www.ditl.org

Very witty. However, "canon" as a term refers to what represents the "reality" of in-universe Star Trek, not to out-of-universe statements by the creators and license-holders.

Indeed, but even the writers don't have the power to decide what is canon and what isn't. If some thing is part of the whole franchise (ie not just made up by me or you and sticking 'Star Trek' before the name), it is up to any individual to decide what they view as canon, there is no 'rule' regarding it. Even widely accepted/unaccepted things don't make something canon or not.

If you want to be technical, only TOS, the first six films and the first five series of TNG are "proper" Trek canon, based on Roddenberry's statement that "it's not Star Trek until I say it's Star Trek".

Captain Seafort wrote:If you want to be technical, only TOS, the first six films and the first five series of TNG are "proper" Trek canon, based on Roddenberry's statement that "it's not Star Trek until I say it's Star Trek".

If his statement wasn't in one of those series, that is supposedly canon, then it is invalid.

Again, the vicious circle.

The only way you can do it is for individuals to decide on the overall franchise what is canon. If something is made for your entertainment, who is it for anyone - creator or otherwise, to tell you it is 'invalid'?

Thorin wrote:The only way you can do it is for individuals to decide on the overall franchise what is canon. If something is made for your entertainment, who is it for anyone - creator or otherwise, to tell you it is 'invalid'?

The owners of the intellectual rights to Star Trek. If they say that certain official productions are canon while others are not then tough - they own it, they can decide what's "real".

As for your comments regarding the official site and Rodenberry's statement, you clearly misunderstand the concept of canon, and didn't read my post above. Canon specifically refers to what is "real" within the Star Trek universe ie the capabilities of the technology depicted therein, and the events that occur. Statements regarding what is and what is not canon are not discussing those in-universe events directly and therefore are not covered by the concept.

Captain Seafort wrote:The owners of the intellectual rights to Star Trek. If they say that certain official productions are canon while others are not then tough - they own it, they can decide what's "real".

Again, neither is it up to you to decide who even gets to decide what is canon or what isn't canon in a make belief universe.

Statements regarding what is and what is not canon are not discussing those in-universe events directly and therefore are not covered by the concept.

I was been a bit pedantic for my own good, but the point remains that no person can tell you what is canon. Even the startrek.com website says (according to EAS) there is no strict definition on canon, and that it is an individuals decision to decide what part of a fiction is 'valid' for that fictional world.

If someone wants their own personnal canon with regards to which parts of Trek they like best then fine. In debates, however, there must be a standard definition in order to avoid confusion. The logical way to do this is to use the definition of the owners of Star Trek, expressed through the official site. This definition is currently limited to the broadcast material only.

Captain Seafort wrote:If someone wants their own personnal canon with regards to which parts of Trek they like best then fine. In debates, however, there must be a standard definition in order to avoid confusion.

I agree.

The logical way to do this is to use the definition of the owners of Star Trek, expressed through the official site. This definition is currently limited to the broadcast material only.

But this is not logical, each debate has its own place, and as we're having a debate on this forum, of DITL - which takes the Tech Manual as mostly canon, the standard thing would be to take that as canon.
Besides, as you said previously, even among the owners of Trek there is controversy over the canonity of various parts - Roddenberry's comments for one, 'Threshold' being another.

If we are to debate various matters in Trek, there should first be an established canon. But there is not, and that is where the problem comes. You cannot say there is an established canon - even if we used what the creators/owners say is canon for debates, it does not make what they say canon - the absolute of what is real within the universe. There is no absolute of validity or 'realness' in a fictional universe. It's all up to your own view.

Thorin wrote:But this is not logical, each debate has its own place, and as we're having a debate on this forum, of DITL - which takes the Tech Manual as mostly canon, the standard thing would be to take that as canon.

DITL specifically distinguishes between canon, non-canon official publications (including the TMs), and speculation. While the Tech Manuals are often useful for inspiring theories, or giving insight reagrding the producers ideas at the time, that doesn't mean they should be regarded as "real" Star Trek.

If we are to debate various matters in Trek, there should first be an established canon. But there is not, and that is where the problem comes. You cannot say there is an established canon - even if we used what the creators/owners say is canon for debates, it does not make what they say canon - the absolute of what is real within the universe. There is no absolute of validity or 'realness' in a fictional universe. It's all up to your own view.

Unless we take the owners' definition, any definition used would only be arbitrary. Whether we agree with it or not, whether the TMs, books, or any other material should be canon is irrelevent. What matters is having a definition that can be justified by logical arguments, such as originating with the legal owners of Trek, rather than the arbitrary "I like it".

Captain Seafort wrote:DITL specifically distinguishes between canon, non-canon official publications (including the TMs), and speculation. While the Tech Manuals are often useful for inspiring theories, or giving insight reagrding the producers ideas at the time, that doesn't mean they should be regarded as "real" Star Trek.

Indeed it does, but regardless, it uses what is given in the tech manual for the explanations - for all intents and purposes, on DITL, what is given in the tech manual is canon.

Unless we take the owners' definition, any definition used would only be arbitrary.

Indeed it would - which has been my point all along. That individuals can only decide their own 'canon'.

Whether we agree with it or not, whether the TMs, books, or any other material should be canon is irrelevent. What matters is having a definition that can be justified by logical arguments, such as originating with the legal owners of Trek, rather than the arbitrary "I like it".

Both arguements - that of using (for debate purposes only) the owner's canon, or that of using the 'situation/setting' of the debate's canon; that of DITL (thus including the tech manual) - are valid. Again, it comes down to setting a canon that is valid throughout, and you cannot say one is more valid than the other, or one definition of canon is better than the other.

Actually, the Kennedys have specifically differentiated the TM's and other publications from what is traditionally considered canon. And you're being academic - nobody is trying to tell you what to like or dislike; however, the owner of the franchise set a standard using an ecclesiastical term known as "canon." The definition of "canon" in the 'Trek-related sense is what Roddenberry said is officially accepted as "real" in-universe facts, which encompasses the on-screen evidence and does NOT include the TM's. This is not a debate over point-of-view; that's what the term "canon" means.

It seems that you're under the impression that "canon" refers to what fandom has accepted; for good or ill, however, that's not what it means.

Mikey wrote:It seems that you're under the impression that "canon" refers to what fandom has accepted; for good or ill, however, that's not what it means.

I can only assume you've not read my posts, as that is precisely the opposite of what I'm saying;

Mikey didn't read but Thorin wrote: it is up to any individual to decide what they view as canon, there is no 'rule' regarding it. Even widely accepted/unaccepted things don't make something canon or not.

Hmmm...

And as Seafort pointed out earlier, Rodenberry only said thait TOS and the first 5 seasons of TNG was canon, utterly negating the first part of your post.

Thorin wrote:I can only assume you've not read my posts, as that is precisely the opposite of what I'm saying;

Then how do you explain YOUR idea of each fan creating his own canon?

Mikey didn't read but Thorin wrote:

Hmm... I guess I did read that... refer to my response to your fallacious assertion above. And the simple response is - no. You're wrong. The word "canon" has a definition. That would be like saying that every single individual can decide for himself what the word "desk" means. I guess you could live that way if you want to, but you couldn't talk to anyone and you'd still be wrong.

utterly negating the first part of your post.

I even re-read my post to see if this part of yor rant had any merit, but nope.

Thorin wrote:And as Seafort pointed out earlier, Rodenberry only said thait TOS and the first 5 seasons of TNG was canon, utterly negating the first part of your post.

I also pointed out that that was if you wanted to be really technical, since Roddenberry was the creator of Star Trek.

Mikey wrote:It seems that you're under the impression that "canon" refers to what fandom has accepted; for good or ill, however, that's not what it means.

I can only assume you've not read my posts, as that is precisely the opposite of what I'm saying;

Mikey didn't read but Thorin wrote: it is up to any individual to decide what they view as canon, there is no 'rule' regarding it. Even widely accepted/unaccepted things don't make something canon or not.

Hmmm...

You're stating that each individual can decide what to consider canon. While that's viable for your own personal opinion of which Trek you think should be canon, both Mikey and myself are pointing out that in order to have a coherent definition for debate purposes we need to use the owners' definition.

Captain Seafort wrote: You're stating that each individual can decide what to consider canon. While that's viable for your own personal opinion of which Trek you think should be canon, both Mikey and myself are pointing out that in order to have a coherent definition for debate purposes we need to use the owners' definition.

That's not what Mikey was saying, but nevermind.
We do need a coherant definition for debate purposes - but again, like the other times I've pointed out, who says what is the 'best' canon? Or what is the most coherant? Or who even gets to decide what is canon? It is, like you said, arbitrary. Why should we use the owner's definition? Why not use a different definition, such as one that includes the tech manual, that is equally coherant and valid?