Past and special-purpose discussions related to this article can be found on the following subpages:
Talk page help

Memory Alpha talk pages are for improving the article only.
For general discussion on this subject, visit the forums at The Trek BBS.

FA status

Nomination (08 Sept - 22 Sept 2004, Success)

James T. Kirk: Well written and detailed article. --BlueMars 19:57, Sep 8, 2004 (CEST)

  • Definitely support. -- Dan Carlson | Talk 20:57, Sep 8, 2004 (CEST)
  • Supported. Ottens 10:49, 15 Sep 2004 (CEST)

Removal (13 Jan - 05 Mar 2005, Success)

James T. Kirk, for one, the page has an "attention needed" notice. It needs a rewrite, some facts checked, a number of wiki-fixes and some additions made, especially from TOS - which is otherwise seriously overshadowed by Movie references. --Gvsualan 19:07, 13 Jan 2005 (CET)

I agree. For some reason, the {{featured}} message is already missing on that article - and I think it can stay this way. No article that "needs attention" should be "featured". -- Cid Highwind 23:31, 2005 Jan 13 (CET)
According to the log, I evidently removed it. To my knowledge I did it unintentionally, that or I mistook it as improperly belonging there because of the attention needed notice and removed it as an oversight prior to realizing it was legit. I will restore it in the meantime due to the fact that it is, at this point, already considered "featured" it should remain there, as long as it is under debate. --Gvsualan 23:42, 13 Jan 2005 (CET)
Yes, that would be the proper procedure. Thanks. -- Cid Highwind 23:44, 2005 Jan 13 (CET)
I vote we take the FA off for now. Tyrant 19:39, 30 Jan 2005 (CET)Tyrant
The procedure has changed in the meantime, so I removed the message again and suggest to keep this discussion some more days (4-5?) to allow everyone to comment. -- Cid Highwind 22:06, 2005 Jan 30 (CET)

Nomination (24 July - 08 Sept 2006, Success)

James T. Kirk

I'm nominating the large article on James T. Kirk for feature status. It's extensive, well cited, and well illustrated. It's broken down in chronological order and consistent in form and format throughout. It's is definitely deserving of feature status. --Bfgreen 11:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Oppose, if you look at the article history, it is in a state of flux at the moment (and that was before the nomination). In addition, I am not happy with the pictures, particularly the first one in the sidebar. All we can see is a silhouette of some person. It needs to be replaced with one of the great shots of Kirk from Star Trek VI, or something. The information on the movies is very lacking, particularly some of the relationships he had then, with very little on Carol Marcus, and nothing on Martia (who only has one sentence on her, and it is under McCoy), and very little about the events of Star Trek V and VI. I am sure if I read in more detail, I can find more problems. This article is long, but it's not ready, and articles don't just get featured because they are long. --OuroborosCobra talk 16:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually, the image in the sidebar of Kirk's silhouette was a nifty little addition, IMO. It was an image of his famous entrance in Star Trek II. The image kinda gave it that "Here he comes... you know who this is!" quality... if that makes sense. But, yeah... whatever. :P (by the way, that new image of Kirk from STVI? Yeah... that's gotta go, lol! Do you have a better image of him from the film? If not, I might be able to find one...) --From Andoria with Love 19:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • My opinion of the sidebar is that it should be an image of the character that actually shows the character. As for a better image than what I put up, that was done after spending about 5 minutes trying to find something from Star Trek VI. If you can find a better one, go ahead and upload over mine. --OuroborosCobra talk 20:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - Admittedly, I worked a lot on this article. I think it covers the all the major bases effectively, and I'm pleased to see it nominated. I do wish there was more to say about Carol Marcus' relationship with Kirk, but from canon sources, there just isn't a whole lot of hard data to use. Other subjects not covered in lenghty detail have links to their appropriate articles. --Aurelius Kirk 20:24, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Looks good. Seems to cover almost everything (although it could use expansion in some areas). Just because an article is still being worked on now and then doesn't mean it doesn't qualify as a featured article, IMO. --From Andoria with Love 18:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Well, the article ir pretty good. Revenge 16:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Conditional Support - I did some sp. edits, but otherwise the article seems really good. I would like to see this picture thing figured out before we make it featured though. I know it's traditional to have the "last time we saw them" pic at the top, but why not just have a '60s promotional image of him at the top? It's the first thing people think of about Captain Kirk anyway. (Maybe the one with the PADD, but I'd like to see that replaced.) We do do it sometimes, ie: Uhura.
Also: if we can replace any images of "peoples heads" with images of them with Captain Kirk, that'd improve the article a bit. IE: Janice Rand and Rayna is a persons head, where as the Edith Keeler image is a great example of him actually being involved with said person. And the "2266 and 2267" years have just peoples heads, can't we involve Kirk in'm ala 2268? - AJ Halliwell 16:21, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - The article is impressingly comprehensive. The objections are insubstantial and/or subjective. -Skon 22:45, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm sorry Skon, but you are not yet eligeable to vote here. Per Memory Alpha:Featured article policies#Voting for nominations, you need to have been both registered for at least two weeks (you've only been making edits for 4 days), and have made at least 20 significant contributions to Memory Alpha. --OuroborosCobra talk 00:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Ok! Would be nice if there were an automated notification for that. That would save a lot of work.-Skon 00:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I am changing to support in recognition of all that is here. I still think the areas I outlined above need work, but I am willing to see that done after FA status, as they are relatively minor. --OuroborosCobra talk 00:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. As Skon said above, the article is incredibly comprehensive. It is well-organized, well-referenced and has a plethora of links to complementary articles. I'd like to see the few red links (gang, rehabilitation colony and Jon Povill resolved to a page or removed, but that's just a personal preference. -Dave -TheBluesMan 01:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Featured: 8 Yays, 0 Nays --Alan del Beccio 04:37, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Reconfirmation (08 May - 23 May 2012, Failed)

Featured articles simply shouldn't require citation as long as this one has. There's also issues with notes on the Enterprise-A being renamed (something that isn't clear as far as I remember), info missing in the background section even though there are links from other sections of the article (namely the link from Kirk's 2281 retirement, and these links could be improved with divs if they all need to be in the bg section at the end of the article), amongst other, more minor issues. I think this article needs be looked at with a critical eye before being reconfirmed, and that five votes are called for here. - Archduk3 22:17, May 8, 2012 (UTC)

  • Oppose. - Archduk3 22:17, May 8, 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose; an article on one of the primary characters in all of Star Trek should be one of our best, and this one is not there yet. 31dot 22:58, May 8, 2012 (UTC)


Gary Mitchell's recollections of Kirk at the Academy, from "Where No Man Has Gone Before", can be interpreted differently. One view is that Kirk was an instructor (or student instructor) and Mitchell one of his students. Another interpretation has Kirk as a classmate of Mitchell's, a bookworm who proved difficult to keep up with in class. Yet another interpretation has them both serving as Academy instructors, with Kirk being especially hard on his students. Dialogue from the episode does little to make it clear which is the case. The "little blonde lab technician" mentioned by Mitchell is often thought by some to be a reference to Carol Marcus; however, though it could just as easily be a reference to Janet Wallace or Ruth or some other woman with whom Kirk was involved. The chronology of Kirk's latter days in Starfleet Academy (entry date of 2250), and service aboard the USS Republic and USS Farragut, is somewhat muddled. In "Court Martial", Kirk discussed meeting Ben Finney at the Academy, and that they were assigned together aboard the Republic, "some years later". According to many sources, including the Star Trek Chronology, Ensign Kirk's tour-of-duty aboard the Republic took place while Kirk was still an Academy cadet. In "Where No Man Has Gone Before", Gary Mitchell refers to Kirk a lieutenant while serving in the Academy, but it is not clear if this means a midshipman or a commissioned lieutenant.

One explanation of Kirk's problematic promotion history is that he received a brevet rank of ensign while at the Academy, and that his tour-of-duty aboard the Republic took place prior to his graduation as an advanced training cruise. Kirk would then have returned to the Academy, received a promotion to Lieuenant (or possibly Lieutenant junior grade), and served as a student instructor thereby fitting with Mitchell's statement that he remembered "Lieutenant Kirk at the Academy". It then would fit that Kirk would be commissioned from the Academy as a full Lieutenant in 2254 to serve under Captain Garrovick "from the day he left the Academy". However, dialog from episodes neither supports nor refutes this conclusion.

Kirk's days as a lieutenant commander and a commander are likewise vague since there has been virtually nothing discussed in canon regarding this stage of Kirk's career. That Kirk even held these ranks is unknown, with the possibility existing that Kirk was promoted directly to captain from the rank of lieutenant. Non-canon literature has touched on this subject somewhat, with explanations ranging from Lieutenant Commander Kirk serving as a first officer up to Commander Kirk serving as the "officer-in-charge" of the Enterprise refit project prior to his taking command.

In "Obsession", Kirk stated that Captain Garrovick of the Farragut was "my commanding officer from the day I left the Academy". In "A Private Little War" (taking place in 2268), he mentioned his first planet survey as young lieutenant on Neural thirteen years prior (in 2255) – leading many to believe that Kirk had graduated and was serving aboard the Farragut at the time. Many have speculated and have accepted the date of March 22 to be Kirk's birthday, as it was also the birthday of William Shatner, the actor who portrayed Kirk. However, this date had not been mentioned on-screen (except in the Starfleet Historical records featured in ENT: "In a Mirror, Darkly, Part II"). His hometown of Riverside, Iowa was also never fully canonically established on screen, although Star Trek mentioned the Riverside Shipyard.

In "Shore Leave", it is established that fifteen years before 2267, which would be 2252, that Kirk was a plebe. A plebe is a freshman in a military academy, so Kirk began his training in 2252. During his time at the Academy, he was promoted to ensign between 2252 and 2255, when he was a lieutenant. We know from later Trek that cadets (Sisko, Picard) were sent on missions during their time at the Academy, so Kirk visiting Neural was not out of the normal. In 2257, Kirk graduated from the academy and was assigned as a phaser specialist to the Farragut. Officers at this time spent five years at the Academy, like Kirk and Merik. (Merik would have been a Starfleet officer, if he hadn't failed a psycho-stimulant test, which resulted in his being dropped from the Academy.)

Why a specialist? This is me tieing what is said in one episode with what is said in earlier episodes. In "Balance of Terror" and "The Corbomite Maneuver", we see or hear phaser gun crews working at phaser stations. These crews were composed of phaser specialists. Lt. Kirk was assigned to a phaser station, which means he was part of a phaser gun crew.

This is the dialogue from "Where No Man Has Gone Before" -

Mitchell: Well, I'm getting a chance to read some of that longhair stuff you like. Hey man, I remember you back at the academy. A stack of books with legs. The first thing I ever heard from upperclassmen was, Watch out for Lieutenant Kirk. In his class, you either think or sink.
Kirk: I wasn't that bad, was I?
Mitchell" If I hadn't aimed that little blonde lab technician at you.
Kirk: You what? You planned that?
Mitchell: Well, you wanted me to think, didn't you? I outlined her whole campaign for her.
Kirk: I almost married her!

There is a word association with think in this dialogue. Kirk wanted his students to think and Mitchell responded by thinking of a way to distract his instructor. The only question is, when did this happen? I can tie it to the late 2250s.

In "A Private Little War", Kirk visited Neural thirteen years before 2268, which is 2255. He described himself as a brash young Lieutenant Kirk on his first planet survey. He was a commissioned lieutenant, while being at the Academy. So, he was promoted to ensign before his mission to Neural, spent time as an ensign, and was promoted to lieutenant. He was promoted two ranks while at the Academy.

In "Obsession", Lt. Kirk gets his first deep-space assignment eleven years before 2268, which is 2257, on the Farragut. So, he didn't go to Neural while on aboard the Farragut. He got to know the captain, who he knew from the day he left the Academy, before the Tycho IV incident.

As for not knowing what happened after 2257, other than the romantic relationships, it is not surprising. Many of the primary characters have gaps in their history, like Picard who we know commanded a ship before the Enterprise-D. Of this command, we know little.

My point is this, I don't see the ambiguities. What I see is a misreading of the evidence. I have cleaned the page, so that it better reflects what is said in the canon.Lakenheath72 (talk) 01:16, March 12, 2015 (UTC)

Spurious quote

Does MA have a place where this spurious quote is written about? If not, should it be mentioned here? --LauraCC (talk) 14:24, June 5, 2015 (UTC)

That link doesn't work for me, but I can see it's snopes, so assuming it's some urban legend or widely known but false factoid, maybe Star Trek parodies and pop culture references? -- Capricorn (talk) 15:30, June 5, 2015 (UTC)

Search "James T Kirk" in the search bar. It's the first result. --LauraCC (talk) 15:43, June 5, 2015 (UTC)

Link fixed. But no. It's a spurious claim that's not true, so why would it have any reason to be here? -- sulfur (talk) 15:52, June 5, 2015 (UTC)

As Kirk trivia.--LauraCC (talk) 15:55, June 5, 2015 (UTC)

It's not trivia. It's false. If it were true, then maybe. -- sulfur (talk) 15:58, June 5, 2015 (UTC)
The bit of trivia would be that a false quote about Kirk circulates, not that Kirk said something. By the same reasoning this might also be relevant to the pop culture references page. The question is, how widely spread and therefore notable is this thing? I certainly never heard the quote. When I google it my first result is snopes (bad sign), but I also see it on quote sites and several books on magagement and communications. The latter fact makes this relevant to Star Trek parodies and pop culture references (literature) at the very least. -- Capricorn (talk) 16:37, June 5, 2015 (UTC)

I did mean Kirk the character, not Kirk the "real" person. I never heard about it either until I searched the site one a whim for star trek references. --LauraCC (talk) 16:39, June 5, 2015 (UTC)

I have never heard of it either and don't believe it should be included. As sulfur states, if it were true, then maybe it could be included. But there's not really anything to include as it stands. --| TrekFan Open a channel 20:23, June 5, 2015 (UTC)

Removed notes

I've removed the following notes, as none of them even mention Kirk at all, so they're all too irrelevant:

"On stardate 5725.3, the Enterprise encountered a community of non-corporeal energy beings embodying the souls of the last hundred Zetarians. Seeking lifeforms that would allow them to live again, they killed the custodians of Memory Alpha, wiping the Federation's central archive of accumulated knowledge. (TOS: "The Lights of Zetar")"

"After the freighter USS Huron was attacked and looted, the starship Enterprise captured an Orion vessel, which had committed the attack. The incident marked the end of Orion's official neutrality. (TAS: "The Pirates of Orion")"

"The Enterprise encountered Kukulkan on stardate 6063.4. The benevolent alien being had periodically visited ancient Earth civilizations and influenced their architecture and agricultural development. Kukulkan revealed that he had visited the Egyptian, Mayan, and Aztec cultures, where he had been worshiped as a god. (TAS: "How Sharper Than a Serpent's Tooth")"

"Observing the planet Psi 2000 in its death throes of 2266, the Enterprise was endangered after the engines were shut down and she began to fall from orbit. An emergency cold-restart of the engines to escape the planet's gravity threw the ship three days into the past. (TOS: "The Naked Time")" --Defiant (talk) 16:38, August 12, 2017 (UTC)

Unnamed first command ship

I really think there is a lot of presumption fueling a lot of assumption so as to come to the conclusion that Kirk had a command prior to the Enterprise, and in reviewing the talk page on this, I'm surprised this hasn't been questioned in the past 4+ years it's been noted on the page. First of all, it was added by a user who's contributions always bordered questionable intent, but moreover, it's a roundabout take on a vague line (from an episode with a laundry list of other continuity flaws/ambiguities) and using it as a fact, rather than adding to the ambiguities of what might be interpreted from:

  • DEHNER: "I know those from your planet aren't suppose to have feelings like we do, Mister Spock, but to talk that way about a man you've worked next to for years is worse than even..."
  • KIRK: "That's enough, Doctor."
  • DEHNER: "I don't think so. I understand you least of all. Gary told me that you've been friends since he joined the service, that you asked for him aboard your first command."

Even if there was another command, which cannot be definitely concluded with what is spoken here, these words can just as well support the Enterprise as that ship, especially coming from a person who just met the crew, at most, hours before this scene, yet spoke like she knew all their backstories stories, and let's not forget spoken during an emotional outburst. I'd hate to see us create a whole new ship based on poorly written/conceived/unsubstantiated dialog. --Alan del Beccio (talk) 03:43, August 14, 2017 (UTC)

Well said. I've therefore removed the claim, "Prior to stardate 1312.4, he was the commander of a ship where he requested that Lieutenant Commander Gary Mitchell be posted. (TOS: "Where No Man Has Gone Before")" as well as the bginfo note, "This previous command isn't named in the Star Trek canon." --Defiant (talk) 08:07, August 14, 2017 (UTC)
In that case, I'll remove this to the unnamed page's talk page . --LauraCC (talk) 16:34, August 15, 2017 (UTC)


Where and when did it say in the episodes he was born? The preceding unsigned comment was added by ElectricSupernova (talk • contribs) at 13:35, 11 February 2018‎.

From Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home:
GILLIAN: What about you? Where are you from?
KIRK: Iowa.
From Star Trek V: The Final Frontier:
KIRK: I haven't sung around a campfire since I was a boy in Iowa.
Furthermore, in "In a Mirror, Darkly, Part II" there is a graphic which states his date of birth to be March 22nd, 2233. Hope that helps! --| TrekFan Open a channel 13:57, February 11, 2018 (UTC)
Furthermore... all of that is in the article. :) -- sulfur (talk) 14:01, February 11, 2018 (UTC)
I considered writing that in my reply but didn't want to come across as rude! I did find all of the information in the article though. --| TrekFan Open a channel 14:36, February 11, 2018 (UTC)

I know, I just wanted to know where it came from. Thank you. latest?cb=20171024115018 electrictalk 13:53, February 12, 2018 (UTC)ElectricSupernova

No problem! If you ever need to know in future all of our information has the source at the end of the piece of text so we can verify the information. --| TrekFan Open a channel 15:15, February 12, 2018 (UTC)

Removing of non-PC quotes

It says "The wit and wisdom of James T. Kirk" not just "The widom of" I don't think a quote from him should be removed because it's not PC. The quote in question IS said by Kirk and verifiable in the in the movie that was linked

Scheuerman2 (talk) 21:55, December 4, 2018 (UTC)

It's in a section marked "Existential Kirk". What about that quote makes it existential? It was removed because it makes no sense being in that section. -- Michael Warren | Talk 22:02, December 4, 2018 (UTC)

Removed ambiguity

I removed:

Kirk's second five-year mission in command of the Enterprise, following the V'Ger incident, was never canonically established, but it was widely accepted by fans based on the fact that Star Trek: Phase II was to depict a new five-year mission. That show was abandoned and its pilot episode became Star Trek: The Motion Picture, while two other scripts were recycled for the second season of Star Trek: The Next Generation when a writer's strike hampered production.

"...never canonically established, but it was widely accepted by fans..." Need I say more? Unsupported hogwash. --Alan (talk) 20:21, December 17, 2019 (UTC)

Kirk Trivia

The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).

What is your point? Unborn babied don't count (even for the tax credit), the autobiography is not canon, and Kirk didn't experience that amount of time in the nexus. --Alan (talk) 22:08, January 9, 2020 (UTC)

Removed section

"There was then the issue of the dates on the gravestone. Considering that the stardates used in "Where No Man Has Gone Before" were chronological, with 1087.7 being the earliest stardate mentioned (Gary Mitchell's birthdate) and 1313.8 the latest (the last stardate of the episode), then 1277.1 would fall within this range, being much closer to 1312.4 – the stardate on which the episode began – than 1087.7. This would imply that Kirk was born later than Gary Mitchell. The "C" which preceded 1277.1 was not defined further; one interpretation was that it could mean captain as "C" was an abbreviation used for captain in occupation and positions. [1]"

I removed the preceding section because I feel it was not adding any information to the article and was in fact made it more confusing. Correct me if I'm wrong, but stardates are not consistent across different places, so unless both Gary and Kirk were born in the same place it wouldn't be possible to compare their birth dates using stardates. Not to mention the fact that if this were true it would mean Gary is more than three times older than Kirk, and Kirk would only be 35 "days" old. Regarding the "C" in the date, I'm certain it stands for "circa", meaning "approximately" this is common to see on dates the exact time of which are uncertain, such as Gary would be uncertain of exactly when Kirk was born, but would have a good guess. The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hunter12396 (talk • contribs).


The article states that Kirk started the academy in 2252. This bothers me because he would be turning 19 in March of 2252. Shoreleave is where he states that he was a plebe at the academy 15 years ago. If we take the star date of shore leave of 3025.something - then it seems its at the start of 2267. What if he was refferring to his 2nd semester of his first year at the academy so January of 2252 - that means he would have entered in the Fall of 2251 when he was 18 which seems more likely. --Sam - fellow nerd.

Stardates are taken with a grain of salt. Everything else is generalize based on a lot of little bits of loose information fitting into big empty slots. --Alan (talk) 13:02, August 21, 2020 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-NC unless otherwise noted.