Talk:James T. Kirk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

How about James Cawley who plays Kirk in Star Trek New Voyages. There's no mention of him in this article. ---

	This article is part of WikiProject Films, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to films and film characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. Unknown This article has not been rated on the importance assessment scale.
Editing Guidelines Please remember these guidelines when editing a film article: If a non-film article already exists with the name of the film that you are trying to create an article for, disambiguate and use (film) in the title: Film Title (film) For more information see: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films) When writing an article about a particular film, the general format should be a concise lead section, followed by a plot summary of no more than 900 words, production details, a cast list, a reception section, and references. Create an Infobox that tells all pertinent information about the film.

This article is part of WikiProject Star Trek, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to all Star Trek-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

Star Trek Portal

Take this all in good fun, but since star trek takes place in the future shouldn't read he will be born or he will be the captain :)Smith03 02:56, 25 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I think it's understood that he "was" born in the context of the future, fictional Star Trek universe...it would be kind of weird to say he "will be born" into something that isn't real :) Adam Bishop 03:06, 25 Aug 2003 (UTC)

See also: slash fiction? I can understand its relation to Star Trek, but why place the link here? Removed for now, revert if you like. --Ardonik 00:41, Jul 13, 2004 (UTC)

---

I don't think that the plots of non-canon books should be included in this article. Does anyone have an idea about what to do with them?

Acegikmo1 08:31, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with you. Give the Shatnerverse its own entry, away from mainstream ST continuity. Perhaps it could be treated as an ST alternate universe?

User: Calibanu 15.09, 30 July 2006

Contents 1 Ladies 2 Star Trek Generations 3 Apple green Jacket? 4 Current Rank 5 Race 6 Name 7 The coolest 8 Captain's log trivia item 9 Quotes 10 Daughter Emma ? 11 middle name 12 Captain Matt Damon of the USS Enterprise 13 Birth date 14 Removal of Template 15 Tense 16 Replaced template

[edit] Ladies

I know it would be a bit of a project, and I am not the man to take it on, but how can there really be a wikipedia entry on Kirk with no mention of the bevy of ladies wheeled on as 'Romantic Interest'?!? Surely there should be a list, with brief details of appearance, episode, etc etc... Come on you Trekkers - build the list build the list build the list...--Yyem 12:34, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I do have to agree, Kirk is quite the man-whore... something needs to be mentioned about this... 72.69.128.184 04:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Star Trek Generations

Little confusion about when the first part of Star Trek Generations was set. Info I have from sources says it was in 2295. Star Trek VI was set in 2293 and the Enterprise-B launch was 2 years later. Am I off? Let me know...Husnock 12 Sep 2004

I'm not sure, but TOS is generally set 300 years in the future, so a movie released in 1991 would normally be 2291 (and 2 years later would then be 2293). But that's not set in stone, of course. Adam Bishop 05:08, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

At the end of season 1 of TNG, Data tells some people from the 21st century that by their calendar is is 2364. In Generations Geordi comments that the first season Farpoint mission was "seven years ago", making it 2371 in the later portion of Generations. Since the caption "78 years later" follows the action at the beginning of Generations, then we can say with confidence that the beginning section is set in 2293.

The idea that there is two years between ST VI and the launch of the Enterprise-B is not supported by canon. It seems that only a few weeks or months passed in actual fact.

However I have also heard speculation that several years pass, since there is no reference in STVI that the Enterprise-B was under construction. It would explain the decommissioning of the relatively new 1701-A, however, but there's really nothing in canon to say exactly what the interval was between STVI and the launch of the ENT-B. 23skidoo 15:52, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Such speculation cannot be true, unless we want to disregard what is actually said in the episodes and movies. As for there being nothing in canon to say what the interval was - every date I gave was specifically stated on screen. You don't get more canon that that, and those dates prove that the E-B was commissioned very shortly after the E-A was retired.

As for the E-A being quite new, we don't know. One theory is that the E-A was previously another ship which was renamed in honour of the 1701, so it actually wasn't new at all. Certainly it would be odd for the Federation to still be rolling out Constitution class ships when the new Excelsior class was already in testing. And in any case, inserting two or three years wouldn't help the problem much - you'd need to add more like two or three decades to make a new-build E-A suitably aged for retirement.

There's a stardate given in Generations, but there has never been a canonical translation of what the stardates translate to in terms of weeks or months. Show me where in Generations - chapter and verse - where it says only a few weeks or months passed after STVI. PS. Please sign your comments using four ~ symbols. Thanks. 23skidoo 23:33, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

As I said earlier - in the season one episode "The Neutral Zone", it is established that season 1 of the Next Generation takes place in 2364 - Data actually says "By your calendar it is the year two thousand three hundred sixty-four." In the TNG portion of Generations, when Data and Geordi are on the observatory Data is laughing at a joke Geordi told on the Farpoint mission. Geordi says "that was seven years ago!" - so the TNG portion of the movie must be taking place in 2371. Now recall that the caption at the start of the TNG section reads "78 years later". So the E-B's encounter with the Nexus is 78 years prior to 2371, i.e. 2293.

Therefore, the launch of the E-B was NOT in 2295.

Your numbers are correct, but that doesn't answer the question as to when Star Trek VI takes place, which is the crux of the argument that the E-B was launched mere weeks or months after the events of that film, which contains no reference to a standard calendar date (and the 1000 stardates = 1 earth year calculation does not apply to pre-TNG stardates). We can most certainly say when the E-B was launched, but there is nothing in the canon to suggest how long after STVI that was (except that it was long enough for Kirk to get some Grecian formula treatment for his hair ;) ). 23skidoo 22:07, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

We do know that in ST VI, McCoy says he has served on the Enterprise for 27 years. Since season 1 is set in 2266, that puts First Contact in 2293.

[edit] Apple green Jacket?

From all the Kirk fans, some previews of the "end of series" episodes of Enterprise show a very quick scene of Captain Archer wearing Kirk's "apple green" jacket, standing in wat looks like Kirk's stateroom from the original series. Any ideas on if this is the long awaited Kirk connection? Hmmm. -Husnock 22Mar05

Reply...

That is a scene from a Mirror Universe episode ("In a Mirror, Darkly") and Mirror-Archer is wearing the uniform of the captain of the USS Defiant from "Tholian Web" (you have to see the episode or seek more detailed spoilers to figure that all out). There's no connection between this and Kirk's return ALTHOUGH there is a rumor that an early script for this episode did feature Kirk. The general consensus is UPN wouldn't agree to pay Shatner's price (or ABC wouldn't let him do a show on a rival network) and nothing could be arranged before ENT was cancelled. Shatner was quoted as saying that he might have appeared in the fifth season opener, but that's moot now. 23skidoo 19:17, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Current Rank

Current rank: captain? Current as of when?

Please sign your comments with four ~ symbols. He had the rank in his final (canonical) appearance in Generations. Since this is a template, I don't think it can be changed to read "final rank" or something like that. 23skidoo 12:34, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Race

Perhaps I'm being picky, but Kirk is listed as being of 'race: human'. Shouldn't this be 'species: human', or 'family: human'? Comparing the various definitions at Dictionary.com suggests that 'phylum' would be the most appropriate term - the Star Trek universe has lizard men, for example, and rock monsters. The show throws a spanner in the works by having humans, Klingons, Vulcans and so forth interbreeding, but 'race' seems much too low down the taxonomy ladder. -Ashley Pomeroy 17:39, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Technically, yes, race is incorrect; I think this comes second in common Star Trek English errors (right after the "to boldly go" split infinitive). However, when used in Star Trek, it can be defended: during the time in which it is set, "race", as we use it, is redundant, and so can be 'pushed up' (as it were). On here, however, you can't quite use that excuse, perhaps it should read "Race: American" (not that that does not raise questions), personally I favour "Species: Homo sapien". --Cerveau 20:24, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, I once had to correct an edit from someone who put Kirk's race as "caucasian". The reason I did that is in the context of Star Trek it's made clear that by the timeframe of the franchise, humans were identified in the grand scheme of things as humans, not blacks, Asians, whites, etc. - in the case of Vulcans we've seen black, white and Hispanic-esque Vulcans yet they're never referred to as anything but Vulcan. There are clearly white and black Klingons too. I agree that if Kirk is to be identified with a "genome" it should be "human" (not homo sapien as it could be argued that Trek has shown us "alien" beings that could be considered homo sapien, too. 23skidoo 21:00, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

In a completely irrelevant little Trekkie nitpick sideline, there aren't "white and black" Klingons. The "white" Klingon seen in one of the movies was an albino. 86.146.222.98 00:49, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the term species should be used, however, since the Star Trek world is rather large and self-contained, I would think it would be more fitting to point to Human_(Star Trek) -- i.e.: species: human --Inarius 17:28, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Name

I always wondered if he was given the name James Kirk because of its similiarity to James Cook, especially since Enterprise and Endeavour are synonyms starting with En-. Can anyone confirm this, or if it's not true, provide the real etymology of Kirk's name? Ben Arnold 12:20, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

An interesting thought. According to Stephen Whitfield's "The Making of Star Trek", the name Kirk was just one of a bunch considered for the character, including January, Thunder, Winter, etc. But whoever created the original memo with the name options might have had Cook in mind... 23skidoo 12:51, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The coolest

When I was a dorky kid, Captain Kirk was my idol, not Mr. Spock, as common wisdom usually dictated. Sure, Spock was logical and probably smarter, but Kirk had it all: command, power, good looks, charisma, plus a considerable amount of erudition and wisdom--enough, at least, to be able to quote from Shakespeare or bring up references from history and philosophy where appropriate. And, of course, beyond all that, he got the women, lots of them, whereas Spock had to wait for the pon-farr--in actuality, his seven-year itch (an inside joke that few seem to have caught). I always figured, if I could be half as composed, desireable and smooth as Kirk, I would have it made. (E.g., "How does Marlena want to fit in?" ) Only Captain Kirk has enough magnetism to prompt a woman to comment, "All this power, pulsing and throbbing. . .are you like that, Captain?" (I've always wondered how the hell they got that past the censors.) Unfortunately, I wasn't 1/100 as cool, let alone half as much, so I didn't get anywhere. As for William Shatner, he was eminently correct about "getting a life," but probably to no avail. And yes, he is a good actor. --Bamjd3d

[edit] Captain's log trivia item

I wonder if the recently-added trivia item about the captain's log inspiring parodies might be better suited for either the main Star Trek article or the TOS article. Thoughts? 23skidoo 21:40, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Quotes

Do we really need the quotes? Especially the one from This Side of Paradise, which is not very memorable, or really a "quote" since it's so long. Adam Bishop 06:27, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Daughter Emma ?

The daughter named 'Emma' was added recently to the article by an anonymous contributor who has been vandalizing other pages. Is this a reliable piece of information? — Stumps 12:56, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, is the "Shatnerverse" even canonical at all? Should we remove the whole thing? Adam Bishop 21:52, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

If it's noted as being non-canonical, there's no reason why the Shatnerverse can't be mentioned. However if "Emma" is bogus then that should be removed. 23skidoo 15:18, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] middle name

I don't remember for sure what it was, "R", I think, shows up in Where No Man Has Gone Before as Kirk's middle initial, rather than T, on the headstone on his grave when Lt. Mitchell tries to bury him, not "T". This should at least be mentioned in a "trivia" section. Tomer^talk 07:01, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I thought it had been mentioned before. It was R in the pilot, then was changed to Tiberius for the TV series (what the T stood for was officially confirmed in ST VI). It was a continuity error, but I agree it should be mentioned in the trivia section if it isn't already. 23skidoo 13:26, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

It was there, but it was recently removed during an anon's re-write/re-organization. I've added it back in. Adam Bishop 16:16, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

The reference to "Kirk's middle initial was R. in his first appearance" might take note: the official reason given for this was that Gary Mitchell misspelled his name on the gravestone (Star Trek Fact Files 43:18). Stifle (talk) 12:40, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Captain Matt Damon of the USS Enterprise

According to this website here: http://scifi.about.com/b/a/257387.htm , William Shatner allowed Matt Damon to play a young Captain Kirk in a new Star Trek movie soon to come out, but the fans said it would be like a type of "Star Trek 90210", a type of teen angst movie minus Luke Perry. I don't know what they are thinking, but I don't think that this movie is a good idea to make. After all, no matter how much pretty boys look on screen, no one can replace the legendary actors. Especially Shatner. Matt Damon can't do the same things that Willie can do, nor can he do his delay-talk like in ST: TOS. We only got one unique Shatner, and no matter what age Kirk is...::imitating Kirk's delay-talk:: Damon...can't replace him. --Seishirou Sakurazuka 02:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Birth date

In 'where no man has gone before", the headstone shows the years 1277.1 - 1313.7. The article says he was born in 2233. I don't know if that comes down to the same thing. I'll leave it to the real trekkies to use this info properly. Btw, there seem to be leading zeroes before the dates, though I couldn't see that too well. DirkvdM 12:24, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

• At the time that headstone appeared, there was no logical format for Stardates; Roddenberry just picked them randomly. So they're probably meaningless. I've heard some try to rationalize them as indicating only the dates that Kirk was captain of the Enterprise, not his actual date of birth. Calculating 50 years back from Wrath of Khan is probably more accurate. 23skidoo 17:16, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

The same headstone gives his middle initial as "R". And I don't think the stardate on it matters so much for a general use encyclopedia anyway; calendar dates are more useful. This is more a "debate" for Memory Alpha. --EEMeltonIV 18:18, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of Template

I removed the "in-universe" template because there are so many out-of-universe-styled statements in the article that Kirk's status as a fictional character is well established; his fictitious status is also established in the opening paragraph. Even with the use of a thesaurus, to re-word every sentence, or even every paragraph, with out-of-universe diction would result in awkward and highly redundant phrasing throughout the article. ("In Star Trek, Kirk is the captain of the Enterprise. After serving as captain, as depicted in Star Trek, he was promoted to admiral, but eventually reduced in rank once again (as depicted in Star Trek).") I think that the in-universe/out-of universe format standards should be based on two criteria: Does the article make it clear that the subject is fictional? (in this case , yes it does) and Do the article's in-universe characteristics result in an over-reliance on original research (the reason for Wikipedia's policy against in-universe articles)? That doesn't seem to be the case here.Minaker

This tag is very appropriate. The problem is the biography section, which gives a fictional biography of Kirk as it would occur in the fictional world, with only the occasional nods to the fact he is a fictional character. Kirk's is actually contradictory and this biography tries to stitch it together into a coherent narrative. We should just note the datapoints in Kirk's past, and proffer the Okuda explanation which is being used uncited here. Further, the biography section barely has any citations to episodes where things happen or are established. Your example in particular misses the point: it would say "In the original series, Kirk is cptain of the Enterprise. After serving as captain, he has become promoted to admiral by the time of Star Trek the Motion Picture. He is eventually reduced in rank once again, as depicted in Star Trek IV: The Voyager Home." Star Trek is not something you can cite : it is simply far too big. Morwen - Talk 11:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tense

Interesting comment on time and what perspective to write from. I think the best perspective is to write from Kirk's future - Next Gen era or later. So all verb tense then should be in the past.

When writing about an artistic piece -- a book, a movie, a painting -- in which the events/traits are visible, present tense is always appropriate; since we can pop in any ol' episode of Star Trek to see Kirk do whatever, past tense is generally the correct tone for this and all the bio articles. The exception are for events described in the past within that piece -- such as Kirk's references to serving on the Republic. --EEMeltonIV 22:17, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Replaced template

I replaced the in-universe template, especially for the first part of the article. There's one brief sentence that isn't in-universe, but the rest is; hence, it's PRIMARILY in-universe. I haven't read the whole article so I can't speak for all of it. -Unknownwarrior33 19:28, 24 February 2007 (UTC)