Is there any actual evidence that this Sulu was born in 2237? Other characters, such as Bones and Scotty, are known to have the same birthdays as the Prime reality counterparts because they were born before 2233, but Prime Sulu wasn't, so his birthday could be different, just like Chekov's. Seems like we shouldn't include a birth year without some evidence. RS89 07:25, April 14, 2012 (UTC)

Husband and daughter Edit

Actor just confirmed in interview that alternate Sulu has a husband and daughter (alternate Demora?)

I'm not sure how the article should phrase that, given that by the 23d century such terms or even conceptual categories may have gone the way of the word "Negress" (as Uhuru told Abe Lincoln).--The Dragon Demands (talk) 16:04, July 7, 2016 (UTC)

Until the movie is released, we don't add anything to this page.
We can put stuff onto the Star Trek Beyond page if it's cited to interviews/etc. There's already a note on him being gay as tribute to Takei on that article. -- sulfur (talk) 16:56, July 7, 2016 (UTC)
This has made mainstream news [1] which may warrant adding on the film page. 31dot (talk) 21:05, July 7, 2016 (UTC)
On top of this, turns out George Takei isn't fond of the idea re prime-Sulu. Then Pegg responded. This is turning into a whole thing.--The Dragon Demands (talk) 03:29, July 9, 2016 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, Sulu's relationships with the young girl (apparently his daughter) and Ben (purportedly his husband) are not specified in canon; based on on-screen evidence only, Ben could, for all we know, be his brother, and the girl might be Sulu's young niece. In other words, we don't know who they are to Sulu at all (just that they are close to each other)... except for from interview footage with cast and crew. That info should therefore be formatted as bginfo. --Defiant (talk) 12:33, July 24, 2016 (UTC)
I'm sure there's something in the script that confirms this as well. --Jörg (talk) 13:20, July 24, 2016 (UTC)
Resulting in some more bginfo. Would you happen to have access to the script? --Defiant (talk) 13:23, July 24, 2016 (UTC)
Nope. And to clarify: yes, this belongs in background info. --Jörg (talk) 13:26, July 24, 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. :) --Defiant (talk) 13:52, July 24, 2016 (UTC)
Body language is informative as it can reveal much about a person. What does the body language of Sulu, Ben, and the young girl tell us about their relationship?--Memphis77 (talk) 14:06, July 24, 2016 (UTC)
That they're emotionally close. Also, as people have said, Gene Roddenberry essentially stated that, by the 23rd century, the kinds of Human relationships and the barriers between them that we're familiar with in modern times will be completely changed. Thus, we can't assume that body languages we have in our present-day context would be the same then. Also, what someone sees as implied, often another person doesn't see, etc.; it's entirely subjective. So, what we need to rely on, for the purposes of this encyclopedic website, is objective sources, as much as possible. So the question comes down to... is the nature of their relationship in non-refutable dialogue, or any dialogue at all, for that matter? The answer is clearly no, it's not. Therefore, it's not canon. --Defiant (talk) 14:18, July 24, 2016 (UTC)
The body language itself is canon, so we could canonically state that Sulu and Ben at one point affectionately held an arm behind each other's backs (for example). However, to look into it any more than that is veering away from what is technically canon. --Defiant (talk) 14:21, July 24, 2016 (UTC)
This is a "producers intent" problem, which means it's kinda a toss up in how we handle it based on past instances. I'm strongly for the girl being Sulu's daughter, people generally don't keep pictures of "extended" family with them at their work station in the "military," but I have to agree that there isn't much shown in the film definitively making a case one way or another. I'm inclined to go with the producers intent here for both characters, even though I tend to agree with Takei on the issue(s) involved, but I can see how only reporting what was shown is a good way to go. It would help if there had been a kiss or some rings on those fingers. - Archduk3 17:11, July 24, 2016 (UTC)
I've learned there was to have been a kiss, but it ended up as a deleted scene. Also, Sulu at one point is wearing a marriage band on his ring finger. --Defiant (talk) 17:18, July 24, 2016 (UTC)
Both wear rings.
Sulu: [2] (2:00)
Ben: [3] The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).
Thanks for those. Of course, that evidence doesn't prove they're married to each other, just that they're married. Again, based on on-screen evidence only, there's nothing to prove they're not (for example) brothers. --Defiant (talk) 18:38, July 24, 2016 (UTC)
This is why I posed the question about body language. Does their body language allow for an interpretation of them as brothers?--Memphis77 (talk) 00:02, July 25, 2016 (UTC)

Could have been. There's nothing that confirms anything about him being his husband or his brother, just someone who he is close to. Both of them are Asian. This could imply they are brothers, but we know that wasn't what was intended. wasn't stated. I'm wondering who the girl is. Is she supposed to be Demora Sulu? And if so is she adopted? Or by the twenty third century was there some kind of method created that allows two men to procreate? (That sounds a little too much like genetic manipulation though, which we know is illegal in the future) And further, what do the credits credit the characters as. Is he named "Ben Sulu"? Or is he called Sulu's husband in the credits? I think if it says something like that in the credits then it should be canon. --Noah Tall (talk) 00:17, July 25, 2016 (UTC)

The rings are kinda the tipping point as far as policy goes:
  1. Sulu is married, he has a ring, and we know it's just not the actor forgetting to take his RL ring off.
  2. Ben is also married, same rationale as above.
  3. Their respected spouses should then have entries on an unnamed list page, most likely Unnamed humanoids (23rd century), as I think the humanoids bit is a safe assumption.
  4. Unnamed people can be named using background material, of which there is quite a lot in this case, so merges will be suggested with these characters.
It's very much a backdoor way to "canonize" this information, but the producers/editors left us next to nothing to go on, which I'm sure was their intent. I think it would be better to go with the intent of the writers here, and marketing department for that matter, and save ourselves the trouble of jumping through these hoops. - Archduk3 03:18, July 25, 2016 (UTC)
yeah, not to be "that guy" but i think it bears saying: if the scene depicted a heterosexual couple, ie a man and a woman embracing, wearing wedding rings, with a child at their side, this wouldn't be a discussion - or extrapolation. it's unambiguous both on screen and backed up by what's been said behind the scenes. no it's not declared in dialogue, but does everything need to be plainly stated by the characters in order to be canon? if a scene depicts phasers being fired from the enterprise but no one on the bridge identifies them as such in dialogue, are we therefore unsure it's canonical to state that yes the enterprise fired phasers or do we use a little critical thinking? Deevolution (talk) 09:31, July 25, 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, I'd still bring up this issue whether it was a heterosexual couple, or even a relationship that included an alien that was genderless, because the issue is one of canon or lack thereof, not an issue concerning sexual preferences. Personally, I don't think the decision to make Sulu gay suits that particular character, and I'm sure George Takei would agree. But that's not because of an adversity to homosexuality; Takei is homosexual, and I have friends who are. It's just that I'm not letting that color my feelings about what should happen in this case. Also, your comparison to phasers is illogical imho, as they're described as phasers in lots of episodes, and their appearance matches what they look like even in episodes where they aren't specifically named. In this issue, by comparison, Sulu is nowhere established as homosexual in canon. Therefore, we can't canonically state he is. --Defiant (talk) 10:02, July 25, 2016 (UTC)
I think then, we should go by what the script says; if it describes Ben as his husband, then it should be canon. --Noah Tall (talk) 14:14, July 25, 2016 (UTC)
I completely disagree with using that method. Script material is background information, not canon; what is on screen is canon. The only exception is naming pages. --Defiant (talk) 14:33, July 25, 2016 (UTC)
So we're going to do this the long way then? - Archduk3 15:31, July 25, 2016 (UTC)
Personally, I understand the drive to have a homosexual character in a well-known franchise. However, how it was done in this case, does no one any favors. To me, it seems the film makers wanted to have a gay character, yet were unwilling to embrace it fully. This is exemplified by their decision to cut a scene where the two characters kiss. Before I saw the film, I was against Takei; after seeing the film, I am in agreement with him. I do not know how many other people had this same feeling. In the party at the end, how many wanted to see Ben and Hikaru have a moment together? I know that I did, and I was disappointed that it did not transpire. One last point - there is no credit for the young girl, so I can not say for certain that is Demora. In the end, I believe making Hikaru Sulu gay was giving lip service to that community, and not fully embracing it was cowardice.--Memphis77 (talk) 15:54, July 25, 2016 (UTC)
i'm not saying this is an issue about personal sexual politics, but it seems like you're doing a lot of mental gymnastics to avoid the obvious. my point about phasers was only meant to demonstrate the rigidity of this "if it's not said outright then it's not canon" argument - sure phasers are well established in star trek canon but so are nuclear families and heteronormative relationships. just because these are two men with a daughter doesn't make this somehow more difficult to pin down, just because no one shouts "hey it's sulu's gay husband and daughter!" doesn't mean we don't understand what's being conveyed on screen. and again, if there was any uncertainty at all, the producers and the actor have stated it plainly: married with a daughter. Deevolution (talk) 16:39, July 25, 2016 (UTC)

It is the filmmakers' expressed intent that the man is Sulu's husband. They even filmed a kiss between the two, for Surak's sake. Where canon fails to specify certain facts, we've gone with what the filmmakers have stated was their intent. This is why we've accepted that the timeline prior to the Kelvin incident was the same in both the prime and alternate universes, because the writers expressly stated it was so. I see no reason not to do the same with Sulu's husband. --From Andoria with Love (talk) 17:00, July 25, 2016 (UTC)
I also believe we should go with intent. As I indicate above, this topic made mainstream news and it is what people are expecting. The intent is very clear- hence the brou-ha-ha about this subject. Intent matters. Maybe if the script is ever released, the case will be stronger, but there is every reason to go with intent now. 31dot (talk) 21:44, July 25, 2016 (UTC)

So even though Jon Cho and others including the writes and director have said Sulu is gay and has a husband and daughter in the film AND We see them in the film, we can't add that as canon info? Matt Seay (talk) 22:27, July 25, 2016 (UTC)

Clearly, the ultimate intent during the making of the film was to not depict Sulu as homosexual after all, evidenced by the fact that they edited out the kiss. So yeah, I agree with going with intent. If we instead went with original intent, we'd be including things like canonically stating Sulu met an ancestor of his in 1980s San Francisco, even though that really only happened in a deleted scene, just like with this issue. --Defiant (talk) 22:59, July 25, 2016 (UTC)

Why did everyone wither freak out or rejoice over this if it isn't even considered to be a thing? Last time I checked The filmmakers said that he was gay and Ben is his husband. The captain's log narration has a shot of Sulu looking at the picture of the little girl implying that he has left his family for his duties to Starfleet. I am going to go with what Jon Cho and Simon Pegg, one of the writers of the film said about Sulu. Even if it isn't going on this wiki. On a personal level I love the fact they want him to be gay but I see no reason to not say he isn't. Matt Seay (talk) 23:03, July 25, 2016 (UTC)

Well, long way it is then. - Archduk3 00:08, July 26, 2016 (UTC)
It doesn't make sense to me that they would announce Sulu's sexuality and then simply ignore what they said. If they had announced that they changed their mind, OK, but they didn't. The example with Sulu meeting his ancestor is apples and oranges. Deevolution also makes a valid point that we wouldn't be having this discussion if it was a straight couple. 31dot (talk) 00:28, July 26, 2016 (UTC)
i think staking your claim on a warm hug versus a kiss as being hard evidence of a character's sexuality is a little whack. if that scene from the voyage home had been included in the final film and we had the producers telling us yes sulu met his ancestor in child-form in SF, then these situations would be comparable but it's not, so they're not. in this case we do have several scenes with sulu and his daughter and husband, and we have the producers spelling it out for us what they intended to depict, even if some of that depiction was left on the cutting room floor. this is, to be frank, an embarrassing debate to be having. Deevolution (talk) 00:36, July 26, 2016 (UTC)

You have a point there, but Star Trek has always been about being progressive. They wanted Sulu to be gay and that is what they did. Heck, they came out and told us before the movie came out. Then we saw it in the film. They did not make out or have a full on sex scene but it was there and we should acknowledge what was said by the creators of the film and if that is the way it is then that is the way it is. This did not happen in a deleted scene it happened in the final film. Matt Seay (talk) 00:38, July 26, 2016 (UTC)

Wow, what a debate. Okay, after reading all this, I think I'm on both sides of the fence. On one hand, we know what was intended, but on the other hand, it was never made clear in canon. If names are the only thing that can be canon (as is the case with Edosians which were never named on screen) then it is uncertain.

To me it almost seems that people against him not being gay feel like this is some sort of persecution directed to the LGBT community. Maybe it is, but if it isn't made clear in the film, then it can't be canon. There's nothing Memory Alpha can do to change this. It's not their fault. Still, I see what people are saying about if it were a husband and wife instead, it would have been more likely that even though there was nothing to establish that they were married, it's unlikely that someone would have tried to change someone's edit in this regard. There'd be no debate, and it would be considered canon to whoever wrote the article and no one would challenge it.

So I think there should be a middle ground. Homosexuality is mentioned in the sexuality article, despite the fact that it has rarely been touched on in Star Trek, at least not among humans. I think that the article should say; not the background information, that it was strongly implied that Sulu and Ben were a gay couple. In the background info section we can say the original intent from Simon Pegg and all that stuff, but in the in-universe portion of the article, it should be mentioned, because yeah...if it were Sulu and a woman this wouldn't be a debate.

--Noah Tall (talk) 03:40, July 26, 2016 (UTC)

This doesn't seem to be clear, so I'm going to say it again: there is no argument here over these characters being married, everyone agrees that they are, they're wearing rings after all, the only thing under dispute is saying they are married to each other.
That said, Defiant is right, there is no direct canon evidence for saying that these characters are married to each other, but "the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence" in this case. Since these characters have spouses, they are now listed at Unnamed humanoids (23rd century), for lack of a better page at this moment. None of this is disputed.
Now, MA policy allows for background information to be used to name unnamed things and people. There is plenty of that to go around here, so it has been suggested that these undisputed, unnamed characters be moved to the names we have in the background information for them. That is now the only thing under discussion here, at least as far as those two characters goes. You're either for following the policy and merging these, or not.
I'm not sure how this was unclear in my post before, so I've used evenn more words this time. - Archduk3 04:14, July 26, 2016 (UTC)

Seriously? Everyone and their dog knew that Sulu would be married to a man and have a daughter before the movie opened, and that's exactly what was depicted onscreen. Sorry, but rejecting the director/writer/producer/actors' unambiguously stated intent is not a value-neutral judgment. Why is Sulu being married to Ben being put to such heightened standards of evidence? I have echo the editors above who say that this wouldn't even be in question if it was a straight couple. -- UncertainError (talk) 04:43, July 26, 2016 (UTC)

...and you're all completely wrong about that. I have repeatedly considered, for instance, bringing up the same issue with George and Winona Kirk. Literally the only thing that's stopped me? The fact they're well-established as having the same last name as each other. I think we infer marriage too often and should endeavor to go with what's actually, canonically established; that goes for homosexual and' heterosexual couples in Trek. --Defiant (talk) 07:25, July 26, 2016 (UTC)
Archduk3, correct me if I'm wrong about this, but we've used production-staff intent only for naming pages. Since the method you're suggesting would involve much more than just naming a page but would also include changing the sexual preference of a main character and stating that he has a daughter, none of which is established in canon, we would instead present that info as exactly what it is: background information... which is what's already been done here. --Defiant (talk) 07:58, July 26, 2016 (UTC)
When was Sulu stated to be explicitly straight in canon? Considering Gene's vision of the future made it seem that evryone was most likely bi, at the very least, I don't think anything is changing about this character. It's not like I'm here trying to "make" prime Sulu gay either, I'm just following where the information on these characters and MA policy lead. That said, "production intent" has been used for more than just naming pages. - Archduk3 08:22, July 26, 2016 (UTC)
What's the problem? I did say his sexual preference hadn't been established in canon, not that he's been established as heterosexual in canon. Regarding the last sentence in your reply, I accept that and now have no qualms about accepting production intent in this case. Thanks for explaining. :) --Defiant (talk) 08:57, July 26, 2016 (UTC)

Being told that the two are married by the production staff should be enough. If the only thing that remains in debate is the name of the husband is that it? i don't understand what is the problem. The way Simon Pegg explained this whole thing is that sure Prime Sulu was assumed to be heterosexual but this is not prime SUlu and we can tweak things, no one is the same in an alternate reality. Of course sexual orientation is not a choice you are what you are and I think that was how Roddenberry saw it. But everything I have seen says the two are married. The only thing is that they haven't said if his husband took Sulu's name or not. Matt Seay (talk) 21:37, July 26, 2016 (UTC)

"Ben" is apparently what he's called in the credits, so it should probably stay as that. As I said, there's no other problems. :) --Defiant (talk) 22:49, July 26, 2016 (UTC)

OKay just so I have this cleared up.....a tad bit confused. It is listing him as having a male spouse but there are two articles one for unnamed spouse and one for Ben shouldn't there be just one and have it linked to Ben as the spouse? Just making sure I got this right..... lol Matt Seay (talk) 00:33, July 27, 2016 (UTC)

If the name "Ben" is in the credits, then the link in this page should go to Ben (23rd century) and the section for the unnamed spouse should be removed. -- UncertainError (talk) 00:36, July 27, 2016 (UTC)

As well as "One Daughter" which clearly already links to Demora Sulu (alternate reality) anyway. Matt Seay (talk) 00:40, July 27, 2016 (UTC)

well there's a problem with that. see above, i'm all for filmmakers' intent on the issue of "ben" being sulu's husband, i continue to be dismayed at the pushback this has seen here. however, in an interview with shuttle pod podcast, cho states that his daughter is not intended to be demora, even the age is spot on based on her appearance in generations. but cho says she isn't demora, so yeah. [4] Deevolution (talk) 00:52, July 27, 2016 (UTC)
Reading the interview with John Cho, it only reinforces my earlier stance about the film makers. As for the daughter, there is no listing for the actress in the end credits, so the child's name is unknown. This is a effin' mess.--Memphis77 (talk) 02:17, July 27, 2016 (UTC)
Since there's no evidence that prime-Sulu and alt-Sulu have the same spouse, there's no reason to think that their daughters would have the same name either. -- UncertainError (talk) 02:30, July 27, 2016 (UTC)

So the husband debate is over. I see that if the little girl is not credited there is no reason to assume she is Demora and if she was never indented to be be then so be it. Matt Seay (talk) 20:20, July 27, 2016 (UTC)

Beyond infoEdit

Been trying to add the rest of the info from Star Trek Beyond but somethings going screwy with the editor when I try. Can someone else who has seen the film add the rest of the info pertaining to Sulu from the film. Matt Seay (talk) 22:21, July 27, 2016 (UTC)

Second officer Edit

Should Sulu be considered the Enterprise's second officer in the Kelvin Timeline? He's the only character other than the assigned captains and first officers seen in the command chair. Alkonium (talk) 15:24, August 2, 2016 (UTC)

Dynamic with Uhura Edit

the bg info box says The idea of having Sulu team up with Uhura in Star Trek Beyond was thought up by Simon Pegg and Doug Jung. Very much liking that notion, they began wondering if Sulu and Uhura had ever had a scene together in either Star Trek or Star Trek Into Darkness. but I seem to remember they actually said that about him and Chekov. --Istaya-yel (talk) 18:15, October 15, 2016 (UTC)