Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:23, 20 May 2013

	Khan Noonien Singh is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Misplaced Pages community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
	This article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on September 4, 2009.
Article milestones Date Process Result December 7, 2007 Articles for deletion Kept October 11, 2008 Featured article candidate Promoted
Current status: Featured article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Film: American This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm This article is supported by the American cinema task force. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Star Trek High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Star Trek, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to all Star Trek-related topics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Star TrekWikipedia:WikiProject Star TrekTemplate:WikiProject Star TrekStar Trek High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Fictional characters This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fictional characters, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of fictional characters on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Fictional charactersWikipedia:WikiProject Fictional charactersTemplate:WikiProject Fictional charactersfictional character

This article has been mentioned by a media organization: "16 things you might not know about Star Trek's beloved villain Khan". SCI FI Wire. January 16, 2009.

Archives

Archive 1

Heinlein Connection?

Has anyone ever heard of a connection between Khan and Robert Heinlein's 1942 novel Beyond This Horizon?

In the backstory of Heinlein's novel (pages 25 thru 28 in the 1964 paperback edition), Khan is the leader of the genetically-engineered supermen who conquer the world in the Second "Genetic" (not "Eugenics") War. Maybe Wilber or Coon (Space Seed's authors) read the novel and incorporated part of its backstory into what eventually would become the Star Trek canon?

Has anyone heard of anything about this, even in the fanzines? Are the sources good enough that this tidbit could be incorporated into the article? RoyGoldsmith (talk) 19:53, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Such a blatant parallel is interesting to say the least, but if all we have is Heinlein's content it's original research to add it. I haven't seen anything about this, but maybe if I know what I'm looking for a good source might pop up. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 03:47, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

It's not quite as blatant as that makes it sound. Khan is not the name of a character in Heinlein's novel, but a title, just as in the real world. The Empire of the Great Khans was led by, as you may expect, a Great Khan.

However, it _is_ a novel all about how eugenics changed the world, and the historical backstory does have some similarities, and it had recently been republished after the success of Heinlein's later works. So, it's quite possible that Wilber or Coon named their character Khan as a reference to the novel. It's also possible that they had read the novel and forgot it, but subconsciously thought of the name "Khan" without knowing why. Or that they were describing the idea of a eugenics war to someone else who said, "Like the Khan from Heinlein", and never followed up the reference but decided to use it as a name. Or that it's a coincidence. Without sources, there's no way to know. --70.36.140.233 (talk) 07:47, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

"Expanded universe."

- Because Star Trek is fictional, the TV shows and the movies, it is somewhat ridiculous to assert that the novels or the animated series are not "real Star Trek," or non-canon. The novels certainly fit into the "expanded Star Trek universe." Whether even Gene Roddenberry felt this or that was consistent with his view of the Star Trek universe may be interesting in itself but is hardly the final word. Prominent Star Trek contributors Dorothy Fontana, David Gerrold, William Shatner, and Leonard Nimoy have all mocked the canon-- noncanon delineations as arbitrary and silly.AaronCBurke (talk) 17:46, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Paramount does not consider the books canon. End of story. It doesn't matter that people in Star Trek have derided that definition of canon. For us to assert that the books present what, for the purposes of Trek canon, did happen between the show and the movies is disingenuous at best. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 19:14, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

In its current form, the article doesn't mention canonicity one way or the other, which is fine. If we don't mention "canon", readers can make their own determination about whether the novels "count" or not. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:54, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

But that's still misleading. We can't represent Khan's backstory as part of canon. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 20:15, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

The question is whether simply saying that Greg Cox wrote three books about Khan's backstory makes any assertion about canonicity at all. I suggest that it doesn't. It just says that Greg Cox wrote three books about Khan's backstory. Whether these novels are considered canonical or not doesn't need to enter into it: in the real world, this is merely a record that there has been further exploration of the character in a noteworthy context.

If this was Memory Alpha, it would be completely appropriate to mention that the books aren't canonical. But I'm not sure that the question is even relevant in the context of Misplaced Pages. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:47, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I find it rather amusing that you're saying we should be less stringent than a fan wiki, the land of original research and borderline reliable sources. But it is relevant since we're putting Cox's novels right after The Wrath of Khan. Otherwise readers might assume that what Cox wrote is what happened to Khan, considering it's an official publication. But according to Paramount "Only the reference books (tech manual, encyclopedia, etc...) and two books by Jeri Taylor are considered canon outside the TV show and movies." It's thus important to make the distinction. Why are we trying to reduce clarity? --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 23:07, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm suggesting that it's not a matter of stringency at all. As an encyclopedia, Misplaced Pages doesn't really care about what "really" happened to Khan — it's all fiction. If it's notable fiction, it merits mention; if it isn't (e.g. most fan fiction) it doesn't. A licensed publication, reviewed in reliable sources, is notable and therefore merits inclusion.

I'm partly playing devil's advocate here; honestly, I don't think that it matters that much whether the article notes that the novels are non-canonical. But, as is noted at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Star Trek/Canon, when you're writing from an out-of-universe perspective, questions of canonicity generally aren't that important. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:16, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Memory Beta article

Is this link worth putting in the article? http://memory-beta.wikia.com/Khan

It is a fan site but does talk about the Cox books. --FeanorStar7 (talk) 21:11, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

The Gazette

The Gazette link should be disambiguated. Art LaPella (talk) 16:58, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

 Done Art LaPella (talk) 19:08, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Name similarity to Dr. Noonien Soong?

I noticed the similarity between the names Khan Noonien Singh and Dr. Noonien Soong, the creator of Data and several other androids. Neither the article on Khan nor the article on Dr. Soong seem to discuss any connection between the two characters, although the article on Soong has a link to the Khan article. Is there a connection, and if so, should it be explained in the article? - Mark Dixon (talk) 14:18, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

• You are correct in noting the similarity. There is a connection: Gene Roddenberry liked to recycle names. (See, for example how many times he used "Dylan Hunt.") In this case, the names were derived from a friend of Roddenberry's from WWII, Kim Noonien Singh. There was a sort of retconning of the history of the Eugenics Wars, in the Enterprise episode "The Augments" in that geneticist Arik Soong, the great-grandfather of Data's creator Noonien Soong was the "father" of Khan-like genetic superman-- although it is never stated that he had any connection to Khan, himself, who in the Trek timeline was born 150 years earlier.) --HidariMigi (talk) 18:09, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Sikh?

In all the discussions this character has generated, has no one commented that Ricardo Montalban looks nothing like a Sikh? I would have expected this to generate nearly as much controversy as if Sir Laurence Olivier had played Martin Luther King in blackface... Paul Magnussen (talk) 21:28, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Well he does have long hair.. kinda. And his skin is slightly darker. And it IS an alternate universe where all Siks look like Kahn. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 00:12, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I think the main point is, that it is never revealed whether he is a Sikh or not. Although McGivers says so, it is only a guess by watching him while in stasis. Khan's true ancestry remains unknown. Besides the fact that he is genetically engineered and could as well have green skin and four ears. The fact that his first name is Khan indicates that he is rather not a Sikh. I believe the scriptwriters kept it that vague deliberately. The wiki article is correct by only mentioning that he is Indian. --Robinandroid (talk) 10:28, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Just like the diverse group of Khans crew, Khan himself was a mix of races, perhaps the end result if all the races mixed.

-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.67.114.171 (talk) 08:25, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

This is what I mean by the ignorance displayed by some of our European Wikipedian. Sikhs, are Indo-Aryans, and therefore tend to have wheatish complections that reflect their origins from the Black Sea Area (Scythians). Here is an image of a typical Sikh Warrior. Hardly a blacked up Sir Lawerence Olivier. You guys are experienced editor and should know better than to fall into the stereotypical media nonsense. Thanks SH 13:09, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

"Pay Special Attention"?

Second picture down, the caption. Doesn't sound very encyclopedic to me. Why should we be paying special attention? Maybe something like "The director chose Khan's revealing outfit because (reason 1), and (reason 2). (24.131.254.74 (talk) 14:13, 5 September 2009 (UTC))

You would nead a source for that claim ("reason 1 and reason 2") before you can add it in. iagree that we should drop the "pay special attention" bit. User:Smith Jones 20:15, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

"Script Girl"

I've edited the reference to script girl to be the more accurate script supervisor. For the reasoning, one need look no farther than Misplaced Pages's own entry about "script supervisor." XofWiki (talk)

That's the term the actor used. And the wikipedia article is a bunch of unsourced garbage, so I wouldn't reference it for anything. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 18:41, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

In the classic Hollywood studio days, they were lowly-paid individuals well-down in the studio hierarchy (i.e. without any authority at all -- at most they could remind the director of potential problems), and overwhelmingly female, so "script girl" was more accurate at that time than "script supervisor". Not sure about 1982... AnonMoos (talk) 11:59, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Sourcing for "Sikh"

So what's the situation with sourcing, here? We have a line in the original 1967 TV script where a character looks at Khan and says that he is "From the northern India area, I'd guess. Probably a Sikh.", and then nothing until a 2003 spin-off novel where Greg Cox fleshes that line out to have Khan proudly talking about his "Sikh ancestors", followed by a 2006 "supervillain book" where he's listed as being "a Sikh born in India's Punjab region", and a 2012 blog entry (which I think fails WP:RS) that calls him a "Sikh superman"?

We should be careful about using spin-off novels and fan encyclopaedias as sources for facts which aren't mentioned in the main television and film series; the bulk of the article is talking about Khan's appearance and reception on television and in film. (If another spin-off novel revealed that Khan was secretly a robot, it would be confusing to open the article by talking about Khan being a robot.) When we say "Khan appears as a North Indian Sikh who is both admired and reviled by the Enterprise crew." we are implying that this is how he appears in the TV show, which seems misleading.

We have a clear primary source where the 1967 TV script has a character describe him as appearing to be "from the northern India area" and "probably a Sikh". The first half is strong enough to say that he "appears as an Indian" the lede, but given that the second is only a "probably", I think it's better left in context in the body of the article. --McGeddon (talk) 09:55, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Ok, lets be exact then. Lets say "North Indian" as per the first series and quote "probably a Sikh". Alternately, have the decription a;ong the lines "Greg Cox" in later novels describes him as a Sikh. As a Trekkie and Sikh (convert) I think this explains a lot of his charachteristics, which the Augmentation have exagerated. He can be brave yet arrogant. Charming yet insulting. I just want a bit more meat on the bone. Saying Indian is like saying European. India after all is just a colelction of 30 odd nations with different languages. In appearance Indians look different. For example, the further South you go the more Aboriginal they look. The further North, the more European looking. That would explain Khan's appearance as well. Thanks SH 11:11, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I would suggest that the mistake here is to assume that there is a correct and consistent answer or trying to define what counts as "canon". Why try to come up with some definitive decision about his heritage when you can just say that in the TV series he was depicted as X, in a spin-off novel he is depicted as Y, in a cast interview the actor said he played him as Z? This is a real world encyclopedic article, not a in-world fan article and there is no reason to assume the different sources will be logically consistent nor should we try to make them so. GDallimore (Talk) 13:17, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Let us be clear: Star Trek canon does not consider the various third-party or spinoff novels, even if authorized by the rights holders, to be canonical. The upside is that it gives authors wide latitudes in creative expression; the downside is they cannot be used in Misplaced Pages articles. We mention Greg Cox's book as a notable appearance of the character, but it's not a valid source, and neither are scripts (they might give us intent, but ultimately what is canon is what ends up on screen.) The supervillain book is probably just copying Cox's info, and the blog is simply not reliable. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 13:54, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Ok from what I understand and from watching the episode yesterday, Khan is directly refered to as "North Indian" and then "a Sikh" followed by some talk of them being warriors, and then the shot cuts to a picture of him wearing a turban as here and here is the quote MARLA: From the northern India area, I'd guess. Probably a Sikh. They were the most fantastic warriors.. The way I look at it, Greg Cox is just building on what is stated in the original script and just going into his background. I'd like to also point out www.hollywood.com is not a blog. It's a reporting website and therefore does not fail WP:RS. I can't see how this "Khan appears as a North Indian Sikh who is both admired and reviled by the Enterprise crew" is misleading based on what I've already stated. We may need to tweak the words to say something like "Khans charachter is North Indian, probably Sikh. Geg Cox in later novel charachterises Khan as a Sikh blah blah blah. Thanks SH 14:21, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

A character supposes they are a Sikh, and draws that picture. But nowhere does Khan himself say "why I'm North Indian, and a Sikh, don't you know." Acting as if it's definitely stated is incorrect, and in that realm it doesn't matter what Greg Cox says as it's non-canon.We're an encyclopedia, not a work of original research. The whole point of the verbiage is largely irrelevant, as his supposed ethnicity is pretty inconsequential for the lead--he's not known because he's possibly-Indian. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 17:53, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Get the basics correct then. Possibly "northern India area" , not Indian. India is much like Europe, a collection of countries like Europe thrust into a Union. Distinct languages and people. The two dominant races being the Dravidian (in the South of India) and the Indo-Aryan's of Northern India. Khan's image is probably based on the latter. Thanks SH 10:59, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

"The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources." - quoting that not only is he portrayed as Indian, but a northern Indian and "probably a Sikh", seems a bit too much weight. It's fine that this is mentioned in the article body, but we shouldn't overwhelm the lead by focusing on aspects of a character which, although they might be important to us as individual editors, are not a big part of the article. --McGeddon (talk) 11:15, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Ok are we going around in circles here? On the one hand people are saying we should be encyclopaedic, and others are saying original research (which I accept) on the other hand we are saying we should not be too encyclopaedic? All I'm saying is be accurate and relect what the series said. The example I would use is describing Napoleon as European rather than French. It would not be accurate. The accurate description for Khan is Northern Indian as used in the series. All I'm saying is Indian is NOT an accurate description and NOT one used in the original episode. So going back to "The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources.". Indian is not reliable, or published. northern Indian is reliable and published. The same could be said of "probably a Sikh". I think this meets WP:Reliable, WP:Balance as well as WP:NPOV Thanks SH 13:34, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't think we're going in circles - I was talking about the lead section there. Quoting the 1967 "probably Sikh" script in context in the body of the article is absolutely fine, but I think "from Northern India, probably Sikh" is unnecessary detail for the lead section - by focusing on it, we're making it sound like it was a defining aspect of Khan's TV and film incarnations, when it only seems to have been mentioned in passing once. --McGeddon (talk) 13:48, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I see what you mean, but for someone skimming through and looking for the basic information don't you think the lead summarises everything stated below quickly? A chap was reading it in the office today and in the lead he got all the relevant information, without having to read the whole thing. Thanks SH 18:31, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

It definitely summarises it, I'm just concerned that we're giving undue weight to one relatively unexplored aspect of his character. By describing Khan as "Northern Indian, probably Sikh" in a two-paragraph summary, we're suggesting that both the TV series and the remainder of the article will have more to say about this. When in fact all that the article and the entire TV/film series have to say is (so far as given sources suggest) literally just the four words "northern India" and "probably Sikh". --McGeddon (talk) 18:44, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh I see, it maybe viewed as WP:UNDUE. I've read it a few times now, and I think the one mention refers directly to his charachterisation mentioned later on below.SH 13:05, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

The Usual Blunder

This is the sort of annoying goof (to those who understand the Indian culture). Jeffery Archer, the British novelist,made the same stupid error when he named a short-story character of his Anil Khan. He cleverly took first name of Anil Kapoor and the last of Salman Khan and thought he has created libel-safe name for a fictional cop. But the idiot didn't know was that Anil is essentially a Hindu name and one named thus can never be a Muslim, which a person with second name as Khan is sure to be !

The same blunder is repeated here : A Singh is always a Sikh. Though a gurkha, a rajput(hindu) or even a bania(in very rare cases) might be a Singh. But a Muslim can never be a Singh, and a Khan cannot be a Sikh( or a hindu )!124.253.202.166 (talk) 07:53, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Alas I come accross this sort of error in many articles, usually written by Western Europeans (see I'm generalising now), aboutb people from India. What they fail to grasp is that India has 40 different languages. Different scripts, and alaphabets. Each state in India was a country at some point. The people look different in appearance from State to State. I do hope some of the editors educate themselves further on this, and in the process make Misplaced Pages better than the normal stereo-typical dross that passes off as encyclopaedic. Thanks SH 15:55, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

This is all the more reason for Misplaced Pages to be careful about taking a single line of in-character dialogue ("From the northern India area, I'd guess. Probably a Sikh.") and presenting it as "Khan is a genetically engineered superhuman from northern India... ancestry was changed to Sikh in script revisions". There's a difference between a character saying something vaguely and mistakenly, and the show's writers and directors making that same mistake explicitly in script directions and interviews. --McGeddon (talk) 16:20, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

McGeddon I don't think the Sikh thing is an issue. You convinced me with some excellent points as to why it should not be included in the summary. I added a link to North India, and it was removed, and India added again? I thought the reason for moving was pathetic. On a side note, because I know the history of the Khalsa and Sikhs, I can see the paralleles and the inspiration that the writers had for Khan Singh. That thinking that one man is able to take on the multitude nature, is an extension of the Sikh attitude "Sava Lakh Se Ekh Laraaoon" (One can fight and challenge 700,000). i.e. one man (a Sikh) is in effect a Superman and Superhuman. I'd say a perfect candidate for Eugenics. There are many other sayings that have parallels.Thanks SH 11:40, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Khan Noonien Name Meaning

Hi all, are there any WP:Reliable references to what Khan Noonien means? I have done some research and Khan Noon would mean "The Law". Khan Noonien or Khan Noonie would mean "Abider of Law". Anyone else find anything on this? Thanks SH 15:51, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

FAR

This article may need to undergo FAR considering that at least a third of the sections are missing some very important citations. Especially the Star Trek Into Darkness and Novel section. I have added {{cn}} where required to meet the minimum. I certainly think there's an opportunity to fix the article before the film comes out, otherwise this should in fairness be going to a FAR considering the seriousness of the issues at hand. Mkdw 05:16, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Citation needed where Khan's the bad guy in the film? Can't we just cite the film? Do you need a script or a screen capture? 132.185.161.96 (talk) 12:23, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Generally there's not much of a reason to cite content that specifically comes from media, because that media is itself the source--we don't usually cite much in plot sections for that reason. As for other FA criteria, the fact that Cumberbatch is Khan, which has clearly been kept quiet, means there's not as much on his portrayal as I'd like, but after the dust settles from release I plan on incorporating what's relevant. I'm open to opinions from editors on how to format the article, given that the past 30 years of information, awards and recognition has been based intrinsically on Montalban's portrayal. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 16:21, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

In STID, it is still spelt Kronos by Starfleet at that point in the timeline

The Klingon homeworld is still called Kronos at this point in the alternate timeline, it is shown onscreen. Yes the actual name is Qu'onoS in Klingonese, but the federation did not use that spelling until after the events of Star Trek 6: The Undiscovered Country.

See the talk page of Into Darkness for further information. Colliric (talk) 07:26, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Khan Noonien Singh Whitewashed

Shame that Gene's charachter that was based on a chap he met in the 2nd World War called Kim Noonien Singh wasn't honoured in the new film. Interesting article here on this. SH 16:44, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

This article is by a Muslim group that would naturally latch on to something like it and pretend it's somehow important. To me, a fan of the original series, this "alteration" makes complete sense. Cumberbatch portrays the character as if he's a strong colonialist, perhaps still from India after all. He may be a Sheik, but with some strong british ancestry. His origin story, in my opinion and also canonically, therefore remains exactly the same. Although darker in skintone, Montalban portrayed the character in a simular manner as if his hatred of Kirk stems partly from a deepseeded hatred of his own possibly british ancestry and aristocracy, which to him, Kirk represents(Montalban is a mexican, and has fairer complexion than indians, so it could be suggested his character is a half-blooded Indian with British ancestry, and I think this IS the case in the expanded universe). This dovetails beautifully with Joseph Conrad's Heart of Darkness(which this Star Trek film is REALLY actually based on) where the character Kurtz is a british colonialist who has been cutoff from British society and has become like a God to the people he is now living as one of, in the Congo. Or it's famous film adaptation, Apocalypse Now, where Kurtz has become one with the remote isolated tribes in Burma(Vietnam is the setting for most of the film, but the final section is actually set in Burma).Colliric (talk) 16:53, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

no offence but you have no idea what you are talking about. North-West Indians are light brown skinned. They have originated from groups like Jat, Scythians from the Black Sea area. They tend to be tall. An extreme variation is the wrestler The Great Khali. There is no stirring by Muslims (please stop confusing Muslims with Sikhs). He is not a Sheik but a SIKH. Motalban looks exactly like North-West Indians or Punjabi's. It's this sort of ignorance that has led to the Whitewashing of the Star Trek Universe. SH 14:55, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Dude, get a grip. First, the website clearly labels itself as "A compendium of the Sikh American experience." Your claim that the article is "by a Muslim group" is clearly false. Perhaps you are confused about the difference between "Sheikh" and "Sikh"? Second, your use of the words "naturally" and "pretend" suggest a bias that is not appropriate for Misplaced Pages discussions. Your first sentence has a tone of "that's what those Muslims are like" about it. Third, whether you think the concern is legitimate or not is really irrelevant. If the discussion of the issue in the media eventually rises to the level of notability as a "controversy", then it should (neutrally) be mentioned in the article. Your assessment of the validity of the complaint is immaterial whether or not the matter is included in the article, and best saved for discussion on fan pages. Misplaced Pages is not a forum. 99.192.79.14 (talk) 19:12, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

You both seem to be responding to me? It doesn't look like it from the formatting. Firstly, yes it was an honest mistake. Still the point remains the group is clearly biased, therefore it is not a valid source to use in the article. Secondly, as I pointed out, the extended Star Trek universe has treated Khan as a half-caste(Indian and British, his wealth coming from his British ancestry) that does not follow religious beliefs. That was even before Roddenberry died. There has been no such "whitewashing" at all. Frankly I think more fans disagreed with a Korean actor playing the Japanese Sulu, yet you wouldn't put that in Sulus' article as it's not worth mentioning at all.Colliric (talk) 15:22, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I thought having a Korean actor play a Japanese charachter was highly offensive and insulting to both communities. The Khan portral in the same context is even more insulting to both communities. Even if Khan was half white half Punjabi, you would still need a charachter that fits the bill, eg Ben Kingsley who is half white and half Indian. I have cousins who are half white and half Sikh and they still have Olive coloured skin. I think you're defending the undefendable, and do a search on google into "Star Trek Into Whiteness". You'll see how outraged fans are. Thanks SH 17:13, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Colliric, you are correct that my above comment was a response to you. If you check the time stamps you will see that I posted my comment a full day before SH's outdented comment. Second, you say, "Frankly I think more fans disagreed with a Korean actor playing the Japanese Sulu, yet you wouldn't put that in Sulus' article." Check the article. There is extensive discussion of the issue of the race of Sulu, the problems that arose concerning his race when he was given a first name, and the specific worries that Abrams had about casting a Korean to play Sulu. The article does not specifically say that the public was upset about the casting, but the article addresses in some detail the issue of the race of the character and that of the actors who have played him.

I would imagine that substituting one visible minority for another in casting (especially when the original intent was for Sulu to be generically East Asian) is less likely to be a controversy than substituting a visible minority with a white actor in casting, so if this casting decision does result in more controversy I would not be surprised. If that does happen (and it is early days yet to tell if it will) then it would be valid for the article to report the controversy. 99.192.94.9 (talk) 19:49, 19 May 2013 (UTC) (=99.192.79.14)

Guys, let's cut this short. This is a venue for discussing improvements to the article, not airing grievances about the film. If there's commentary on the perceived whitewashing of the character from reliable sources, we can add it in. Otherwise, this thread doesn't have much of a purpose. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 13:58, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Northern Indian Vs Indian - Indirect Racism and Insensitivity

According to "Marla McGivers: From the northern India area, I'd guess. Probably a Sikh. They were the most fantastic warriors. —"Space Seed". Star Trek: The Original Series. Season 1. Episode 22. 1967-02-16. NBC." it clearly states that Maria McGivers describes Khan Noonien Singh as "Northern Indian" and NOT India, yet one editor persists on adding Indian. On a personal level I find this quite insulting and verging on racism. Please add your views. Thanks SH 15:47, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Dude, you have to RELAX! If you're going to find it insulting and racist whenever people disagree with you then it's going to be hard to discuss anything rationally. As I see it, the source for specifying "northern" India is dialogue from the episode "Space Seed". So I have three comments. (1) The character does say "probably", so her dialogue cannot be used to source a stronger claim. You also have to leave room for the possibility that a character in a show can say things that are not true. She could believe he is from the north of India and be wrong. So her dialogue is a very weak source. (2) Are there any other sources that speak on this matter? It might be a good idea to look and see, as a more definitive source would settle it one way or the other. (3) I have to ask, does it really matter all that much? I mean, saying he is from India is not wrong if he is from northern India. Insisting that the word "northern" be included suggests that it is vital that people NOT think he could be from southern India, which someone else (not me) might think sounds insulting and verging on racism. By all means, it's good to get this right. But try explaining why it is a crucial distinction before accusing people of being racist. If you can do that calmly, you might find others responding by saying "Oh, now I get it. Good point." Give it a try. 99.192.90.12 (talk) 18:23, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages featured articles
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page once
• All unassessed articles
• FA-Class film articles
• FA-Class American cinema articles
• American cinema task force articles
• WikiProject Film articles
• FA-Class Star Trek articles
• High-importance Star Trek articles
• WikiProject Star Trek articles
• FA-Class fictional character articles
• WikiProject Fictional characters articles
• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press