Talk:James T. Kirk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

↓    Skip to table of contents    ↓
Film Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Films. This project is a central gathering of editors working to build comprehensive and detailed articles for film 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.
B
This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
???
This article has not yet received a rating on the priority scale.
Star Trek Portal
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.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Version 0.7
 This article has been selected for Version 0.7 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
Archive

Archives
Archive 1

Contents

[edit] Rewrite

I've just performed a pretty large re-write of Jimmy's fictional biography (and thanks to User Bignole, who helped correct where I messed up a reference that cascaded into a problem fro the entire article).
The rewrite addressed, for the most part, the in-universe style with which the article was previously in. I removed the fictional stardates, which are - even according to the so-called "canon" (which we don't use here) - fairly well cocked-up from the word go. As well, I tried to rewrite Kirk' fictional biography with attention to the fact that a great deal of it has emerged through the seres and movies, which we rather need to do, so as to avoid the appearance of original research or synthesis.
Of course, it isn't perfect or complete. Please feel free to continue editing into prose the wiki-tables noting when he ran onto various other Star Trek characters - which is crufty and awkward as hell, as well as anywhere else you wish. :) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 22:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
There are a lot of things that I don't like about this rewrite. For one thing, there should be StarDate references, which are now completely absent, not to mention that the books referenced are non-canon, and as such, are meaningless with respect to the character's bio (and by the way --the subject header of "Fictional character Biography" was just fine).
And since when are reference Links to Amazon.com considered permissible, satisfactory source material?
To be perfectly honest, I think most of it should probably be redone. Globular Cluster1 (talk) 01:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Okay, there are a number of problems with your concerns. First of all, this is an encyclopedia, not AlphaOne. Stardates don't actually exist, and as such are in-universe - one of the things that needed to be purged from the article (hence the in-universe tag that was removed after the re-write). Secondly, as Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, we are not bound by canon/non-canon issues that fandom is. In short, we do not care if it is canon or not. The requirement for inclusion is verifiability, not truth - and certainly not something as changeable as "canon". As canonicity issues have become clouded over the years, it can become a knife fight just to determine this sort of thing, and Wikipedia sidesteps it all but specifying that if there is a citation to it (ie, a book review somewhere, or an Amazon link that identifies the book) we include it.
If you want you could re-work the section noting where Kirk met other Starfleet officers from dfferent series, though I think you are going to have a very difficult time finding notability for including that list of people that were in one movie with Kirk before going on to other series (Col. West and Odo, etc.). The article is about the fictional chaacter of Kirk. We don't treat Santa Claus like a real person, so we treating Kirk in precisely the same fashion.
As well, what might be nice is to get Shatner's take on who he thinks Kirk is, and how he built the character. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 04:08, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to address your response point-by-point . . .

Okay, there are a number of problems with your concerns. First of all, this is an encyclopedia, not AlphaOne. Stardates don't actually exist, and as such are in-universe - one of the things that needed to be purged from the article (hence the in-universe tag that was removed after the re-write).

I see --so you're saying that a space ship called the USS Republic is a ship that will actually exist in the year 2251? Oh, wait a second . . . this is *fiction,* so none of it actually exists, or will exist, hence the fictional nature of EVERYTHING about this universe and these characters, including StarDates. You don't see the inherent contradiction and folly of your reasoning on this? Do you believe that people who come to the Page of James T. Kirk *expect* to read an actual biography of an actual person, or do they not realize from the outset that they'll be reading a fictional bio of a fictional character? Your reason as justification on that point is, in short, utterly ridiculous, I'm sorry.

As for your next point . . .

Secondly, as Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, we are not bound by canon/non-canon issues that fandom is. In short, we do not care if it is canon or not.

What you should be concerned with is what the Studio actually recognizes as legitimate, but apparently that doesn't matter as well in your opinion. I have an idea ...why don't you find a Star Trek comic book from twenty or thirty years ago that no one even remembers and reference that as though it matters on Kirk's bio Page while you're at it? After all, your same flawed reasoning on this would apply to that as well according to what you've said and argued. Oh, and by the way--Diane Carey actually has a Wikipedia Page, so why didn't you refer the reader to that rather than Amazon, with all its included criticism of her work with respect to the Trek novels and the general problems that people are bound to encounter when reading one of them?

If you want you could re-work the section noting where Kirk met other Starfleet officers from dfferent series, though I think you are going to have a very difficult time finding notability for including that list of people that were in one movie with Kirk before going on to other series (Col. West and Odo, etc.).

What makes you think that is somehow of interest to me? It isn't, not really, and not in the grand scheme of things.

The article is about the fictional chaacter of Kirk.

Then you should respect the history of the character as laid out, which included Star Dates by the way, and not unrecognized material that never made it to film, or an official published biography of the character.

We don't treat Santa Claus like a real person, so we treating Kirk in precisely the same fashion.

You've totally missed the point evidently. No one is saying to treat *the character* like a real person. But if you're going to write about him, then doing so within the context of the universe he inhabits and was meant to inhabit only makes sense. Globular Cluster1 (talk) 08:19, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

First of all, you are going to find me far more willing to listen to you if you dial down the aggro - this isn't a pissing contest. Engaging in one is a sure way to get me to utterly ignore you or lead you down a path laden with difficulty. I realize that you are relatively new, so I am cutting you some slack. Do yourself a favor and lighten up, give some WP:AGF and be polite. I guarantee that you will find a far more inviting editing environment.
That said, allow me to address your responses individually (but, in the interest of saving space, in synoptic format), Globular:
  • regarding the exclusion of stardates and the "biographies" of fictional folk
We state in the beginning of the article that the character is a fictional character. Therefore, no part of it is real. Wikilinking stardates or future years in incongruous with the purpose of an encyclopedia. To begin with, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. We do not know what will happen in the future. Therefore, we do n ot wikilink events that are imaginary or not verified as having occurred. Ever. As well, stardates do not exist as a current format for the passage of time, and do so only within the Star Trek universe; we are not a Trek fan club, and therefore do not use the format.
  • regarding "canon" issues and legitimacy; Diane Carey's wiki page vs Amazon.com listing
To be brutally frank here, what the studio considers to be legitimate is not our concern. As per the first paragraph of our verifiability policy:
"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether we think it is true. "Verifiability" in this context means that readers should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed."
In point of fact, we do not care if Paramount considers something "legitimate" or not. All that matters is that it is reliable, notable and verifiable. So, to cite your example of the comic book from the 70's or 80's, we can certainly include it - comics are verifiable sources of information, as per Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/editorial guidelines.
Concerning the usage of Diane Care's web page instead of the Amazon.com entry for the book she wrote, you will note that her wiki article doesn't offer any insight into the subject of the novel (maybe you could work to expand that article to correct that problem), whereas the Amazon entry offers an editorial overview from the publisher, Simon & Schuster. Is Amazon the best source of info? Of course not, but in a pinch, it will do. If you choose to add Amazon references in articles you work on, make sure not to cite an independent (read: consumer) review. Only legitimate reviews or synopses should be utilized. Of course, it sounds like you have some knowledge of where other reliable reviews of her work might be found, so please, feel free to expand upon that review base. That's one of the advantages of Wikipedia: no one here gets points for being an expert, but their contributions to the field they know tend to be larger than those who are less familiar with it,.
  • regarding re-working sections for brevity, etc.
I guess I don't understand the basis for your criticism, then. You are clearly a fan, and want the article to assuage your desire for a more encompassing article, but yet are unwilling to put more effort forth to make it happen? I don't really know how to respond that particular comment (civilly, I mean).
  • respecting the character
The first rule you learn here at Wikipedia is that if you aren't prepared to see your edits evolve, don't add them. Honestly, I don't have any more respect for the character than that of D'Artagnan, Santa Claus or Kosh. What I do respect is the encyclopedia, and the intended uniformity of such. In sum, all articles are to be of the same, encyclopedic quality - citable, verifiable and notable - in such a way, the article about Kirk meets the same criteria as that of hydrogen, 300 or Ronald Reagan. Different subjects, same criteria for inclusion.
  • in-universe treatment makes sense
The Wikipedia Manual of Style (writing about fiction) addresses this argument quite succinctly. In short, we do not write about a character from the vantage point from within their universe, as it is not encyclopedic, and most of it constitutes what we call cruft; we don't use cruft, and I freely admit that I smite it whenever I smell its noxious presence.
I appreciate you taking the time to discuss this matter here, and I hope i have addressed your concerns. If perchance I have not, please feel free to inquire further. I will, as mentioned before, expect you to be polite in doing so, though. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 15:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to respond point-by-point again as I see fit . . .
":First of all, you are going to find me far more willing to listen to you if you dial down the aggro - this isn't a pissing contest. Engaging in one is a sure way to get me to utterly ignore you or lead you down a path laden with difficulty.
So basically, you've chosen to open your response with an open threat, but I'm supposed to dial down the aggro.
It's not my intention to come off as hostile, but some of what you said really did strike me as rather ridiculous. StarDates, for instance, are a part of this universe, although that doesn't mean they should have to in any way dominate the Page for this character necessarily. That was not my point. Frankly, I don't care whether they're included or not.
::*regarding re-working sections for brevity, etc.
"::::I guess I don't understand the basis for your criticism, then. You are clearly a fan, and want the article to assuage your desire for a more encompassing article, but yet are unwilling to put more effort forth to make it happen? I don't really know how to respond that particular comment (civilly, I mean).
Your obvious jab at the end there aside, I'm really not sure where you've drawn some of your conclusions from about what I have or haven't supposedly said. At which point did I speak of wanting to see Kirk meet other officers from different series, for instance?
And where have I referenced brevity up to now?
I'm truly curious.
The first rule you learn here at Wikipedia is that if you aren't prepared to see your edits evolve, don't add them.
Very little of what was there had been contributed by me, so that was not the issue. I did feel that the complete overhaul of the article was largely unnecessary though, because it struck me very much as throwing the baby out with the bathwater, so to speak, because there was a lot of informative material in the prior version that was either probably better left untouched, or could have made useful inclusions to your own effort of redoing the article. Globular Cluster1 (talk) 00:11, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

(←dent) While it might not have been your intent to come across as aggressive and unpleasant, it was perceived thusly. I have stated why we don't use stardates (in-universe, which is unencyclopedic). Everything else about your post was - forgive me for saying - noise. This is for discussing the edits, and not the editor. I've stated why we don't use stardates. Rather than attack me for being the bearer of the bad news, perhaps accept that Wikipedia is not a Trek fan forum and work within the rules structure we have in place. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 05:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Are you interested in actually discussing the editing of this character's Page and what to include, or just making a lot of noise yourself? Because that's the impression I'm getting here.
Most of my last reply dealt with the contents of this character's Page, or were you annoyed by how I ended my response, by commenting on how I felt you left a lot of valuable information out in your complete revision of that section?
Additionally, you made several comments about things I supposedly said, yet never said, and when I asked you to simply point to where I supposedly said such things, or anything of the sort, you chose to simply avoid answering the question obviously. If the Page isn't supposed to be about the editor, or shall we say editors, I don't think one of the people involved should somehow be prohibited from clarifying their own statements *here* on this discussion Page. You injected and asserted things I never said or implied into this discussion, and I was simply trying to set the record straight.
As for the article Page and discussing the edits ...a discussion of that type presupposes that you're actually interested in having that discussion, and thus far I fail to see the evidence which makes that unequivocally clear from your end.
As to stardates, which by the way, I had made clear in my last response I was willing to drop, but which you had to go back to here and harp on, while not adding anything productive I might add ... there is an easy way to reference or allude to them without using them in an in-universe manner or style. One may start off by simply saying, "According to the Official Chronology," for instance, as a means of citing them without somehow breaking preferred protocol. An encyclopedia is a reference for relevant and informative information, and this is relevant information.
If you want to discuss the Page and what to include then let's do that. But if you're more interested in hearing yourself talk, then by all means, ignore me as you threatened to do the other day. Feel free. Globular Cluster1 (talk) 23:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Okay, let's start over. What would you like to discuss in regards to the edits I made to the article? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 14:36, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, how about, for starters, the fact that you decided to rewrite or undo my last edit?
We can go through them if you like. Globular Cluster1 (talk) 23:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

One thing I was wondering about was your removal of the cited source noting the connection between Hornblower and Kirk. We typically do not remove citations without a well-explained reason as to why. I will be re-adding the citation back in, whch will remove the cn tag that was added shortly thereaftr by another user - Arcayne (cast a spell) 14:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I didn't intentionally make that change. In fact, I was totally unaware of it. I went back to my own previous edit--the one you undid--being that only a few people made small changes to the Page in the days that followed. Globular Cluster1 (talk) 23:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
By the way --are you sure Memory Alpha is citable here? Globular Cluster1 (talk) 00:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Is there a reason why you think it would not be? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 22:45, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Clarifying edits

I undid a recent edit to the article, as it incorrectly separated two synonymous statements:

Having risen rapidly through the ranks after leaving the Academy, he went on to receive his first command (the equivalent of a destroyer-class spaceship) while still quite young.
Kirk then became the youngest Captain in Starfleet to that date at 31, when he received command of the USS Enterprise, following the Captaincies of Robert April, who predated Christopher Pike as Captain of the vessel.

According to the Star Fleet Technical Manual, the Enterprise is a Constitution-class heavy cruiser, not a destroyer, and the Enterprise is Kirk's first ship command. While the source, The Making of Star Trek was quoted inaccurately at Memory Alpha 1 - I can guarantee this, as I happen to own the book in question. I would suggest that we merge the two statements, avoiding the reference to the 'destroyer-class' command, as the source book has been quoted inaccurately via the citation. I would suggest that we forego the first statement and rely more on the second. Thoughts? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 16:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I really don't see the point in having reverted the entire article back to before my edits because those edits improved the overall readability of that Section.
But I would say that the Star Fleet Technical Manual is incorrect about the Enterprise being Kirk's first command. Kirk's first command is actually referenced in the episode "Where No Man Has Gone Before," so it took place before he was given the Enterprise. The Technical Manual is correct about the ship's, classification however. The Making of Star Trek would also be considered more accurate because it was actually co-written by Gene Roddenberrry, the creator of Star Trek, and he would know the Kirk character's history better than anyone. I therefore think that the first statement should be included in some way because it comes straight out of "The Making of..." and is a little known fact about the character that is greatly overlooked by the masses as a result. Globular Cluster1 (talk) 00:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I respect your opinion about how the "Making of Star Trek isn't as accurate as the SFTM. Unfortunately, you need to provide citable references that back that assertion up, though. Roddenberry wasn't infallible, and numerous continuity errors exist precisely because some of his own statements contradict each other. And citing the second pilot isn't really the most informative way to proceed here. There has been a great deal of writing on this by smarter folk than you or I (and yes, it was likely non-canon - lol).
I suggest that we perhaps recognize that Kirk's fictional history as an early starfleet officer isn't as well-defined as say, Hornblower's was. There is no hard evidence (read: citable proof) that Kirk commanded a ship before the Enterprise. Add to that the fact that two fairly notable sources apparently differ on the subject, and we have little choice but to aim for objective neutrality. We note he became the youngest captain at 31, and then note he became captain of the Enterprise at around the same time. Anything else would require us to have more sources (that do not use the first two contradicting sources as their source). - Arcayne (cast a spell) 05:54, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
You're attributing more weight to the Technical Manual than it perhaps deserves. I don't even know if that particular book was sanctioned as official by the studio, but I do know that Roddenberry became angry upon learning of some of its content, which he strongly disagreed with.
It's also hard to ignore the comment in "Where No Man Has Gone Before" which makes clear that Kirk did in fact have a prior command; never mind that it's "canon," which you're willing to ignore, but also, it's a primary source, and therefore impossible to simply ignore. I would call, without question, "The Making of Star Trek" a secondary source that dates back to when the original show was actually in production, and co-authored by Roddenberry, the series creator--again, difficult, if not impossible to totally disregard and just dismiss.
But that's just me and how I feel about it. Globular Cluster1 (talk) 00:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
And, despite the way I have come across to you, I do respect the way you feel. My opinion regarding canon is not so much my personal opinion but instead based upon the consideration that, outside of fandom, canon has practically no weight here. The first line of one of our core policies, Verifiability, clearly states that the "threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—meaning, in this context, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true". It is because of this that we decide, encyclopedically to "ignore" issues of canonicity.
As well, there is the usage of the term primary source, which is being used in a way that Wikipedia doesn't necessarily use. WP:PSTS should work really well to clear that up. Primary source is you or I expressing our interpretations or observations. Secondary is someone else who is verifiably and notably citable. Tertiary sources are other encyclopedias that fulfill the basic criteria of secondary sources, but aren't as notably reliable (such as YouTube and Imdb). Wikipedia uses secondary sources almost exclusively. That source might be a non-canon book or the Star Trek 5; we do not distinguish.
Now, I am willing to concede that we have two notable sources that are in seeming conflict with one another (and you would need to cite wherein he expressed "(anger) upon learning of some of its content, which he strongly disagreed with."). I propose that we find the middle ground between the two, and go from there.
What do you think the middle ground will be? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 14:28, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Lastly, could I trouble you to indent your posts a bit more like the rest of us do? There is no need to add the double-line breaks betwee your posts and others. If you look at the edit window at this reply, you will note that my comments are prefaced by four colons (::::). This indents my post, and allows the different users to follow a conversational thread. Your use of line breaks is jarring, and tends to imply that a brand new discussion topic is taing place (which uses some else as well). - Arcayne (cast a spell) 14:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
There's nothing wrong with pointing out what is considered canon and is thus recognized as "official" by the studio (or even Roddenberry back when he was alive for that matter) and what is not, however. Both are information of potential value to someone doing research about the character. And deciding to 'encyclopedically ignore issues of canonicity' may stand to potentially confuse someone.
As for "Where No Man Has Gone Before" ...you're not going to convince me that as an observable source, that's it's irrelevant, nor will you convince me that the book co-authored by Gene Roddenberry, which backs up the former, is also irrelevant supposedly. If you want another source, however, I've provided one in my last edit of the character's Page. The book by Vonda N. McIntyre, while non-canon (and let's not forget, which you insist doesn't matter here) nevertheless recognizes both sources as legitimate by actually making use of them. In her book, Kirk was given command of a ship called the Lydia Sutherland, with Gary Mitchell assigned as his first officer. That ties right back to "Where No Man Has Gone Before," AND "The Making of Star Trek" book that Roddenberry co-authored.
As for the indents, I think you're nitpicking, and it should be clear to you by now that I know how to use them, but I think this Page is already long enough, and I don't think we should be gratuitously wasting space willy-nilly. Nor do I think people are somehow having trouble following because of it. Globular Cluster1 (talk) 00:18, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I will tell you what. Since I am thinking that my reasons aren't really convincing you, allow me a few days to bring this up on a few boards and ask around. When I get some opinions (even those that may not agree with me), I can let you know what the general consensus is). Or, I can let you know where I've posted, and we can both contribute. I want you to feel free to participate.
I am glad you know about the indents, and I don't think them to be willy-nilly time-wasters. What tends to waste time is trying to follow a confusing thread of discussion. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 02:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Our name with a time and date stamp appears at the end of each of our replies. People simply aren't so stupid as to not be able to follow. Globular Cluster1 (talk) 03:29, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Newbies don't always notice them, GC. WP is also for them, too. What say we move on, okay? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 15:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
While you're awaiting word on the matter you're seeking advice about elsewhere, we should discuss some of your other changes to my edit that I would take issue with. For instance (and this is just one of your changes that I disagree with), Miramanee never gave birth, so the term "infant" in relation to her and Kirk's unborn child is therefore inaccurate. Globular Cluster1 (talk) 03:24, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
You are right; until the baby is born, it is a fetus, not an infant (and now, I will have the Right To Lifers sending me hate-mail). I will let you know what the noticeboards say. :) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 06:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Re-worked the section to reflect that. GC. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 22:44, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Okay - but I think we should rework the section where McIntyre's book is cited, by at least stating that it's non-canon (as with all Trek novels, which it wouldn't hurt to mention somewhere on the Page, perhaps at the beginning) because that part of Kirk's life is not vague there, so it's a bit of a contradiction the way it reads now. It's only outside of that novel that that portion of his life is not really elaborated on much or filled in. Globular Cluster1 (talk) 23:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I did check with a few admins regarding how we treat canonicity issues. The general consensus is that unless it is specifically notable in and of itself (factual timeline errors or made obsolete by subsequent information, like the Star Wars novel Splinter of the Mind's Eye, which featured a romance between Luke and Leia's before the film's revealed their siblinghood), we usually avoid recognizing canonicity issues present within fandoms. As criteria for something which is canon and which is not tends to change over time and there isn't any level of reliability and verifiability, we cannot use it. Deciding to use fan-based determinations of 'canon' is a slippery slope that an encyclopedia should avoid.
I propose an alternative; instead of the current wording:
This early phase of his career remains vague however, as it's not known what his command entailed (though explored in the 1986 novel "Enterprise: The First Adventure," by Vonda N. McIntyre[6], provides some history of this part of the character's life).
how about
This early phase of his career was not explored in either the television series or films, though it was explored in the 1986 novel "Enterprise: The First Adventure," by Vonda N. McIntyre[6].
This avoids the contradiction suggested by the text, is actually more concise, avoids the determination of canonicity, and fills in the gaps not covered by series or films by using the novels. Thoughts? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 23:56, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
That's fine.
Matters of canon, however, are not what is recognized by fandom, but rather what is recognized by the studio that owns the rights to a specific property, and/or the writers and creator of that property. As with "Star Wars," which you mentioned, George Lucas owns the rights (although 20th Century Fox owned the rights to the original SW film, before reassigning all ownership rights to Lucas as part of his agreement to produce a sequel), and as such he gets to dictate what constitutes canon and what does not, not his legion of SW fans. This is why, although not recognized encyclopedically, matters of canon are important beyond fandom, because they determine where follow-ups will or won't go to a large extent. The situation with the Kirk character is a great example in fact, because according to the novels which Shatner wrote or had a hand in writing, Kirk was resurrected --but only in the novels. Canonically, however, the character remains dead, and even in the new upcoming J.J. Abrams film, that will not change apparently, because what's happened on film is what matters, not what happens in the novels.
And here's the thing ...before you go where I think you're going to go next, I don't think we should change that section of Kirk's Page here, because again, it'll just make for more confusion. The fact is that the character died on screen, and the character is considered dead by not only the fan base, but according to the studio which owns all rights to the character as well. The novels change nothing in that regard, and yet here we are, mixing the books, and the movies and television series interchangeably as though there's no difference, when there is in fact a very big difference between what's on film and what's not.
I realize the "Shatnerverse" Section goes on to address this, which is why I don't think we should change anything in the Death Section, but I take it you see my point. Globular Cluster1 (talk) 17:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I do, which is why I didn't fold it into the character biography. Most of the novels made every attempt to fold their stories within the 'tapestry' (if you will) of the visual media accepted by most folk (fans, studios, alien beings who will be receiving the transmissions in forty years, etc). The Shatnerverse novels don't really do this, and the only thing that keeps them from being fanfic (and therefore non-inclusive) is Shatner's notable involvement. That is why I kept it as a separate section - not because of canonicity, but because it was a departure from the widely accepted view of the subject (which is less selective than canonicity). - Arcayne (cast a spell) 17:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Oh That Hair!

Can we have a little humorous mention of how Kirk's hair miraculously got bushier and thicker with old age? Encyclopedias can be coyly humorous, can't they? Life.temp (talk) 10:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, they can. However, we aren't Uncyclopedia or Monty Python; we are at least striving for legitimacy, so making jokes isn't always the way to go. If you want to cite that Shatner wears a hairpiece, then feel free to do so - in the William Shatner page; there has been no mention of Kirk wearing a rug. Until there is citation to that effect, we cannot include it. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 22:13, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
The comment concerns Kirk, not Shatner. We have a section about his life. The change--improvement!--is evident in the pictures already included in the article. It's not about wearing a rug, just the observation that his hair got thicker and bushier in his retirement years. Life.temp (talk) 22:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, just not that notable here. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Relationships?

I think we should provide information on Captain Kirk's many, MANY sexual relationships. I mean come on the dude must have had sex with at least a hundred differant green woman, I wouldn't be surprised if I had a son on every planet he visited throughout the series. Eatspie (talk) 07:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Removed section: "Crossover appearances with Capt. Kirk"

I removed this section from the article, as it seems pretty tangential to the subject of the article. While Kirk interacted with each of these characters in the roles they portrayed, that interaction wasn't especially notable taken in and of itself. It might be more notable in the overview article, Star Trek, where the phenomena of recurring actors in different roles (dating back to Mark Lenard's roles as both the Romulan commander in Balance of Terror and Sarek, Spock's father, and Majel Barrett's quadruple portrayals of Number One in the initial pilot and subsequently as both Christine_Chapel and Lwaxana_Troi and the voice of the Computer in every Star Trek incarnation except for Enterprise). I think it is a notable phenomena, I just don't think it belongs in the article about Captain Kirk.

Actor Movie/Series Role Known As (crossover)
Michael Dorn Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country Colonel Worf, J.A.G. Lt. Cmdr Worf (Star Trek: TNG/DS9)
Tim Russ Star Trek: Generations USS Enterprise-B Tactical Officer Lt. Cmdr Tuvok (Star Trek: Voyager)
Diana Muldaur Star Trek (The Original Series) Dr. Ann Mulhal/Miranda Jones Dr. Kate Pulaski (Star Trek: TNG)
Brock Peters Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home

Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country

 Admiral Cartwright Joseph Sisko (Star Trek: DS9)
Rene Auberjonois Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country Colonel West Constable Odo (Star Trek: DS9)

- Arcayne (cast a spell) 16:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hornblower/Kirk connection

My understanding was that the character of Kirk (and indeed, of Picard as well) were both inspired by Horatio Hornblower, one of Roddenberry's boyhood heroes. I am having some trouble finding citations to that effect. Does anyone have some? I would note that I've found a number of sources already, and there is, of course Shatner's own book, Star Trek Memories. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 15:59, 20 May 2008 (UTC)