Talk:Khan Noonien Singh/Archive 1

Archive 1

Khan PIC

Khan pic is a screenshot from the episode "Space Seed". It falls under "Fair Use". FrankWilliams 02:52, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Khan's story is remarkably detailed. Perhaps it could be trimmed?---Mihoshi 22:51, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

---

"Revenge is a dish best served cold."

I have a question about Khan. In The Wrath of Khan, he quotes a Klingon proverb, but the only times he was active in the 23rd century was during "Space Seed" and The Wrath of Khan. How is it possible for him, in that time, to become familiar enough with Klingon culture to quote a proverb from them?

Please sign your posts with ~~~~. Speculation, perhaps he was given literature or historical information as part of his confinement? "Here ya go, retire to this nice planet. Here are X pallets of starfleet standard issue rations and farming supplies, some quonset space huts, and a couple of computers that have everything from agricultural information to a comprehensive history of all the crazy stuff that's happened since you went on ice." Stands to reason that books/databases would be a normal part of the package Starfleet hands out to colonists/slightly less then willing banished 20th century super villains. - Chairboy 14:22, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

I guess that makes as much sense as about anything else. 67.171.180.209 18:37, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

• • The simply explanation is that he learned it from his wife, Marla McGivers, who was the historian aboard Enterprise. -- OldRight 19:13, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

And how would she know? Wasn't she supposed to be an expert on the 20th century? 67.171.180.209 20:07, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

• The 20th century might have been her expertise, but she still of course knew about the histories of 23rd century cultures. Otherwise she wouldn't be on the Enterprise. Why would they have an historian who only knows about the 20th century? Come on, use some sense. Marla surely also taught Khan and his Augments how to use Starship equipment, that's how they knew how to use the Reliant. -- OldRight 21:15, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I suppose it is possible that she could have picked it up somewhere.67.171.180.209 04:37, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Since the proverb in question is actually Sicilian in origin, the question seems irrelevant.

Well, I suppose the question more is how did he even know Klingons existed. Maybe he had an Internet conection down there on Ceti Alpha V and looked it up on the Wikipedia. 67.171.180.209 03:15, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

I know, someone vandalized the Wikipedia the day before Khan looked at it, so it said it was a Klingon proverb.67.171.180.209 15:14, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

When he was in Sickbay, didn't he read huge chunks of the Enterprise database? Sure, he was concentrating on Enterprise schematics and other info to aid in his taking over the ship, but surely he'd have skimmed selections of alien literature (such as the original Klingon versions of Sicilian proverbs and Shakespeare plays) --Davecampbell 19:00, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

The source for Nicholas Meyer's "Klingon proverb" in-joke is a Sherlock Holmes pastiche written by Adrian Conan Doyle, son of Arthur Conan Doyle, in which Holmes quotes "Revenge is a dish best served cold," describing it as Sicilian in origin.

Ironically, in an interview in Playboy Magazine published about the time of The Wrath of Khan's release, G. Gordon Liddy also quoted the proverb, although he described it as Arabic rather than Sicilian.

Davidkevin 07:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

The "text commentary" on the Director's Edition DVD suggests that the origin of the phrase is some eighteenth-century French guy.

Khan and Chekov

Another explanation as to this discrepancy was written in one of the Star Trek comics (Star Trek: The Untold Voyages, I believe), where Chekov metions Khan's name, and someone syas, "Oh, you were there?", and he makes a comment about his whereabouts. If I knew the exact issue, I'd enter it myself.

Yeah, Khan tells Chekov "I never forget a face," but Walter Koenig wasn't even in Star Trek when "Space Seed" was shot. So some behind-the-scenes trekkies made up a story about Khan running into Chekov near the bathrooms. -- Citizen Premier (talk) 02:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

No, Walter Koenig created a story of Khan and Chekov meeting at an Enterprise head. He told me the story himself in a private conversation in 1982 a couple of months prior to the premier of The Wrath of Khan. -- Davidkevin (talk) 08:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Extraterrestrial Supervillain?

Khan seems to be in the "extraterrestrial supervillains" category. This could not be more wrong. Khan was born and raised on Earth. Just because he spent a few years on another planet doesn't make him alien. If I was exiled to France for forty years it wouldn't make me French. Khan is as human as you or I. Well, actually he's genetically augmented, but that's besides the point. Human.

Another question: why is Khan considered a villain in the first place ? I like him very much! He is handsome, strong, better than Kirk. - Janine

Irony?

Ironically, when Arik Soong attempted to raise a new army of Augments by thawing out some of their frozen embryos left over from the Eugenics Wars, the Augments dismissed the existence of Khan himself as a "myth". In the first place, I don't think it was Khan whose existence the Augments doubted; I think it was that of the Botany Bay. Either way, in the second place, I don't see any "irony" in this. Having the Augments regard Khan or the Botany Bay as a myth was a clever way for the Enterprise writers to acknowledge something historical in the Star Trek canon without violating continuity, because supposedly no one knew of the existence of the Botany Bay until about one hundred years hence, when Kirk's Enterprise found it. This, it seems to me, lends credence to the idea that it was the sleeper ship, not Khan, whose existence was in question, because Khan as a person existed in recorded history in Kirk's time.

It's ironic, as defined by Alanis Morissette :) -- Jalabi99 11:42, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

A Question of "superiority?"

I only have one question regarding the augments. If they were so superior, why didn't their superior intellect allow them to figure out a way to invent 24th century technology in the 1990's? The scientists who created the augments (Khan's people) created walking calculators/bodybuilders with ZERO creativity it seems. That is the fundamental problem with messing with the human genome; tamper with it, and you could end up "accidentally" enhancing some traits at the expense of others, ultimately watering down the human race. Besides, historically, eugenics has shown itself to not work. As an example, let me use the now newly popular Spartans.

Thanks to that "300" movie, everyone, or, the general public now knows that the Spartans used a crude form of eugenics. Only the best shaped, and best muscled babies (both male and female) were allowed to live, and grow to adulthood. While Spartan girls were not put through the agoge, they were taught all the warrior arts. Naturally, the citizen class was only allowed to breed with the citizen class; the Spartans, of Dorian stock, would not even breed with other Dorians (like for example, people from the sorta mythic kingdom of Argos). So what was the end result? As everyone knows, the Spartans DID succeed in breeding men who were, for all intents and purposes, killing machines. Fast forwarding the history though, sources have indicated (not sure where to find them, but I DO remember reading about this), that in time, this method of eugenics forced inbreeding. Lets stop and think for a second; you kill off most of the babies women give birth to, and that thins the genetic pool, specially if you keep it exclusive. When you use selective breeding, pretty soon, it leads to IN breeding. The Spartans would not allow their women to have babies with any other men EXCEPT Spartans. Think what that did to their genetic pool after a few generations. A source I can not clearly remember, a book written by a Roman historian actually, talks about how many Spartan babies of later generations were "born deformed." It also talked about how some of them "would bleed without stopping." That is, later down the road, as a direct consequence of their eugenic practices, some of their babies were born hemophiliacs. Hardly "warrior material."

I know arguing this is almost a moot point, but, eugenics is a very bad thing. You create an exclusive group, and in the process, what you end up with is not stronger and smarter people, but individuals with all sorts of crazy genetic defects. Sooner or later, selective breeding leads to inbreeding. Even though Eugenics, as the Spartans showed, CAN produce "superior" people, in an effort to maintain that "superiority," guess what? Pardon my language here but their genetics turn to shit. We have 6.1 billion people on this planet. Even with our vast population, even if we used Eugenics, and tried to breed from the very best of each race on this earth, in time, such practices, even with genetic tampering, would lead to inbreeding.

The only way to solve the problem is if you genetically modified the embryos so that any defective "inbred" genes were taken out. Problem is, down the generations, you would be taking, and taking, and taking, eventually ending up with a creature that was barely even human. I don't need to spell it out here; eugenics is very, very dangerous. Not because people like Khan could be created, but, people literally born sick would be condemned to a life of misery all in an attempt to "improve" humanity.

Laws of genetics and heredity dictate, we inherit our genes from our ancestors, right? Those same laws dictate, that inbreeding can cause defective genes to become that much more manifest, example. Say, someone has an agressive strain of alzheimers. If that someone married their first cousin, or their own sister, their offspring have an increased risk of alzheimers, so increased, its practically guaranteed. However, that same someone marries some who is not a relative, and the risk is greatly reduce. Alright, lets get Mengeleish here, and say "we want supermen." You use selective breeding, and take out diseased genes as inbreeding begins to occur. Keep the impregnation club exclusive, and pretty soon you end up with inbreeding. Look at European Royal dynasties. Lets say though, the Nazis won the war, they discovered a way to tamper with DNA, and keeping this in mind, they take out defective genes.

EVEN THEN, what would end up happening is that, hypothetically, constantly taking out defective genes that result from inbreeding would lead to a cascade effect of harmful mutations. In an effort to "clean" human DNA, to keep the exclusive eugenics club exclusive, what you will end up with, is not "clean" and "pristine" DNA, but, DNA that down the generations will become even MORE full of harmful mutations. Besides, lack of variety generally means, a lowered resistance to harmful mutations. It has been conclusively proven, that people of mixed heritage are far less prone to harmful genetic mutations, than people who are "pure." That generally means that if the Nazis, and current white supremacists got their wish, that what they would end up with is not a perfected white race, but first a diseased, and later on, a very dead one.

Still, Khan was an interesting villain. If you feel the need to correct me, if anyone out there actually holds a degree in genetics, please do so. This is just my unsourced opinion, and any "education" on the subject would be apreciated. Experts only please. Thanks.

206.63.78.95 (talk) 11:20, 16 December 2007 (UTC)stardingo747

A degree in genetics would not be sufficient. Besides the ethics, one would also have to have a broad view of history and anthropology in general. But as a question, what do you propose instead of eugenics? "Letting nature running its course"? Trust in the instincts and proclivities of the masses? Given the risks and realities of actual dysgenic trends e.g. in Europe, one should not, I think, throw out the eugenic baby with the imperfect, methodological bathwater. 179.7.85.89 (talk) 22:46, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Notability

This article passed afd less than two months ago. This character was the lead in a major episode and two movies. I'm removing this from csd. Bearian (talk) 20:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I don';t know why this article passed ADF. Fancruft is fancruft. Where do I find the article about Sherlock Holme's landlady? --Wtshymanski (talk) 21:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

When Mrs. Hudson is a major player in a Sherlock Holmes story filmed for television, with a plotline and characterization equalling that of Holmes, and when Mrs. Hudson has the titular role in a multi-million dollar motion picture, one that is culturally referenced nearly thirty years after its release, then you may rest assured that you'll find the article. What is so hard to understand? Sir Rhosis (talk) 23:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Strangely enough, the article for Mrs. Hudson can be found at. . . Mrs. Hudson. Sir Rhosis (talk) 00:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Cruft-o-pedia rules! --Wtshymanski (talk) 00:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Since you are unwilling, or, more likely, unable, to respond in an intelligent fashion, addressing the points made in the recent merge/do not merge forum, continuing this is pointless. Good day. Sir Rhosis (talk) 00:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I note that Mrs. Hudson is gone so at least someone agrees that not every minor character in minor fiction deserves a Wikipedia article. One down. --Wtshymanski (talk) 20:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Name

Apparently Gene Roddenberry named this character Khan Noonien Singh after a friend named Kim Noonien Singh, with whom he hoped to get in touch. If someone can find a reliable source confirming this, I think this would be a good addition to the article. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:28, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe it's in the authorized Roddenberry biography by David T. Alexander, but I have no copy here to check. I do remember that Gene never heard from his friend, and I think eventually there was an assumption Noonien was killed in Communist China. -- Davidkevin (talk) 03:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I gather that TNG's Noonien Soong was also named after Gene's war buddy. The Enterprise storyline mentioned below invented an in-universe reason for the similarity of the two characters' names. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:08, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Enterprise references

Oh, boy. If I'd realized that this was going to set off an edit war, I'd have thought twice before adding it. So, David Fuchs and Juliancolton say that there was a previous consensus to avoid mention of the Enterprise episodes in this article. Where was the discussion? And what was the justification? I think a cited reference in which the producer of one of the Star Trek spin-offs calls the characters "mini Khan Noonien Singhs" justifies a brief mention. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:06, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

My point exactly. I'd like to know the reasons for leaving it out, if there really are such. If there's some validity to the notion(s), I'd prefer to have it(them) stated explicitly. -- Davidkevin (talk) 03:32, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

So what, precisely, is the wording we are disputing? Maybe we can agree on some modification of the "novels" section to talk about later canon fiction mentions, assuming we have some source that considers it important. Protonk (talk) 04:42, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

The dispute is over these three sentences, which I added to the "Reception and legacy" section:

In 2004, the Star Trek franchise returned to Khan's backstory in a three-episode story on Star Trek: Enterprise. In "Borderland", "Cold Station 12" and "The Augments", a 22nd century scientist is portrayed as having revived genetically engineered embryos from Khan's time and raised them as "Augments". Enterprise producer Manny Coto described these characters as "mini Khan Noonien Singhs".

I didn't add it to the "appearances" section, because this storyline isn't actually an appearance of Khan, but it did include an extension made to his backstory. I'd be OK with the mention being shortened, if someone wants to take the proverbial red pencil to it. But I do think it's worth noting that nearly 40 years later Star Trek was still dealing with this character (and trying to attract diminishing audiences by reminding them of him). —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:04, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. It's kind of out of place there, too. Is the dispute that the material doesn't relate directly to Khan? Protonk (talk) 05:13, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

One of the editors who removed the content said, at AN/I, "The Star Trek: Enterprise addition is in my opinion not worth going into detail as it barely references the subject of the article; the content would be much better served in the referenced episode." That's the only reasoning against inclusion that's been given so far.

If the placement is a concern, perhaps a subsection could be created for the treatment of Khan's character in later Star Trek. I know that sounds terribly fannish, but it would be possible to reference third-party books like Star Trek and Philosophy: The Wrath of Kant, which I just discovered on Amazon's Online Reader contains not only an examination of Khan as a critique of Nietzche's moral theory, but also goes into some detail about how later Star Trek used Khan as a touchstone for the perils of genetic engineering. It would be possible to have a short, sourced section mentioning how later Trek series used Khan's backstory to tell stories about the ethical challenges of genetic engineering, with reference to DS9's "Doctor Bashir, I Presume". —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:32, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

That might work. Something like, "Khan and genetic engineering in star trek". Maybe a paragraph or two. Hmm. Protonk (talk) 06:53, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Point of information: the phrase "genetic engineering" is not used to describe Khan until Chekov says it in The Wrath of Khan. In "Space Seed", the phrase used to describe how Khan and the other "Supermen" came about is "selective breeding", not the same thing at all. I suppose this can be regarded as a retcon, although I don't believe it's been documented as such, so there can be no citation, although perhaps someone else has seen it mentioned somewhere that I haven't. -- Davidkevin (talk) 03:17, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

But that's the point; it's horribly fannish and tangental to the character of Khan (The Wrath of Kant may be promising, though, I'll have to go searching for it.) The only real connection to Khan is the quote talking about "mini-Khans", but that isn't really that big of a mention to go here. It's much better to flesh out the Enterprise episode with that kind of information. It's the same reason that we don't have DS9 and TNG references to Khan; it's not that important. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 11:55, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I generally agree with David Fuchs. The assertion that the three episodes constitute a "backstory" is ORish. Coto's quote, though, is worthwhile -- perhaps phrasing along the lines of, "Star Trek: Enterprise producer Manny Coto described genetically-augmented characters in episodes X, Y and Z as 'mini-Khans'". Or some such. --EEMIV (talk) 15:02, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

If anything, a line mention could be made linked to this statement in reception: "...Villains in subsequent Star Trek films have been measured by the standard of Khan, with Paramount promising fans that the villain of Star Trek Generations would be equal to the genetic superman.[19]" and talk about how "Enterprise writers blah-de-blah took Khan's concept into "mini-Khans" in a story about genetic engineering." (worded better than that, of course.) As to when the discussion took place, it actually was on IRC, which I admit is unfair to push people to "read" when there is no history. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 15:40, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I've no objection to that, or a similar rewrite, I just objected to leaving it out entirely when it was clearly sourced. And please, if you're going to have your discussions on IRC where others of us can't participate, at least post transcripts to the talk page when you're finished, so we can comment later. -- Davidkevin (talk) 03:24, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

No worries. So can we agree on something along the effect of the above? With better grammar, of course. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 21:11, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd include something about the episode line in which one of the Augments states he thinks Khan was mythical (or however it was actually worded), but yeah, we can agree on that. What do you think about the retcon I noted above? Is there a wiki-valid way of getting that in or do you think it's better left out? -- Davidkevin (talk) 20:03, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

What retcon? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 20:37, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

See my comment to Protonk above, earlier in this same section, re.: selective breeding vs. genetic engineering. -- Davidkevin (talk) 05:35, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I've never seen any distinction between genetic/selective breeding in references that deal with Khan, so we're best off leaving it alone. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 11:52, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Importance low?

I'm no Trekkie, but it seems to me that the main antagonist of a movie should have a higher Wikiproject importance. Thoughts? bibliomaniac15 22:29, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I suppose it could be medium... I'm not a big "categorize and rate this" kinda guy, it's whoever's discretion (as far as I know the WProject doesn't have a coherent strategy for importance rating.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 02:31, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Lack of vandalism?

I looked in the history logs, and frankly, I'm surprised ever third edit isn't someone replacing the page content with "KHAAAAAAAAN!" or something... Where are all the vandals? Gadoink4 (talk) 17:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Shh, you'll bring them out of the woodwork :) I guess Star Trek articles aren't that trafficked. --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs ^(talk) 18:49, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Archive 1