Talk:Kobayashi Maru/Archive 1

Archive 1

Added Saavik's test

I rearranged the test takers section to include a section on Saavik's test, since this is the one Kobayashi Maru test as far as I know that we actually see on screen. I added a brief summary of what happened during her test to this article.
JesseG 07:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Scotty's Solution?

Now I am curious - what actually was Scotty's solution? 128.103.187.172 22:37, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Scotty comes up with progressively more outrageous and innovative solutions (improvising attacks, even ones that violate the laws of physics), provoking progressively larger Klingon squadrons to attack, until -- lacking a real engine room crew he can get to follow his instructions, his ship is wiped out by a 15-ship attack. He failed the test, but was pleased to be "flunked" to the Engineering track. Dave Hill 23:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Star Trek: Bridge Commander mod

added a "otheruse" template to refer the aforementioned mod EdwardHades 20:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

precipitating element

I removed the link from the phrase "precipitating element" to MacGuffin because I could see any obvious link between these two. Normally links in Wikipedia give additional information regarding the linked phrase. There "precipitating element" doesn't have any reference to the word precipitating. I searched google for a webpage whith both of these phrases on the same page and I found none.

Also, what is precipitating element? I know this term from Chemistry and searching the web shows this is common use of this phrase. That phrase should be changed but I don't understand enough of what is trying to be said to feel the liberty to change it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dfeig (talk • contribs) 03:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Kirk Reprogramming Simulator

"Prior to his third attempt, Kirk surreptitiously reprogrammed the simulator so that the "Klingons" would react to his presence with fearful admiration."

Isn't that also non-canon from the Ecklar novel?

The details you mention ARE from the novel. -- Jason Palpatine 29 June 2005 07:00 (UTC)

...

The article says "Kirk reprograms the simulated Klingons to be afraid of "The Captain Kirk," arguing that he expected to build a comparable reputation. (a violation of canon. Several Klingon commanders in TOS and movies remark on their eagerness to have a chance to fight "the Captain/Admiral Kirk" - as they are doing so.)". It's not clear how this is a violation of cannon -- can someone add that? The explanation given simply indicates that the young Kirk did not correctly predict how future Klingons would respond to his reputation. 216.204.206.146 (talk) 31 January 2007

Removed it, since it's not relevant to the Maru, and the question of canon is a NPOV issue anyway. Dstumme (talk) 20:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

In the novel Enterprise, Captain Kirk does win the respect of the Klingons. I don't remember the specifics but he saved one of the Klingon High Commanders from being killed, basically. --65.13.207.221 (talk) 00:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The reality

Someone posted that the K.M. was a real ship in the Star Trek universe because it appearred in a Star Trek: Enterprise novel. But novels have NEVER been considered part of ST canon, therefore this section is wrong, and should be reworded or removed. Fred8615 (talk) 13:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I reworded it. Lots42 (talk) 18:25, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Star Trek: Starfleet Academy

I added the bit about the mission in the Starfleet Academy video game. It's been quite a while since I've played the game - I filled in what I could from memory. I'd have to probably do some digging to find the cds that went with the game. I have to admit that I had downloaded saved games from the internet because there was one mission in the game that no matter what I did I couldn't seem to win and I wanted to get around that, so when I actually played the scenario I didn't "cheat" and only seen the aftermath of the version in which Forrester cheated when going through the save games I downloaded. So I'm hoping that someone would have an idea of how the simulation actually goes when the player "cheats."
JesseG 06:56, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
IIRC you could actually win the scenario by using tractor beams as weapons -- lock in a tractor beam and warp, destroying the opposing ship(s) utterly. I'm not sure if this option was handled by the AI. 82.128.198.241 (talk) 10:36, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Category

This article should not be in Category:Star Trek ships, because it's not a ship, it's a simulation of a ship. It's as "real" as a Star Trek ship as Captain Proton's ship (whatever its name). OTOH, it would be nice to have a category of fiction-inside-fiction; this ship is to Star Trek as any videogame ship (like those in Spaceships of Eve Online) is to Reality (whatever that means). Albmont (talk) 14:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

TNG Episode with Riker administering a command test to Troi

I don't recall the episode name, but there was a simliar no-win command test that Riker administered to Counselor Troi during her promotion trials to Commander. In the test, the Enterprise-D was faced with some sort of engineering-related crisis. The crisis itself was resolveable, but required Troi to order the chief engineer (Geordi LaForge of course), to crawl through an extremely hazordous corridor with a 100% gaurentee of his death. While the sacrifices required in general are less in scope from a big picture, it is clear that Troi enjoys strong friendships with her crewmates and thus the decision is almost as difficult to make (I would imagine it would be even more difficult for an empath like Troi that is sensitive to other's emotions than your typical human commander). I don't remember the details, but I feel the episode in question follows the same degree of psychological decision making, even if the consequences to "winning" are slightly less severe. --67.151.118.186 19:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• The Episode was "Thine Own Self" Hans404 (talk) 17:56, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

The Maru

The Kobayashi Maru is referred to consistently in the article as "the Maru". That can't be right, can it? It'd be like calling an American ship "the USS" or a British one "the HMS". How about changing all these to "the Kobayashi"? --Trovatore 07:52, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Went ahead and did it. --Trovatore 08:02, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

On a related note, the Japanese ship naming conventions link states Maru means "circle" while this article says "perfection" or "purity". I can see a similarity between these terms, but shouldn't there be a single translation? Should we at least say it directly translates to "circle", but can also be interpretted as "perfection"? Hoof Hearted 15:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Hoof Hearted. I'm not Japanese, but I live in Japan and have been studying Japanese for five years. Maru means "circle" to me far before it means anything about perfection or purity. Additionally, in the context of the Kobayashi Maru, circle seems to make more sense, insofar as the situation is "unwinnable," i.e. a circle of analysis with no logical end or resolution. I replaced the "perfection" reference with "circle," which also fits the flow of the paragraph better anyway. If someone wants to write a bit about the connection between a circle/loop and the unwinnable situation, feel free.. --Cromas 18:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know (much) Japanese, but it seems to me a better loose translation would be "the good ship Kobayashi" e.g. On_the_Good_Ship_Lollipop 76.90.102.125 02:58, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm skeptical of the claim that the -Maru suffix has any connotation of safe return or round journey; I am Japanese and I've never heard that claim. It's just a tradition/convention that most likely derives from -maro, an archaic suffix often used for names of people and prized possessions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sc404 (talk • contribs) 22:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

There are several different theories about the origin of the "Maru" suffix on Japanese ship names. The "round trip" theory is only one of them; and frankly, it's the least plausible. The "prized possession" theory mentioned by Sc404 is far more likely; and personally, I think the Hakudo Maru theory is a good possibility too. (Either one is more believable than the idiotic "round trip" theory, though.) In any event, it is inappropriate to present the "round trip" theory in this article as if it is a known fact, when it is actually only one of several theories. I have therefore taken the initiative and removed the reference, so that it ends with the link to the Japanese ship naming conventions article. Readers can decide for themselves which theory seems most likely, rather than having speculation presented as facts. FireHorse (talk) 06:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Forget the "Maru" issues, what about the nonsense claim that Kobayashi means "little wooden... [ship]".

Yeah, sure, that's the origin of the name, but it has no connection here whatsoever. To infer "little wooden" into any modern use of the name is like refering to some "HMS Taylor" with a hokey metaphor about sewing pants!

They're just NAMES, folks! ~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.30.37.61 (talk) 23:30, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Voyager

Tuvok's test in Voyager was not a no win scenario. He told the cadets after the fact that the solution was to retreat, the only tactically sound course of action to take. Retreat didn't occur to the cadets so they failed. I added a mention of this onto the text about the test in Voyager but the edit was undone. (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=D8VNtF0BwvY) —Preceding unsigned comment added by PhennPhawcks (talk • contribs) 20:01, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe the scenario was exactly the same nature as StarFleet's at the time. But Tuvok's debrief was NOT the StarFleet approved one. Storywise Tuvok's debrief was intended as a contrast in conclusions that could be drawn from similar situations -- in this case based on pure Vulcan viewpoint. Tuvok was preaching Vulcan philosophy that an overall draw was better than risking a near certain loss. Tuvok's analysis was correct that rescues are nice to have but they are NOT the most important goals from a StarFleet or crew perspective. Tuvok was emphasizing accepting the best likely outcome versus illogical gambling on poor odds of a better outcome (i.e. the Vulcan science rationale). Keep in mind that Tuvok's debrief might even have been appropriate to his audience in that Tuvok did not have the problem StarFleet had with weeding out or teaching people that were not aggressive enough to command. Tuvok's "cadets" tended to be foaming at the mouth aggressive.

In contrast StarFleet grading generally emphasized some risk taking (less likely outcomes) if needed to reach minimum acceptable outcomes (in some way favoring StarFleet over enemy and that most goals at least partially achieved). It is mentioned several times in each TV series that no Vulcan has reached major starship command within StarFleet because Vulcan's considered a draw acceptable and that also that preserving the goals serving the greatest good as a win. Vulcan's are simply not aggressive enough in always going for the win. Thus Spock's actions on Enterprise are considered unusual for a Vulcan and also highly conflicted for Spock himself.

Keep in mind that the pure Vulcan viewpoint is pretty much the standard for confrontation between major powers in the real world. Sure if you are guaranteed to get in and out of their territorial waters before they get ships into threat range - go for a rescue. But if there is a chance that they even fire weapons (not even in semi-accurate or near miss range) then the rules are to support the ship in trouble from outside the territorial waters or DMZ...if at all.69.23.121.234 (talk) 21:47, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Kirk had help?

One of the many non-canon Trek comics (this from Marvel's time) added the wrinkle that Kirk had help hacking the Maru-simulation computers. I'll try and find it, even though I'm not sure if it should be added... Lots42 (talk) 22:32, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Chinese text

Someone is undoing my edits regarding the Chinese meaning of the Hanzi/Kanji characters, and marking them as 'speculation'. I do speak Chinese, and my edits are not speculation. Please stop removing my additions until you have double-checked with a Mandarin-speaker. The simple fact is that the characters for "Kobayashi" are the same as those for "Shaolin", and that is extremely significant if you want to understand what is happening in this situation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.221.247.33 (talk) 17:12, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Your edits are being undone [not by me, I might add] presumably because you are mistaken: The characters for "kobayashi" are 小林; the characters for Shaolin are 少林, pronounced "shorin" in Japanese. Note that the first character is different in the two words. The two characters 小 and 少 are distinct characters, not variants of one character. Ningakpok (talk) 10:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I can see that. The ship is Japanese NOT Chinese Mandarin though some ideographs are similar.

Also I would not trust some one even for Mandarin simply because they speak Mandarin as a native language. Apparently literacy in ideographs has plummeted since the introduction of European character typewriter keyboards and newspapers in the early 1900s. Functional literacy was only like 5% in the late 1980s and functional literacy does not include the full 4000+ ideographs (something for the ancient imperial bureaucratic tests). Officially the set of ideographs in common use by the majority of Chinese or Japanese are considered basic or pidgin or slang level literacy below full functional usage of the written language. So I suspect there is a lot of room for being wrong on subtle points and similar ideographs. Or has the arrival of computer coding for the full set of ideographs reversed the trend? I would not think that standard sized computer type would have the resolution to preserve the subtleties of the original calligraphy in ideographs. SO I would expect computer to intorduce their own blurring and compromises to the use of ideographs except in banner sized arrays. 69.23.121.234 (talk) 22:28, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Most of this is either untrue (the stuff about the ideographs used today being considered slang/pidgin level. Considered by who?) or irrelevant (the vocabulary of the ancient imperial tests is not the same as modern Chinese). This is all baseless speculation ("So I suspect" "so I would expect"). These are two very common, simple characters which do not have the same meaning and are not pronounced the same in either Japanese or Chinese. There is no subtle point; this can be checked in any basic disctionary. The name of the ship is not connected to the name of the Shaolin Temple. Ningakpok (talk) 11:24, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

No No Boys

Does this test have any connection with the loyalty oath that Japanese Americans had to take during World War 2 (which was a no-win scenario)? http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/No-No_Boy "The title refers to Japanese Americans who answered 'no' to the following two questions, when asked by the United States government on a 1943 Leave Clearance Application Form administered to Interned Japanese Americans. "Are you willing to serve in the armed forces of the United States on combat duty wherever ordered?" "Will you swear unqualified allegiance to the United States of America and faithfully defend the United States from any or all attack by foreign or domestic forces, and forswear any form of allegiance or obedience to the Japanese emperor, to any other foreign government, power or organization?" Both questions were confusing in different ways. Many respondents thought that by answering yes to the first question, they were signing up for the draft. Others, given the circumstances of the questions -- in which Americans of Japanese descent were held in "concentration camps" -- said no to resist the draft. The second question implied that the respondent, most of whom were American citizens, had already sworn allegiance to the Japanese emperor. Many respondents saw this question as a trap, and rejected the premise by answering no. Afterwards, many of those who answered "No" were thrown into Federal Prison."

Just wondering. Amitorit (talk) 21:37, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I doubt it, but if there was a reliable source making the connection it might be worthy of inclusion in the article. Doniago (talk) 15:49, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Organian Peace Treaty?

The neutral zone, as defined by the "Organian Peace Treaty" can't always have been part of the test since that treaty came after Kirk was captain (Errand of Mercy). That note should be updated or removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.218.46.160 (talk) 06:15, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Thine Own Self

An editor added a section regarding the TNG episode, "Thine Own Self". I've removed this information as there was no sourcing and no other clear indication that the scenario portrayed in the TNG episode was related to the Kobayashi Maru. Without sourcing drawing comparisons between the scenario in TOS and the KM scenario appears to be original research. Doniago (talk) 14:08, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Notability

Looking at Google books I've found these references to this term in indepenent notable sources:

• Fusion leadership By Richard L. Daft, Robert H. Lengel p67
• The Star trek encyclopedia: a reference guide to the future By Michael Okuda, Doug Drexler, Debbie Mirek 1999
• The Manual of How to Cheat on Your Wife edited by Grace Ann Neff
• Proceedings, ACM SIGUCCS 1997: User Services Conference XXV : Are you ready ...‎ - Page 77
• Unwrapping the CIO By Wayne L Anderson
• Meditation Is Boring? By Linda Johnsen

It does seem that there are a lot of sources defining this term ensuring notability. Edgepedia (talk) 14:09, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Sources don't need to be "notable"; they just need to be reliable. Anyhow. How many of these offer a serious examination of the topic, and how many a fleeting reference? --EEMIV (talk) 14:26, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Fusion Leadership describes the event in Wrath of Khan, and uses it as an example to say that rules need to be changed in new circumstances. According to google books the Star trek encyclopedia mentions Kobayashi Maru eight times, but I can't see all of them. In the The Manual of How to Cheat on Your Wife, again the event is described, the book of the same name referenced, and used to show that you can win by breaking the rules. In the Unwrapping the CIO the event is again described and used to say that to win in no-win situation you have to break the rules.

Very little serious examination, I'm afraid, but from these references show the term is used in real-world situations. Edgepedia (talk) 18:48, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

That's some useful work you've done there, Edgepedia. I suggest you incorporate some of these references into the article, if you can. Currently, its notability is doubtful. Having some more independent references would be advisable.

I would suggest that the "Fusion Leadership", "Manual of How To ..." and "Unwrapping the CIO" references could be mentioned together, as they discuss KM in the same way.

Although the reference to KM in "Meditation is Boring" is also similar to these, it is a slighlty different treatment and so might be used in a separate citation. Referring to the "Star Trek Encyclopedia" would not help to establish notability. Alfrew (talk) 23:02, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Improvement Suggestions

1) There is way too much self-confessed speculation in the article. It should go.

2) The Saavik section is tooo detailed and repeats info earlier in the article.

3) I think this article mis-states the essence of Kobayashi Maru - at least as I understand it - and obscures it with an excess of (to me) irrelevant detail. K-M isn't about no-win scenarios, per se, but rather about no-win situations which are surmounted by recourse to cheating. No-win scenarios already have a name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CarlManaster (talk • contribs) 20:21, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Lots42 19:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I consider that this article needs extensive rewriting (and abbreviation) to meet Wikipedia requirements. Although I think that the author of the article got carried away in his/her love for Star Trek, I don't actually agree with the "in-universe" tag. The problem with this article is surely its content rather than its style or tone. There is far too much trivial detail to be relevant to a general encyclopedia. Even the introduction is overburdened with fictional data that would not assist the general reader. Also the long list of references to KM in other fictional works, all of which belong to the Star Trek canon, is unhelpful and inappropriate.

Surely this article needs some severe pruning (see also the Notability section below). Do others agree? Alfrew (talk) 23:14, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Other Mentions

Since some editors like to delete places that it is mentioned, here's one place:

• Used as the name of the disaster response program for the UEPF fleet in _The Lotus Eaters_. 978-1-4391-3346-0

~ender 2012-03-03 21:30:PM MST — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.165.52.42 (talk)

That's nice, but inappropriate for inclusion unless there's a reliable source linking the usage there with the usage in Star Trek. Doniago (talk) 15:37, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Doniago, I see you've removed a reference to KM in the film "Dog Soldiers". Would you be willing to discuss that? I think it's a shame to remove any independent reference from an article that has doubtful notability. Alfrew (talk) 00:07, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Not sure what there is to discuss. Pop culture references need third-party sources to establish that they are in some way considered significant. No such sourcing was provided. WP:IPC discusses this in some detail, as does WP:DISCRIMINATE. Doniago (talk) 04:28, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your response on this. I have now reviewed the policy documents you mention and must concede that you were probably correct to remove the Dog Soldiers reference. However I was, and am, puzzled as to why you chose that particular reference to remove: the Wil Wheaton reference surely fails the WP:IPC test even more obviously, using the words "Kobayashi Maru" without reference to their meaning in the original context. Shouldn't this point also be removed from the article? Alfrew (talk) 21:52, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

That one is sourced. The source is trekmovie.com, which is a third-party site, though arguably it might place undue weight on Trek-related information. I suppose my feeling is that while a more "neutral" site would be a better reference, at least one is provided that is a standalone site. As to whether the source itself backs up the material...that's admittedly not something I checked. If you wish to remove it, I won't contest it. Doniago (talk) 14:37, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks again for your reply. I've looked up the reference for Leverage and it quotes Will Wheaton mentioning that his character in the show is referred to as "Kobayashi Maru". Since it's the actor himself (though speaking "out-of-universe") who mentions the name, does this invalidate it as a third-party reference? I'm not going to worry about that conundrum! Whether it's third-party or not, I believe the cited article fails to establish significance for the name. And for that reason, I probably will delete the reference. Alfrew (talk) 00:54, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I have a feeling that if this was a more highly-patrolled page we could get into a lengthy discussion about this with multiple editors weighing in. :) There are a few issues here I suppose-

1. It's the actor himself bringing up that he's called "Kobayashi Maru" as opposed to the source making note of it directly.
2. While it seems to be an "obvious" Star Trek reference, that's not made explicit.
3. The source is an interview, but...
4. ...the interview is in a third-party source...
5. ...which focuses on Star Trek and hence may be unduly weighted.

I don't think I've ever had quite this level of complication with regards to a pop culture reference. In my experience 75% of these never get sourced, 20% are sourced, but not in a way that establishes that they're significant...and then you've got the 5% that turn out to be keepers.

So yeah, I'm not inclined to touch it myself, but I won't make a big deal of the deletion either. Ideally a source could be located that addresses all this issues...but I wouldn't hold my breath on that one. Cheers. Doniago (talk) 14:48, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Wesley Crusher

Wesley Crusher also took this test. And yet, it has no mention in the article...

Did he do so in a unique way? It's not noteable to take the test and experience crushing, horrible defeat. That's the -point- of the test in most continuities. Lots42 (talk) 19:13, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

i know this is an old thread but feel both this and dana trois should be added tot he list as there tests were both diffrent fro the normal variation of the test (i.e tailored for their personalities) as well as having a whole episode detailed to them squirming over the tests. this makes it a little more important to the grand scheme of the cannon then others. of course kirks while mentioned in passing (until 2009 movie) is still considered the definning example of the test. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.91.9.153 (talk) 04:14, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Stargate Universe "Trial and Error"

Guess this episode of SGU could be mentioned as another "reference" to Kobayashi Maru, since it has a kind of similar take on it. In the episode the Commander ist tested with a scenario that seems to be a no win scenario to evaluate his commanding abilities. (Basically he runs through this 3 times, first tries and aggressive Method to handle the attackers, than a defensive one (which seems to work until more ships [sic!] appear), and then tries to comply with the attackers demands; in the first tries the ship explodes in the last everybody seems to die). So I guess at least storywise the parrallels seem clear (test of command ability by using a no win scenario, in case of near success more ships appear). There is just no clear statement I could find whether this was an intentional reference to the Kobayashi Maru test or not. So I am not sure if this should be put in or not.

Here is a reference to the episode (for the details): http://stargate.wikia.com/wiki/Trial_and_Error

Regards --Kiesch (talk) 19:14, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. In the absence of third-party commentary on the similar device, it would not be appropriate to include here. --EEMIV (talk) 19:34, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Reference on The Office

Two contributors have added a references to The Office (U.S. TV series) episode, Junior Salesman in which references are made to the Kobayashi Maru:

• http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Kobayashi_Maru&diff=553452168&oldid=553368464
• http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Kobayashi_Maru&diff=541011615&oldid=540534561

However, these references were removed by a single user with the comment "refs establish existence of episode and quote, not significance."

The Office television series has millions of viewers, which I believe most people would consider significant. I'd like to open it up for discussion as to whether this reference should be included or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Figz (talk • contribs) 15:10, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I think the issue is indicative of a general problem with that section. I support excluding The Office reference, and also think the Wil Wheaton character thing should go -- what this article doesn't need is a list of primary sources/plot summary that just drop the name. The other examples come from third-party sources discussing the impact/adoption of the term of as a metaphor -- and, probably the section needs to be renamed "Cultural impact" to be clearer on that front. If some reviewer or commentary on The Office episode comes along and makes that connection between the phrase and it being a metaphor, then I'm all for it. But, right now, both The Office (and Wheaton character) are just homages and trivia. --EEMIV (talk) 15:23, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Possible Historical Reference

I'm just wondering if the name Kobayashi Maru has any connection to the Komagata Maru - http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Komagata_Maru or http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Komagata_Maru_incident — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.183.119.242 (talk) 05:43, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Use in Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country

Should minor mentions from other movies be included? Example: Dr. McCoy is lamenting to Kirk about planning to retire in 3 months and now being imprisoned on Rura Penthe. He describes being killed one night in his bunk as Kobayashi Maru. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbrackett (talk • contribs) 00:31, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Certainly not in the lead section. I have removed this. Alfrew (talk) 02:16, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Only on Wikipedia

Only on wikipedia can I find this much discussion about a fictional test from Star Trek that has no bearing on reality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.209.142.40 (talk) 13:45, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Clearly you've never been to television without pity. Millahnna (talk) 14:34, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Clearly, they've never been to either college or to an SF convention, either... LOL. OBloodyHell (talk) 17:23, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Not to mention the notion that it has "no bearing on reality", when it's essentially got substantial moral and ethical implications, and thus has distinct indirect bearing on reality. The notion that an idea has no bearing on reality is a remarkably ignorant statement... OBloodyHell (talk) 17:23, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Origin of the name

I can't help but wonder if the Kobayashi Maru is named after the Kobayashi of the Godzilla movies. He is the pilot that sacrifices himself by crashing his plane into a snow covered mountain to bury Godzilla in snow in the 1955 movie. His attempt is futile, but shows the others how to defeat the monster. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsbrownie (talk • contribs) 12:15, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I doubt it. Kobayashi is just a Japanese surname. It could refer to a number of different things or, more likely, to nothing in particular. (38.114.81.227 (talk) 08:41, 3 April 2012 (UTC))

I'm with Tsbrownie on this - the fact that Kobayashi lost his life in a perceived no-win scenario, prompting the squad leader essentially to re-program their attack, seems too on-point to be a coincidence. Given the importance of the Kobayashi Maru as a metaphor within and beyond Star Trek, it would be great to find a citation for this - I've been looking, but, alas, thus far to no avail. Fashionethics (talk) 15:44, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Lower Grade?

Note - this discussion was moved here from our talk pages - hence only my edits.

Please stop calling it "the Maru". Maru is the Japanese word for ship. Use the full name. What you're doing is like calling the U.S.S Enterprise "the U.S.S.". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.213.142.170 (talk) 19:53, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Looking back through the edit history you amended the line "Abandoning the Maru, preventing war but leaving the crew and passengers to die." to "Abandoning the Maru, preventing war but leaving the crew and passengers to die. Some cadets choose this option, but doing so almost certainly results in a lower grade." Do you have a source for the information that choosing to not enter the neutral zone results in a lower grade? I can't recall ever seeing/reading that anywhere? Thankyou Djbrianuk 19:52, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

• I can't recall where I read that failing to attempt rescue leads to a lower grade--almost certainly it was from a source of less-than-canonical accuracy--but it's only logical, don't you think? Marblespire 09:07, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Got your reply, thanks. I'm still dubious - I think NOT going in is the harder decision to make. It would take a certain maturity of judgement to decide that risking triggering a major war with the Klingons outweighed the lives on the freighter. In the (non-canon) novel "The Kobiyashi Maru" Sulu almost had a mutiny on his hands when he refused to breach the neutral zone to rescue the ship. I think the grade would be based on your overall command performance. However I'll leave the sentence in while I do some research. I'll also move this discussion to the article talkspace. Thanks for replying Djbrianuk 09:42, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
    • I mean, look at the test: it's a no-win scenario. It would make no sense if you could obtain a "passing grade" by just ignoring the Maru as it breaks up. Having said that, no TV show or movie have ever mentioned any form of grade, merely that the cadet has to take the test and, in the process, decide between two bad choices. And furthermore, in the Diane Carey novel Dreadnaught, the viewpoint character achieves what appears to be a passing grade by taking her ship in and having it blown out from under her. If it's possible to pass even if you lose, then it had better be possible to pass if you bug out too. Of course, that's not necessarily canon. So, who knows. (My feeling is, since it's a no-win scenario, there should be no way to pass the test--you get an F no matter what you do. Hopefully it doesn't impact your GPA too much.) Marblespire 09:49, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
      • Well, it's not an evaluation of how well you do in the situation - there's no way to do well. It's a psychological evaluation, basically putting the participant under stress with the knowledge that there's no way to prevent everyone from dying. Sulu made a difficult desicion - leave people in need to die to prevent a far more devastating war, but the question isn't what desicion he makes, but whether he makes it with composure and while maintaining a level head. I'd assume Starfleet knows well and good that there's no way to come out of the situation in a good position, so they're trying to see if you can make a clear headed choice, whatever that is. --Warsaw 23:24, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
    • The idea that your grade depends on your "winning" a simulation is nonsensical and the idea of failing because you don't lose the scenario is ludicrous. In any case, this is all speculation and so it doesn't belong in the article. 24.201.253.228 01:31, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

• • I believe the 2009 movie starts the simulator scenes with about 10 seconds of another cadet being summarily dismissed from the command track on the spot for ignoring the Kobiyasha Maru and continuing on original mission without any strong reasoning to play it safe. The rationale being that they were unwilling to take risks or make judgment calls, the very function of the command track officer.

But technically the rough grade or quality of character is supposed to be based not on what the test taker did or did not do - but rather is based on their explanation of why they took those actions. The grade being sort like the results of a post-action court marshall. This is mentioned several times in the various series and movies. I would suppose that the "Grade" would be something along the lines of "Definitely Not Command Material", "Not A Strong Candidate", "undistinguished or average quality", "Promising or Definite Potential", and "Outstanding or Highest Recommendations" plus some boxes for specialists aptitude "engineering leadership potential" or other "leadership potential in non-command support functions".

Its worth noting that technically logging the Kobiyasha Maru's situation, immediately sending a message to Starfleet by highly secure means, and then at most monitoring its destruction from outside the neutral zone is the legally the correct action. In fact the treaty probably specifies that StarFleet should send a message to the Klingons notifying them of violations by unofficial blockade runners. That is pretty standard boilerplate for DMZ treaties historically and as a matter of practicality. StarTrek pre-NG is patterned on the independent sea captains of the 1600-1800s and that pattern says the Kobiyasha Maru sinks unaided and unmourned unless the enemy is wimpy on a national scale. StarTrek NG onwards is based on post WWII US navy where the standard enemy is militarily only modest banana republic threat (what treaty? we will rescue and they will let us or we smash them flat).

"No-Win" scenarios are created by imposing multiple conflicting high priority goals. Unfortunately in my mind the plain vanilla Kobiyasha Maru scenario fails to do that -- in that from a military standpoint rescuing civilians is much lower priority than avoiding a major WMD type war where million or even billions die. Good test for local civilian rescue units though. Basically the scenario needs to be beefed up with placing some politically important officials or allies onboard the Kobiyasha Maru -- some reason that violating the Neutral Zone Treaty and war is almost offset by the loss of the Kobiyasha Maru. Maybe top Vulcan and Andorran religious leaders onboard ironing out some internal Federation dispute.

In the real world attempted rescues of ordinary citizen which you survived would most likely be met with court marshal for endangering the Federation national interests - unless you got prior approval from both sides. About the only way that entering DMZ would be looked upon favorably would if (1) you succeeded in total secrecy (no enemy even reported a battle and all debris was in the heart of the neutral zone) or (2) your attempt revealed a clear cut and ongoing enemy invasion attempt. That is the Kirk solution would be counted as a minor black mark if the Klingons backed down in later diplomatic talks about the incident, major black mark if the Federation had to make major concessions to maintain peace and imprisonment for treason if war resulted. Remember the Federation StarFleet orders as well as highest Federation law says stay out of the neutral zone at all costs short of Klingon incursion unless you are part of a prearranged inspection team -- very much like the Korean DMZ.

Its also worth noting that intentionally destroying the Kobiyasha Maru is never addressed as a likely option. Why think that? The position and circumstances of the Kobiyasha Maru are highly suspicious even from a Federation standpoint. In the simpler scenarios cadets should suspect that the Kobiyasha Maru was probably hijacked by Federation anti-treaty dissidents or Klingons. This would make rescue unlikely even without the neutral zone and raise the probability that the Kobiyasha Maru is rigged as an anti-warship self-destruct trap. But the most likely explanation for the Kobiyasha Maru's position is an Federation spy ship using passengers as a cover. If the Maru is suspected as a Federation spy ship the cadet goal should actually be the total destruction of the Maru from outside the neutral zone. So most likely the word "rescue" is read between the lines code for "destroy all evidence" in any Federation guidance to answer the Kobiyasha Maru distress call. So actual rescue attempts are likely misinterpretation by naive inexperienced cadets.

Explanations that the Kobiyasha Maru got into the neutral zone via navigation error seem highly unlikely. One of the key facets of the scenario is that there are no other ports or ships nearby nor are any points of interest for a cruise ship mentioned nearby. So we are not talking minor navigational errors of a few million kilometers on arrival. No the Kobiyasha Maru is light years off course if it is merely wandering off course. Major navigational errors either computational or hardware failure should either have been noticed over the course of hours and days or are severe in magnitude. Severe errors that get past failsafes point toward such a broad shipwide problems that one would expect the ship to more likely to be destroyed by errors in other related more delicate processes like warp containment or warp generation (wrong warp and warp direction generated at some point).

69.23.121.234 (talk) 20:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

My recollection is that, in THE WRATH OF KHAN, the student playing the captain is first presented with a dilemma -- a distress signal (weak and possibly automated or falsified) is received, and the captain must first make a decision whether to intrude on the neutral zone to rescue a ship whose true situation cannot be verified. If the decision is made to intrude, then enemy cruisers appear and attack in overwhelming force. One of the significant elements of this test is that student is taken by surprise. ...... However, in STAR TREK (2009), Kirk takes the test three times, which means the element of surprise is completely gone. Moreover, when Kirk takes the test, he does not make a decision about attempting a rescue - he is commanded by superiors to enter the neutral zone to attempt the rescue. Under those circumstances the only issue is how the student behaves on a suicide mission - but in a simulator so the student is never in real fear of losing his life. It is not clear how or why Kirk is allowed a third try or even a second try. Sussmanbern (talk) 00:28, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

from Wikipedia entry 'Masami Kobayashi'

I believe the Kobayashi Maru test in the Star Trek universe is based on some aspect of a World War Two Naval battle between US and Japan and involving The Japanese man Masami.

An excerpt from the above link that I think is the relevant part I have copied and pasted below.

In November 1943, the Allies were victorious at the Battle of Tarawa and Battle of Makin in the Gilbert Islands, and in early February 1944 seized critically strategic positions in the Marshall Islands with the Battle of Kwajalein and the capture of Roi-Namur. Realizing that the major Japanese naval base in the South Pacific at Truk was endangered, Kobayashi ordered the naval assets there transferred to Palau. However, before the transfer could be complete, the United States launched Operation Hailstone, sinking a large number of Japanese warships and transports. The Imperial Japanese Navy General Staff blamed Kobayashi for the defeat, and relieved him of his command two days later. On 30 May 1944, Kobayashi was forced from active service and on 31 May 1944 he went into the reserves.

After the surrender of Japan, Kobayashi was detained a Sugamo Prison in Tokyo by the SCAP authorities, and charged with command responsibility for the war crimes perpetrated by Admiral Shigematsu Sakaibara in the "Wake Island Massacre". His case never came to trial, and he was released from Sugamo Prison in 1952. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.239.193.152 (talk) 09:39, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Something from the real world

I'm reluctant to try to integrate this anywhere, lest it get caught up whatever future conflagration destroys this article so that it can be rebuilt properly. But, for when that day comes: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/05/13/virtual_reality_meets_reality/. Includes a middling reference to the KM vis-a-vis a real-life VR situation simulator. --EEMIV (talk) 02:08, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Referenced in other fiction.

On the TV show Quantico, Season 1 Episode 16, Clue the FBI trainees are trying to solve a training scenario, a terrorist / hostage / bomb situation on a plane. There is no solution. Finally it is referenced a few times in the show as a Kobayashi Maru. Perhaps in "impact" we can mention that it has been referenced in other fiction, based on the idea that Star Trek is known in these fictional situations, and the term entering the common lexicon. Centerone (talk) 00:26, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

If third-party sources have noted the references, as discussed at WP:IPCV, then sure. DonIago (talk) 16:16, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

It is also referenced in NCIS Season 12, Episode 5 - "The San Dominick". Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:50, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

I find somewhat disturbing the fact that "Kobayashi Maru" was just an invention by people writing for TOS and then, whoever refers to it, should be properly cited here without much ado but this is impeded. In Quantico, it is enough to take a look at that episode, that series has a lot of citations as writers do not live outside our galaxy, and you can be sure of it. So, when did evidence become not enough evidence for Wikipedia? It is also hilarious the way the Quantico's editors avoid to cite the name "Kobayashi Maru" in the summary of the episode, a name largely used in the episode itself. Absolutely ridiculous.--Pra1998 (talk) 19:54, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

It was determined by consensus, as discussed at WP:IPCV, that we shouldn't be including throwaway references to article subjects (otherwise Citizen Kane would have dozens of references from The Simpsons alone), but rather, to avoid being indiscriminate, should limit our attentions to those references that received attention from third-party sources. Or as I like to think of it, if the tree fell in the woods but nobody heard it, then for the purposes of Wikipedia it didn't make a sound. DonIago (talk) 15:51, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. So, the principle "Look at that fucked episode" does not apply here. We have to wait for some recognized expert (I should guess one of the authors of Quantico series) to be sure of what is obvious. In that episode there is a no way out situation where cadets are exactly in the identical situation of the cadets in the Star Trek episode. Repeatedly, the situation is claimed to be "Kobayashi Maru", so, I would ask to you, what kind of expert I need other than anyone that has seen that episode like also you could do? This is a simple matter of common sense and nothing else. I am aware that in science we need further checks to be sure of a result and these checks are obtained through different experts in a given sector published in some refereed journal but here we are in a true absurd situation.--Pra1998 (talk) 20:17, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

All you need is a third-party reliable source to have noted the reference. You can then mention it with an appropriate citation. Hope this helps. DonIago (talk) 20:32, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

I will try to fix this within Wikipedia's rules. Thanks anyway.--Pra1998 (talk) 20:50, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Kobayashi Maru is also referenced in The Magicians (Season 1, Episode 6 - "Impractical Applications") when the characters are faced with a test that they assume they can only pass by cheating, much like James T Kirk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.156.152.148 (talk) 18:57, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kobayashi Maru. 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/20090523213834/http://xboxlive.ign.com/articles/984/984570p1.html to http://xboxlive.ign.com/articles/984/984570p1.html

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) 11:33, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Far too comprehensive, too many references, bloated

This seems to me an example of fandom getting out of hand. There are dozens, possibly hundreds of unimpotant and unnotable novels, comic books, video games, TV shows, etc., that use this element of Star Trek. It would be much better to trace it back to earlier fiction or possibly non-fiction origins. It seems unlikely to me that the screenwriter of Wrath of Khan was the first to imagine a no-win scenario in a wargame context. It might also be thought of as an elaboration of "checkmate" in chess, for example. Anything to relate it to the wider world. Instead the article as it is now resembles a Star Trek wiki entry, rather than a general encyclopedia entry. Turn down the fandom and relate this to the wider culture, the "real world". Cuvtixo (talk) 16:20, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Way more references needed

I'm removing some unreferenced deviations from ST II's depiction, and calling for more citations. Variations from games, novels, other canon sources, MUST be cited IAW WP:CITE, using WP:RS. TIA, ... David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 18:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I have to disagree with some of the citation requests. If someone says that it is mentioned in a book or movie, isn't a citation inherit in the statement? I mean, you aren't calling for folks to cite the movie synopsis because that would be foolish. Yet a citation has requested to document the statement that a soldier described as his predicament as The KM test in the movie Dog Soldiers. Gee... I wonder where I'd go to verify that. Dan (talk) 16:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Some Wikipedia users do tend to be academic snobs. That is you shouldn't mention a work of popular art (including movies and TV or pictures) unless it has academically analyzed, ideally in a form unlikely to be revised or reprinted on frequent basis. Then you should cited that authoritative academic analysis.

The "Pro" aspect of this is that it is very easy to look up specific details via bibliographic references assuming you have the references handy...especially if you access university or major metropolitan libraries regularly. Plus the authority can tell you what your opinion should be - ideally with logical presentation of why. Back when academic works had to pass strict critical analysis based on the formal rules of logic and argument this had considerable value. Nowadays when such critique is considered non-PC, academic assertions are IMHO often no more reliable than the better hobbyists -- as was the case prior to the 1625 when author reputation (popularity) was often the first measure of the work. So in part this "requirement" is in part academic job preservation.

The "cons" include references that are inaccessible to the majority of people and works that are not yet analyzed in full. This is a great way of halting counterargument if not necessarily an ethical path to truth.69.23.121.234 (talk) 23:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

NO. You misunderstand entirely. It is NOT academic references, but notability. Does this have impact outside the readership of Star Trek? On non-Anglophone parts of the world? In science, business or fashion? It doesn't have to be Shakespeare- compare the influence to K-Pop:perhapd not musically sophisticated, but global, Cuvtixo (talk) 16:32, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

69.23.121.234 apparently hasn't read Notability Guidelines and is setting up a straw dog argument about those "PC academics", and championing cultural relativity on the side. An encyclopedia has to consider the importance over time and popularity and influence on other artists and/or everyday lives. Or else the information grows out of control, full of cruft. I'm going to say many Star Trek fans blur the importance of the story to their lives, with it's importance to the wider culture. Academic aren't your enemy here, the "real world" is. Cuvtixo (talk) 16:42, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

The Office s0913

Came here via The Office (U.S. TV series), S0913. It would be great to see mention of that reference. --Zaurus (talk) 01:40, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Per WP:IPCV you'd need a secondary source to establish that the reference is considered significant in some manner. DonIago (talk) 04:42, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

"Spirit of" translation for Maru

This page says that:

Maru (丸) is a common suffix for Japanese ship names and means "spirit [of]".

However, according to the linked Japanese ship naming convention article, "maru" literally means "circle." There are several possible explanations given for why it has become a commmon ship name affix, none of which involve the concept of "spirit of."

I don't speak Japanese, but clearly one of these explanations is wrong. --Jfruh (talk) 17:09, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Maybe neither is wrong exactly. Many words have alternative definitions based on context. In this case I suspect that circles are symbolically related to the ideal spirit in Japanese -- Wheel of reincarnation, prayer wheels, spirit wheels etc. From what little Japanese I know it would not be illogical if the most literal meaning was "circle" but that a secondary definition based on context was "spirit of" -- at least that makes sense of if "spirit" is taken in the sense of "essenence" or "having the inner properties of".69.23.121.234 (talk) 22:16, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the Maru suffix in Japanese ship names is in reference (and reverence) to Hakudo Maru, the Shinto god who taught humans how to build and use ships in the first place. -- Imladros (talk) 22:11, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Auto-archive?

Any objection to my setting up archiving for any thread on this page over, say, three years old? I'll give it at least a week before I go ahead and do so. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 15:51, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

I'll take the resounding silence as "no objections". DonIago (talk) 17:20, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Star Trek III: The Search for Spock

McCoy's response to Kirk's question as he watches the Enterprise re-enter the atmosphere is a clear reference to the Kobayashi Maru and I think it should be added to the main page. I've never wiki'd before... no idea if I'm doing this right. There's a clip of it on YouTube.h

While watching this tonight, I heard them reference the Kobayashi Maru. I will leave it to those more knowledgeable to append the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benakr (talk • contribs) 06:47, 25 May 2020 (UTC)