Talk:Khan Noonien Singh

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 ^(talk) 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 ^(talk) 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 ^(talk) 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 Wikipedia. —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 ^(talk) 23:07, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm suggesting that it's not a matter of stringency at all. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia: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/wiki/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)

Gene Rodennbery's 2nd World War Indian pilot mate Kim Noonien Singh in the explanation for this.SH 14:52, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Be aware when you say that Kim Noonien Singh is "Indian" that some editors think "to just use the term 'Indian' is not precise, it's lazy, and quite insulting." Oh wait. That was you. Never mind. 99.192.85.205 (talk) 17:21, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

As a lecturer and writer of many papers on Indian History I would be very surprised if the average Wikipedian actually understood the finer points of Nationalism on the Indian sub-continent and mistook it for WP:LAWYER. Then again I just don't get why the some Scots don't like being called British!! (I'm being sarcastic, incase you didn't get it) Thanks SH 09:58, 3 June 2013 (UTC) Don't even joke about it... (A Scot...)

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 Wikipedia'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^(talk) 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 Wikipedia 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^(talk) 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^(talk) 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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)

Aftabgujral (talk) 13:50, 26 May 2013 (UTC)"Sava Lakh Se Ekh Laraaoon" means "One can fight 125000" Not to be rude but you are not doing a good job of translating a simple phrase. Personally, I am afraid, I take this (the name / origins of Khan) as another example of the ignorance shown by English and American authors, film makers etc. Aftabgujral (talk) 13:50, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I know what "sava lakh se laraaon means" whether it is 125,000 or 700,000 really is irrelevant. The point is one can take on multitudes. The Sufi tradition uses such metaphors as well. What gets me is people don't understand the title Khan. Khan also exists as a title or name amongst Sikhs for example Kahn Singh Nabha. It's not so much ignorance (although that is part of it) it's the Euro-centricity of Wikipedia. For example if Khan's name was Smith Brown, people would immediatly say it's obvious what Smith and Brown means and origins. They get confused with anything East of Baghdad. Thanks SH 15:03, 29 May 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^talk 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^(talk) 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 [1] 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 Wikipedia 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. Wikipedia 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^(talk) 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 "I'd guess", 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)

Apologies, even exeprienced editors like me get frustrated sometimes. I think the best analogy I can draw is that Khan was refered to as Nordic in some scripts. Now you would add Nordic in the text, not European as that could imply he was from somewhere like Greece. In the same context he is refered to as Northern Indian in countless links I can provide. Here is one. India is divided primarly into two distinct ethnic groups. The North are Indo-Aryans (tribes like Scythians like come under this come from the Black Sea are - so called proto-European). They tend to be talller and lighter skinned. In areas like Punjab and Kashmir they look like Europeans. The South are known as Dravidians. They are darker and look more like people from Aboriginal tribes in Australia. The North (especially) north-west (Sikh's, Rajputs, Jats etc) tend to be more volatile. The South (Tamils, Malyalams) tend to be more "civilised" and passive. There is the difference. India you have to remember is like Europe, a collection of 40 distinct languages, many faiths etc. To just use the terms "Indian" is not precise, it's lazy, and quite insulting. It shows the Euro-centric bias that mmost Wikipedians have (something I have pointed out in the past). ThanksSH 21:13, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I have to agree that I find the sentiment that simply saying "Indian" as opposed to "North Indian" is insulting and racist sounds, well, insulting and racist to Indians. I don't pretend to know much about the various ethnic groups and castes in India. What I do know are Wikipedia's policies on reliable sources, minority and fringe points of view, and conflicts of interest. What we know: Khan is from India.[2] Aside from McGiver's comments in the episode, that is never disambiguated by official sources. Sikhhistory is not a significant source worthy of inclusion, sorry, and neither is racebending; if there's commentary on those sources from reliable media sources like the NYT, CNN, etc., then it can be included. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 13:14, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

well David, again apologies to you as well, and see my response above. ThanksSH 21:15, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't doubt there's a difference, but my point is there's no reason per Wikipedia guidelines to make such a distinction. I'm sorry if an Indian chap might be offended for whatever reason, but we don't disregard Wikipedia's policies of going by sources. McGiver's comments are speculation that are noted, but are not given undue weight. Likewise, sources that are not reliable should not be used unless they are proven reliable by some other means, or are quoted in a reliable source. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 13:03, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

David you are wholly wrong on this point and I have in several articles deleted what I deem to be WP:OR or WP:UNDUE but this is not the case here and it's not a case of offense but accuracy. I can post several articles in Newspapers where Khan Noonien Singh (including a Star Trek Website) where he is refered to as specifically "north Indian" but for some reason you delete it, yet you keep the desciption of him being Nordic? Why David? This is a ridiculous situation where:

1. it quacks like a duck
2. looks like a duck
3. people describe it as a duck

but because the duck did not call himself a duck, therefore it is not a duck. I think you are abusing your position as an administrator and I will call for WP:Mediation on this. No hard feelings SH 18:41, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Quacks, Looks, and Described like a duck - references to Sikh and Northern India

Here are a few links:

1. http://www.nypost.com/entertainment/movies/news/n92436.htm
2. http://www.mlive.com/entertainment/bay-city/index.ssf/2013/05/star_trek_into_darkness.html
3. http://theurbanwire.com/2013/05/17/star-trek-into-darkeness/
4. http://www.trektoday.com/content/2013/05/star-trek-into-darkness-hollywood-premiere/
5. http://nerdreactor.com/2013/05/16/a-trekkie-review-of-star-trek-into-darkness-with-spoilers/
6. http://www.thehindu.com/features/cinema/cinema-reviews/star-trek-into-darkness-thrill-ride-till-the-end/article4705910.ece
7. http://www.justpressplay.net/reviews/10684-star-trek-into-darkness.html
8. http://www.film.com/movies/star-trek-into-darkness-khan
9. http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Khan_Noonien_Singh << a wiki so could be problematic.

SH 18:54, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

You do realize that what reviewers say does not change canon, and that many of those people are likely referencing Wikipedia or Memory Alpha, meaning it's circular sourcing, correct? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:10, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Several things. (1) SH, you wrote, "To just use the terms 'Indian' is not precise, it's lazy, and quite insulting". I've had lots of friends and co-workers over many years who are Indian and I don't ever recall any of them ever insisting on being called "northern Indian" or "southern Indian". It has always just been "Indian". Today I even asked a couple of people of Indian descent I know what they think and neither thought it either lazy or insulting to just say "Indian", so your claim that it is seems strange.

(2) As for the Nordic/European/Greek example, I'd say I don't see the problem. If we knew the character were European but it was not clear if the character were Nordic or not, I'd say we go with European. If someone reading that thinks "he might be Greek" I'd not find that troubling. So your example just supports using the more general term.

(3) I agree with David that secondary sources are not really going to do for a claim like this. It's not the circular sourcing question that is a problem so much as they must be just making an assumption unless a primary source backs them up. And assumptions, no matter how many do it (even independently) are not fact.

(4) Having said that, many secondary sources describing Khan as "northern Indian" can be an adequate source for the claim that "Khan is widely regarded as being from northern India". So I see no problem with including that claim and only giving secondary sources. But for any stronger claim, you need a primary source. 99.192.54.253 (talk) 00:56, 23 May 2013 (UTC) (=99.192.90.12)

I'll try and adress your points 99.192.54.253

1. Ok, if you called an Englishman a European, I bet you he would take issue with that. In that same way many northern indian tribes take issue with being called an Indian. Most would insist on being called Punjabi, Haryanavi etc.If you were to generalise you could genralise between the "northern Indian" and "southern indian". If however, you called say someone from Belgium that, he would less likely to take issue. This is the same case here. India is even more diverse than Europe. Many races, languages, cultures than Europe. Furthermore, there is method in the madness of the script writers. Why didn't they write South Indian in the script? Was that an ooversight? No. They knew what they were doing. They had some knowledge of tribes and culture in India. Roddenbury met Kim Noonien Singh in the 2nd World ar and would have known about different cultural differences.
2. No but the fact is, he IS described in the series as "northern Indian". Why can't you just add in the lead as "northern Indian". Why even refer to him as nordic, from a script that was dropped? I feel this is double standards, the so called Euro-centric arguments that comes accross on Wikipedia.
3. I proposed the script in Star Trek be the primary source, but I was stopped. The reason being that Khan Singh does not describe himself as northern indian and Sikh. If he wears a turban, has the name Singh, which is 99% Sikh, has the name Khan as in the famous Sikh Kahn Singh Nabha, has the name Khan Noonien which means law giver or law abider in Punjabi, has light brown skin, 6 ft tall, described as nothern Indian and probably a Sikh, has friends like "Hakim", he probably is a Sikh. ....but because the duck did not descibe himself as a duck he isn't a duck. ee what I'm saying. I cannot get any headway on this point.
4. I agree on this, and this is what I have proposed many months ago, but was reverted in the lead by esteemd friend Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk).

ThanksSH 10:01, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

SH, (1) I work with a woman from Germany and a man from France. They refer to themselves as"European" all the time. Both parents of one of my closest friends were born and raised in Greece. They call themselves "European" all the time. I frequently watch The Late Late Show with Craig Ferguson. He's originally from Scotland. He calls himself "European" all the time. I do not buy your claim that being more general is insulting or would be denied by people it accurately described.

(2) Not true. We've been over this. One character says "I'd guess" one time. That is not a definitive statement. She could be wrong, and admits that. You can put in the article the exact full quote of her line, however. Clearly the show creators wanted us to think that he *might* be northern Indian, but they intentionally were not more specific.

(3) See #2. You can include that he is described as "probably a Sikh" because he is, but nothing stronger without a primary source that says he is Sikh.

(4) Agreeing on 1 out of 4 ain't bad :-)

PS - In future, please try to avoid adding new comments in between comments already posted. It makes it confusing to a subsequent reader by making it look like someone is replying to a comment that was actually made later than it. Thanks. 99.192.49.44 (talk) 12:28, 23 May 2013 (UTC) (=99.192.90.12)

I actually agree on (2),and 3. We had actually agreed to put that in the lead, but David just came along and revereted it.Thanks SH 12:48, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

David I think the anon IP has made my point. He's widely regarded as "northern Indian" or "Sikh" because of the episode "Space Seed" where Marla describes him as such dismissed. I even proposed that he is "described as" or "widely recognised" in the lead, but you keep dismissing it David and reverting my or any other editor's edits. Thanks SH 09:40, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Once again, there's the circular sourcing. If they are ripping off Wikipedia as a source, I have no doubt they could be commonly calling him from Northern India. I can pull at least two or three examples from the above smattering of sources where the language is so similar that they basically had to be reading Wikipedia as they wrote it. Here's a suggestion: stop editing articles about Sikhs or supposed Sikhs, because you clearly do not want to acknowledge Wikipedia guidelines when editing these topics and cannot assume good faith when doing so. I'm done arguing with someone who's going to call me racist. If we're continuing this anywhere, it'll be at WP:ANI. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 12:31, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

David please don't throw your toys out of the pram. Your threats of WP:ANI don't impress me. All this will demonstrate is that an admin is abusing his position. I'm not arguing but discussing like an adult. I haven't called you a racist. I've told you that your edits are insensitive and they maybe seen as racist as such.You don't seem to understand the distinction. I apologised above on that if it appeared like that. I'll apologise again, because I'm man enough to do that. . I had the same issue when I was editing the Jat people page where I was accused of the same, and you know what, I had to be man enough to admit I was wrong and insensitive. The difference between me and you is, you just mass revert without discussing and add some comment in the edit line. A few months ago we had consensus on the lead, then in you came, no discussion and reverted. You've done it again. I hate getting WP:Personal but you need to look at your motivations. Wherther it's getting to the stage that its WP:OWN. I know I certainly do it. We are after all, only human. I suggest we get a consensus on the lead. I know this sounds outrageous,

1. Could it be, that they watched Space Seed (the people who wrote the articles)?
2. Could it be they saw what Marla said and came to their own conclusion?
3. Could it be wikipedia isn't the end all and be all and people may make up their own minds?

Thanks SH 12:58, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

If you think I'm abusing my adminship, go ahead and report me, I'm glad to defend my conduct; otherwise it's a load of hot air and nonsense right there with the racist dreck. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 14:26, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I'll repeat it again. I apologised for my comments above, if you don't accept them then that is up to you. I'm not accusing you of racism (please read carefully), but insensivity that could be seen as racist. A bit like Sheldon Cooper out of the Big Bang theory. You understand? I have no intention of reporting you but to get WP:Consensus. Thanks SH 19:24, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

"Übermensch" completely misunderstood

The reference to the Nietzschian Übermensch is completely wrong. Nietzsche's Overman has NOTHING to do with being physically or mentally superior to other humans. That's a nazi/fascist concept that Nietzsche was not eluding to. The Nietzschian Overman actually 'rises above himself'. Thus, for example, Superman, Batman or Khan, are NOT overmen. Super heroes and villains never 'rise above themselves', but remain limited by their birth circumstance. Please remove this mistaken and wrong reference to the Nietzschian overman. In contrast, Kubrik's post-human "Starchild" from Space odyssee 2001 might be regarded as "Overman", but that again has nothing to do with physical/mental superiority over other humans. The Overman conquers himself, not others. You have completely misunderstood Nietzsche. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.56.78.118 (talk) 08:08, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Qo'noS/Kronos spelling issue.

Okay, so I understand that in Star Trek Into Darkness the characters spell and speak the name of the Klingon homeworld as "Kronos". However, as the Klingon language exists in real life and since this page describes material from multiple Star Trek works not only Star Trek Into Darkness, is it wrong to write "Qo'noS" since we know "Kronos" to be something of a production inaccuracy? Transphasic (talk) 17:22, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

We're only talking about the character's appearance in this one work. It doesn't make much sense to presuppose any further intent--besides, "Kronos" is according to Okrand merely the anglicized spelling of Qo'noS, and it was referred to as "Kronos" throughout much of the DS9 run. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:20, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

New "Powers and Abilities" section

I saw the section, saw that it needed a some work, and edited it to look a bit more presentable. Then, looking at the page history, I realized that the section was only added today (hours before I edited it), and I began questioning the section's necessity. I'd be OK with keeping it, but if the consensus is to remove, that's OK too (Editor for years, new to this article). Any thoughts? --MattMauler (talk) 19:45, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

The section is full of nonsense (he never even meets Romulans), and reads more like a section that belongs in a fan wiki about a comic book character than anything that should be in a featured article. I've removed it. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 15:18, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Photo of Cumberbatch?

Surely a still from the actual film or a poster clipping or the like would meet WP:FAIRUSE for this article? A photo of Cumberbatch in a suit jacket and tie with a different hair colour, from what I suspect may have been before he was even cast as the character, seems somewhat irrelevant. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:44, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

His appearance is not substantially different from the film portrayal, and we have nothing in the way of sources discussing elements of his costuming, etc. to merit such inclusion. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:21, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

RetCon Exists

That there is a retcon is clear from the actual dialog of "Space Seed" and the actual dialog of Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan.

In "Space Seed" the reason for Khan's abilities is only described as coming from "selective breeding". In The Wrath of Khan, the reason for Khan's abilities is only described as coming from "genetic engineering".

The phrase "genetic engineering" had not yet been created in 1967.

You want to call me a liar, David Fuchs, and once again hog an article as your personal property as you've done to me in the past, your bad habit, as the words are there for anyone to listen and compare between the original episode and the movie made fifteen years later.

You didn't write the story or the screenplay to Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, and you DO NOT own it. -- Davidkevin (talk) 04:39, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Your assertion that one can simply analyze the difference between the two screenplays, and thusly conclude that this is a retcon, is original research (synthesis), which is inappropriate for any Wikipedia article. Cough up a reliable source please.

Also inline with my edit summary, take into account that the article is to be written for the layperson, who will not care about the distinction. (Undue weight is probably the most relevant policy off the top of my head.)

As for selective breeding vice genetic engineering, please take into account also that the characters in the screenplays are not reliable sources; who is to say that one character is more correct than the other without that explicitly being voiced by the Star Trek creators? --Izno (talk) 06:20, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

"thusly conclude"

"written for the layperson who will not care"

"in line with my summary"

"who is to say one character is more correct than the other"

In my life experience [citation: my life] the more pompous the language, the more pompous the attitude, the more petty and obnoxious the speaker.

This is yet another of the examples of why Wikipedia has gotten the reputation in the general public who discover how it's created that it is patrolled by control freaks who can't stand it when others outside their clique' write, to the point of removing known facts and having false information in articles because they are so godsdamned enamored of their own words.

"Voiced by the Star Trek creators..."

Why, that couldn't possibly be the teleplay and screenplay writers, who wrote the words "selective breeding" and "genetic engineering" into the scripts, could it? Their own writing isn't creation and the script is not an explicit voice of what they intended, is it?

It isn't the characters who are or aren't correct, it's the writers who put the words into their mouths, a fact known without need for a reference by anyone with an I.Q. greater than 85 who watches television.

Since the scientific notions of how to create a "superior" human changed in the real world during the fifteen years between 1967 and 1982, and the words written and spoken in filmed Star Trek were changed to reflect that, I guess you'd require a reference to a volume of published papers about the comparison of selective breeding to genetic engineering in producing a superior human with a will to power -- since what's written and spoken in the episode and film can be heard by anyone with ears, that's not a good enough citation for you.

Every. Single. Time. I come back after a gap to try to contribute to this encyclopedia, to improve accuracy by adding missing information, some article-troll comes around to urinate on it. Every time I have, with Good Faith, tried to make it a better resource, someone comes along and does what you have, making the article less accurate, have less information, be less precise, and increase the inadequacy of the project itself as a reliable resource. It has happened so many times that I must Assume it stems from Bad Faith, because it is the only consistent explanation across so many articles to have had the same abuse done to them.

This is the last time. After five years of irregular attempts on my part to improve articles, you win, I give up. Yay for you, content troll, you and your predecessors have managed to chase out for the last time one more person who tried only to do good, but was info-raped on every single occasion. Pat yourself on the back and high-five your buddies. -- Davidkevin (talk) 18:56, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

life experience [...]: That and the following paragraph would be ad hominem, so it's not worth responding to.

script is not an explicit voice of what they intended, is it?: You cannot guarantee it without the universe creators saying as such in an interview or the Star Trek Encyclopedia or some other out-of-universe source. Period. As I suggested, it's normal for universe creators to explain such differences away with "oh, that character isn't a reliable one" or "that character has a different viewpoint" (or a slew of other explanations; an example of differing viewpoints/reliability of the character coming into question would be several in the Warcraft RPG, before those sources were actually officially removed from that universe's canon), so without such out-of-universe sourcing to suggest that the change in phrasing in the context of Star Trek was either deliberate or accidental, any suggestion of a retcon in the article-proper is original research. Period. (Again.)

Every. Single. Time. Hyperbole. While I don't doubt that your intentions are good, this particular change (and potentially your others, though I have not reviewed your contributions) are clearly not in keeping with at least one of the core policies of Wikipedia.

reliable resource: Wikipedia will never be reliable. Useful, maybe. (This is perhaps quibbling, but I do not know how precise your verbiage is in this context.)

I give up.: Wikipedia apparently needs a Wikipedia essay on WP:Don't let the door hit you on the way out. Regardless, you shall always have the right to vanish, so no-one is stopping you from leaving or choosing not to contribute. --Izno (talk) 02:07, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

The episode "Space Seed" and the film Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan are themselves reliable sources for what is contained in them. That the first says "selective breeding" and that only, is a fact discernable by anyone who views the episode. That the second says "genetic engineering" and that only, is a fact discernable by anyone who views the film. Removing this evidence is unencyclopedic, inaccurate, imprecise, and reduces the value of the article.

And, by the way, thank you for the personal insult. At TV Tropes they call that "Screw the Rules, I have Power." That quality is what make editing Wikipedia so attractive for so many, and I'm sure you are in real life a great dancer and a fine human being. -- Davidkevin (talk) 23:09, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

The statements related to selective breeding and genetic engineering are cited in dialog in both the television episode and film, respectively. That is the source of those references.

I was mistaken in calling it a "retcon" within the article, as while I believe that to be the case, there is no source I know of which can be cited, so I have not put that back in.

I don't know why, but I never have been able to successfully make the "ref" command work properly. If someone who can could fix the formatting of these cited references, it would be appreciated. -- Davidkevin (talk) 23:36, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

There is no WP:CONSENSUS for these changes. Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:28, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I would like to mentioned that DS9's "Doctor Bashir, I Presume" not only clearly stated that Khan was the product of DNA resequencing but that the The Eugenics Wars (ie WWIII) happened only 200 years ago which would put it in the 22nd century.--

• Watch the episode "Space Seed" -- note the phrase used in dialog. Watch the film Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan -- note the phrase used in dialog.
• The notion that actual dialog is not what was intended by the writer and the notion that the dialog as spoken was not intended to be a correct statement by the characters are both WP:OR. -- Davidkevin (talk) 00:18, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

You're back and trying to push your point of view (and twisting WP:NPOV/WP:OR in the process). As before, please provide a reliable source for your change. If you sincerely think this is a content dispute worth pursuing, you are welcome to try your hand at one of the dispute resolution methods. --Izno (talk) 00:26, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes and please Davidkevin, don't edit war. Dbrodbeck (talk) 00:53, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, that's right, jump out in front and accuse me of exactly what you yourselves are doing. Presently there will (I hope) be an admin who can see the info bullying which is occurring here -- Davidkevin (talk) 01:04, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

I was trying to be pleasant and not template a regular. If you have a problem with my behaviour, take me to ANI. Dbrodbeck (talk) 01:09, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Khan Noonien Singh. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131018071944/http://www.idwpublishing.com/news/article/1310 to http://www.idwpublishing.com/news/article/1310/
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.filmcritic.com/misc/emporium.nsf/4a70265ecf80030388256e2500834f36/3f2427e0a8050d9b88256c05000e83e4?OpenDocument
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.scifi.com/scifiwire/art-tv.html?2004-10%2F08%2F13.00.tv

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:20, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Khan Noonien Singh. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110727151233/http://www.openmilton.org/material/view/paradise_lost to http://www.openmilton.org/material/view/paradise_lost
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130713134412/http://www.fastcocreate.com/1683071/how-to-write-and-produce-a-summer-movie-blockbuster to http://www.fastcocreate.com/1683071/how-to-write-and-produce-a-summer-movie-blockbuster

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:47, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Khan Noonien Singh. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130629130158/http://www.accesshollywood.com/benedict-cumberbatch-im-not-playing-khan-in-star-trek-into-darkness_article_73762 to http://www.accesshollywood.com/benedict-cumberbatch-im-not-playing-khan-in-star-trek-into-darkness_article_73762
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140912114534/http://bitchmagazine.org/post/the-race-of-khan-in-the-new-star-trek-into-darkness-movie-0 to http://bitchmagazine.org/post/the-race-of-khan-in-the-new-star-trek-into-darkness-movie-0
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041014015107/http://www.startrek.com/startrek/view/news/article/6193.html to http://www.startrek.com/startrek/view/news/article/6193.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090108033310/http://www.startrek.com/startrek/view/news/article/6486.html to http://www.startrek.com/startrek/view/news/article/6486.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:11, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Khan Noonien Singh. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120323034931/http://www.latimes.com/news/obituaries/la-me-montalban15-2009jan15,0,4099069,full.story to http://www.latimes.com/news/obituaries/la-me-montalban15-2009jan15,0,4099069,full.story

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:54, 6 October 2017 (UTC)