Talk:Turnabout Intruder (episode)

Is it necessary?
(Of course, if they had rebelled right off the bat, the story would've been rather brief).
 * Is the Nitpicks section in this article really necessary?--Scimitar 10:03, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Nope. However, it is a good example of how many of the character traits built up over the series vanished in season three (especially in the second half), what Dave Gerrold calls "hardening of the arteries" in the series. Witness the dismay of the security guards in "The Menagerie" as McCoy has them arrest Spock. They are concerned and puzzled. In "TI", by contrast, they are ignoring Janice/Kirk's over-the-top behavior and temper-tantrums like automotons and give the heave-to to critical thinking in the obsession to "follow orders."

Plus, we expect better from Mr. Lemli, for crying out loud! ;)
 * Reviewing this episode again, I think the previous nitpick has little merit. We see Janice Lester's histrionics delivered in the person of Capt. Kirk being greeted with smirks and knowing glances between the security guards, and Sulu / Chekov. Of course the comment about Mr. Lemli is very true - he was a star never allowed to shine to his full potential.

Tholians
What's the Tholian reference in this episode? It doesn't seem to be on the Tholian page. Jaf 05:38, 10 April 2006 (UTC)Jaf
 * Kirk, in the body of Dr. Lester, says to Spock "When I was caught in the interspace (sic) of the Tholian sector, you risked your life and the Enterprise to get me back." 218.182.11.94 14:06, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Off Color
Whoever posted that Nurse Chapel is a redhead in the article had better buy a new TV set, or at least adjust the color on their old one. Majel Barrett had dark brown hair in it, not red. - Adambomb1701 16:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, she was definitely a brunette. I've changed it back. --From Andoria with Love 08:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * FWIW, the The Star Trek Compendium said "auburn", and I agree. --GNDN 16:18, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Having checked out the differences between auburn and brunette hair, I would have to agree it's auburn... so "redhead" wasn't entirely incorrect. :P --From Andoria with Love 00:00, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I see Annorax's fingerprints on the events

 * I'm sure Captain Erika Hernandez and the captain of the Saratoga (in ) would not share Lester's assessment of women's status in Starfleet.
 * Galloway is alive in this story.
 * I don't know if the absence of Uhura constitutes an inconsistency or not.

All in all, this episode does not mesh well with the rest of the series. And I did notice that Annorax staved off Species 8472's invasion and then restored it. – Korora 03:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I took Lester's assessment to be more her making up excuses for why she couldn't become a Starfleet captain - she couldn't possibly accept it is because she isn't good enough — so she instead comes up with a conspiracy theory of Starfleet being biased against women, and leads herself to believe it. Just my 2p. Muzer 21:41, March 20, 2011 (UTC)

If only...
"Her life could've been as rich as any woman's. If only... if only..."
 * - Kirk, referring to Dr. Janice Lester, and Star Trek as a whole (last line of The Original Series)

Well, that's got me curious. I certainly wouldn't be surprised to hear Kirk giving the series a proper send-off, but I'm a bit confused. How does this line refer to Star Trek as a whole? Caswin 22:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * If only... it hadn't been cancelled?– Cleanse talk 05:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Remember that during it's original three year run (IIRC), TOS didn't have the biggest following, and didn't do very well. That is why it was canceled. The cult following got really going in the years later. --OuroborosCobra talk 05:22, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * True. And episodes like this one didn't help. 75.173.68.155 06:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm confused too. Turning the line "If only..." into some sort of reflection on the state of TOS seems like a bit of a stretch to me, especially considering the very specific context in which it is uttered. Please tell me it's ok to remove the "and Star Trek as a whole" bit!--Jayunderscorezero 12:29, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I think you're right, so I removed it. – Cleanse 04:54, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I think in Novel version of this epsiode-it ends.."She could accept that she was a woman." On the other hand if as Clenese remarks"..it hadn't been cancelled...what a good parting shot that would have been!

Removed observation
I removed the following personal observation/opinion. If there is a need for it to be re-added, please discuss it here. --From Andoria with Love 07:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This episode may have been another example of Star Trek being ahead of its time, in this case, regarding sexual orientation. It often seems that Dr. Coleman loves Janice, no matter whose body she is in--male or female.


 * Would we edit a comment on "Let This be Your last Battlefield" if someone made an observation that Star Trek was ahead of its time regarding racial problems? A major issue in "Turnabout Intruder" was sexual (gender) equality.  I think we might be pushing the boundaries of what the episode was intended to be about to assert that it was about homosexual rights, but art often transcends its original meanings.  I've seen far worse background notes.  Hossrex 09:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, to begin with LTBYLB was indeed about racial strife/problems, etc., no ifs and or buts. It is spelled out, right in your face and subtle as a sledgehammer.  TI was indeed about gender equality and again was about as subtle as a hammer to the forehead in stating this.  However, TI does not make any statement regarding sexual orientation.  The poster who originally posted the comment was only reading it that way, and even acknowledged this fact by resorting to the weasal words "may have been." Sir Rhosis 03:03, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Weasel words? Its a background note.  The demands of canon aren't required for background notes.  The episode is about sexual equality, where a woman becomes a man, and a man becomes a woman.  We're talking about technobabble-transexuals here.  Is an innocent comment about same sex relationship acceptance be so out of line in this context?  Hossrex 03:49, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not asking that it be "canon," that it only be backed up by something, anything, any small, tiny, tiny, tiny bit of evidence stating this as a fact in the episode itself. The gender equality issue is obvious, the orientation issue is not supported at all except in wishful thinking.  So to answer your final question, yes, it is unsupported and, imo, out of line in a factual encyclopedia.  Now, if we allow background notes to say "In my opinion this may be," then include every opinion you want to throw in.  But, until then, even these types of notes should be cited. EDIT, to add:  Now, if there is an internet site or dissertation or article out there that explores the thought that the episode can be "seen" by some as supporting a forward thinking view of sexual orientation, then we could safely put a note saying, "While the episode says nothing about sexual orientation, this article by John Q. Public makes a strong statement that it can be viewed that way today."  With a link to the article, site, what-have-you.  And just to note, despite my strong stance, this is not directed as a personal attack.  Best to you. Sir Rhosis 04:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Sir Rhosis said: the orientation issue is not supported at all except in wishful thinking.  Except that the whole premise of the episode is about the reversal of gender orientations.  The whole episode is about a person breaking from the norms of sexuality.  Its more then a "small, tiny, tiny, tiny bit of evidence", its the point of the entire episode.  There was no specific statement to the effect, which is why no one is asking for anything beyond a background note, but considering that the theme of the episode was a person breaking away from their typical sex roles, it becomes fairly obvious to anyone who cares to read between the lines.  Reading between lines has no place in canonical statements, but there is precedent for it in background sections.  Sir Rhosis said:  So to answer your final question, yes, it is unsupported and, imo, out of line in a factual encyclopedia.  Out of line for a factual encyclopedia?  Thats like saying it would be out of line for a "factual encyclopedia" (as opposed to a "factless encyclopedia" I guess) to say anything more about Moby Dick than "This is a book about a Captain named Ahab, who goes out hunting whales".  "Factual"?  Yes.  Complete?  Not by a long shot.  A part of the purpose of background notes is to point out the themes, and metaphors present in an episode.  I'm certain this has nothing to do with the disagreement, but if I didn't know better, I'd think people were opposed to Star Trek making any sort of statement regarding sexuality, and against this deleted section on that basis.  I'm sure that has nothing to do with it though.  Right?  Hossrex 06:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, an encylopedia would contain the themes contained within Moby Dick. But they would have to be cited. Who suggested those were the themes of Moby Dick? The encylopedia in effect is listing the FACT that X says the themes of Moby Dick are Y and Z. If an opinion can't be cited, it should be removed. And here, I agree that "may have been" doesn't cut it. – Cleanse 06:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * But there can be no cut and dry right answer regarding the theme, or metaphor of a book. As any literati will tell you, often times a book can have meanings beyond what the writer intended.  Have you never read a writer talk about his book, far separated from its release, where he talks about how people have since ascribed meaning to it beyond what he ever thought he was saying?  Art is a participatory medium (television especially), where its up to the producers to create their vision, and the viewer to finish the experience.  I'm certainly not going to argue the point any further...  but not because I'm snotty and upset...  but because I don't really know what Memory Alphas policy is regarding this.  I personally feel we'd be doing a disservice to Memory Alpha not to allow logically defensible interpretations as background notes.  Just my two cents...  I don't have anything else to say, so feel free to make which ever decision you feel best.  Hossrex 06:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * My final thought on the subject: Cite the fact that someone holds this view -- no "may have beens" or "Some people may" or whatever else.  I agree that many people "may" hold this view.  I'm not beyond seeing that possibility, though I don't think it was intentional.  Cite it.  One reliable, professional cite would be enough.  As I said, an internet article, a print article (whatever Memory Alpha policy considers a reliable acceptable citation) exploring this (perhaps unintended) sexual orientation theme.  You're probably right that there is "no cut and dry right answer regarding this theme..."  But, again, reliably cite it.  Am I sounding like a broken record, or what?  Cite it.  This has been an interesting discussion.  Cite it. Best.  Sir Rhosis 09:14, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Citation:  Hossrex 09:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * "Internet citations" aren't meaningless in general. Bullshit internet citations are, though...
 * I agree with Sir Rhosis here. If we allow personal speculation to be stated here, we're a) opening up MA for "essay"-type stuff again, and b) will have to allow all sorts of personal speculation. Even in a "background section" (which is pretty much an arbitrary formatting decision made by us, not some holy rule of encyclopedia writing in general), an encyclopedia should state facts, not assumptions:
 * "TI is about gay love" is speculation.
 * "Reliable website X (Link) makes the point that TI might be an allegory for present-day issues regarding sexual orientation" is fact.
 * Do you see the difference? -- Cid Highwind 10:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * What I don't understand is why you're ready, and willing to take the word of some anonymous person, but so unwilling to just think about it yourself. For the record though, if you hadn't asked me a question I wouldn't have replied again.  Not because I don't think the theme is present, but because I'm not sure enough how precisely this impacts Memory Alpha policy (an argument I do understand, and accept).  The part I don't understand is the illogic of accepting that many episodes of TOS had themes, and made metaphorical statements...  the most of which are allowed as background notes...  but the refusal to think for ones self to determine the validity of newer interpretations of old episodes.  Again, I'll say...  unless someone asks me a direct question, this is my last post on the subject.  Not because I'm angry, or insulted, but simply because it frankly isn't worth arguing about.  Hossrex 21:20, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

The episode has no homosexual references. It´s about gender equality.--93.128.93.238 20:04, June 20, 2013 (UTC)

"some people"
Sulfer said: (i really don't agree with this at all.. it's one of those "some people" crap speculation statements.)  I agree. Memory Alpha would be better if all references required citations, and we didn't allow the suppositions by one person.Hossrex 03:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * This isn't Wikipedia, but they have a good idea. TribbleFurSuit 05:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * In any case, no longer contains speculation as to Batman. Pretty much, if you find "some people" on MA, feel free to remove it. This is my understanding of the situation. – Cleanse 06:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't a "disruption". It was something that I thought was genuinely appropriate, but lacked the weight of citation, so I backed off the point. According to the "In the pale Moonlight" discussion, we're rethinking our necessity of citation. At least in reference to Cleanse's little brother, I guess. Hossrex 06:12, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Not just "if you find "some people" on MA, feel free to remove it", but unsourced imaginings too. If that stuff can be cited, let's bring it back.
 * Now, I'll assume good faith. With that in mind, this no longer sounds to me like gleeful spite. It sounds like... ah, good... faith. TribbleFurSuit 06:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * You know, as long as you're bringing up consensus, what do you come up with when you ask yourself "Did I have consensus when I added that?" Does it go both ways, or what? TribbleFurSuit 06:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * You said, yourself, that you added something that was "clearly out of place", only to be removed by yourself after your point was made. Do you still pretend not to have behaved distruptively to make a point? TribbleFurSuit 06:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Holy crap, I didn't know removing a bit of speculation would be so controversial. And here I am coming in after this has been discussed to death. So, um... yeah, I guess it stays out. Awesome. Alright, everyone, hit the showers. --From Andoria with Love 08:33, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Boy did she ever goof!
So, Janice Lester puts into the Captain's Log about her take-over? Even if she got away with it in the short term, the five-year mission is almost over, and Starfleet could review the captain's log. "Hey, what's this? What's Kirk talking about? Let's take another look at that incident a few months ago when he executed three of his officers. We'd better pull all the record tapes of that court martial." Janice Lester's "career" would be over. And how did Kirk make an entry while strapped to a bed in sick bay's convalescent ward, with a guard at the door and no computer access? Gcapp1959 21:06, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

world of starship captains
"...does not admit women." Should this be in background information? She clearly meant, or at least as I took it immediately, that starship captains don't have "time" for women or romantic relationships. The series time and time again highlights its advancement from prejudice and discrimination. She was referring to kirk's starship career, people! Like many things, career gets in the way of romance.
 * You need to watch the episode again. She wanted to be a captain herself. --OuroborosCobra talk 02:02, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The amount of discussion over this is kinda silly -- in all the times I've seen the episode, I've NEVER interpreted it as Starfleet is sexist OR as a romantic life/career line. As we all know, a starship captain has to undergo unique and challenging psychological examinations to ensure they can withstand the stresses of the job: and Janice Lester is CLEARLY an unstable person, mentally. Judging from Kirk's replies to her line about sexism, I always got the impression that Janice was rejected for her obvious instability, and blamed the rejection on her gender, rather than being rational. The same way that today a woman may be turned down for a job because their was a more qualified candidate, and then go home and complain that the decision was sexist. 68.145.128.30 23:41, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Removed the following original research/speculation on this matter:

his is clearly shown to be untrue on the surface, and three schools of thought now exist on the matter: 1) Lester was insane, as the episode showed, wanting power and "hating her own womanhood," and Kirk, knowing Lester's delicate condition, thought it better to agree with her rather than press the matter. This seems most likely. 2) Dr. Lester once failed at her own attempts to make it in Starfleet, perhaps after her heartbreaking encounter with Captain Kirk, and now blames all her failure and weakness on her femininity. Possible, considering their conversation. 3) Erika Hernandez is Apocryphally said to be partially responsible for the creation of the Borg. Starfleet therefore for a time could have made the sweeping judgement that such things would not happen if women were not in leadership roles. This seems least likely given the philosophy of Starfleet and the fact that events surrounding her and the Borg would not be widely known. --31dot 09:19, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * "Judging from Kirk's replies to her line about sexism" Which lines were those? I didn't think anybody mentioned that she was just unqualified because she failed the test instead of her being unqualified for being a woman. In Correct (talk) 19:10, October 30, 2012 (UTC)

You´re wrong it was stated by Kirk that she was unqualified. And he didn´t mean because she´s a woman.--93.128.93.238 20:08, June 20, 2013 (UTC)

Female captains?
I'm not sure if the existence of Erika Hernandez definitively proves that there were female captains in Starfleet at this time, just because there was one in the pre-Federation Earth Starfleet. After all, the Klingons had a female chancellor in 2293 but by 2367 they couldn't even sit on the High Council. It's possible that because of a change of policy or pure coincidence there weren't any at this time. – Skteosk 09:31, November 17, 2009 (UTC)

There is no prove in this episode that there aren´t female Captains in the Starfleet.--93.128.93.238 20:09, June 20, 2013 (UTC)

next to last remastered eposiode
this is the 2nd to last eposiode to be remastered the last one is the cage fix it

since no one fixed this by december 2nd i fixed it and yes i was the person who posted the last comment

Removed from Background Info
Sorry to remove the most recent addition, but it was a purely speculative statement: "Lester may also have been speaking as a generalization in that Starfleettended to be male dominated".

(In fact that whole paragraph about female captains needs to be reworded to make it sound less speculative/nitpicky). --86.186.230.235 13:09, April 21, 2010 (UTC)


 * Removed the following as a nitpick:


 * Second time on series that somebody cries out, after receiving a neck pinch from Mr. Spock. (see: "Day of the Dove (episode)" info) "Security-Arggh!" yelled Galloway, as he unsuccessfully blocks it.--31dot 22:44, May 21, 2010 (UTC)

Citation needed
The following notes has been removed pending citation. Feel free to return it if a citation can be found: – Cleanse ( talk 10:45, August 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * Although the briefing room is never shown to have more than one exit, Janice/Kirk finds some way to leave the room without using the main door after her temper-tantrum. The cast in fact got into an argument with director Herb Wallerstein over this error (he won), showing they greatly cared about their series, even as it was coming to an end.

Removed from background
I removed the following irrelevant and/or redundant points from Background Material.


 * Dr. Coleman wears one of the ubiquitous orange jumpsuits seen in "The Devil in the Dark", "By Any Other Name", "The Empath" and "The Lights of Zetar".


 * The glass canister in McCoy's lab contains a very strange brown blob in this episode, probably a humanoid brain.


 * Lester orders the executions to take place on the hangar deck, with section representatives to be on hand to witness punishment.

Mrtrekkiedude 03:32, August 6, 2011 (UTC)

Unnecessary Information?
Is this paragraph necessary? It doesn't seem like useful information -- the only reason we Scotty last is because of the camera and acting effects, not because he was supposed to be the last character seen:

"The very last Enterprise crew member to be seen in the original series is Scotty. As he, Kirk, and Spock enter the turbo-elevator at the end of Act IV, we catch a glimpse of his forearm, grasping the control handle, before the doors close."


 * What seems not useful to you might be very useful to someone else. The note simply documents something that was seen in the episode. 31dot (talk) 10:33, March 29, 2013 (UTC)


 * What constitutes as "useful" then? I find nitpicks useful information, and those document something seen in the episode, yet those are removed.  95.140.92.36 09:27, April 1, 2013 (UTC)


 * The community decided some time ago that nitpicks were unencyclopedic as they often involve judgement calls or can be explained away; that's why only nitpicks that can be cited as such are permitted(and there's a few of those). The last character seen in the entire series cannot be explained away and does not involve a judgement call. Please review the nitpick policy for more information; if you feel it is applicable here, please explain your reasoning.  31dot (talk) 10:17, April 1, 2013 (UTC)