Talk:Bajoran

Notable Bajorans

Is Lt Ro Laren actually a notable Bajoran? Yes, she was featured in DS9 (which makes her notable as a fictional character on a TV series) but as a Bajoran (to other Bajorans, in the Star Trek universe, and not to people watching the show) she is completely un-notable. She's a mid-ranking officer in Starfleet, a member of the resistance (one of millions), and not particularly important as an individual. 72.137.187.50 (talk) 02:44, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Also it list Tora Ziyal as a notable Bajoran even though her father is Dukat who is a Cardassian and an enemy of Bajor. Ziyal’s mother, to whom we are never introduced, was a Bajoran but Ziyal still looks much more Cardassian than anything else. Ziyal is a Cardassian-Bajoran hybrid and as such to call her a notable Bajoran would be like calling Spock human. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.200.115.29 (talk) 21:34, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

[Comment by Angry ST fan]

Any one comparing the whole Bajoran - Cardassian thing to the Israeli Arab conflict and stating that this is fact is misimformed & is being offensive to the Star Trek story. The Cardassians do not resemvle the Natzis & certainly not the Israelis' either. If you knew any history and politics youd know this, but obviously, u don't. As for comparing to any one current terorist movement, please feel free to read Rick Bermans comment bellow. Stop mixing reality with Fantasy- you ruin it for every one. besides which , u promote your own ignorance on these matters. If you want to Know The history & current situation of the Israely Arab conflict as well as WW2 history, do your homework & study it impartially, don't bring your personal midiea based information which has no relation to the truth. Leave Star Trek out of your Politics & your politics out of Star tTrek. This decussion is immensly offensive on so many levels, so just keep it to your self!!!!

A really angree Star Trek lover.

---

KAZvorpal -- please stop being aspergian and keep your politics to an appropriate forum.

The entry you keep corrupting is a statement of fact. If you don't like it, that's your own political problem.Kaz 18:08, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It is far from a statement of fact. The forced labor aspect in the paragraph topic sentence makes it a palpably false anology. Even if the ST writers were thinking along these lines (which I doubt), what they came up with is a hybred. Unless you can come up with a quote; you are projecting a political opinion (which you are certainly entitled to have); however, you are doing so in an inappropriate topic. Keep the entry relevant and true. BTW, are you still wearing the mullet? Jinxian

• The internment camp reference actually fits in quite well, since that's where the Israeli government keeps hundreds of thousands of the Palestinians. When you see references to Israeli troops raiding or shelling camps with missiles, tanks, and bulldozers, that's what they're talking about.

If you do a Google search for the words "bajoran" and "Palestinian", the 130+ links you come up with almost all refer to the relationship between them...and other keyword combinations produce other, similar pages. A little effort will reveal references to the intent of the show's makers to make this analogy.

That you have some bizarre obsession with denying this is your own problem. I guess it's inevitable that some Kaz stalkers show up here... Kaz 21:56, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Come on, KAZ. Give me one authoritative source, i.e, from the shows writers or producers. Otherwise, you know as well as I do, it's just idle speculation on the part of fans. You of all people should know that relying on the number of hits is resorting to the "Big Lie" concept. I would expect you (as a "published" writter) to have more respect for the use of language, i.e., your claim of "as written". BTW, I'll admit to being defensive about Isreal, but I restrict my discussion on that point to where I find it. Your compulsion to insert propaganda in inappropriate topics strikes me as odd. But I'd be happy to keep this discourse on civil terms.

And, you didn't answer my question about the mullet :-)

• As I said, you can find references to the producers'/writers' intent if you dig through all the trekkies' pages. Personally, I'm not enough of a fanboy to do it for you.

Personally, I'm not inserting propoganda, but observing a fact. I will do so even if it's "my side" which looks bad; it's foolish and bigoted to defend something out of personal reasons in a setting like this. You won't find me deleting valid points which are embarassing to something with which I associate. It's a sign of a sort of bigotry.

The strangest thing about the Kaz stalkers, even more than their strange obsession with adding factoids about me as if they were relevent to a debate..."You're wrong about the application of Say's Law here: You used to work in a pet store!" is their bizarre tendency to get those irrelevent-yet-apparently-precious facts wrong. I never had a mullet; I've always had long hair all the way around my head, but often french braid the hair on top and the sides of my head, to keep it out of my eyes, while leaving the back free. For stalkers obsessed purely with knowing me by my photos online, this can be mistaken for a mullet. Especially if they have enough of a provincial mindset, themselves. Kaz

That answer about the mullet told me everything about you I need to know. Go in peace.

Removed POV linking Cardassians as Israel and Bajorans as "Palestinian"

There is no evidence for the unattributed reference by Kazvorpal, and I have chosen to duplicate information from Cardassian which is essentially accurate.

The introduction of religion as a recurring motif is the next highly unusual step, something that is alien to Star Trek at all (may the role of Sisko as the Emissary coincide with that of Cmdr. Sinclair as Valen on Babylon 5?), especially when it is connected with a central character. This also invokes the analogy of the Bajorans as Jews, and the Cardassians as Nazis.[1]

The Cardassians are a powerful militaristic race of intergalactic Nazis first seen on Star Trek: The Next Generation. The image they call to mind is of a sophisticated Spartan race: arrogant, intelligent, and cruel, for whom beauty only exists in strength.[2]

--Viriditas | Talk 02:55, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I have the Executive producer from DS9 on my side, and half the Star Trek viewers:

• Executive Producer Michael Piller explains her origins as well as the beginnings of DS9: "We had created the Ensign Ro character last season and created a set of aliens in the Bajorans and the Cardassians and a situation that was sort of a Palestinian- or Israeli- or American Indian-tale situation of a disenfranchised people dominated for years." [3]

• "This is TNG's take on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict" [4]

• The Bajoran/Cardassian conflict always seemed like a veiled allegory for the Palestinian/Israeli conflict. The Bajoran people resort to terrorist/guerrilla tactics to combat an oppressive occupying group[5]

• The Bajorans were created to be synonymous with some modern-day terrorists. This is evident in Ro's speech while in conference with the other senior officers on board the Enterprise, which paints a picture of Bajorans that is reminiscent of the situation as it has been in the Middle East for years. Much of the Bajoran settlement that Picard, Worf, Data, and Ro visit is reminiscent of the Palestinian resettlement camps.[6]

• There is also a hugely-missed subplot here, folks. The Bajorans were originally introduced as ST's version of the Palestinians, fighting for their freedom from the wicked and much bigger and more supplied Cardassian foes. [7]

• I always saw the Cardassian Occupation and the Bajoran Resistance as Israel and Palestine. The Cardassians were the Israeli's, in being an occupying force striving to hold onto what they have, and the Bajoran's being the Palestinians; desperate enough to do whatever it takes to hold onto whatever they could and if they could hold onto to anything they'd do the next best thing...kill Cardassians... [8]

I could go on...I can list literally hundreds of references as much or more authoritative as the ONE you list.

The NPoV Bajoran=Palestinian observation stays, and I'm fixing the Cardassian page to be as accurate, too. Kaz 00:47, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The link has been made by some, but your POV on the conflict is not relevant to the article. Quote the people in question. Jayjg | (Talk) 01:01, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The link is fact...your own PoV motivation is demonstrated by that vague "some" admission...as if it were still debatable when I'm citing a Star Trek producer. It's also revealed any time someone finds one wording acceptable, but when the opposite is proved then suddenly claims the SAME wording, simply with the roles reversed, is somehow PoV. I took the existing wording and simply placed the Palestinian/Israeli reference in it, and now it's PoV, when it wasn't before?

The simple fact is that we often put something in our own words...this is not an encyclopedia purely of quotations. There's nothing PoV about the way I put it...which I worked out with a self-professed Israel defender...and it goes back. Kaz 01:48, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The "some" means one Star Trek producer, and actually, it's your POV, and the exact quote says something else than what you claim. It refers to U.S. and Indians as well, for one thing. It's a brief quote, and says exactly what it means, as opposed to your re-write, which says something quite different. Jayjg | (Talk) 01:52, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

So it was OK when Cardassians = Nazis, but not the same wording with Cardassians = Israeli Government? There is the PoV corruption. Stop trying to cram your own political agenda into it. Kaz 02:00, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I wasn't here before, I'm here now. Your POV has completely changed the meaning of a direct quote. The only reason for replacing a brief, direct quote with a POV description of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is to display your own POV. Jayjg | (Talk) 02:16, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I was the one who supplied the quote, as a reference. The wording was here before the quote, and is completely valid. In fact, as I said, I worked it out with someone who described themselves as biased toward the Israelis. It's not going now, just because you've decided your PoV is better served by the quote left without context.Kaz 02:52, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You provided no "quote", but your POV version of the quote, which said something quite different. Whoever you imagine you worked this out with, it wasn't me. And it is your "context" that is the only POV in the section in question, the quote itself is quite clear and NPOV. Jayjg | (Talk) 02:59, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I just reverted this article to an earlier version because of the addition of the sentence about the Israelis and Palestinians, which is not supported by the citation. This is what the cited article says: "We had created the Ensign Ro character last season and created a set of aliens in the Bajorans and the Cardassians and a situation that was sort of a Palestinian- or Israeli- or American Indian-tale situation of a disenfranchised people dominated for years." The Wikipedia article can't expand on that as though paraphrasing the referenced article. Slim 03:14, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)

Again there's some kind of PoV problem revealed by the deletion of the entire section...I have now clarified the paragraph so that the indirect relationship of the quote and the prior description is clear. As with the entire nonsense you guys have been pulling up 'til now, no need to throw out the baby with the bathwater. It starts seeming like you guys just don't like the comparison, no matter how true it is, and are twisting and spinning in order to find an excuse to delete it. Kaz 03:35, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Kaz, you've reverted more than three times in 24 hours. This will get you a 24-hour block if you keep doing it (I'm not an admin, by the way, so that's not a warning, I'm just informing you). Why won't you just let the producer speak for himself? Slim 03:44, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)

And what, precisely, am I supposed to do when someone keeps mass-deleting valid text with a completely false excuse given? The text you keep deleting pre-existed the quotation, which I added anyway, and stands as a separate part of the same paragraph, not as an interpretation of what the producer says. It's ridiculous to claim that if a quote is made, then no other text may be added on anything relating to the topic.

Your PoV problem here...that you simply don't like the comparison and want to censor it regardless of its accuracy...is painfully true in your repeated deletion of it en masse, instead of simply putting a paragraph space between it or otherwise clarifying the relationship to your own astoundingly high standards without actually getting rid of the bit which doesn't conform to your PoV Kaz 03:52, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're talking about. There is a quote from a producer, saying the show is about X. You keep adding a sentence, claiming that really the show is about Y. You're distorting what he said, and so I deleted your interpretive sentence, and left his quote. Slim 03:57, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)

If that is true, then you have no business being here because you don't know the situation. But even then, one must wonder how you're unable to understand my repeated explanations that the sentence is NOT interpreting the producer, and was here BEFORE the producer's quote, which I added, myself. The text was there BEFORE the quote. The quote was added as a separate reference to the same subject. If you think the two are easily confused, then SEPARATE them better, instead of censoring the part you simply don't like because of your obvious PoV problem Kaz 04:03, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

KAZ, I can see your mouth foaming04:10, 2005 Jan 9 (UTC)

"The Cardassians are written to resemble the Israeli government or Nazis, the Bajorans to resemble Palestinians or Jews: The latter being people occupied or oppressed for decades and struggling to end that condition, sometimes using terrorism and guerrilla tactics, exactly as the Bajorans." According to what source is this true? Or are you just inserting your own POV/original research? It certainly doesn't agree with the quote and link following. Jayjg | (Talk) 04:22, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Comments by Michael Piller

Michael Pillar's comments are in reference to "Ensign Ro", a fifth season episode of TNG. They do not in any way describe the "situation", however they do describe that particular episode. These comments have been removed since they are inaccurate in the context of this article, as those comments refer to a particular episode and not to the Cardassian/Bajoran conflict in general. The user is welcome to add those comments to an article about that episode. --Viriditas | Talk 10:36, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Comments by Rick Berman

More to the point: The producer, Rick Berman, explained that the Bajorans were not modeled on any particular group: ‘The Kurds, the Palestinians, the Jews in the 1940s, the boat people from Haiti—unfortunately, the homeless and terrorism are problems in every age’ (TNG Companion, p. 178).18:59, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)~

Great quote. If you can provide more context that would help. --Viriditas | Talk 01:25, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Citations needed

The whole article needs citations. I don't know the series well enough to know the episode titles off the top of my head. --Fang Aili ^說嗎? 15:49, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Palestinians

I think it's worth noting that millions of Trekkies agree that the Bajorans are idealised Palestinians and the Bajor/Cardassian conflict is a mirror in many, many ways as to that of the Palestine/Israeli conflict. The P/I conflict is the only instance in human history that is anywhere near similar to the B/C conflict and is quite visibly a comparative whether intentionally or not. This is backed up by thousands of websites that discuss the topic in depth. 211.30.71.59 15:33, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Yep. A fantasy version in which the United States (the Federation) does the right thing by siding against the occupiers instead of lionizing them because of a grotesque view of identity politics. 147.9.177.90 (talk) 20:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid this comparison doesn't really make sense at all, as the Cardassians in Star Trek were occupying the Bajoran homeworld itself, rather than re-occupying their own homeland. The analogy would work better if the story had been that the Cardassians had left Cardassia Prime several thousand years ago, during which time the Bajorans had colonised the planet; then the Cardassians came back to reclaim their ancestral homeworld and in so doing oppressed the erstwhile colonizers. This is not the story we are presented with, however, so it seems odd to claim the story is analogous to the real world Israel/Palestinians conflict.--129.11.13.73 (talk) 16:10, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Merge Bajoran Resistance here

Stubby article that should be moved here. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 06:32, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

The Circle merge here

Yet another stubby article about the Bajorans that deserves about a paragraph in this one to strengthen it. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:KiraNerys001.jpg

The image File:KiraNerys001.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --16:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Kai

Kai (Star Trek) and Vedek both redirect to Bajoran, but this page has practically *no* information about the different political and religious heirarchies on Bajor. From the link on Winn Adami which leads to Vedek#Religion (now a redirect), I'm guessing there was a ton of information from expanded universe that's been deleted. Anyone know the history on this? Anyone want to build up the Bajoran page to include this information? Alphachimera (talk) 22:07, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

The mass deletion occurred at [9]. Whilst references are important, I feel we're better off tagging the sections lacking references, before deleting - especially not without any discussion on the Talk page. The in-universe style is something that should be fixed, not deleted. I'll reinstate the material, then we can discuss what may need trimming down, rewriting, or adding references. Mdwh (talk) 22:39, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Done. I've deleted some obvious unsourced/speculative material. There's probably more that could go to, but doing it on a case by case basis is better than a mass delete.

I also note that the new version of the article had the same problems (in fact, it was from the new version that I deleted the unsourced material!) So mass deleting just has the problem that as material gets added back in, it will have the same problems - as well as the wasted effort in rewriting. Let's fix the problems rather than going in circles. Mdwh (talk) 22:57, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Edits to Berman's Comment

One of the first citations in the current version of the page is producer Rick Berman's comments on real-life analogues to the Bajorans, taken from p. 178 of 'Star Trek: The Next Generation Companion'

The quote in its full form has been present on the page since 2005:

"The Kurds, the Palestinians, the Jews in the 1940s, the boat people from Haiti—unfortunately, the homeless and terrorism are problems in every age"

However, at some point over the years "The Kurds" was removed, leaving it as a list of three analogues. Then, on August 3rd 2017, an unsigned editor replaced "the Jews in the 1940s" with "[...]", erasing one of the three remaining analogues from the middle of the sentence. Hence the quote now reads:

"the Palestinians, [...] the boat people from Haiti — unfortunately, the homeless and terrorism are problems [of every age]."

This strikes me as a fairly clearcut case of POV editing, or at the very least a rather bizarre convention if the page is going to directly quote any of Berman's statement at all.

I realize I could simply undo the edits but I wanted to see if everybody, particularly more experienced editors with accounts, was on the same page about this. I propose the quote be restored to its original form or just deleted entirely and the citation applied to the previous sentence (which states the Bajorans were 'likened to a variety of ethnic groups' by the writers). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.5.182 (talk) 15:18, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

As of Nov 2021 the comment is still altered from the original, and contains no punctuation ... to show missing portions.71.63.160.210 (talk) 20:14, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it was corrected for about a year but for some reason in October 2021 an IP removed "in the 1940s" without explanation. Should be fixed again. 73.38.7.120 (talk) 00:47, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

This has been corrected again Dec 11 2023. Babeswayscaptcha (talk) 04:34, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Kai election

The section Religion > Hierarchy states: "A new Kai is elected by the Vedek Assembly". This seems to contradict the section Politics > Kai which states: "The Kai is chosen in an election held by the entire Bajoran people" Soji Asha (talk) 21:14, 20 May 2021 (UTC)