pna -- this article is not cited, nor does it appear to be written in the proper perspective. It seems more like a wikipedia article, in its content and point of view, than an in-universe MA article like it should. --Alan del Beccio 05:17, 15 Oct 2005 (UTC)

I think you said it all, so I removed the unformatted/cite templates since it already had a general PNA tag. Weyoun 05:58, 19 Oct 2005 (UTC)


This article is full on nonsense and reminds me of wikipedia. Obviously written by people who only watched DS9 and though it contains all Star Trek philosophy. I mean DS9 ruined Gowron FFS. Klingon life (after TOS) is all about honour and Klingon culture is similar to Viking culture=Black Fleet, Klingon paradise and Klingon hell. With hope that this page is not monitored by wikipedia-like admins who remove everything they don't agree too, I will remove the most biased nonsense saying that some Klingons may find stabbing in the back honourable. Anyone who knows anything about (not including TOS) Klingons, he will know that it's quite the opposite and that assassinations, and back stabbing are dishonorable ways. If you want evidences, watch Voyager episode Barge of the Dead, and interactive movie Star Trek:Klingon. The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).

Note that the "Star Trek: Klingon" game is not canon. Also note that DS9 was canon, and thus, what was stated therein does hold a lot of weight too. Therefore, the backstabbing thing? Well, stated in canon, therefore, it belongs. -- sulfur 12:08, November 19, 2010 (UTC)
Edit Conflict.
Worf did indeed suggest that using cloaked ships could be considered honorable in "The Way of the Warrior". The bit about stabbing in the back was fanon as far as I can tell. No such statement was made in "Rules of Engagement".
To respond to your comments more generally, please note that on MA we catalog everything that was said in canon, whether or not we agree with it. "Honor" has been used somewhat loosely by the writers, but the page has to reflect that.
I do agree the page is rather incomplete at the moment. If you would like to add additional information from other canon sources, please by all means.– Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 12:12, November 19, 2010 (UTC)


It's probably more fruitful to discuss dubious statements on this page individually, so here goes. I removed the following:

  • It is to be noted, however, that achieving victory by economic means (as done by Quark) is still seen as honorable, yet many Klingons were reluctant to partake in such actions. (DS9: "The House of Quark")

It seems to have completely misinterpreted the episode. D'Ghor was charged with using economic means to undermine his enemies i.e. it was dishonorable. Quark did not achieve victory though economic means; he achieved it by showing D'Ghor was willing to kill an unarmed Ferengi. To Gowron, this "proved" that D'Ghor really was that dishonorable as to stoop to using financial methods. – Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 12:26, November 19, 2010 (UTC)

Removed from article

Also, another important component of Klingon honor seemed to be simplicity. For example, it was seen as more honorable to destroy a ship than to conquer a planet, to kill an adversary with a bat'leth than with a disruptor, etc. {{incite}}

This, however, does not address the difference between 'honor' and 'honorable'. Honor is a code of conduct of an individual Klingon, and honorable is the action that can be taken to achieve the honor that accrues to the individual; so each action and achievement is based upon the individual. {{incite}}

Reason: {{incite}} on the page for more than a year, and pna on-and-off before that for an even longer while. Additionally, even if a source for this can be found, it would better be rephrased in form of an example ("X considered A to be more honorable than B, because...") instead of a blanket statement like "favoring simplicity". -- Cid Highwind 12:28, January 15, 2012 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-NC unless otherwise noted.