Wikia

Memory Alpha

Talk:James T. Kirk/archive

37,575pages on
this wiki

Back to page | < Talk:James T. Kirk

Protected, non-canon dataEdit

Temporary protection to prevent repeated addition of non-canon data. Kirk's exploits in "The Ashes of Eden" should be listed in "The Ashes of Eden" -- not here. The novel is not canon, only the films and TV episodes are canon. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 17:17, 1 Aug 2005 (UTC)

How long shall it be protected? --Memory 19:30, 7 Aug 2005 (UTC)
I'll unprotect it, however, if the same type of additions continue to be added it will be, once again, locked. --Alan del Beccio 19:47, 7 Aug 2005 (UTC)

ApocryphaEdit

I added a brief subsection detailing Kirk's notable resurrection in novels, but I don't think any more non-canon information than that belongs in James T. Kirk, i see DarkHorizon agrees with me as he removed a list of novels. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 17:32, 1 Aug 2005 (UTC)

considering that we are asked to build the web there could at least go the links to the most important novels in -- Kobi - (Talk) 17:45, 1 Aug 2005 (UTC)
The other parties involved have halted that type of addition for the moment: one archivist seemed to be insisting on adding a complete summary of each novel he linked to, i tried to pare the summary down to a list of links but another archivist removed it altogether even after i had provided a briefer section. I didn't see any reason for removing a list of the novels' titles, so i'm fed up enough to protect it and wash my hands of it :P --i already added a shorter list and it was removed. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 20:40, 1 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Academy DaysEdit

There is some confusion as to James Kirk academy days. The conventional wisdom is that 15 years before "Where No Man Has Gone Before" Kirk was an instructor at the academy. "Where No Man" Does not say Kirk was a freshman, and if you read Gary in a certain way, you'd think he is an instructor. I for one thought that what Gary said could be interpret in another way, but that is not important.

Conceder that in "Shore Leave" They clearly Pain Kirk as a Freshman. Finnegan keeps calling Kirk a Plebe, which means Freshman, and Kirk states, "that was 15 years ago." this clearly states two facts. 1 that Kirk was a Freshman 15 years ago, and that "Not Man" and "Shore Leave" could not have been more then a year apart. --TOSrules 09:22, 26 Aug 2004 (CEST)

A lot of the dates in that article are taken from the ST Chronology without questioning. Under close scrutiny most of these dates don't hold water. For example, the dialogue in "Court Martial" makes it very clear that Kirk served aboard the Republic after his academy days. And nobody in "Obsession" states that the Farragut was Kirk's first assignment.

Any "15 years ago" comment could be taken in the ambiguous sense, possibly 16 or 17 years ago even, so this "clearly states" very little except giving us a general idea of when to date it. -- Captain Mike K. Bartel 01:20, 8 Jan 2005 (CET)

You are talking about the law of Approximation, which simply means that when certain number are used like 15 20, 100 and many others that the mind gravitates to that they could refer to a more general range of number. But this law is Void when you deal with age or schooling. --TOSrules 06:16, Jan 23, 2005 (CET)
I don't find that very convincing. I can't find any reason to state that it is impossible for someone to say "i was in school 15 years ago" when they actually are thinking of a date 16 or 18 years previous, or even 14 years previous. I do that all the time in everyday speech, and even to some degree in more formal conversation. So this so-called "Law" of yours really doesn't change at all -- and I still find the entire notion of trying to prove that no one could speak otherwise to be counter-intuitive and a rather dubious use of circuitous logic. -- Captain Mike K. Bartel 07:37, 23 Jan 2005 (CET)

For what it's worth I would have to side with TOSrules on this one, after balancing both of your arguments, I can't see a statement like '15 years ago' meaning anything but 15 years ago. Tyrant 19:52, 30 Jan 2005 (CET)Tyrant

Actually, in Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, Kirk says he hadn't seen Khan for 15 years before the movie, set in 2285. 15 years earlier would be 2270. Kirk actually last saw Khan in 2267, when "Space Seed" is set. - 18 years earlier. So, indeed, 15 years ago can mean something different than 15 years ago. --Shran 08:51, 23 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Mike even if you apply the law of approximation to Kirks statement you don't get the 4 years you need. But we don't guestamate graduation. This line of thought is based off the assumption that when Mitchell said "Lt. Kirk's class" that Kirk was teaching. But all everything needs to mean is that he was really the head of the class, always burring his head in books. --TOSrules 19:48, 17 Jul 2005 (UTC)

There's perhaps more confusion regarding Kirk's background than any other character. Many excellent points have been made in trying to explain the discrepancies. With regard to using Star Trek II as an explanation of rounding to 15, I believe, and I am not alone, that Star Trek II in itself is riddled with time issues and that it takes place in 2282 rather than 2284 or 2285. That aside, I look at it this way (with a lot of speculation mixed in): Kirk graduated from the Academy at the age of 21 in 2254. After graduation he was assigned to the USS Republic under Captain Garrovick. Ben Finney, who had served as an instructor at the Academy far longer than was healthy for his career, decided to make a career change and was assigned to the Republic as well. Garrovick, like many before and after him, was impressed by Kirk, particularly when the young Ensign saved the ship by catching Finney's error (see "Court Martial"). When Garrovick's tour as commander of the Republic ended not long after, he had Kirk promoted to Lt. junior grade and assigned to the USS Farragut, Garrovick new command, on a deep-space assignment. Kirk served with distinction and looked upon Captain Garrovick as his mentor (not unlike the way Chekov would one day view Kirk). When half the crew, including the Captain, perished on one of the missions, Lt. Kirk requested an earthbound assignment at Starfleet Academy to escape the pain of the tragedy and the blame he cast on himself. Kirk, though still a relatively young officer, had thus far risen rapidly through the ranks and was a bridge officer on the Farragut. To take advantage of his field experience and background, Kirk was assigned to teach the Starfleet equivalent of command school. While there, Lt. Kirk was reunited with his old friend from the academy, Gary Mitchell, perhaps still an ensign or junior grade Lt. Kirk was something of a ballbreaker, setting the same high standards for his students in grad school that he set for himself as an undergrad cadet. To distract Kirk and get him to ease up on his students, Gary Mitchell set him up with a blonde "lab technician" whom he almost married. After a semester, perhaps with the support and encouragement from old friends like Mitchell, and respected senior officers (maybe Matt Decker or Bob Wesley) Kirk returned to starship duty as a Lt. Commander and first officer on another deep-space assignment, proving that he was capable of delivering on the potential many had seen in him from the beginning. He quickly earned his own command, a destroyer-type starship (see Stephen Whitfield's "The Making of Star Trek") and eventually became commander of the Enterprise and a living legend.

What do you think? Does this seem to make everything fit?

Welcome to Memory Alpha. You have here a very nice story, but on Memory Alpha we try not to speculate. Also, please sign your posts by leaving four ~ marks. Jaz talk | novels 05:33, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
As Jaz, said, that is a great way to work things out. I never thought of Kirk and Mitchell serving together as instructors. Here's hoping the powers-that-be make it canon soon so we can actually use it. As Jaz also said, speculation isn't wanted here. But thanks for your input, anyway. :) --From Andoria with Love 16:15, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Removal of Service RecordEdit

My addition of Kirk's service record was removed within 5 minutes without discussion. I think it deserves a little bit more than that and people ought to be more polite before deleting a major portion of someone else's work. Also, one of the reasons was that it contained "non-canon" information. That was addressed when I put it in and also most of what was there comes out of publications put forth by publishers of the show. -Husnock 7Jan05

I was perfectly polite, unless "removed Starfleet Service Record: duplicates Chronology, contains non-canon information" is an insult? I did not think discussion was required, since my reasoning was in the edit summary. Saying it contains non-canon info doesn't mean it can stay in the article, non-canon info is not permitted in the main article at all, regardless of attribution. I suggest you read Memory Alpha:Resource policy and Memory Alpha:Resource policy FAQ for what is and is not a valid resource for inclusion in an article. -- Michael Warren | Talk 00:39, Jan 8, 2005 (CET)
I tried to fix it up. Hope its okay now. -Husnock
Still contains non-canon information re: promotion dates, and contradiction with dates established in the article. I have removed said errors and info. Note that the Star Trek Chronology itself is contradicted by later references in filmed Trek, particularly in regards to the five-year mission, reducing its effectiveness as an information source. -- Michael Warren | Talk 00:57, Jan 8, 2005 (CET)

Star Trek IV Edit

At the end of Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home, Kirk pled guilty on behalf of his crew to the charges brought against them. When the other charges were cleared, they accepted his guilty plea for the remaining disobedience charge. Therefore he pled guilty, not was found guilty. --Kitch 10:29, 28 Mar 2005 (EST)

Vice Admiral or Full Admiral? Edit

In the "Key Dates" section, it says "2284: Returns to Starfleet as a Vice Admiral at Starfleet Academy." I was just wondering if this was confirmed, as additional material provided on the "special features" disc of the Star Trek 2 - The Director's Edition DVD, I forget the gentleman's name, but he was talking about redesigning the rank insignia, and they showed a chart the guy had made with the ranks on it, and it appeared that if that chart was correct, Kirk at the time of Wrath of Khan was a full Admiral (I'll also grant the possibility that he was promoted during the time he was an instructor). I'll link the design drawing (a screencap I did) here:

Wrath of Khan full Admiral insignia (Design Drawing) -- umrguy42 13:35, 4 Apr 2005 (CDT)

What you have there is a Rear Admiral. A Vice Admiral is like this guy:
LINK
with this insignia:
LINK
So Kirk is a Rear Admiral, as he was in TMP --84.130.179.245 15:41, 7 Apr 2005 (EDT)
You are correct -- Kirk was never a vice admiral -- he was always a rear admiral -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 15:50, 7 Apr 2005 (EDT)

CopyvioEdit

I just noticed that the entire section on his "other relationships" was copied nearly word-for-word out of the ST:Encyclopedia. I have removed said content and will place it below for character reference for anyone interested in readding original content to his article. --Gvsualan 05:38, 29 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Other significant romances in Kirk's life included Ruth, with whom he was involved when he attended Starfleet Academy (TOS: "Shore Leave"); Janice Lester, with whom he spent a year, also during his academy days (TOS: "Turnabout Intruder"); Janet Wallace, a scientist who later saved his life (TOS: "The Deadly Years"); Areel Shaw, in 2263, who, ironically, four years later would prosecute Kirk in the case of Ben Finney's apparent death (TOS: "Court Martial"); and Miramanee, a woman whom Kirk married in 2268 when he suffered from amnesia following a landing party mission. Miramanee became pregnant with Kirk's child, but both mother and unborn child were killed in an indigenous peoples' power struggle (TOS: "The Paradise Syndrome") Perhaps Kirk's most tragic romantic involvement was with American social worker Edith Keeler, whom Kirk met in Earth's past when he traveled into the 1930s through the Guardian of Forever. Keeler was a focal point in time, and Kirk was forced to allow her death in order to prevent a terrible change in the flow of history. (TOS: "The City on the Edge of Forever")

USS FarragutEdit

"Court Martial" Makes it clear that the Republic incident occurred after Kirk and Finny served in the Academy (I'll get the line if you wish). Heck it had to happen after Jamie was born. Kirk was Lt both in the academy and aboard the Farrgut only suggesting that Kirk was demoted. --TOSrules 20:24, 16 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Kirk's serving aboard the Republic during his Academy days is a long-established fact derived not only from "Court Martial" but other episodes as well. Please refrain from deleting entire pieces of relevant info from an article based on a belief; if you do not believe something belongs on the article, bring it up here so we can discuss it, but keep the info in the article until something can be worked out. --Shran 00:45, 17 Jul 2005 (UTC)
First of all, I didn't delete anything, I MOVED it to the bottom of the section and correctly phrased as happing after the Farragut. In fact you didn't even properly revert the edit, because the correct version of Kirk's history is still on the bottom of the section. Anyways, in "Court Martial" Kirk describes how he met Finny in the Academy. He then says, "We were assigned to the same ship some years later", in other words after the Academy. BTW to revert an edit correctly you go to the history and click the linked date of the version you wish to restore then you do an edit saving the page without change. --TOSrules 01:00, 17 Jul 2005 (UTC)
Sorry about that, I missed it. And thanks for the advice, I was wondering about that. But before you change anything major like that, please put it here for discussion. Again, many thanks and sorry for getting you upset. --Shran 04:05, 17 Jul 2005 (UTC)
Nothing for you to apologize about, just helping a new member, but I think I've offered enough evidence prove that my edit of Kirk's history is true. Unless you have anything to suggest otherwise. I think people assume it is during the Academy because Kirk was an Ensign, but that is clearly not the case. --TOSrules 04:13, 17 Jul 2005 (UTC)
Actually, I have to disagree with you. I see you wrote that Kirk was demoted to ensign - I highly doubt that. It is most likely that, since it was established in "Where No Man Has Gone Before" that he was a lieutenant while teaching at the Academy and was also a lieutenant when assigned to his first assignment out of the Academy (the USS Farragut), Kirk probably held the rank of ensign while attending the Academy. Also, Kirk could have met Finney at the Academy and then served "some years later" on the Republic - it doesn't specify how many years later. Remember, the Academy is a four-year curriculum, and anything could have happened in those four years. So I think most will agree with me that Kirk probably was not demoted, and the fact that such a demotion was never mentioned makes it speculation. In any case, the topic's here now for others to comment on. --Shran 04:26, 17 Jul 2005 (UTC)

I believe the correct order of things was:

  • Kirk met Finney at the academy. Finney was an instructor, Kirk a midshipman. The two became friends.
  • "Some years later" they were together assigned to the USS Republic. Finney was still at the Academy at the time.
  • Kirk logged an incident..blah blah...Finney drew a reprimand and was sent to the bottom of the promotion list and was late in getting a starship assignment.

Take it as you may, but the following can be said:

  • Finney's rank at the time aboard the Farragut was unknown; (UPDATE: REMOVED REFERENCE TO'Kirk's rank being unknown'; he was an ensign. --Alan del Beccio 22:35, 22 Jul 2005 (UTC))
  • It is unknown whether or not Kirk was still in the Academy at the time aboard the Farragut;
  • It is unknown if Finney was older than Kirk (which is somewhat relevant to this)
    • However, it seems implied that Finney was older, considering the arrangement when they met.

Nevertheless, no where was it established that Kirk was demoted at any point prior to Star Trek IV, nor that he was an ensign at any time during "Court Martial" -- both would seem to be speculation. What is known is that the Farragut was clearly prior to Finneys first assignment, and it seems to only be implied that it was prior to Kirks. In my opinion of all of this, its just poor dialog on the writers part that was subsequently forgotten by the time "Obsession" was written. --Alan del Beccio 07:53, 17 Jul 2005 (UTC)

However it is correct that Kirk's posting aboard the Republic was likely after his academy days (because his rank is given as Ensign in "Court Martial") Since Gary Mitchell was in one of Lieutenant Kirk's classes it further suggests after Kirk's Republic time he went back to academy to teach... then we have the Farragut on which Kirk served as Lieutenant. However it is said that Garrovick was Kirk's commander since the time he left the academy, this could either mean "since he left the academy after graduation" which would imply that Garrovick was the commander of the Republic as well or "since he left the academy after teaching". To sum up it is not that simple as suggested in the Chronology -- Kobi - (Talk) 10:14, 17 Jul 2005 (UTC)
There is no reason to believe that Kirk could not have held the rank of Ensign and later Lieutenant while still serving in the Academy. After all, Saavik held the rank of Lieutenant in Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan when she was still a cadet. --Shran 10:26, 17 Jul 2005 (UTC)
I highly doubt that, because then it would seem every cadet can achieve that rank; remember there were three Lieutenants in so called cadet uniforms in Star Trek II and III. I rather believe they were taking post graduate courses [1] -- Kobi - (Talk) 10:57, 17 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Kirk was defiantly a Lt at the academy, in fact according to the debate above, he was a Lt upon entering the academy. Of course he went to Axinar as a newly accepted cadet, but I suspect Kirk's Lt. rank upon entering the academy suspects something like a pre academy service like Wesley Crusher. But the best evidence is Jamie, who was named after Kirk, she is no more then 10 to13 years old, but Finny and Kirk had to be friends at the time. The demotion is common sense, because Kirk would have had to been on the Republic after the Farragut, and we know he was a Lt then, and an Ensign afterwards. --TOSrules 19:48, 17 Jul 2005 (UTC)

I see your reasoning, but I just don't know how it could be possible. Kirk's being demoted from a lieutenant to ensign is pure speculation and is likely in accurate. I highly doubt Starfleet would have demoted "a fine young officer who performed with uncommon bravery". Plus, I don't think a demotion would have gotten Kirk command of the finest ship in the fleet. "Obsession" established that the USS Farragut was Kirk's first assignment out of the Academy, and that he was a lieutenant at the time. Because it is unlikely that Kirk would have been demoted, it stands to reason that his time aboard the USS Republic when he was an Ensign took place while he still attended the Academy. "Where No Man Has Gone Before" established that Kirk had known Gary Mitchell for some 15 years prior to the episode (set in 2265) and that he was an instructor holding the rank of lieutenant at that time, as well. Therefore, Kirk likely held the rank of brevet ensign earlier in the Academy and brevet lieutenant (probably junior grade) during his later period at the Academy. After graduation, he was promoted to full lieutenant and assigned to the Farragut. Although not all the facts from the shows support this exactly, it is what most likely happened. Also, if Kirk had been demoted to ensign in 2257 (after his assignment aboard the Farragut was done), it would probably take him a little longer than seven years to make it up to captain's rank. If he was that good, then why would they have demoted him in the first place? It just doesn't make any sense to me. --Shran 06:16, 18 Jul 2005 (UTC)
Actually, it was stated in "Obsession" that Farragut was Kirk's first deep space assignment, thus it is entirely possible that Republic was his first assignment after the Academy, which "Court Martial" heavily implies.--62.46.64.163 07:07, 18 Jul 2005 (UTC)
If I remember correctly, it was his first deep space assignment after the Academy. In any case, either explanation is possible... it's just a question of which one is more likely, until it is better clarified in a future movie or episode. *crosses fingers* --Shran 07:35, 18 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Having thought about all the datapoints involved, I would have to say that I agree with TOSrules that Kirk's assignment aboard the Republic came after his graduation. However, I do not believe he was demoted from lieutenant to ensign after serving aboard the Farragut. See my speculative chronology at the bottom of my User page to see how I believe things went down. Feel free to comment. --Shran 08:19, 18 Jul 2005 (UTC)

But Kirk was both a Lt in the Academy and on the Farragut. --TOSrules 09:39, 18 Jul 2005 (UTC)

He was a lieutenant when teaching at the Academy. As someone pointed out before, it's entirely possible that Kirk began teaching at the Academy after his assignment aboard the Farragut. Not wanting to immediately be assigned to another starship after Farragut would certainly make sense if he was unsure of himself, since he blamed himself for the death of his crewmates. As for Kirk's line that he also knew Mitchell for 15 years, it's always possible that Kirk met Mitchell several years before he became his teacher and that, at the time they met, Mitchell was not yet attending the Academy. --Shran 09:47, 18 Jul 2005 (UTC)
You to have fallen into that teacher assumption from "No Man". But if you read the debate at top of the page, I show how when Kirk was a "Stack of book with legs" 15 years before "No Man" He was a freshman, not a teacher. The lines from the episode could say he was a teacher, but it also could say he was a bookworm, who always had the answer for every question the teach asked. I wrote this article on my version of Kirk's early career. http://groups.msn.com/StarTrekTheArcheologyMissions/general.msnw?action=get_message&mview=0&ID_Message=87 --TOSrules 09:56, 18 Jul 2005 (UTC)
I seem to recall that Mitchell rememered "Lieutenant Kirk's class" as a class where you either "think or sink." That heavily implies that Kirk tought a class at the Academy. (I have yet to read your article; I will do so after posting this.) --Shran 10:08, 18 Jul 2005 (UTC)
Kirk's Class could also mean that it is a class in which he was a student, and in a way he'd own the class for being such a bookworm. The comment could merely mean, that if you are in a class with Kirk you better think or sink. Think back to my comment on how he might have been the type to have an answer to every question. --TOSrules 10:11, 18 Jul 2005 (UTC)
Ah, I see what you're saying. Well, all that I can say is that you may very well be right. I can certainly see your reasoning, and much of it is convincing, with the exception of Kirk's demotion to ensign. Unfortunately, until the subject is brought up in future Trek episodes or films, we won't know Kirk's real history. :/ --Shran 10:22, 18 Jul 2005 (UTC)
You know the error that you repeat here is the same as in the chronology, if two references are given in one episode they are assumed to occour in the same year:
  • Kirk and Mitchell meet each other/15 years ago Mitchell was in Lt Kirk's class;
  • Kirk did meet Finney at the academy/Kirk did serve aboard the Republic;
  • Garrovic was Kirk's commander since he left academy/11 years ago Garrovick was killed aboard the Farragut.
However not one line in the episodes support that. Everything is pretty good explained here and by far much more logical and also waterproof -- Kobi - (Talk) 17:35, 18 Jul 2005 (UTC)

One thing about that page, I've long written off Mitchell's age as shown on screen, because it does not fit. That page makes a huge error, Denher says that Mitchell told her that Kirk and Mitch met at the Academy. It actually throws the entire calculation off.

Kirk was a Freshman 15 years ago from "Shore leave" Making Kirk a Freshman in 2252 by MA dates. "No Man" states not only did Kirk meet Mitchell 15 years ago but at the Academy which by MA dates is 2250 which before Kirk even attended. I solve this little problem by both by assuming Mitch was talking about Kirk being a book worm and not an instructor, and by putting "No Man" and "Shore Leave" no more then a year apart. because of "Charlie X" and "Dagger of the Mind" I place No man late one year, and "Shore Leave" early the next year, this is well in line with a Spring signing up.

It works out fine if you throw away the assumption that Kirk was an Instructor at the Academy while Mitch was there. You know this debate is falling back heavy on the 15 year debate atop this page.--TOSrules 20:12, 18 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Where in WNMHGB does Dehner say that Mitchell and Kirk met at the Academy? I checked the transcript and found no such line.--62.46.65.24 10:07, 23 Jul 2005 (UTC)
In the briefing room scene with Kirk, Spock, Dehner, Kelso, Sulu, Piper, and Scotty, Dehner tells Kirk that she doesn't understand why he fears Gary, because Gary told her that they had been friends since Gary joined the Academy. If it's not in the transcript, then that transcript is not complete. --Shran 15:04, 23 Jul 2005 (UTC)
Ok, found the scene. Dehner said that they were friends since he joined the service. And Kirk said that he knew Mitchell for 15 years. But these two statements needn't be connected. I know some people longer than I'm friends with. --62.46.64.185 17:53, 23 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Just for the record, it is possible, although rare for a cadet in the modern navy to attain the rank of acting-Lieutenant (with a subsiquent promotion to full lieutenant upon graduation) while still at the naval acadamy. This would explain Kirk, since he was supposedly the brightest student there in a long time, but there has to be a better explination for the several cadets with lieutenants insignias seen during Wrath of Khan.Keras 07:26, 10 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Kirk Chronology for your considerationEdit

Okay, I say we try to draw some conclusions based on what we DO know about Kirk based on data given to us from episodes and films for a FACT.

  • NOTE Dehner says that Kirk and Mitchell were friends ever since the latter joined the Academy; it is possible that when Kirk and Mitchell first met 15 years prior that they did not get along, but that they became friends after Mitchell enrolled in the Academy and had Kirk as an instructor. In other words, Kirk may not have been a lieutenant while ATTENDING the Academy, but returned sometime after graduation to serve as an instructor, when he held a lieutenant's rank. This must certainly be so if the "little blonde lab tech" is to be Carol Marcus, as many believe to be the case, since David Marcus (Kirk's son) was not born until at least the late 2250s.
  • 2252: Kirk becomes romantically involved with a woman named Ruth. The two would ultimately break up. ("Shore Leave" – around 15 years before the episode, set in 2267. Note that the episode also stated that Kirk was a freshman at the Academy 15 years prior to the episode as well, suggested this to be the date that Kirk entered the Academy, which seems unlikely. Kirk was likely just approximating or rounding off.)
  • ca. 2252: Jame Finney was probably born around this time, as she could not have been older than 15 at the time of "'Court Martial"
  • Unspecified Date: Kirk graduates from Starfleet Academy after gaining recognition as the only cadet to ever beat the Kobayashi Maru scenario. (Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan) He is assigned under the command of Captain Garrovick. ("Obsession" – Kirk stated that Garrovick had been his commanding officer from the day he left the Academy up through 2257, when Garrovick was killed.) It seems entirely possible that he was assigned to the USS Republic, which may have been under the command of Garrovick before both went over to the Farragut.
  • Unspecified Date: Kirk and Ben Finney serve together aboard the USS Republic (probably under the command of Garrovick). Kirk logs an error Finney made which could have resulted in the ship's destruction. Finney would later blame Kirk for his subsequent inability to gain a promotion of his own. ("Court Martial")
  • 2254: Lieutenant Kirk visits Neural on his first planet survey. ("A Private Little War" – 13 years before the episode, set in 2267. It is unclear whether or not he was serving aboard the Republic or the Farragut at this time, although most assume the latter.)
  • 2257: Lieutenant Kirk, serving as phaser operator aboard the USS Farragut on his first deep space assignment, hesitates in firing on the Dikironium cloud creature, which ultimately kills Captain Garrovick and 200 other members of the ship's crew. Kirk would blame himself for the incident, believing he did not fire fast enough on the creature, to which the ship's executive officer – another survivor – protested. ("Obsession" – 11 years before the episode, set in 2268.)
  • NOTE If Kirk had returned to the Academy to serve as an instructor after his own graduation, 2257 would be the most likely time for this to have occurred. In this scenario, Kirk and Mitchell had known each other previously but had not gotten along until now.
  • 2261: Kirk breaks off his relationship with Janet Wallace. ("The Deadly Years" – six years before the episode, set in 2267. Note that Janet Wallace may have been the "little blonde lab technician" which Mitchell attempted to set Kirk up with, which further forces the possibility that Kirk returned to the Academy to instruct in 2257, since it was when he was there that Mitchell hooked him up and it is unlikely he would have been dating Ruth at the same time he was dating Wallace. Also, if Kirk met Wallace in '57 and they broke up in '61, that would certainly allow enough time for them to consider getting married, as Kirk said. Also, David Marcus would had to have been born by this year at the latest (and around 2258 at the earliest).
  • 2263: Kirk breaks off his relationship with Areel Shaw. ("Court Martial" – four years before the episode, set in 2267.)
  • 2265: Kirk begins his historic five-year mission in command of the USS Enterprise. (VOY: "Q2" – Icheb stated very clearly that Kirk's first five-year aboard the Enterprise came to an end in 2270, indicating a start date of 2265)
  • 2268: The episode "The Trouble with Tribbles" takes place. (DS9: "Trials and Tribble-ations" – 105 years prior to the episode, set in 2373.
  • 2270: The five-year mission ends. (VOY: "Q2")

This might be able to help us draw some better conclusions. So, draw away. Oh, and if I missed anything, please tell me. --Shran 05:00, 19 Jul 2005 (UTC)

The above chronology sounds right, I think I have nothing else to add. However I want to point out some trivia: in the German version of "Where No Man Has Gone Before" Gary and Kirk did know each other only 10 years (it was broadcast in late 1973). Though the dubbing is generally said to be stupid it seems that a) the authors were correcting an obvious error here or b) were working with old scripts again rather than the aired material. Also: since 2242 is linked from Gary Mitchell's entry: could it be possible that Gary and Kirk knew each other from some kind of "Open Day at Academy"? When Mitchell really signs up years later he want's to attend his friend's class and is laughed at by an other student... -- Kobi - (Talk) 07:34, 19 Jul 2005 (UTC)
It's certainly possible... and it makes sense! :) As for the German re-dubbing, I certainly wish we could use that officially, 'cause it would certainly clarify some things... --Shran 08:55, 19 Jul 2005 (UTC)

On another topic, I also wanna point out that the early draft script for In Thy Image - which became Star Trek: The Motion Picture - after Lieutenant Xon transported to the Enterprise, Kirk was shocked that Xon was a lieutenant yet had not had a shipboard assignment prior, to which McCoy stated "Vulcans also graduate as Lieutenants." Granted, this was written out of the script when it became TMP, but it shows that the writers, too, thought Kirk had graduated as a lieutenant. Whether he was an ensign during his Academy days or if he actually was demoted afterwards... well, that's still a mystery. --Shran 08:54, 19 Jul 2005 (UTC)


More like this

Your history is long winded and still draws way to many assumptions, converting the dates from my chronology I referred you to, this is how it stalks up.

2233: James T Kirk is born

2246: James T Kirk witness massacre on Tarsus IV.

2250: Lt. James Kirk is admitted to Star Fleet Academy he soon meets Gary Mitchell, and Finnegan, (other named required) Kirk is known as a Stack of book with legs, those in the same class as him say that "In Lt. Kirks Class you either think or sink.

2254 or 2255: Kirk Graduates

2256: Lt. Kirk is assigned to the USS Farragut where he Conducts his First Planetary Survey.

2257: The Farragut on a Deep Space mission is attacked by a Cloud Creature Near Tycos IV Ensign Kirk is Reassigned to the Republic where he meets up with an old Friend Finny.

2261/2262esh: Kirk is Promoted to Captain and assigned to command the USS Enterprise

2265: "Where No Man Has Gone Before" this is the Chronology according to TOS using MA date standards and no speculation. There is no line in "no Man" that specifically says Kirk was an instructor, it is implied but I have proven that it does not have to mean that. --TOSrules 05:32, 19 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Sorry TOSrules, but I don't think that swapping the ranks to simply make solves the discrepancy -- Kobi - (Talk) 07:34, 19 Jul 2005 (UTC)
Not to mention you put far too much speculation into that chronology without any evidence to back it up (such as Kirk's graduation year, or him being an "Acting Ensign", when he was assigned to the Farragut, and that he was not an instructor), whereas my chronology relied only on established facts from episodes. Also, while I do agree that Mitchell's implications that he was an instructor could be taken differently, I'm afraid most will believe that he was an instructor since that was likely how the writers meant it. --Shran 07:50, 19 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Swapping the ranks? I did no such thing, I state the only possible chronology of Kirks career from TOS evidence. We need to stop this instructor theory, not one episode ever explicitly says he was an instructor. As for Speculation, it was your history that is filled with speculation not mine. I should have removed the Acting Ensign thing and am doing so now. I'll say it again, we know Kirk was a Freshman 15 years before "Shore Leave". What ever the writers meant, I do not care, because if it does not jive with the facts we have to re examine it. --TOSrules 07:57, 19 Jul 2005 (UTC)

I said speculation without any evidence to back it up. I had explanations for any theories I had in my chronology, and they weren't part of the actual chronology (the were in brackets, separating fact from speculation). Also... "What ever the writers meant, I do not care?" I'm glad this is community site, not one run on the opinion of a sole individual. However, I do agree that some facts may need to be re-examined. I've said it b4 and I'll say it again, we'll never know for sure until the topic is brought up in a future ep or film. --Shran 08:04, 19 Jul 2005 (UTC)
I've removed my theoretical observations to include only established details. Please tell me if I missed any. --Shran 08:13, 19 Jul 2005 (UTC)
Actually with the explanations I liked it better, because it is up to the reader to draw his/her own conclusions then and also more informative if one does know how the author came to those presented here. I also noted you removed the Areel Shaw entry: it must be set in 2262, 4 years, 11 months and 23 days before "Court Martial", I've re-added it. -- Kobi - (Talk) 08:33, 19 Jul 2005 (UTC)
Ah, very well then, I will re-add them. Sorry about the Shaw deletion, I was planning on deleting anything not relating to Kirk's career, but abandoned the idea... just forgot to re-add the Shaw bit. Thanks for re-adding it and thanks for the support, as well. :) --Shran 08:42, 19 Jul 2005 (UTC)

I think it's fine now, but it could probably use formatting similar to Riker's and most other character pages. - AJHalliwell 20:23, 19 Jul 2005 (UTC)

2233

James Tiberius Kirk is born...blah blah


It seems we have two major Disputes, When was Kirk a Freshman, and when did he serve aboard the Republic. "Shore Leave" Proves the first. Start by looking up the word Plebe in the dictionary, it will revile that the term means Freshman in military talk. "I never answer question from plebe's Jimmy boy." Kirk: "I'm not a plebe This is today, 15 years later". In other words, Kirk was a Freshman 15 years before 2267. That's 2252. How could Kirk be an instructor before he was a Freshman? One difficulty in this debate is the fact that all the years on MA are so off. Both "No Man" and "Shore Leave" talks about Kirk's acadmey days 15 years ago, Shore Leave stating clearly that he was a freshman.

In obsession McCoy says: "Captain Garrovik was very important to you wasn't he?" the Kirk replies: "Yes he was my commanding officer from the day I left the Academy"

This all started when I correctly placed the Kirk's service on the Republic after the Farragut. --TOSrules 21:10, 19 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Another possible explanation Edit

Another possible explanation just came to me as to why Kirk was apparently a lieutenant in the Academy but was an ensign after the Academy.

If I remember correctly, when Gene Roddenberry wrote "The Cage", the characters did not use Starfleet ranks as we know them, but rather military ranks, such as 2nd lieutenant, 1st lieutenant, captain, and so on. (This is why Pike's first officer was only a "lieutenat", a seemingly low rank for an executive officer - but it is indeed only one rank below Pike's!) In this system of ranking, the rank of 2nd lieutenant is the equivelant to the Starfleet/naval rank of ensign. So it's possible that this rank style was in use when Kirk was in the Academy, and was a 2nd lieutenant while he was still a cadet, but by the time he graduated, the rank system was changed and he became an ensign - no demotion, simply a change in ranking term.

If you're wondering whether Starfleet would undergo such changes in its rank structure, remember that it would not have been the first time or the last. For example, on Star Trek: Enterprise, Starfleet did not have the ranks lieutenant junior grade or lieutenant commander until after it was integrated into the Federation. The ranks of fleet captain and commodore, seen in use through the 23rd century, but are apparently no longer in use by the 24th century. So, yes, it is possible that Starfleet would have adopted a different rank structure, at least for a little while.

And for those doubting that Kirk could have been given a commissioned rank while still in the Academy, remember that Saavik was a lieutenant while still a cadet, and that Nog became an ensign halfway through his studies. --Shran 15:42, 20 Jul 2005 (UTC)

That is the wildest thing I heard. The Chronology according to my evidence is that Kirk was a Lt on entering the academy, graduates is assigned to the Farragut as a Lt. but then endsup on the Republic and at some point becomes an Ensign. Since we all agree that the Republic was after the academy that's the only order for events. If you object to the part about him being demoted lets just leave a note saying, "it is odd that Kirk would be a Ensign after the being a Lt on the Farragut and a Lt in the academy." --TOSrules 21:55, 20 Jul 2005 (UTC)
Wild, maybe. It's also heavily possible, since this was likely the rank structure used during the events of "The Cage." Also, I agree that Kirk was probably on the Republic after the Academy, but it is still possible he served a tour of duty on the Republic while still attending the Academy, just as Saavik did on the Enterprise and Nog did on Deep Space 9 and the Defiant. But, yes, if Kirk was an ensign after being a lt., and this can't be explained by a change in the rank structure... that would be very odd indeed. -- R.I.P. James Doohan, 1920-2005. Here's to ya, lad. --Shran 12:34, 21 Jul 2005 (UTC)
I don't know why the chronology version discussed a section above makes less sense than speculating why Kirk has been an ensign after being a lieutenant based on the assumptions he was a lieutenant at academy and on his first deep space asignment, just because the chronology says so -- Kobi - (Talk) 12:45, 21 Jul 2005 (UTC)
This may be because I've barely had 3 hrs of sleep, but I'm not entirely sure I got what you just said there, lol! -- R.I.P. James Doohan, 1920-2005. Here's to ya, lad. --Shran 12:56, 21 Jul 2005 (UTC)
I guess the explanation might work, but I think I've proven the service aboard the Republic was after the Farrgut. So I want to move that part of his service to the bottom of his early carrier, and add a note. "Kirk's rank is Ensign on the Republic despite the fact that he an Lt in the academy and on the Farragut, either Kirk was demoted, or Starfleet changed in there ranking system meaning Kirk was a Second Lt which is equivalent to Ensign" Either explanation is speculation, but it is a problem to be dealt with. --TOSrules 18:20, 22 Jul 2005 (UTC)
I'll take care of it, however it should still come before his last days at the Academy because the paragraph starts out with Kirk as a midshipman, and it would look better if the whole Finney business was taken care of in one paragraph. This will also avoid trying to pinpoint exactly when Kirk and Finney met and when they served together on the Republic "some years later." --Shran 00:16, 23 Jul 2005 (UTC)

It should be noted that it would be odd if Kirk's assignment aboard the Republic took place after the Academy, since Kirk apparently was a lieutenant while attending the Academy but was an ensign aboard the Republic.

Why? Kirk could have been easily a Lieutenant at academy and an Ensign later. We know that the academy (at Kirk's time) used the "midshipman" of today, an there is not only one MSM rank, there are midshipman ensign, midshipman lieutenant, midshipman commander and finally midshipman captain (Nicholas Locarno's Cadet 1st Class might be the 24th century equivalent to that). So Kirk could have been a MSM Lt. at the academy, referred to as "Lieutenant" by the "upperclassmen". So there is no problem if MSM Lt. Kirk was the instructor of something that is called "autonomous seminars" at universities here in Germany, which are led by the students themselves or some "specialists" among them. That fits perfectly with the "stack of books with legs"-Kirk. Then he graduated, became an Ensign and was assigned to the Republic (of Captain Garrovick, later the Farragut's Captain). Any more problems? --Memory 22:05, 22 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Let simplify this, burn away the irrelevancy so we what we have left is facts. Kirk served with Finney as a midshipman at the academy, a number of years later he served with Finny on the Republic. We know the first commander he had leaving the academy was Garrovik, could he have started on the Republic yes, is it likely, no. Usually a captain doesn't take most of his crew with him, yet it is possible that Kirk was one, just unlikely because he was a green cadet. In truth the Rank is irrelevant to the discussion. --TOSrules 22:34, 22 Jul 2005 (UTC)
I don't see anything "complicated". We know that the midshipman has been used at that time, so it's very likely that the MSM rank scheme was used (and it fits also very good with the cadet/MSM Saavik called "Lieutenant" by Spock in STII). "Usually a captain doesn't take most of his crew with him" - that's definitely wrong, Picard took his whole D-command crew (and likely some others) to the E. And he probably wasn't the green ensign as Garrovick took command of the Farragut, maybe G. promoted him to Lieutenant and realized his potential as Picard did with Wesley Crusher. --Memory 19:21, 23 Jul 2005 (UTC)

pna-incomplete Edit

Info needs to be added about his relationships with Spock and Leonard McCoy. And there is much, much more that could be written about his first five-year mission. --Shran 13:15, 22 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Furthermore, if the info above were provided, and some of the existing info were extended a bit, and maybe a few more pictures were added, I believe this article could finally be considered for nomination as a feature article. --Shran 14:09, 22 Jul 2005 (UTC)

BTW for the record, the Chief Medic officer's log that McCoy quotes says "Lt. Kirk preformed with uncommon bravery", so we know he was a Lt at the time of the attack on that Farragut. --TOSrules 22:41, 22 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Kirk page gets worse and worse Edit

In a way I regret bring this up, the article is full of even more speculation now then before the edit. Placeing the Republic after the service on the Farragut actually required less speculation, that is that he was demoted. I think we should make the service aboard the republic more ambiguous, not link to any particular time. --TOSrules 04:58, 23 Jul 2005 (UTC)

I put a note at the bottom of the Republic section stating that it is unknown whether his service aboard the Republic came before or after the Farragut. I think if the subject was any more ambiguous, it wouldn't exist. In any case, this is a community effort; if you feel something should be changed, then change it, and we'll see how it goes. :) --Shran 08:43, 23 Jul 2005 (UTC)
I posted that a while ago before we came to an understanding, it is heading in the right direction, but I need to go to bed. --TOSrules 09:59, 23 Jul 2005 (UTC)
Woo-hoo! Glad you approve, lol! Hopefully the others (i.e. the admins) do as well, or else all that rewriting will have been for nothing. Anyways, like I said, if anything doesn't sound right, by all means, change it. --Shran 15:27, 23 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Still needed Edit

The following events are still needed in order to make this article complete:

  • Detail on some other notable missions of the Enterprise in which Kirk was directly involved or which directly impacted the character (i.e. "The Changeling", "The Deadly Years", "Obsession").
  • His numerous romantic encounters aboard the Enterprise, including Elaan, Helen Noel, Rayna Kapec, Shahna, and, of course, Kelinda.
  • An expansion of the information in the "Later career" section is in order; it might be better if this was added to the U.S.S. Enterprise section, since the brunt of it takes place on that Starship. His assignment as Chief of Starfleet Operations in the early 70s can be a part of the Enterprise section since it was brief and it does ultimately lead to his regaining command of the ship.

When all this is completed - and done well and accurately, the article could very well become a candidate as a featured article on MA. --Shran 02:31, 28 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Minor glitch in 'Later career' section Edit

Enterprise-B was a Excelsior-class vessel, not a Galaxy class one.

On a related note, will people please stop changing the image note to say Kirk's on the Enterprise-A? He's on the B in this picture, as seen at the beginning of Star Trek Generations. IanWatson 03:42, 16 Oct 2005 (UTC)
I think you might be wrong. That picture looks more like its from Star Trek VI .. at the end when he addresses the crew. You can tell by the status displays (and Kirk has thinner sideburns than he did in Generations on the E-B) -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 03:55, 16 Oct 2005 (UTC)
Fair enough, but it's been B for ages, and the date listed under the picture would definitely place him on board the B. It's been changed to "A" twice in the last 24 hours by unregistered users with no explanation. If it's truly A, then more than just the letter needs to be changed. IanWatson 04:01, 16 Oct 2005 (UTC)
Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country took place in 2293. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 04:05, 16 Oct 2005 (UTC)
Colour me apologetic. I can admit when I'm wrong. (: IanWatson 04:16, 16 Oct 2005 (UTC)

It is quite oviously the Ent-A, because the Ent-B had a blue chair [2] furthermore: this image shows him standing behind a grey chair [3]. Conclusion: Ent-A, case closed -- Kobi - (Talk) 12:07, 16 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Repetitve info Edit

"Kirk, Scotty and Chekov come aboard the Enterprise-B, newly commisioned Excelsior class starship. Kirk dissapears into the Nexus continuum, from where he comes out 78 years later. Inbetween these years, he has been officially declared dead. He dies on Veridian III, when Captain Picard asks him to help him stop Dr. Tolian Soran and stop the plans for the destruction of the planet. (Star Trek Generations)"

This info, located at the bottom of the "Later career" section, is not needed as it is already located in the "Nexus" section at the bottom of the article, where I believe it's better suited. --Shran 21:25, 1 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Birthdate Edit

I understand that Kirk's birthdate of March 22nd has been widely accepted because it is also William Shatner's birthday, but if it has not been revealed on-screen or has not been officially accepted as the Riverside tidbit was, does it really belong in the article? --From Andoria with Love 05:27, 19 Aug 2005 (UTC)

I'll take that as a "no" and edit the article accordingly. ;) --From Andoria with Love 06:03, 26 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Burial Edit

I can't believe nobody else picked this up, but both Kirk and his best friend Gary Mitchell were buried under rocks on remote planets. This strikes me as an intentional homage in Star Trek Generations, and I've added relevant information to both Kirk's article and the Generations article. I may have worded them incorrectly, though, so I'd appreciate some criticism and rewriting on them. --Zeromaru 15:01, 7 Sep 2005 (UTC)

I have to admit that I find any comparison between the two rather dubious. Being placed under rocks on a mountain and being squashed by a boulder blasted out of a cliff by a phaser rifle seems to be two different things to me. Considering how obscure "Where No Man Has Gone Before" used to be, I doubt the writers of Star Trek Generations gave it any props. ----Beyerku 20:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Of Kirk and Canon Edit

I understand where many of the dates come from concerning Kirk's career and the debate over when Kirk was an ensign, etc. My feeling is to simply state in the article what was said in the actual episode and let the readers draw their own conclusions. This adheres to the canon as well as fosters discussion, but not in the article itself. I personally feel, and I think Paramount would agree, that even the Okuda dates should not be so strictly adhered to, i.e. the Chronlogy's conjectural date of 2269 vs. "Q2" 2270 for the the end of the five-year mission. Stardates are canon. My suggestion would be to use the stardates instead of calendar dates unless it is directly mentioned.

A possible rationalization for the Kirk/Finney debate is that Garrovick was Ensign Kirk's commanding officer on the Republic from the day he left the Academy, and then continued to serve with Garrovick on the Farragut after the Finney incident occurred on Republic. Again, not canon, not established, but possible.

An interesting side-note. In Nick Meyer's commentary on the Star Trek II: Director's Edition DVD, he notes that Kirk was to be 49, but he and Bill Shatner agreed not to specify Kirk's age. Of course, it was not mentioned onscreen, but it does provide context for the 15 year comments and Kirk's apparent mid-life crisis. Kirk gave his age as 34 in "The Deadly Years" which would put "Space Seed," several episodes earlier, darn close to 15 years prior to the film.--68.119.104.50 03:33, 31 Dec 2005 (UTC)

New ambiquities section Edit

I've moved all the murky stuff about Kirk's early years down to a new Background section, Ambiquities. If this sounds like an unacceptable approach, let me know what you think. Aurelius Kirk 18:24, 3 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Major revisions and additions Edit

The major refit I've attempted on this article is basically complete. There are still obvious holes in Relationships and the latter half of the five year mission, and my new additions, Intellect and Vitality, need a thorough nit-picking. Aurelius Kirk 09:16, 6 Jan 2006 (UTC)

There's no question that you've done more than your share of the work. Awesome job. :) --Vedek Dukat Talk | Duty Roster 09:20, 6 Jan 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! --Aurelius Kirk 09:53, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)

I've got a question regarding the 5-year mission chronology. Can someone confirm (or point me to a reference) that shows TOS how air dates equate with Trek chronology (1967=2267), or do all (for example) Season 1 episodes fall under 2266. Just curious, I've noted descrepancies. --Aurelius Kirk 09:53, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Peer review Edit

Howdy all. My pace of updating this article has slowed as come closer to the end of things I can feasibly add. I didn't set out to break the article size record, but I guess it's not too inappropriate considering the prominence of the character. As I wrap things up, I'd appreciate feedback on the following:

  • Pictures - Are there too many, too few? I've done a lot of color/contrast correction to make them "pop" off the page, but some (especially movie caps) are low quality. If anyone can replace them, send me the fattest files you can capture, and I'll trim them down.
  • Friendships - There are a few gaping holes in relationships with his junior officers. Frankly, there's just very little to go on beside "He promoted Chekov" or "He kissed Uhura". Should those listings be dropped or left as is?
  • Quotes - Too many, not enough? A good one I missed? Should some of those quotes I included in the body of the article be duplicated in the end?
  • Off the Deep End - Under "Intellect and Personality", I tried to discuss the nature of Kirk's personality. I think all the underlying facts are clearly evident in canon, but stringing them together to form a conclusion was perhaps pushing it. Did I pull it off, while staying within the rules?
  • The Five-Year Mission - Again, too much or not enough? Perhaps it could form the basis for a separate Five-Year Mission (2265-2270) article, and trimmed down to mention the encounters that greatly impacted Kirk or his career in this article.
  • Nit picking - I'm sure there are a lot of minor fixes needed, but my eyes are way to familiar with this article, and it's hard for me to catch what needs attention. Please keep an eye out for spelling, format, and misc. errors.

Thanks very much. --Aurelius Kirk 12:46, 17 Jan 2006 (UTC)

My work here is done (for the most part) Edit

I'm not sure how long it's been on the page, but there was a mention of Kirk commanding the Enterprise for 22 years. I don't think that can be justified. There's the first five year mission, the V'Ger incident, the events between ST:TWOK and ST:TSFS, and seven years of the Enterprise-A – that's 12 years and a butt, call it 13. If the second five year mission is canonically acceptable, that's still only 18 years, and nothing suggests what he did after the second five-year mission and before his first retirement. Accordingly, I've change the mentions to "over the course (or span) of three decades."

I know I said this a month ago, but my major rework on this page is essentially finished. I've been making minor tweaks here and there, and there are a few minor episodes I've yet to closely examine, but there is nothing I can imagine that would significantly change the structure of this article. I requested a peer review on this, but there hasn't been any response yet. I'm sure this can still be improved, so if you have time, please comment. --Aurelius Kirk 17:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't know who added the 22 year comment or whether it is canonically mentioned, but I could see where the info might have come from. Kirk had his first 5 year mission from 2265-2270 and his 7 years on the Enterprise-A (2286-2293) making 12 years. Then his "2nd" 5 year mission from 2273-2278, but misinterpreted (from the Star Trek Encyclopedia, for example), this mission has been stated as beginning in 2271. If someone assumed that he commanded the Enterprise from 2271 to his first retirement in 2281, then that conveniently adds another 10 years to the 12, making 22. Not saying it's correct, but I can see where it came from (2265-2270 [5], 2271-2281 [15], 2286-2293 [22]).--Tim Thomason 23:00, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Talk:James T. Kirk quotesEdit

Hmm... I dont' know, but shouldn't we rather remove some quotes from the article instead of creating a subpage for it? In my opinion, quotes alone aren't really "encyclopedic", nor are they from the correct point of view. They are nice to have as a bonus to an article that otherwise is both of the above, but I don't think we should have separate and lengthy "quote articles". -- Cid Highwind 21:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

*lol* Nice idea, I kinda like it. It's similar to the discussion about creating pages for relationships of two characters.
Maybe we could make an exception concerning the "big ones" like Kirk and Picard and keep this. --Memory 22:14, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
I put this up only because it trimmed almost 10% from what had become MA's largest article (and the most frequently viewed biography page). I don't see any harm in a quotation subpage for such an important (and quotable) character, and I can't forsee the need for a great number of separate and lengthy "quote articles" beyond the five captains (at most). It seemed to me, fitting - along the lines of "I'm a doctor, not a...." If I overstepped my bounds by creating the new article, and there's a consensus to cut down the number of quotes and return them to the JTK article, I won't make a further objection. --Aurelius Kirk 22:17, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm a little ambivalent about the existence of such a page, but I suppose there's no real harm in it. Unlike the "relationship" articles (i.e. "Jean-Luc Picard and Beverly Crusher" as a separate article), this doesn't create ambiguities - a page would only be created in cases where there are many, many quotes to use. Cases in point would be people like Worf (who has an ungodly number of appearances and "one-liners"), probably all of the captains from Kirk to Archer, and maybe even some memorable secondary characters like Dukat or Elim Garak.

On the other hand... It does come across as a bit out of place, although like the question of what to call the crossover appearances, I don't know think there's an alternative. Aside from this idea and simply leaving the quotes on Kirk's page, the only option is to prohibit "Memorable Quotes" sections on biography pages. --Vedek Dukat Talk | Duty Roster 22:36, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Long and redundantEdit

my god this was the longest and most redundant artical i have seen yet in m/a but it deffinatly does portray all the info on kirk, one thing is missing though, does any know his shirt size, i see thats not here, lol. i am not trying to be mean but is there any way to trim the fat of this artical any its kinda a hard read! Its Time For The White! 07:28, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, if it's the most redundant article, why did you just compound the problem with your last edit? I've overwritten your edit with a change that, I think, links his 5-year mission Time Travels with the latter travels more elegantly.
This is the (second) longest article on MA, but is that inappropriate for one of the most prominent and complex characters in Trek? Some events are mentioned more than once, when those events are complex enough to warrant discussion of a different aspect in the appropriate subsection. As for readability, it is an article for an encyclopedia, and not a story. That said, if you think there are specific bits that should be cut, unwarranted redundancies, or unclear phrasings, please mention them. --Aurelius Kirk 08:17, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
I can confirm it is definitely a long article -- at least it has decent spelling and grammar though, that's a good thing -- I think good writing skill really makes anything easier to read.
Going further, is there any specific component of the article appropriate for a separate article? Are there any Wikipedia examples on how to divide the bio of a notable figure into subarticles? -- Captain M.K. Barteltalk 19:38, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
I think the concept of pages for character relationships was a hot issue around here a while back for similar reasons. Jaf 19:47, 24 February 2006 (UTC)Jaf
In peer review, I brought up the possibility of a single article encapsulating the five-year mission, but nobody's seconded the idea. That article in itself would be a beast, but all the major TOS character articles could refer to it, leaving the biographies to focus on events that shaped a character. Honestly, I'm not postive that's the best solution for Kirk, since he was the prime-mover in most episodes. I read that old relationship argument -- I think it happens to work for a description of the Kirk and Spock friendship, or other buddy teams like Miles and Julian, but I can imagine the precedent spawning a lot of murky material.
There is a nice break in the middle of this article. The James T. Kirk page could just cover the first three sections, the basic facts of life and career -- with a link to James T. Kirk (part 2) covering personality, relationships, and appendices. --Aurelius Kirk 20:36, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

the edit i made in the time travel section i dont think i compuonded it, i just followed the rest of the section's layout, also i didnt mean to anger anyone, but i do think some of this artical is more fluf than stuff, and maybe the biggest gripe i guess i have is the personal relationships part, some of it seems to be conjecture, not cannonicaly established fact, aslo the intelect part i feel fits the speculation/conjecture, i know you have an opinion on this persons personality, but is your opion a fact and worthy a post in an encylepedia?. if i made you mad i am sorry!Its Time For The White! 11:40, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Timeline Discrepancy Edit

"2293: Along with Captain Hikaru Sulu of the USS Excelsior, is responsible for saving the Khitomer Conference: retired from Starfleet and is believed killed later that year during the maiden voyage of the USS Enterprise-B."

This needs to be separated into two statements with two different years.

ST:TNG is supposed to begin 78 years "after the days of Kirk and Spock" (after ST6). TNG begins in 2364- which would make Kirk's retirement 2286.

In 2293, Kirk attends the launch of the Enterprise-B. He is lost in the subsequent events, and reappears 78 years later, in ST: Generations (2371).

Roundeyesamurai 03:43, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

The events of Star Trek 6 have been established to have taken place in 2293 and not 2286. --OuroborosCobra 03:50, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Established by conjecture; unfortunately, the conjecture doesn't fit.

There are two usages of "78 years"- one usage states that 78 years have passed between the end of Kirk's captaincy of the Enterprise-A and Picard's captaincy of the Enterprise-D (2364); the second usage establishes that 78 years have passed between Kirk's apparent death aboard the Enterprise-B, and the events of "Generations" (2371).

This means that the same span of time (seven years) must have elapsed between the end of Kirk's captaincy of the Enterprise-A, and his apparent death aboard the Enterprise-B- unless, of course, they really meant to say "85 years later" in the sailing ship scene in "Generations". Roundeyesamurai 04:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it was established by canon. Dr. McCoy stated he was chief medical officer of the Enterprise for 27 years at the time of Star Trek VI. Because he joined in 2266 (or, at the earliest, 2265), this means the film took place in 2292 or 2293. The latter has been most accepted, since McCoy was first seen in "The Corbomite Maneuver", set in 2266. --From Andoria with Love 04:54, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Also, where is that "78 years after the adventures of Kirk and Spock" thing from? It was never established that the first season of TNG took place 78 years "after the adventures of Kirk and Spock". What was established is that the TNG-era portion of Generations took place 78 years after the TOS-era portion of Generations. --From Andoria with Love 04:58, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

The first usage of "78 years" was given by Roddenberry in his notes for the writers. It was also used in the promotional commercials advertising TNG immediately before it came on the air and in TV interviews with Roddenberry promoting TNG. It was also given in the Star Trek 25th Anniversary Special- which is where the quote "78 years after the days of Kirk and Spock" was spoken (by Shatner).

The second usage of "78 years" was a caption in Generations, with the scene switch from Kirk's apparent death to the sailing ship scene on the Holodeck. Roundeyesamurai 06:26, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Well, that is very interesting... and, at the time TNG was first being promoted in 1987, they were correct. According to the current chronology, Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home took place in 2286 (although it was more likely 2285, IMO). Voyage Home was the last movie produced prior to the airing of TNG; 2286 + 78 = 2364. However, since then, new movies were produced which changed things, and since the original 78-year tagline is not canon in the sense that it was not stated in universe, there's no harm, no foul. You're also forgetting the fact that VOY: "Flashback", set in 2373 (or 2372, depending on how you look at it), stated that the events of Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country were set "nearly 80 years" prior to the episode. 2373 - 80 = 2293. Lastly, as I said, the "78 years" in Generations was the passage of time between the TOS-era portion of that film (where Kirk is believed killed aboard the Enterprise-B) and the TNG-era portion (with the Enterprise-D), which took place in [[2371]. So, there ya go. :) --From Andoria with Love 13:23, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I do believe you're right, Shran.

As an aside- the fact that something wasn't said "in universe" shouldn't necessarily exclude it as canon if Roddenberry said it. Star Trek is, after all, his creation. It's his baby. He also started the "canon" distinction in the first place. I think it's safe to say that if Roddenberry said it, it's canon.

Otherwise, we risk being kind of like the Catholic Church, omitting portions of the Bible. Roundeyesamurai 17:30, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Very true; if Roddenberry said it, it should be treated as canon, so long as nothing which actually makes it to the screen later in the franchise contradicts it; afterall, Roddenberry also said what was on the screen was canon. (Of course, he also said that parts of Star Trek V: The Final Frontier, Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country, and all of Star Trek: The Animated Series were apocryphal, but... yeah...) Anyways, funny you should mention the Catholic Church thing; that figures prominently in The Da Vinci Code, which I just saw this Saturday. Very interesting movie, I must say. Boring a lot of times, but interesting overall. --From Andoria with Love 17:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Believe it or not, I actually know Dan Brown. In fact, it was a conversation that I had with him some months ago that occurred to me as I was writing the above paragraph. We were talking about the omission of important parts of the Bible, for the sake of a particular "interpretation"- an interpretation which is now the source of many major disputes.

Part of the problem here, as well as with the Bible, is the belief in "gospel". We have to remember that, ultimately, Star Trek is a television production. One of the greatest and longest-lived, to be sure, but it isn't something for religious fervor. There are mistakes and minor contradictions, and things that are out-of-place, and so forth; if we recognize these things for what they are- human mistakes made due to tight timetables, tight budgets, overworked behind-the-scenes staff, etc.- then they're alot easier to put into perspective than looking at them as infallible "gospel". Roundeyesamurai 19:12, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, the whole omission of certain "chapters" in the Bible (which I've heard about long before The Da Vinci Code) certainly raised some question marks, none of which I'll express here since A.) it's not the place for it, and B.) I'm not a religious person. A very good analogy, though, I must say. :) Anyways, tell Mr. Brown I'll be expecting a Da Vinci Code II: The Wrath of Teabing in the near future. ;) --From Andoria with Love 08:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Blasphemy! Burn him at the stake!! ;-) --OuroborosCobra 19:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Ambiguities?Edit

Included in the Intellect and Personality section is a reference to Scotty's assumption that Kirk had come to find him after he was freed from the transporter. Generations made that statement incorrect, as Scotty (and the TNG crew) would have had knowledge of Kirk's death. Should this be listed as an ambiguity, or simply a time travel paradox?


Photograph of Kirk Edit

Captain of the Enterprise-A in 2293.
That picture looks like it could have come from "Generations," by which time Kirk had retired. Is its provenance as ST:VI confirmed? --<unsigned>

Yes, the bridge chair is that of the ST VI Enterprise-A, not the ST: G Enterprise-B. Also, this angle a shot on the Enterprise-B, there would be a massive MSD visible behind Kirk, yet there is not. --OuroborosCobra talk 04:37, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
The Enterprise-B had different colored chairs. this is definitely a Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country picture of the Enterprise-A which was not featured in Star Trek Generations. -- Captain M.K.B. 10:29, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

ChildrenEdit

The information in the box under Kirk's picture at the top of the page says he has a child who died before birth. However, the article body has no mention of this and I can't rcall ever hearing mention of that on screen. Can anyone shed some light, or is this something that can be removed? Tiberius 11:54, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

This is a reference to pregnant Miramanee in "The Paradise Syndrome". Both she and the child died, only Kirok aka Kirk survived the stoning. --Jörg 12:14, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
The article itself also refers to this event, under the "Miramanee" section under "Family". --From Andoria with Love 19:16, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Kirk: In a Mirror, DarklyEdit

Kirk's birthdate Edit

If Kirk's birthdate of March 22, 2233 is non-canon, should that piece of information really be in the character info sidebar? -- Renegade54 19:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

No. -- Sulfur 20:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Actually, it is canon. Production artwork seen in "In a Mirror, Darkly, Part II" stated it was 22 March, 2233. Unlike many of the other listings on that graphic, this date has not been contradicted by anything more concrete (dialogue, etc.) You can see the production graphic here. --From Andoria with Love 04:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Forum:Questions about Kirk's B-DayEdit

I have had this question burning at me for awhile and I have decided to ask, at the James T. Kirk page, it says that his month and date of birth is March 22nd. I know that his birth year is 2233, because he says that he is 34 years old in 2267, but I do not know why the March 22nd is considered canon here, since it was illegible on screen on Star Trek: Enterprise. If someone could answer me, I would apprieciate it. --142.32.208.232 20:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

even though it was illegible, we found that the date had been devised for the film, therefore we honor it. -- Captain M.K.B. 20:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

What film was that exactly? --142.32.208.232 20:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

ENT: "In a Mirror, Darkly, Part II": Image here. --Alan del Beccio 20:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

In A Mirror, Darkly Edit

Just out of interest, which bit of JTK's biography is gleaned from 'In A Mirror Darkly Part 2' as mentioned in the article? I don't recall that or him being mentioned even in the 'shown onscreen but not read out' bits. Not quibbling, just interested.. Jim Smith 16:09, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

This screen (seen in the episode like this) states that, in 2233, "James T. Kirk is born in Iowa, Earth, March 22." with the exception of the Zefram Cochrane bits, information on that screen has yet to be contradicted. --From Andoria with Love 17:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

That's brilliant, exactly the kind of informative, thorough and no-nonsense answer I was looking for. The links great. Thanks very much Jim Smith 09:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC) 09:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

USS Enterprise Edit

Picture of the Enterprise should be changed to the original still from TOS. In my opinion, using picture of CGI Enterprise from DS9 in this article is just wrong.-Rodney McKay 12:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Why? It's still the same ship, in command by the same man. For the record, the Enterprise currently pictured is not CGI, it is the lovingly re-created model used in the episode "Trials and Tribble-ations". --From Andoria with Love 03:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

In "e" Edit

This discussion has been moved to Forum:Film and show template bugs. --From Andoria with Love 16:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Middle initialEdit

The article refers to the infamous and incorrect "James R. Kirk" tombstone, created by Gary Mitchell in TOS: "Where No Man Has Gone Before",

The article does not say when "Tiberius" was chosen as Kirk's middle name. If it was chosen before the filming of that tombstone, then the tombstone is indeed incorrect. But if it was chosen after that filming, then it would not be accurate to say that the stone is incorrect, but rather that his middle name had been retconned. Can anyone supply additional info about when "Tiberius" selected, or at least when the "T" initial was chosen? --Keeves 03:17, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

You know, maybe I'm doing some writer a favor in the future, but there's always the possibility that Kirk and Mitchell once joked something along the lines of "In that case, maybe your middle name should be James R. Kirk...", therefore with the R standing for something, and the grave to later be yet another example of morbid "old friend" humor on the part of warped-Mitchell. --ChrisK 23:22, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
There is actually a novel (I can't remember which one) that explains that the "R" was some form of in-joke between Kirk and Mitchell. I don't think it was explained in the novel what the joke was, and IIRC, it was a touchy subject for Kirk. I always thought it meant "Rat-bait", myself (or something similar), since Mitchell had to save Kirk from some dart-shooting rodent creatures during their early Starfleet days. --From Andoria with Love 05:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
The first time Tiberius was used as Kirk's middle name was in the episode TAS: "Bem". However, that is not canon. But in Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country, which is canon, during the trial he is named James Tiberius Kirk. I think it was during the trial, but I am sure it was in the movie :-)
The retcon... I think that it is only in the second pilot that he is named James R. Kirk.
Personaly, I think this is just as much a retcon as Data's graduation year from the Academy, and by that I mean that it is NOT a retcon. Data clearly said that he was in the class of 72. This was just an error. It was the first episode! They can't have figured out how the characters should be. If we would call everything that contradicts the facts shown in the first episode, then we would have many facts that could be disputed.
Data later got a correct graduation-year (can't remember which year it was). Just as Kirk later got a correct middle initial. -- Örlogskapten... Channel Open... 17:43, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Tiberius was presented as Kirk's name in all the Star Trek conventions during the 70's. It may not be mentioned in any Episode, but that is the name he was given in the script readings.
James R. Kirk was a jingle writer who was annoyed at the similarities and let them know. They created the Tombstone as a little jab at the jingle writer.
TV show are full of stuff like that and probably should just be ignored. The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.162.223.250 (talk).

Kirk epitaph Edit

I want to put in an epitaph for Kirk at the start of the article, based on my belief that all major characters deserve one that ultimately defines them. Previously, I had put in part of the humorous conversation between Saavik and Spock in Star Trek II,

"He's so...Human." "Nobody's perfect, Saavik." - Saavik, Spock (Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan)

...but one of the admins felt it didn't work, perhaps focusing too much on the humor side.

Very well: my new suggestion for the "faculty":

"Second star to the right...and straight on 'til morning." - (Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country) ...the one chosen by Paramount for Kirk to in fact say at the end of VI, to encompass the farewell to the entire Original Series. Given that he's Kirk, such a phrase would be apt to be applied him, directly...especially beside that excellent shot of him, sitting in the chair. Thoughts? --ChrisK 07:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

*Seeing no comments thus far...* If no one objects, I will be putting it in myself soon enough. --ChrisK 23:19, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Funny, it's removed, but discussion on the theorized correct quotation to use has not been undertaken in the slightest. Almost inspires me to seek an edit war. --ChrisK 20:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The quote was removed by Jayunderscorezero with this reasoning: "removed opening quotation which seems distinctly different from the opening quotations for the other captains, as it doesn't really act as a neat summary of the character." I'm inclined to agree. Not that I'm a huge fan of opening quotes, but if they must be used, they should summarize the character nicely. --From Andoria with Love 07:38, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Cannon Edit

I read somewhere that Kirk once made a cannon out of bamboo, sulfur, potassium nitrate & charcoal and used it to fire diamonds into the hearts of his enemies. It sounded too serious to be a simple joke and I think it'a a reference to a TOS episode.--200.83.4.5 19:31, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

"Arena". --Jörg 19:38, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Kirk's ancestry Edit

I entered a paragraph about Kirk's ancestry. The reference is from the TOS:Spectre of the Gun. Mak Trek 13:04, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

5 year mission? Edit

In this article, the Enterprise's 5 year mission is broken down so that it encompases only TOS. Isn't TOS just the first 3 years of the 5 year mission, and TAS is the last 2 years now that TAS is considered cannon? DaveS86 22:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Look at 2270, that has TAS in it. --OuroborosCobra talk 22:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

picture caption Edit

Wouldn't it be better to add "Nexus timeline" to the year 2371 (otherwise it would be 2293 (and still Enterprise-B-timeline))? --84.186.142.77 17:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

temporarily protected Edit

I temporarily protected this page from vandals for 24 hours. --Alan 22:21, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Chris Pine?Edit

With the J.J. Abrams movie coming up, shouldn't we add Chris Pine's name alongside Shatner's underneath the main picture (and do likewise for other established characters appearing in the movie)? --BlueResistance 21:01, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

No, because the new movie has not come out yet. Our spoiler policy prevents us from adding contents from upcoming productions to in-universe articles and the like. --OuroborosCobra talk 21:13, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Around Wikia's network

Random Wiki