# Talk:Harry Kim (Star Trek)

Its amazing that Wikipedia had an article on Naomi Wildman, but not on Ensign Kim, whose a main character and whose actor is credited in the opening credits. But on deeper reflection, he's one of the more boring characters on Voyager. Perhaps the creators were afraid to offend Asians, so they made his character bland. ShutterBugTrekker 19:34, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I think we are going to have to turn this into a disambiguation page, pointing to Harry Kim (Star Trek) and Harry Kim (mayor). Normally, I'm loath to append "(Star Trek)" to the title of an article on a Star Trek character, but in this case it appears that the mayor may have a stronger claim to having the article "Harry Kim" without any parenthetical clarifications. ShutterBugTrekker 23:40, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I looked at Wikipedia:Naming conventions for guidance on this issue. I did not find anything that gave a clear directive to this specific case. But, given my understanding of the naming conventions, this is what I think we should do: like it or not, Harry Kim the fictional Star Trek character is more widely known so he keeps the article titled Harry Kim. Harry Kim the mayor gets Harry Kim (mayor). Robert Happelberg 14:29, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I think it would be much more fair to use this page as a disambiguation page and link them to Harry Kim (fictional) and Harry Kim (politician).  --Gerald Farinas 16:29, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Agree with you the Council does, Gerald Farinas, except on the small detail of what to put in parenthesis for the fictional character. For Star Trek characters needing disambiguation, the usual format is characterName (Star Trek), so in this case we would have Harry Kim (Star Trek). Though I suppose Harry Kim(fictional) would be OK since as far as I know there are no other fictional universes besides Star Trek with a Harry Kim. ShutterBugTrekker 18:59, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion that future years should not be linked, because even if there are articles for those future years, most Wikipedians generally disapprove of putting fictional events in those articles. ShutterBugTrekker 21:00, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Memory Alpha suggests that Kim's middle initials are S. L. Does anyone have a source on this or know what they stand for? 81.77.238.24 23:15, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
It is seen on a personnel file in the episode "Non Sequiter." ----Willie 09:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the article could be improved with the outright removal of the very confusing 'menacing subtext' section and the Trivia section
Lots42 23:30, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree with you, and since no one has objected, I am going to remove the trivia section myself. Ejfetters 06:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

1) Add in the other times Kim has actually died.
2) I don't think a holographic simulation is an active indicator of a personality trait. Especially since Seska wrote it. In either case, it's no surprise that a Starfleet Ensign sticks by his Captain. That's what they are trained to do. Lots42 (talk) 13:49, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, there seems to be a huge debate on which Harry Kim and which Voyager died. Lots42 (talk) 18:10, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I did some research. Startrek.com, pretty darn official, says the duplicated ship, the undamaged one, blew itself up to save the damaged one. http://www.startrek.com/startrek/view/features/specials/article/1668.html Lots42 (talk) 18:14, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Bottom line is that harry kim died in deadlock. It's the same as if I were to make a clone of you and then kill you. The clone might be identical in every single respect to you. But you are still dead. For futher reference, watch The 6th Day  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.213.141.241 (talk) 20:11, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
If there is disagreement in fandom, simply state it.  "Startrek.com says so-and-so, while [someone else who can be referenced or linked to] interprets that such-and-such happened". No reason the article needs to take a definitive position on which interpretation is correct if there is legitimate room for disagreement. -- Infrogmation (talk) 01:20, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I do not believe there is legit room for disagreement. I believe the episode states very clearly which Kim did what. Lots42 (talk) 02:04, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
If the real ship was the one that blew up, we would have a whole lot more problems. We would have to change each and every one of the crew member's bios to say that they died on 2372.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.213.141.241 (talk) 19:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
The real Harry Kim & the real Naomi Wildman lived, while their duplicate versions died.  For the rest of the crew, the real versions died, while their duplicate versions lived.  A "Harry Kim" and a "Kathryn Janeway" still lived, so there is no reason to include a death date.  I will prove this fact.  The real Voyager had no damage, but the duplicate Voyager had massive damage, because the anti-matter wasn't duplicated (as Janeway mentions in the episode).  When Harry & Naomi crosses over, you can see damage done to the Voyager he crossed into; therefore, it had to be the damaged (i.e. duplicate) Voyager.  Also, when the Vidiians attacked Voyager, it was the real one.  You can tell this because they enter the bridge, which was not damaged on the real Voyager (in fact, nothing was).  On the duplicate Voyager, it was so damaged, it was evacuated and Engineering became the new bridge (as Janeway mentions). Mr. College (talk) 13:31, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Cite, please. Lots42 (talk) 08:53, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
If you're referring to my argument, then watch the episode Deadlock.  In that episode, Janeway says that in a Kent State University experiment, anti-matter was not able to be duplicated.  The damaged Voyager was damaged because of their lack of anti-matter, which only happened on the duplicate Voyager.  They continued to get damaged when the real Voyager started emitting proton bursts.  One Voyager was already damaged before the proton bursts were emitted, so the lack of anti-matter (on the duplicate Voyager) played a role in the damaging of the duplicate Voyager.  Also in the episode, Harry & Naomi cross from the undamaged Voyager to the damaged Voyager.  Since the damaged Voyager is the duplicate Voyager, that means that they went from the real Voyager to the duplicate Voyager, thus showing that Harry & Naomi were the real people and not the duplicate people. Mr. College (talk) 18:59, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
I disagree with your synopsis of the teaser. The ship that we start following notices that it's running out of antimatter. They are about to start the photon bursts to combat the lack of antimatter when they're hit and damaged by a series of photon bursts that they didn't start (which we soon learn is coming from the other Voyager). So if the other Voyager is sending them out, that means that both Voyagers are quickly running out of antimatter (because they're both drawing from the same reservoir). It's not a case where one Voyager (the 'original') kept all the Antimatter and left the other ship without any. It's a case that the Antimatter wasn't duplicated, and both ships are drawing on the same supply (which causes it to run out twice as fast). Hence, both ships try to start Photon bursts to reinforce the antimatter, and the one that gets them setup first starts to damage the other one. Basically, I don't think that the presence or lack of damage could in any way lead us to conclude which was the 'original'. The only basis we have for that decision is to assume that the episode starts on the 'original' ship, which is the one that also survives at the end (because it's the one that looses its Harry and Naomi, and has to replace them from the duplicate ship). --Maelwys (talk) 20:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
How do you believe that one of the Voyagers got damaged? Mr. College (talk) 01:42, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
"when they're hit and damaged by a series of photon bursts that they didn't start (which we soon learn is coming from the other Voyager)" --Maelwys (talk) 09:51, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
What facts do you use to conclude that the real Voyager was damaged and not the duplicate Voyager? Mr. College (talk) 15:52, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
(resetting indent) "Basically, I don't think that the presence or lack of damage could in any way lead us to conclude which was the 'original'. The only basis we have for that decision is to assume that the episode starts on the 'original' ship, which is the one that also survives at the end (because it's the one that looses its Harry and Naomi, and has to replace them from the duplicate ship)" --Maelwys (talk) 20:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
However, we don't know for sure it starts out on the real ship.  It could start out on the duplicate ship.  As you said, there is no evidence to conclude which ship is which, so it is just as likely the ship at the beginning is the real one as it is the duplicate one. Mr. College (talk) 01:23, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Good, then we agree. It could just as easily start out on the real ship as it could on the duplicate ship. From the episode alone, there's no way to know. Thus, you can't say for a fact that the real Harry and the real Naomi are the ones that crossed over, and that everybody else was replaced by their dopplegangers from this episode forward, which appears to be what you're stating above. And lacking any way to officially confirm the show, we have to look at any other official sources. Since startrek.com says that the duplicate is the one that blew up, and the original continued onwards, and that doesn't contradict what we saw in the show, we have to accept it. The real ship with the duplicate Harry and Naomi aboard, is the one that survived past this episode. --Maelwys (talk) 02:07, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
However, you're assuming that startrek.com is correct.  Yes, it's the official website but there could be incorrect information on it.  If we don't know what ship it is on, then we can't conclude which ship survived. Mr. College (talk) 19:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
So we could turn to the Encyclopedia...but, there might be a typo here. Perhaps the shooting script...but, maybe the director changed things on the set. Eh. The ambiguity makes for a (potentially) fun thinking exercise, but insofar as the article is concerned, information from the generally reliable site maintained by the show's owners will suffice. --EEMIV (talk) 19:47, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
199.43.12.100 (talk) 14:21, 9 March 2011 (UTC)You can all debate this as much as you want. The bottom line is that Harry Kim died, and was replaced by a duplicate - simple as that. Any other view is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the episode in question. This said, given that we are talking about someone who actually turned down casual sex with Seven of Nine, maybe he is better off dead? 

I removed the bit saying Harry Kim is extremely loyal to Janeway; this is pretty obvious by default. Also, what a holoprogram writer has a holo-character do means little to nothing in relation with the real (as real as Harry Kim can get, being fictional) person's character. Lots42 (talk) 05:17, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not getting myself involved in anymore 'Alive or dead' discussions, just for the record. I'm standing behind my request for nuetral editors to help out, please. Lots42 (talk) 03:23, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

How about this?  I've viewed the episode description for "Deadlock", and it appears to not distinguish whether it was the real Harry or the duplicate Harry that lived.  What about doing something similar to this page?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr. College (talk • contribs) 03:37, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Please see my above statement. To any nuetral editors; please see the Naomi article as of this date. Lots42 (talk) 10:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Why did the fictional character history vanish? I am confused. Lots42 (talk) 03:53, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

This entire section seems to be just complaints about the series that the actor voiced. What does that have to do with the character?75.199.68.63 (talk) 02:03, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I moved it. Lots42 (talk) 10:50, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
I reverted the deletion because it still, although showing what he didn't like, showed how his caracter developed because of those actions throughout the seasons. -- DQ (t) (e) 13:18, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

On April, 30th 2011 at FedCon 20 in Düsseldorf, Germany, Scott Bacula promoted Harry Kim to Leutenant on stage after his panel. ;-) --46.115.5.43 (talk) 22:09, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Harry Kim (Star Trek)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Zanimum (talk · contribs) 12:44, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Lead

"appeared across all seven seasons" --> "appeared in all seven seasons" or "appeared in each of the seven seasons"? Across sounds strange.
Fixed as suggested. Miyagawa (talk) 20:46, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
The difficulty in casting the part is of enough interest for the lead, but do we benefit from knowing who directed the pilot and thus was involved in the casting?
I've trimmed Kolbe out of the lead. Miyagawa (talk) 21:14, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
When transwarp drive is a link to transwarp drive, I was expecting first possible route home to be a link to an article about the USS Voyager's actual expedition home. While I'm not entirely against linking to the episode, I think that the writing can hold up without the link.
I've dropped the link to "Eye of the Needle". Miyagawa (talk) 20:46, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
While Wang appearing as Kim in Renegades is notable enough for the lead, it's deceptive to say that he returned to Star Trek, and his role in Of Gods and Men isn't that relevant for this section. Further down in the article, you might even consider just saying that Wang has been in two fan-produced productions, including as Kim in Renegades, ie not mention the other role by name. It's relevant to Wang, not to Ensign Kim.
I've trimmed out the Of Gods and Men stuff. Miyagawa (talk) 20:46, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Is the media outlet name relevant for the lead? This content is interesting enough to sumarize at the top, but would it make a difference if it was another outlet?
I've redrafted that part of the lead and dropped the links to both The AV Club and Den of Geek. Miyagawa (talk) 20:46, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Concept

"a list of TV's 50 Sexiest Men" I'm a little worried about citing this. It's a slideshow/list, that does cite its sources. Can you back this up?
I thought I'd go with a gut instinct and figure that it was a People magazine list. Turns out I was right - Wang was included in the list of 50 sexiest people alive in 1997 by the magazine (I always love when magazines like that have online archives). As for UGO itself, I would certainly hope that it is reliable - I've argued in the past that TrekNation was notable because of an affiliation with UGO and so had never considered that UGO wasn't. Miyagawa (talk) 21:26, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Aren't fan productions more connected with reception? If he wasn't liked, they wouldn't have cast him, right?
Well I figured that it wouldn't fit into the Appearences section as they weren't official appearances. I can see your point, and I've moved the line to the end of the reception section. Miyagawa (talk) 20:46, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Relaunch novels

It might be worth noting when the non-canon novels were published, in relation to the end of the series, to show whether this is a short time later relaunch, or long time.
I've redrafted to include the years published. Miyagawa (talk) 20:46, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Come to think of it, nowhere in the article is it noted when the series (and thus the role) started or ended, just the episode names. It would help keep the biography in context of real life.
I've worked the start year and end year into the article. Miyagawa (talk) 21:14, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
A start of a review.  --  Zanimum (talk) 12:44, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay in further review.

I've made a bunch of changes.
When first mentioned, most characters' names are followed by that of their actors. Neelix and The Doctor are missed.
BBC Cult refs need to be merged, as I presume they're the same page.
I'll look over Reception tonight, offline. I did both appearances and reception reviews offline in a file, but I don't know where they are on my system, so I restarted.  --  Zanimum (talk) 01:25, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

No problem. I've added Robert Picardo and Ethan Phillips on their first mentions. The BBC Cult bits are actually separate pages. They basically have these interviews where each question and response is on a subpage. So I've cited four subpages rather than the index page which doesn't include the text from the subpages. Miyagawa (talk) 18:52, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Yup, rereading everything, it's a strong article. Pass!  --  Zanimum (talk) 14:44, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

(Wow, I didn't realize how rare this sort of review ranking is for ST characters. Khan's an FA, Tasha Yar a GA, and Harry's it, otherwise. Kudos.  --  Zanimum (talk) 15:07, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

"Straight Talk with Voyager’s Garrett Wang, Part I"  —  fourthords | =Λ= |  17:42, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Harry Kim (Star Trek). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121006002404/http://voy.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/magazines/voyager_page_5.jpg to http://voy.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/magazines/voyager_page_5.jpg
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110828150057/http://www.ugo.com/tv/what-if-crazy-tv-stories-star-trek-voyager to http://www.ugo.com/tv/what-if-crazy-tv-stories-star-trek-voyager
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121122233320/http://trekweb.com/articles/2012/09/19/Garrett-Wang-Returns-to-the-Role-of-Harry-Kim-in-Star-Trek-Renegades-Independent-Web-Pilot-Manu-Intiraymi-Returns-as-Icheb.shtml to http://trekweb.com/articles/2012/09/19/Garrett-Wang-Returns-to-the-Role-of-Harry-Kim-in-Star-Trek-Renegades-Independent-Web-Pilot-Manu-Intiraymi-Returns-as-Icheb.shtml
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:46, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Fair Trade
Blood Fever Goojrr (talk) 05:42, 4 January 2024 (UTC)