Kynes23: I don't know if you remember, but I've spoken to you a couple of times with regard to the "canon" status of ST novels. In
the discussion group you also may or may not remember, a question has arisen about the same status of the Star Trek Magazine. I'm
not sure if you know or not, but if you do: what is it? Is it official, or is it like the novels?

ORDOVER: Abosultely nothing is canon that is not on-screen.
ORDOVER: I don't know any way of stating that that is clearer.

Kynes23: Yeah, that's a pretty clear-cut answer. :-) So Paramount doesn't make
any distinction between "more official" and "less official"? It's either canon
and on-screen or it's bunk?

ORDOVER: There is no -off-screen- source of official information save to the extent, for instance, that the Encyclopedia draws
information from the shows - example...

ORDOVER: If, in the Encyclopedia, it says that the TOS Enterprise's serial number is 1701, then that's canonical, because it
accurately reflects information from the show.

ORDOVER: But speculations from the Encyclopedia - the italics stuff - aren't.

This position is further supported by the official Paramount website, specifically, on the following questions:

http://www.startrek.com/information/faq.asp?ID=1321

"As a rule of thumb, the events that take place within the live action episodes
and movies are canon, or official Star Trek facts."  (Indicates no distinction is made by Paramount between "official" and "canon".)

http://www.startrek.com/information/faq.asp?ID=1374
"There have been earlier versions of technical manuals, including 'Mr. Scott's Guide to the Enterprise' (Shane Johnson) and the
'Star Trek Starfleet Technical Manual' (Franz Joseph), but these books, although fun to read, were not written by production
personnel and are not considered 'canon.'"  (This page lists the TNG and DS9 TMs among these sources as well as computer games,
without making any point to distinguish the TMs as official -- because, as Mr. Ordover stated crystal-clearly, they are not.)

http://www.startrek.com/information/faq.asp?ID=1327

"The magazines Star Trek Communicator, Star Trek: The Magazine and Star Trek Monthly (UK) are all licensed by Viacom Consumer
Products and are not affiliated with STARTREK.COM."  (Star Trek Communicator is a fanclub e-mail newsletter, and Paramount here
seems to grant ST: The Magazine similar status, further supporting Mr. Ordover's statements.)

Clearly, ASVS has misunderstood Paramount's policy on officialdom in the ST universe for a great long while. This alarming turn of
events surprised me, and I decided to ask a prominent pro-ST debater his opinion on things:

Kynes: "Paramount and Lucasfilm's standing on canon/official is the ultimate word. We can vote to sort out things in matters of
confusion (i.e. EGs over novels) but we can't add sources they think are bunk (toys, novels in ST) or remove things that they say
are legit (Star Trek V, Christmas Special).

Now, without further explanation unless the answer is no, does this represent your position accurately and honestly?"

Lord Edam de Fromage: "Yes."

My duty was and is clear. Even Edam, one of the most steadfast ST supporters, felt that Paramount's policy overrode any past votes.
This has long been my feeling as well. Clearly, all printed material falls into the category of "sources they think are bunk", so we
can't use them. No vote necessary.

With such overriding consensus on both sides of the debate, and a go-ahead from the Council, the canon policy has been modified to
include the following items as invalid source materials:

-- The TNG TM
-- The DS9 TM
-- Star Trek: The Magazine
-- Star Trek Fact Files
-- Novels
-- Comics
-- The Star Trek Encyclopedia
-- The Star Trek Chronology

A note will also, of course, be included that these are just a few of the sources now disallowed; as per Mr. Ordover's statements
(who was speaking in his capacity as a Paramount official, and certainly overrides anything we might have to say on the subject) the
*only* things admissable as pro-ST evidence are the movies and episodes -- except the two novel exceptions granted on the Paramount
website, naturally.

The Rules have already been updated to reflect this; Strowbridge and I have begun examining the Past Threads to see which will have
to be updated to reflect the newly-discovered invalidity of the Technical Manuals. We have already come up with several candidates;
if any of you can think of more (Edam, your help in particular would be useful here) please post them here so we can discuss them
and perhaps draw some new conclusions.

If there are any questions about the new policy, its origins, or if you wish to request a copy of the full transcript, please e-mail
a Council member.
--
-LK!
[ ky...@choam.org ] [ MSN Messenger: ky...@choam.org ] [ AIM: Kynes23 ]

"Kynes is the devil."
 - Goomba [a Spacebattles baby]