference by fans, of what they assume credits are. Which is basically all this is, a pile of assumptions.

Now when you say that Wingsandword's examples are canonical, I of-course agree, they are canonical because they happened on-screen, I wouldn't dispute that. However what I am disputing is his interpretations of these instances. And in my opinion because A) The Term Federation Credit has never been used, B) It has never been stated to be money, and C) we have multiple Canonical instances stating categorically that money doesn't exist in the UFoP, that the whole idea of Federation Credits being the monetary currency of the Federation is ridiculous. Now what I suggested to solve this is to have the article(s) put forth Both views. We cannot state something like "The Federation Credit is the currency of the Federation", we can state "Some fans believe the Federation Credit is the currency of the Federation", etc. --Hibernian 21:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I was willing to let the situation here slide because I was satisfied with the current state of the article in that regard. I felt no need to come back here and keep going over this territory.

I will agree that the United Federation of Planets is a mostly moneyless society. Having no money does not mean you will go hungry or cold, and billions of citizens of the Federation probably go their entire life without ever using or maybe ever even seeing money, however it is canonical, and to me quite apparent, that some form of what we would call money exists that is used sometimes in special or extraordinary circumstances. They do have something called the credit, that they exchange for goods and services that they want, and they may not call it money, but that's what that is called in our language.

The Star Trek Encyclopedia, the official reference work by Michael Okuda and made in-house at the Star Trek production offices and makes a point of only covering canonical trek lists the following entry on page 91 (Updated and Expanded Edition): "Credit. Unit of monetary exchange used in the Federation." Would it make you feel better if I added this citation, and citations from the non-canon but licensed RPG books that talk about the credit, and from novels that make reference to the Credit to the Federation credit article?

The people of the 24th century might not call the Credit money, and in Federation Standard it might not mean money, but to a 21st century person, when a person on a space station who describes his profession as a "trader" (like Cyrano Jones) wants to give you ownership of a small animal for "10 credits" and you bargain him down to 6 credits and now you have the animal, to modern English that is called "money", "money" might not mean that in the 24th century, but within our language and ways of understanding economics, that looks like money to me.

One of my first acts on Wikipedia was to propose the deletion of the article about the Centauran race because it is non-canonical (albeit very common in novels, roleplaying games, fan works and older licensed references), and it was quickly voted to be kept in AfD because it's clear wikipedia precedent that with regards to fictional universes, something doesn't have to be canonical to be here, it has to be verifyable and not original research, and the Federation Credit definitely meets that standard. Something that is from an officially licensed but non-canon source, or is verifyably so common in the fanbase as to be considered fanon can be in Wikipedia. The reason the "credit" we are discussing here is commonly referred to as the "Federation Credit" is the same reason the Dollar we use here in the USA is the United States Dollar and to the north in Canada they use the Canadian Dollar, the standard form of the name of money is the nationality (or issuing entity) and the unit, hence "Federation Credit". It doesn't matter that the name "Federation Credit" has never been used in canon that is the normal form for naming money in our langauge, and the term is is widely used in licensed spinoff products and the assocation of the name "Federation Credit" with what they trade in is verifyable.

Perhaps one reason for this confusion could be explained here [2] Ronald D. Moore, key to the production of both The Next Generation and Deep Space Nine is quoted as saying that Gene Roddenberry decided at one point that the UFP was moneyless, and not even "credits" existed, and they never had, but by that point he had put in numerous canonical references in the original series (and references in the animated series, which was stricken from the canon), and even a reference in the third movie (the first real time in the movies we see anybody out in the civilian world of the UFP at all), but suddenly everything changed, and apparently members of the production staff strongly disagreed, so you could end up with some writers who mention credits in the TNG years (like The Price), right alongside Picard telling people there is no money and it is barbaric, because there was bickering in the production offices over this very question, leading to a conflict in the source material as episodes flipped back and forth on the issue. Just because Gene Roddenberry made some absolute decree about Star Trek does not make it official canon though, he didn't even allow the phrase "Starfleet Intelligence" because he thought the UFP would be above having spies, and it didn't even really make it's way into TNG until after he stepped down from running the show, and that Starfleet didn't use cloaking devices only because it was morally offensive to them, instead of the treaty ban explanation given in The Pegasus (according to The Star Trek: The Next Generation Companion by Larry Nemecek). --Wingsandsword 21:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Well I think Wingsandword is really getting at the heart of the issue here, with almost countless hours of air-time to sift through and who knows how many writers, there are bound to be inconsistencies, so I suppose there is room for contrasting opinions to both be right. Maybe sometimes Star Trek canon claims that the Federation doesn't use money and sometimes it claims a Federation currency known as "Federation credits" or just "credits." That argument certainly seems to gel with what I've seen. All I know is, here's one thing Hibernian has taught me: Never, ever correct a Trekker! He may be right, he may be wrong, but above all else, he sure is passionate! Yeesh! -- Minaker (signing out of this discussion while he still can), August 23, 2006

There’s still some restaurants at this time that appear to use real food, I’m sure that places like this is where the credit comes in handy. There’s dilithium mining, I find it hard to believe that people would mine that for free. Joe Cannibal 01:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Federation Council Headquarters

"Its legislature is the Federation Council, headquartered in the Palais de la Concorde in Paris, France."

This is incorrect. The first, third and fourth Star Trek films quite clearly showed that the Federation Council Headquarters are located in San Francisco, along with Starfleet Command. The notion that they are located in the Palais in Paris is drawn from the novel Articles of the Federation, which is not canon. Until an episode of a TV series or a movie clearly establishes otherwise, it should be assumed that the Federation Council meets in San Francisco, and that Keith DeCandio made an error in his novel.

And by the way...

"In addition, one must note the rather shoddy external aesthetic of the supposed Federation Council building depicted in Star Trek: IV, as it is hard to believe that the legislature of the United Federation of Planets, a quadrant spanning interstellar power, would be housed in such a building."

Anybody bothered to take a look at the current state of the U.N. Headquarters in New York City lately? Antodav 02:56, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree, canonality trumps the novels. Also, do we know that "France" as a political entity exists? It seems like it would've been absorbed into first the European Hegemony and the the United Earth (also during that time they were evidentially colonized by the British :P)

Makgraf 06:41, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Wasn't Jaresh-Inyo's office in Paris? I seem to remember that from the episodes he was in. Mainphramephreak 13:38, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

The President is in Paris. That was established in ST:6 and again on the DS9 episodes "Homefront" and "Paradise Lost". However, the Council sessions are held in San Francisco, as was stated from ST:4 and the Voyager episode "In the Flesh".

Separating the branches of government is not unprecedented (see South Africa, Bolivia, European Union, California, Louisiana). The location of the Federation Supreme Court is unknown (and would likely be located in a third city).

Federation Charter from U.S. Constitution?

" It draws text and inspiration from the United Nations Charter and the Constitution of the United States among other sources."

Where does this allegation, that the Federation Charter is in any way, shape, or form inspired by the U.S. Constitution, come from? The very nature of the government and the society of the United Federation of Planets as depicted on the three 24th Century-era Star Trek series would seem to indicate that the U.S. Constitution played little to no role in helping to shape the Federation as it eventually became. In fact I would even go so far as to suggest that the founders of the Federation may have held the U.S. Constitution in disdain. Unless there is some episode of DS9 somewhere that I haven't seen that specifically cites the U.S. Constitution as even the slightest inspiration for the Federation Charter, this suggestion should not be considered canon and be striken from the article.--Antodav 04:11, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

The Original Series episode, Court Martial, Kirk's lawyer references it as a document that laid some of the legal precedent and traditions of the Federation. --Wingsandsword 04:37, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

That episode demonstrated only how much Samuel T. Cogley admired the U.S. Constitution; Cogley was clearly depicted as being an eccentric and the tribunal in that episode seemed to care little for his opinions, indicating that they were probably not held by the majority of Federationites or at the very least the ruling elite. Next I suppose you're going to bring up Kirk's ability to recite the Constitution in "The Omega Glory" as possible evidence that the Federation was in some way inspired by the principles of the United States, but Kirk himself was also most definitely an eccentric (and, not coincidentally, an American).--Antodav 04:57, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Cogley was referencing it in the sense of it laying legal traditions that lead to the Federation, and precedent that was still listened to in the UFP (just like the John Peter Zenger trial predated the USA by over 30 years, but is an important legal precedent in the US). Kirk seemed to know it by heart and respect it deeply. Claiming the document is scorned in the future when the few times we've heard it referenced have been in a highly positive light as a document protecting liberty is totally illogical. Furthermore The Drumhead, it's mentioned that the founding document of the UFP is informally called "The Constitution" despite it's legal title of "Charter", and apparently it has a list of "Guarantees" of basic civil rights, and you can cite the "Seventh Guarantee" while on trial to avoid self-incrimination, the same way the fifth amendment to the United States Constitution is cited. It's pretty clear, and quite canonical that it's part of their legal and cultural heritage. The UN Charter clearly had more of an influence on the wording of the UFP Charter from what we've seen, but the Constitution of the United States (especially the Bill of Rights) appears to have played a significant role in their legal tradition. --Wingsandsword 05:15, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Would not, therefore, the most logical statement be something to the effect of, "The Charter of the United Federation of Planets seems to have been influenced by both the United Nations Charter and the Constitution of the United States?" Obviously, the glimpse of the UFP Charter seen in VOY was based upon the UN Charter, but, just as obviously, the Seventh Guarantee was based on the US Constitution's Fifth Amendment. And, besides the point: Why would the US Constitution be held in disdain by the Federation's founders? It was one of the first such organizing documents to create a representative democracy and to attempt to enumerate and protect basic human rights. Its original form didn't go far enough to preserve natural rights, sure, but, then, neither did the Magna Carta -- but people hardly go around holding that one in disdain today, and the Magna Carta's relationship to the US (centuries-old legal document from an ancestor state) seems fairly analogous to the US Constitution's relationship to the UFP. -- Sci 08:02 22 OCT 2006

Ktarians

Ktarians are NOT members of the Federation; in the TNG episode "The Game" they were openly hostile to the Federation and actually attempting to take it over. I don't know why people keep thinking that they are, just because Naomi Wildman's father is a Ktarian and Deanna Troi happens to like their chocolate. I've removed them from the list of Federation member worlds.--Antodav 04:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't have time to look this up right now, but I'm pretty sure that most Trek Fans assume Naomi Wildman (and her father) are of a different species to those Ktarians in TNG. Meaning there are two Species called Ktarians. (I think I read somewhere that they are spelled differently but I'm not sure). They do have completely different physical features (i.e. the TNG Ktarians didn't have little spikes on their heads)

Here just look a this Google search I just did http://images.google.ie/images?hl=en&q=Ktarian&sa=N&tab=wi You can clearly see the differences. (Looks like two different species to me).

--Hibernian 07:08, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I found the Website where I read the stuff about the Ktarians, http://www.stdimension.org/int/ There seems to be something wrong with this site though as I can't post an address to the exact page. But anyway, go to the Investigating Trek area of the site, and then go to the Biology section, down the bottom of that page is the section on the "Ktarians". The Page is a little out of date but their explanation of the Ktarians is spot on. BTW they can indeed now be reinstated on the UFP Members list. --Hibernian 02:54, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Evidence that they are members of the Federation, ("The Ktarians were officially with the Federation but they sympathized with the Maquis", [VOY] The Voyager Conspiracy). --Hibernian 03:07, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Romulans

Can someone write something about the federation's standing with the Romulans? Possibly comparing the level of technological differences between the two.

Please sign off after every comment you had made! Thank You! --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 03:30, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Anyone else notice that in the list of 68 UFP member races, there is both Centauran(link to a page where in the species comes from Alpha-Centauri) and there is also Alpha-Centauran. HawkShark 15:07, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Does the quote belong here?

I see this quote has recently appeared at the top of the article... "(The United Federation of Planets) is the most remarkable institution ever conceived..." -Judge Aaron Satie ... Does this really belong here? For one thing I'm pretty sure that "Judge Aaron Satie" is a fictional Character mentioned in TNG, so it's a fictional quote. Secondly Wikipedia doesn't usually use quotes in this way does it? So should this really be here? (I suppose it could be worked into the article somewhere, but I doubt it belongs on the top of the page). --Hibernian 16:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

No it does not belong there... part of why I added the "In-universe" citation below. First paragraph of this article should be for the most part non-fiction, i.e. it should say "United Federation of Planets is from work of fiction XXXX, it was created by XXXX, and/or appears and/or first appeared in this work of fiction XXXX created by XXXX, where it had this plot significance / is described as having these attributes....." . Halfblue 19:58, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

(grif 01:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)) this artical meations Ador as being a member of the federation but isn't Ador the gas giant that Andoria the home world of the Andorians. So should Andor or Andoria be used?

Some cleanup needed Re: In-universe

This article needs to be edited to match Wikipedia guidlines WP:LAYOUT WP:1SP WP:WAF so added "In-universe" tag. Halfblue 17:59, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Add spoiler warning

Add spoiler warnings to this article. It includes many details of Voyager episodes. --San Marcos 22:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Warp-Five Complex

The Warp-Five Complex is without any doubts a very important item in Federation history: for all practical purpose is the starting point for the whole organization. I created a link to it even if the article actually does not exist, another user keep deleting the link. While I agree it is not easy to find infoermation about it (it is rarely referred in Enterprise and other information exist in some novels), I think it is worth to create an article on it. On my experience, a link to non-existent artice is an efficient invitation for contributors to create it, while an unlinked terms will likely go unnoticed by the visitors. The fact that few information existed on W5C is the exact reason why we should put an effort to create the article.Luca Mauri 09:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

If it is so significant, why does we'll-post-anything Memory Alpha's article only have a couple of paragraphs, with no hits coming back at all at StarTrek.com for "Warp 5 complex"? The building may have some importance in-universe in Star Trek, but from an out-of-universe perspective, it's just another building from an episode or two. As with other significant-in-universe-but-insignificant-out-of-universe characters and ships, perhaps you should create Warp 5 Complex as a redirect to the Enterprise episode in which it is introduced or plays the most significant part. --EEMeltonIV 11:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The fact that little information exists about the Warp 5 Complex shows that it probably shouldn't be a Wikipedia article. Within the context of the Star Trek universe it might be historically notable, but in the real world, which Wikipedia exists in, it's a tiny footnote in the backstory of Star Trek: Enterprise. With Wikipedia standards of sources such as requiring reliable secondary sources for articles, where are you going to find secondary sources about the Warp 5 Complex? What sources other than the TV show itself? It's probably best left as a brief section of the article about Zefram Cochrane. How many books and magazine articles can you really cite as sources specifically for the Warp 5 Complex? A full article is probably best left at Memory Alpha. --Wingsandsword 16:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The same concept you exposes here apply to a lot of article on Wikipedia, but none of them was removed or even marked to be removed. I still cannot understand the many users of Wikipedia that prefer to delete contents instead of adding them... If we just had put half the effort needed to modify the article three times and wrote all these comments in reaserching about the issue, the article about W5C would have been created already. I give up now, because I do not have time to fight against other 'contributors', I prefer to add information than chat pointlessly. I hope you are happy with this. Luca Mauri 08:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Some people feel that Wikipedia should be as accurate and factual as possible, and that it should approach subjects from the point of view of someone who is interested in the broader picture of events rather than having minutae from various works of fiction repeated to them. Please don't be discouraged by this; that not everything is suitable for Wikipedia doesn't mean that there isn't a place for it elsewhere (Memory Alpha probably being that place). Chris Cunningham 10:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The point is some people, there are other people that thinks details are important. Actually Wikipedia is full of details somewhere and very scarce elsewhere, the problem is not all the contributors approach the problem the same way and then the article managemet is somewhat inconsistent. I suppose this is one of the bad thing of a wiki by design. And no, I will not be discouraged by this, I will keep contribute Wikipedia as I did in the past monts :-) Luca Mauri 19:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Member list

The list of make-believe members of make-believe government are trivial and not worth including in an article that should have an out-of-universe perspective. See WP:WAF. Additionally, the list itself appears to be un-referenced original research. --EEMeltonIV 02:20, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Removed infobox official language entry

I have removed "Federation Stantard language" from the infobox beacuse there are no canon references to it. Maybe it could be added to the "Non-canon" section. See discussion on Memory Alpha and Memory Beta article. —ilaiho (talk) 15:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, the only canon place I know a "Federation Standard" language to be mentioned was in an on-screen display in the TNG episode "The Ensigns of Command" when they were reviewing a treaty that the UFP had signed with an alien world, the on-screen display showed it in two languages, the Sheliak language (the language of the race the UFP signed the treaty with) and "Federation Standard English". So, it's a tiny reference, but it is visible and legible on screen that it's the language that the UFP writes it's treaties in, and I'd say that makes it look pretty official. --Wingsandsword (talk) 01:54, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

It does not make it an official language. There are many countries which don't have official languages, though a de facto language which is used in most occasions. —ilaiho (talk) 20:12, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

2009 Film and alternate timeline

We need have a discussion about story in the 2009 film. It's canon because it come from a film by Paramount. The story might be in alternate timeline but it is relevant to UFP.

I think we should restore the section ==== Late-24th to Early-25th Century ==== deleted by User:Montana's Defender. --RayYung (talk) 00:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

the film is not set within the original Star Trek canon

It's a non canon film Any true fan who sees this crap you call Star Trek will

tell you that. So I sticking with Gene Roddenberry's verison meaning 5 tv series and 10 movies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Montana's Defender (talk • contribs) 01:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Do you have any reliably sources that explicitly state this film falls outside Star Trek canon? The film's page has a number of such sources that state the contrary. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 02:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The deleted section, was it verified by means of reliable sources? If so, then restore it by all means. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 02:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

according to writer Roberto Orci,the film is not set entirely within the original Star Trek canon, so its a noncanon film —Preceding unsigned comment added by Montana's Defender (talk • contribs)

You're confusing canon status with the timeline, i.e. simply are incorrect in terms of whether the film is "canon". --EEMIV (talk) 03:25, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Map

I am adding a map. Complain about a completly helpful image below. Drlf (talk) 00:27, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

First off, do we have the rights? Secondly, the map is way too big for the page. (This explains my revert of your good faith edits) Dbrodbeck (talk) 02:56, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Section 31

Comparing Section 31 to the modern CIA is incorrect. The CIA is an official and legitimate intelligence agency of the USA. The official intel agency of the Federation is Starfleet Intelligence. Section 31 is officially denounced, in the Federation, as a rogue agency. Even though, unoffically, some Starfleet people are affiliated with it. --24.183.20.21 (talk) 09:35, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Economics

I have twice reverted, as have others, some stuff on economics that seems to be a case of WP:OR. I would like others to take a look and weigh in here. Dbrodbeck (talk) 17:11, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

It seems to be accurate, but we would need a reliable source to be sure. I don't know if the book referred to would be a reliable source. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:07, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah I think it might be accurate, though in the show they seem to say Earth is a utopia, not sure about the rest of the federation. Anyway, a source is needed for sure. Dbrodbeck (talk) 23:01, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Oy vey ... The book IS a reliable source! The author interviewed THE CREATOR OF THE SHOW, for Christ's sake! And while YOU'RE "not sure" about the rest of the Federation, I AM; each world within it IS as utopian as Earth -- otherwise, they wouldN'T have been admitted as members in the first place, so leave the GRATUITOUS cynicism at home! If you're not as big a Trekkie as I obviously am, then defer to expertise! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.134.64 (talk) 17:35, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

We don't defer to expertise. We defer to sources. Please bring a source we can discuss instead of the constant name calling and shouting. Dbrodbeck (talk) 18:52, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

This is a fight I do not want to be a part of, I just wanted to comment on the reveresion of 880 characters being called a minor edit and calling it vandalism is probably a bad idea, both of those actions would dissuade other editors from looking at the discussion and I think it should be looked at. CombatWombat42 (talk) 20:12, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Lets all remember to assume good faith, however, Mr IP address, Edit Waring is against the rules and can result in a block. Andrew Wiggin (talk) 20:38, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Please see the IPs talk page, and the previously blocked IP addresses talk page (talk) for some context. Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:51, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I took a look, that user has been causing issues, I'm just saying I would not consider it a "minor edit" and it does look like the user is *trying* to be helpful, just let their ego get in the way, so I also wouldnt use the term "vandalism" but rather "overzelous additions", I just seems to me calling someone a "vandal" makes them more willing to do it again. Anyway it's all semantics so not all that important.CombatWombat42 (talk) 21:22, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Well that was me using Twinkle. I find it hard to AGF when someone says I am a member of the KKK. I actually think, if cited, the content could be added, though not in its present form. Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:28, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Alright, you are 100% correct, after watching this for a month it is obviously a problem. Somebody needs to put long enough protection on this that the IP either registers or gives up. CombatWombat42 (talk) 15:04, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Membership

A list of member worlds, without context, references, or links to articles with expansion, seems a bit too in-universe and trivial. I've removed it. (Alas, yes, most of the article itself lacks context, references and is in-universe and trivia-laden.) --EEMIV (talk) 16:35, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

How else will the visitors to Wikipedia know about which planets are in the United Federation of Planets? Rtkat3 (talk) 12:31, December 17 2012 (UTC)

Added Government Information from Star Trek Movies and the Star Trek Wiki, it seems silly without it. --Commonwealth Historian 06:10, 14 May 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Commonwealth3 (talk • contribs)

Incorrect Hyperlink

The paragraph under “President” contains a link to an episode of DSP entitled “Extreme Measures.” The current link goes to the movie by the same name. The correct URL should be: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extreme_Measures_(Star_Trek:_Deep_Space_Nine) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.232.250.55 (talk) 12:54, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

 DoneFixed CombatWombat42 (talk) 18:01, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Languages in the infobox

The info box currently lists "english" "french" and "various human languages" as "Official language(s)" Besides the questions of whether using that type of info box for a fictional orginization on an encyclopedia is approprate and if the fictional orginization even has an offical language, I have this question: Why give French special treatment, English makes sense as it is the language spoken in the show, the only reason French is listed is that one character in one show of the fictional universe uses it. I would advocate for either "none" or removing French from the list of "Official language(s)" CombatWombat42 (talk) 20:25, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Never noticed this in the infobox. I can't recall anything broadcast, screened, or printed that indicates an "official language" for Star Trek the UFP (well, perhaps some 70s Franz Joseph-ish references). I suggest removing all items from that field. --EEMIV (talk) 21:43, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Agreed/ Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:32, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Done. --EEMIV (talk) 00:06, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I don't see how you can assume English is spoken in the show when they use automatic translators. Transcendence (talk) 00:56, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ambassadors

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Can someone explain, as part of this article on the Federation's political system, how the federation works politcally? How, for instance, does Vulcan have an ambassador to the federation? Does Kansas have an Ambassador in Washington DC, does Manitoba have a Ambassador in Ottawa, does Queensland have an Ambassador in Canberra? Avalon (talk) 09:18, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM, does the U.S. have an Ambassador to the U.N.? to NATO? CombatWombat42 (talk) 18:03, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Libertarian?

According to Wikipedia "Some libertarians advocate laissez-faire capitalism and strong private property rights"

That the exact opposite of Star Trek. Capitalism is look at with contempt and there's no evidence of private property. This is seen on Deep Space Nine, which is not part of the federation and still has capitalism (Quark). But even there seem to be no "strong property rights". Only minor ones, but they have to serve the "state".

Also according to Wikipedia "Others, notably libertarian socialists,[4] seek to abolish capitalism and private ownership of the means of production in favor of their common or cooperative ownership and management.[5][6] An additional line of division is between minarchists and anarchists. While minarchists think that a minimal centralized government is necessary, anarchists propose to completely eliminate the state."

The socialist part is correct, abolish capitalism is done deal and if there's private ownership it's only allowed "in favor of their common or cooperative ownership and management".

However Star Trek has a very big, strong government. Everything is controlled and owned by the Government it seems; So "no government or small government"? Big no.

Star Trek is more the opposite of libertarianism

According to Wikipedia "The term libertarianism originally referred to a philosophical belief in free will but later became associated with anti-state socialism"

Anti-state socialism? Star Trek is all about the state and the distribution of wealth (aka socialsm).

Star Trek is a form Democratic Socialism or Democratic Trotskism with Leninist-Marxist & (early 20th century, not the current false meaning, but those from the 1920-30 that were the seen as foundation of FDR's New Deal) Technocratic influences. (There are no real-life examples of this of form of government, so refrain from making comparisons with "socialist" countries. Also Star Trek is a post-scarcity society, unlike ours where resources are limited.

78.23.197.184 (talk) 17:34, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Unsourced Date of Federation Charter

Under *depiction* someone snuck in a date that is unsourced:

′The Federation is founded under a document known as the Charter of the United Federation of Planets October 9, 2161, which is occasionally referred to informally as the "Constitution".′

2161 is sourceable in TNG:The Outcast and ENT: Zero Hour. But not the specific date.

There's an unseen prop made for TNG:Generations (magazine article) that suggested date of October 11th, 2161, but as it was never onscreen it is not canon.

There was no mention EVER of October 9th.

Recommend excision of speculated date and leave the year.

Kschang77 (talk) 18:33, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

UFP ?

When was this abbreviation ever used in any of the series? The organisation is always referred to as "The Federation". ♆ CUSH ♆ 18:22, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

In "And the Children Shall Lead" all the graves of the parents are marked with little red flags that say "UFP" on them. StarHOG (Talk) 14:44, 5 March 2019 (UTC)