Ad blocker interference detected!
Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers
Wikia is not accessible if you’ve made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected.
FA status Edit
FA removal (10 Oct - 21 Oct 2005, Success)Edit
- Klingon Empire
- For the same reason Dominion lost it's featured status, after the creation of Dominion history (see: Removal Archive, I feel the same applies here. A hefty chunk of the article got removed, therefore meaning that it isn't the article it was when it was given featured status -- something that falls well within the requirements for the removal of said status. --Alan del Beccio 02:53, 10 Oct 2005 (UTC)
- Support - this leads to the question how these articles can be "filled up" to regain featured status. --Memory 15:18, 11 Oct 2005 (UTC)
- Support - Holy cow, there's hardly anything left after the other articles were created. Significant change to content (ie. not "stable") is definitely a reason to de-list. Logan 5 16:27, 11 Oct 2005 (UTC)
- Support. I don't think the current article lives up to featured states. I wonder why it was awarded such in the first place... Ottens 10:00, 16 Oct 2005 (UTC)
the page says "founded approximately 1,500 years ago (1,000 years by the Klingon calendar)" I am wondering where the year conversion comes from --TOSrules 23:05, Dec 13, 2004 (CET)
- One of the DS9 episodes ("Soldiers of the Empire" maybe) refers to it being the 999th Year of Kahless-- presumably the 999th Klingon year since the Empire was founded. -- Steve 23:23, 13 Dec 2004 (CET)
- However, there has been rather loose interpretations of when Kahless lived, which I think is the way the writers wanted it. I noticed that they cut a line out of "Rightful Heir" that gave his death at 822 AD or 1547 years ago (2369) - but that was cut and shouldnt be in this consideration. The clerics have been on Borath (where he was supposed to reappear) for 15 centuries...or since at least 869 AD -- likely a date close to when he died - which keeps in sync with the time frame made in the aformentioned scene that was cut that otherwise gave his exact date of death. This also means that the Klingons have had space travel for that long. In "The Sword of Kahless", Dax says the sword was forged 1,400 years ago, or over 100 years after Kahless died -- or, at least, 100 years after the High Clerics arrived on Borath to await his arrival. Then in "Looking for par'Mach in All the Wrong Places" Worf told the story of Kahless and Lukara taking place a 1,000 years ago -- this was also spoken before the "year of Kahless 999" was established. Either way, I see no reason for Worf to suddenly change to "Klingon" years when talking to Dax or Quark, yet, when Koroth, the Klingon cleric, was talking to Worf he was using "human" years talking to a Klingon on a Klingon planet. Nevertheless, there has been rather loose interpretations of when Kahless lived, which I think is the way the writers wanted it, and maybe the way we should keep it. -- Gvsualan 09:26, 14 Dec 2004 (CET)
Dan, do you have any further information regarding this First Contact date? "Day of the Dove" is always given as the source for this speculation, but after rewatching the episode, reading relevant transcripts and discussing this in detail on the TrekBBS, I still can't pinpoint the bit of dialogue that started this. It should probably be something like "50 years ago", but that just isn't said in any of the versions I have access to. -- Cid Highwind 13:39, 7 Apr 2004 (PDT)
- As I understand it, the 2218 date isn't from "Day of the Dove", specifically, but instead from The Undiscovered Country. After all, 2218 == 2293 - 75. A nice, convenient round number. I just put it in there because that's what's always quoted. -- Dan Carlson 14:49, 7 Apr 2004 (PDT)
- Oh, I don't have any problems with that statement being there - it is marked as speculation, after all - I was just wondering about its source. Just checked, TUC does indeed mention something, although it is neither about First Contact, nor about "75" years (Spock: an end to seventy years of unremitting hostility). Thanks for clearing that up. -- Cid Highwind 02:53, 8 Apr 2004 (PDT)
- Spock connects the dispute between the Federation and Klingons with Initial Contact, in the episode "The Trouble with Tribbles" Spock says, "Under dispute between the two parties since initial contact." Just reading the line here one might come up with several ways to blunt it enough to say that it does not connect the Conflict and Initial contact, but if you hear the line spoken in the episode there is no other way to read what Spock was saying. Funny thing is this does not state when First contact occurred with the Klingons, just that the area of Shermans planet is where it happened. The year comes from the sixth move of course. That's the TOS cannon, 70 years before that movie is 2223, but Spocks exact line was "Almost 70 years of unremitting hostilities", which would be about 2224 or '25. --TOSrules 23:18, Dec 13, 2004 (CET)
also sometimes referred to as the Imperial Klingon EmpireEdit
since when? i'll delete this if there are no actual sources of it being referred to so (and its a stupid name, since all Empires would have to be Imperial, but maybe we say it different here in the Unified United States). -- Captain Mike K. Bartel 16:18, 9 Jun 2004 (CEST)
- I was about to delete the redirect from Klingon Imperial Empire, but according to available scripts, this stupid term was in fact used in "Sins of the Father"... It doesn't really make sense, but it is official.-- Cid Highwind 11:48, 16 Dec 2004 (CET)
Mongol Warriors vs. Lobster Heads Edit
One of us really needs to add information about the virus that caused the more human-looking Klingons of Kirk's period! --Joe Sewell 17:05, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I believe you will find that in the Klingon article -- that is, the article about the species, not the government. If anything, a mention could be added here regarding the Klingons attempt to use the Augment DNA to create enhanced Klingons, as well as their work in attempting to cure it. --Alan del Beccio 02:03, 12 Aug 2005 (UTC)
Military campaigns and battlesEdit
The history section moved from this page and placed as Klingon history in the same fashion the history section from Dominion was moved to Dominion history, as mentioned in Talk:Dominion history and as further discussed in Talk:History. --Alan del Beccio 02:43, 10 Oct 2005 (UTC)
Removed speculation Edit
I removed the following information from the article:
- Other Klingon women, such as Grilka, have been made the head of their house when the previous head died under unusual circumstances (DS9: "The House of Quark"). When the head of a house dies under circumstances considered common in Klingon law and tradition, such as when Worf killed Duras under the Right of Vengence in 2367, neither of his sisters were invested to succeed him as the head of the House of Duras. This made them ineligble to serve on the council, and they resorted to using Toral, Duras's illegitimate son, to further their aims. Toral professed to inherit Duras's claim to the leadership of the council, but Jean-Luc Picard, the Arbiter of Succession following the death of Chancellor K'mpec, ruled that Duras's claim to the council's leadership died with him.
The anon who posted this confused houses with the High Council, while the rest of it appears to be idle speculation as to why certain Klingon women are allowed to head houses/have a seat on the council and why others are not. That said, it does make sense... perhaps this can be added as background info somewhere? --From Andoria with Love 04:11, 24 Dec 2005 (UTC)
- PS - If any of these facts were specifically stated in an episode/movie, then please correct me and re-add this to the article. --From Andoria with Love 04:12, 24 Dec 2005 (UTC)
In "reality"???? Edit
From the Politics section...
"In reality, however, the power lies with the Klingon High Council, which is led by the Chancellor."
Must I remind everyone that Star Trek is fiction? I'm a Star Trek fan as well, but let's keep that in mind.
- Memory Alpha is written from an in universe perspective. Please see MA:POV. --OuroborosCobra talk 17:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Ah... gotcha. Pardon my insufficient dorkiness.
Tense and timeframe Edit
The Klingon Empire (also referred to as the Imperial Klingon Empire or Klingon Imperial Empire) was the official state of the Klingon people, founded approximately 1,500 years ago
The wording/tense of this line is pretty confusing. From what point in time was the founding 1,500 years in the past. Lordvoid 14:09, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
- The words "1,500 years ago" is linked to the 9th century. So... there you go. :) --From Andoria with Love 07:00, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, being new, could someone explain to me the necessity of listing its foundation as '1500 years ago' rather than just the 9th century? Was it mentioned in canon somewhere that from our perspective it was founded 1500 years ago? It also seems a bit strange to say 'the empire was...' then '1500 years ago', the tense sounds strange.
Just trying to find my feet, I hope this is okay. --AnonyQ 07:11, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
- Not sure I see what you mean: 'the United States was founded 232 years ago.' (eg.) --Alan 07:14, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
- It seems a bit like we're treating it simultaneously as not existing and existing. You wouldn't say 'The United States was a political unit, founded 200 years ago' unless it no longer existed. By saying 'The Klingon Empire was the blah blah...' then 'founded 1,500 years ago', are we treating it as it exists or not? I am aware that we use the past tense to refer to canon situations, but why not then change it '9th century'? Would an encyclopedia refer to Rome as being 'founded approximately 2000 years ago'? --AnonyQ 07:22, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
- I agree, Memory Alpha's POV is not the 24th century - it's not any particular century. So, let's say "1500 years before the 24th century" OR "in the 9th century". Let's also make it easy to see the citation for this fact. I can't for the life of me figure out from the citations in the article what episode/movie revealed this. --TribbleFurSuit 08:47, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
- I'm changing it. I hope this isn't too bold a move for someone relatively new like me, but it just doesn't sound right the way it is. I'll make a note of which episode it's based on. Can someone remind me which episode it was? --AnonyQ 04:18, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Glad to see this, thanks guys. Lordvoid 14:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
This image seems to imply that the colors of the Klingon Empire symbol actually haven't changed from the TOS colors. - Archduk3 11:55, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
I know the Klingons have a full and rich religious heritage (sure, it centers around battle violence and death, but it’s still very rich), and moreso that they have a written tradition, but no mention of ‘the book’ is made beyond to state that a certain story of Kahless is NOT written. ¿What is the name of this book, and who wrote it? A REDDSON – The preceding unsigned comment was added by 126.96.36.199 (talk).
Klingon quote canon? Edit
Since most of us really stick to canon: Did Martok really say the quote in Klingon? If not, it should be removed. I've never heard of that quote.-- Klingonteacher (talk) 21:28, December 12, 2015 (UTC)