The Official ASVS FAQ

D. The Rules of Evidence

Special thanks to Wayne Poe for providing a great deal of the quotes used to construct this section.

Introduction

Never has something so simple caused the need for such prolonged discussion. The endless circles on the issues of the rules of evidence will no doubt keep this group going until the twenty-second century. And yet, because this discussion is hinged on what evidence is provided, it is something that needs to be agreed upon before any rational discussion can take place.

ASVS Policty

The details are presented in the R&R. This page will try to explain the details. As is stated in Section A of the FAQ, the R&R presents the official rules of engagement, not this FAQ.

General

1. How do you decide what's "real?"

The group's decision was to base it on what the owner of the property feels is "real" Star Trek and Star Wars. This means that we follow the policy of Paramount for Star Trek and Lucasfilm for Star Wars. An alternate approach, using what the creator feels is real, has been rejected. For one thing, the creators are nearly impossible (in the case of Lucas) or completely impossible (in the case of Roddenberry) to contact regarding what they feel is the policy; we have to try to guess based on what they say in interviews. However, the owners have means to clarify or be asked about their policies and are more capable of responding to the individuals. Also, in the case of Star Trek, Roddenberry effectively eliminates most of their evidence with such lines as "It's not Star Trek unless I say it's Star Trek."

2. What does "canon," "official," and "inadmissable" mean?

These are the three levels of the information heirarchy. Canon refers to absolute and unquestionable truth, which includes things like "Alderaan was blown up by the Death Star" and "Comm. Riker plays the trombone." Official (also called "quasi-canon") refers to things which are accepted as true unless they contradict canon. For example, if an official source said Darth Vader's cape is red, it would be considered wrong on that point, but correct on everything else. Finally, inadmissable is just what you might think, evidence that is not accepted as being real, period.

3. What is continuity?

Continuity refers to the "real" stories of both Star Trek and Star Wars. It includes all levels of admissible evidence. Many times a source refers to this as canon, but since this is a category of evidence, "continuity" is used to differntiate it and avoid confusion.

4. I have an argument/theory that is based on canon, but it conflicts with quasi-canon. Who wins?

Every effort should be made to agree with all evidence, regardless of its degree of canonicity. If this is impossible, or reasonably impossible, canon wins out. However, if a reasonable theory can be constructed that incorporates the conflicting evidence, that one wins out.
Examples:
- Canon evidence says that the Death Star "carries a firepower greater than half the star fleet." Theory 1 says "This is referring only to the Turbolasers." Theory 2 says "This is referring to the power of the superlaser, because that's what it says in the Behind The Magic CD." Since the official evidence is contradicting an interpretation rather than the actual canon, Theory 2 is correct.
- Canon evidence shows that Owen Lars is Anakin Skywalker's stepbrother. Official evidence states that Owen is Obi-Wan Kenobi's brother. Theory 3 says "Therefore, Obi-Wan is Anakin's half brother also." Theory 4 says "There's nothing that suggests this is the case; Obi-Wan isn't named Lars and shows no interest in Tatooine, and the original evidence pre-dates the creation of the canon film." Since the canon evidence shows an irreconcilable conflict, Theory 4 is correct.
- Canon evidence shows Anakin lost his right arm fighting Darth Tyranus. Mara Jade, however, tells us Vader lost it after the destruction of the Death Star for failing the Emperor. Theory 5 says, "Mara Jade knew the Emperor very well, she must be correct." Theory 6 says, "We saw Tyranus cut it off; the book must be wrong." Theory 7 says, "Tyranus did cut it off. Mara was probably told this by the Emperor or one of his minions to instill in her the fear of failure." Theories 6 and 7 are both correct, but Theory 7 would be preferable because it doesn't eliminate evidence.

Star Trek

1. What is Star Trek's policy of what is canon, official, and inadmissable?

All the movies, all episodes of the original series, The Next Generation, Deep Space Nine, Voyager, and Enterprise, and the novels "Mosaic" and "Pathways" by Jeri Taylor are all considered canon (there are some details from the Animated Series "Yesteryear" that have also entered canon).
The official sources are limited to the descriptions of on screen events in certain additional works, such as the Star Trek Encyclopedia, the Next Generation Technical Manual, and the Deep Space Nine Technical Manual. Any other references within those books to events, items, or applications of that material are considered ignored. For example, the Encyclopedia states that a kiloton of gallicite could completely refit Voyager's warp coils, which is what was stated in the Voyager episode Blood Fever and is therefore official. The fact that the Encyclopedia expands on this to say that it is part of the construction material, while a reasonable supposition, is not accepted as official fact (this fact is instead inferred through logical reasoning of canon facts, as opposed to granting the stated fact official status; a fine hairsplitting, but an important one nonethless).
Inadmissable sources include anything else. This includes, but is not limited to, the novels, comic books, video games, Star Trek Magazine, Star Trek Fact Files, and the aforementioned books. Novelizations are NOT permitted either, even if they do depict canon events within them.

2. Where do the episode scripts fit in?

The episode scripts are another example of a source that is not shown on screen, and so the rules apply as they always do. The script is correct only where it directly reflects what is shown on screen, otherwise it is incorrect. Since the script is the basis of what is shown on the screen, it is usually correct, although if you are unsure of the accuracy of a remark from the script you may want to consider checking the episode to be certain.

3. Why are things like "Mosaic" included in the list of canon material?

The specific mentioning of those items in the list of canon items by Paramount shows that they must be canon. Paramount's Policy includes them, and so we do as well.

4. Why are Star Trek novels not allowed?

This is Paramount's official policy, which we abide by. This is reflected in two sources, the first being John Ordover, editor of all Star Trek novels. He stated in no uncertain terms that the novels are not considered part of the Star Trek Universe. You can read these messages as well as a posting to usenet by him. Also, this is reflected in StarTrek.com's FAQ. This should make the point quite clear: Star Trek novels, while fun reading, are not considered part of Trek history, and are therefore inadmissable.

5. But John Ordover doesn't work for Paramount!

On the contrary, Mr. Ordover wrote two episodes of Deep Space Nine. One he composed the story for (It's Only A Paper Moon), the other he wrote the script for (Starship Down). So, not only does he handle the tasks of editing all the Star Trek novels, he has his hand in producing the canon episodes.

6. John Ordover's just a glorified proofreader!

They don't call the proofreader "senior editor," they call him/her a "copy editor." This is like saying there's no difference between a Sergeant Major and a Major General. The senior editor is not involved in the placement of commas, he/she is involved in issues related to publication, solicitation, and in this case, with the license related to the product being created.

7. Why aren't books like the Next Generation Technical Manual included in canon or official?

In a surprising revelation, the aforementioned John Ordover clarified Paramount's policy of what is real and not real Star Trek. The revelation was that other books, such as the Technical Manual, aren't considered part of Star Trek either, merely speculation (this can really be applied to any Star Trek source book). Where it is shown on screen it is accepted as being correct, but otherwise it's just at best an educated guess. He confirmed this in two seperate conversations.

8. But the introduction says that it's official! Why aren't you including it?

The Authors' Introduction describes itself as being "pretty official," because of its writers. It also states that it is deliberately incomplete, that it isn't required reading, and that the writers are not bound by what it says. In other words, it is seen as a handy reference guide for ideas, but if it conflicts with a potential story it will be ignored. So, the Introduction only reinforces Mr. Ordover's previous comment, that wherever it describes what is being shown on screen accurately is considered official, but otherwise it remains speculation, and therefore inadmissable.

Star Wars

1. What is the Star Wars' policy of what is canon, official, and inadmissable?

The movies, scripts of the movies, novelizations of the movies, the radio dramas, and the Incredible Cross Sections (in that order) are canon.
Official sources are novels (and other published stories), West End Games' gaming material, the Essential Guides series, the Behind the Magic CD-ROM, the lore of the Star Wars CCG, and generally most things which are published and authorized by Lucasfilm, including games (although it is understood that the mechanics of the game have to be adjusted for the sake of making the game fun; for example, while the lore of a Chewbacca or AT-AT CCG card is accurate, the idea that Chewie is more powerful than a walker is absurd. Likewise, an RPG like Knights of the Old Republic would have its non-game-based information admissible, while its material for the interaction as inadmissible). They are all equal, but in case of a disagreement between the sources, the accepted procedure is to try and sort out which information is "more" official. For example, the Behind the Magic CD-ROM would be accepted over the WEG gaming material, simply because Lucasfilm published the BTM CD. Also, novels override the Essential Guides when discussing the same material, simply because the EGs draw from the novels as source material. However, this should be done only when there is an irreconcilable conflict.
Inadmissable is the Star Wars Holiday Special and items marked with the infinities symbol.

2. Why are Star Wars novels allowed when Star Trek's aren't?

Lucasfilm has a different set of rules than Paramount does, in this case including the novels in their official universe, often referred to as the Expanded Universe. Lucasfilm has stated that everything is looked over, and that the author's are set severe guidelines in their stories, and will only be published if they are acceptable to Lucasfilm, even if the novel is already finished. Lucas has set specific boundaries on what the author's can and can't write about so they won't contradict future films. What's more, the novel's characters, events, and devices are included in official releases, such as the Star Wars Chronology, the Behind the Magic, and even in the films themselves (such as the Outrider appearing in the Star Wars Special Edition). For this reason, Star Wars novels are considered Official sources.

3. How did you develop this canon policy?

By examining unambiguous statements of canon policy provided by Lucasfilm personnel. Most of the canon list comes from one interview, and the addition of the ICS comes from another.
The official, or quasi-canon, list is now based on the unambiguous statements of Leland Chee, the Lucasfilm continuity guru, the "indispensible... the 'go-to' guy whenever esoteric questions come up." (Sue Rostoni, Managing Editor at Lucasfilm).
We've also been told that Episode III is going to make it very difficult for those who want to exclude the EU to defend their position.
We've even been given some specifics for nebulous material. The Marvel Comics books from twenty years ago have, in fact, been absorbed into the continuity. If these books, which were written back before ESB and ROTJ, nevermind any attempt to maintain continuity, are considered part of the story of Star Wars, how much so the best-selling novels and meticulously researched "non-fiction" that is used as a reference for the films themselves.
In a particularly funny bit, a challenge was made against the validity of the Databank on the official Star Wars website. The official website, hard as it is to imagine, contains official facts. It's an "online holocron of information, a repository of lore about [the] galaxy." Even if you don't agree with that, remember Leland Chee's statement: "By everything else I mean EVERYthing else."
Some confusion exists because sometimes "canon" is used when "continuity" is meant. However, the one clear point being made is that they remain a part of the overall story of what is Star Wars.
The Chee statement has caused some confusion regarding the categorization of the ICS, which was declared canon in the Star Wars Insider. His statement would move the ICS, unless it's in the films, down to the level of quasi-canon rather than canon. In the end, it probably makes little difference whether it's the lowest canon source or the highest official source; aces over twos or twos over aces, a full house still beats a flush.

4. What is this about a "parallel universe?"

This common rebuttal among extremists hangs on an out-of-context quote by George Lucas, wherin he refers to the Expanded Universe as the "parallel universe." However, by taking the quote out of context, they are reading in an entirely different meaning to what he's trying to say (their arguments to dismiss it are laughably transparent; one said that part was an "ad-lib," the other that "intrude" is nebulous; try finding anybody who thinks that "parallel universe" is a more concrete concept than "intrude.").

5. I don't agree; he obviously means that the EU is not part of Star Wars.

The opinion of extremists is obviously built on the flimsiest of evidence. It is built upon two ideas: the parallel universe quote, and the belief that Lucas is a trump card that defeats any opposing statement. In essence, this is the Lucas Magic Bullet that is used to try and kill any opposing argument.
The problem with the entire approach is that it requires, well, stupidity; I'm sorry, but there's no other word for it. In every discussion given on the continuity, not one person has ever said that the EU is outside of it; in fact they repeatedly tell us it is. The line of reasoning behind the extremists is that Lucas, as owner of the company, gets the higher authority... so, if he has the higher authority, why isn't he correcting his employees. They've been telling us for a decade now that the EU is part of continuity; they're still telling us it's part of continuity. Why has he not gotten this point straightened out? He's made it clear to them there are topics he doesn't want explored, and they all listen, but somehow none of them hear him when he says "oh, and by the way, the EU isn't part of continuity."
The fact is, this argument has been constructed because of the difficulty in addressing Lucas directly; while the fan relation personnel, keepers of the continuity, editors, etc. are all rather approachable, getting ahold of George Lucas is next to impossible. After all, that's why he hired all these people in the first place! By taking the approach that Lucas cannot be contradicted, it renders any attempt to clarify his statement (for those who can't see what he's saying in the first place) impossible for anyone other than a person who can't be reached to clarify it. A perfect defensive circle, if not for the fact that it's based on flawed reasoning.

6. But Lucas never explicitly says the EU is part of continuity?

And he never explicitly says that it's not. And yet, some think this is a valid argument.
Lucas repeatedly says that the EU intrudes on his version of Star Wars, he says that Star Wars goes on without him, he says that the stories of Star Wars are larger than what he has presented, he says that Star Wars will only continue beyond the six films in licensed properties, he places material in the films for the EU, he brings the EU into his films constantly. No, he doesn't explicitly say it, but frankly, only those with their hands over their eyes can't see the truth.

7. What is the "foggy window" argument?

Ah, another failed attempt to take a quote out of context. This is part of the famous (at least, by continuity standards) Cerasi quote, wherin the role of the EU material is discussed: "The analogy is that every piece of published Star Wars fiction is a window into the 'real' Star Wars universe. Some windows are a bit foggier than others. Some are decidedly abstract."
As usual, this interpretation depends upon ignoring the context as a whole, which is that all the material is part of continuity unless it has the "infinities" logo. "Returning to the question at hand. Yes, Star Wars Gamer is part of continuity, though as game material, there is room for interpretation. Only specific articles marked with the 'Infinities' logo within the magazine should be considered out of continuity."
What's more, this line of reasoning is based on ascribing characteristics for the entire set of EU material based upon the potential faultiness of its most abstract parts. Does the obvious fogginess surrounding Kyle Katarn's escapades in stealing the Death Star plans in the Dark Trooper video game mean that we should hold equal skepticism for the Incredible Cross Sections, a book described as "represent[ing] the most thorough research ever done on these vehicles" and considered "non-fiction" by Lucasfilm? In point of fact, the work on those items was done meticulously to represent an accurate examination of the world of the films.
The foggy window argument, therefore, is an attempt to paint all EU material as being unreliable, rather than seeing that it's an obvious metaphor to understand how to reconcile the wealth of material it is composed of.

8. Ah, but they're talking about "Expanded Universe Continuity," not "Star Wars Continuity!"

Leland Chee made this point crystal clear:

Q: A clarification is needed if the C and G level are separated, i.e. do they form independent canon or are both part of the overall continuity?

A: There is one overall continuity.

One continuity, not the "internal licensing continuity" like some would hope.

9. Well, maybe he means-

No, he doesn't; don't be stupid.

10. Well, doesn't all this mean that George Lucas can overrule the EU? Doesn't that make it unreliable?

Lucas can and has overruled the EU in the films. That is an option he has reserved for himself; the purpose for the continuity is to ensure that others don't overrule it. It's again an example of how Lucas, as owner, makes his feelings known to his employees ("I may overrule what you're doing") that throws the whole parallel universe issue into question.
Lucas has the option of ignoring the EU, but so what? He has the option of ignoring canon! And I'm not even refering to the novels, I'm referring to the films. For example, he presents two different circumstances surrounding the death of Greedo; to whit, who shot first? One clearly shows Han shooting first, the other shows Greedo. Can both be right? Of course not.

10a. The Special Editions override the originals though. That's a bad example.

Even if you don't like it, let's take another look. In the original Star Wars, we are told that Darth Vader betrayed and murdered Luke's father. However, as time passed, we are told that Vader actually is Luke's father. It made for an interesting plot twist and some excellent confrontations, and Lucas knew it. However, it required him to, in essence, ignore canon. He threw it out because it stood in the way of a good story.

10b. Ah, but that's not a contradiction! Ben was telling him the truth "from a certain point of view."

Which is precisely the rationale given us by Cerasi in the "foggy window" quote.
Ben's entire explanation was to try to explain away the obvious contradiction. He does so, in this case, by saying that what he said was a metaphor. As an explanation, it works. Yet some hear people who say "The quote about the reactor being a 'small sun' disagrees, and so must be a metaphor" and immediately clamor that the conflicts are irreconcilable, or that the explanation is ad hoc. Lucas could have simply had Ben say "I lied to you; I had to because you weren't ready to hear the truth." Instead he has Ben try to explain away the problem, which is the approach we (and Lucasfilm) take. Don't throw out the baby with the bath water.

11. Well, if there's such disagreement, why not just discount the EU? Are the contents of a few novels and games that important?

Ah, but there's the problem. Those fighting the EU aren't fighting the inclusion of Expanded Universe materials, they are fighting the technical manuals (which is a whole different animal). Very few people even bother themselves with ridiculous "quantum armor," most will happily dismiss the Galaxy Gun, Star Forge, and Suncrusher for a good old fashioned Death Star, and most could care less about Kyp Durron and his ilk. No, the problem (for them) isn't with the EU itself, but with the technical manuals that they wish to lump into it that paint a picture of power that some don't want to hear (and some will; one long-time Trek supporter, upon reading the AOTC ICS, surrendered; the jig was up, and he was man enough to admit it). By silencing "the most thorough research ever done," some hope to then use the lack of information to construct their own fantasy interpretations (throw out disagreeing evidence, then use the lack of evidence to justify doing what you like; seem par for the course yet?).
As an aside, it's funny that, five years ago, militant Trekkies like Timothy Jones were trying to throw out the novels and keep just the manuals. Now, if they could accomplish the reverse, it would be a mega victory. The technical books have done more damage than the novels ever did.

Vs. Issues

1. You have different standards for Star Trek and Star Wars!

Actually, we don't; the owners do. Our policy is to adhere to whatever their policy is.
Star Trek is owned by Paramount, which is part of Viacom. The late Gene Roddenberry never had any control over the product that wasn't extended to him by the company. As a result, the company doesn't handle like a creator, but like a licensed property. This isn't an attempt to paint Paramount as some unique, money-grubbing jerks; in fact, this approach is rather typical of licensed products (compare the Incredible Hulk comic book, television series, cartoon, comic strip, and movie and just try to establish some kind of continuity; you can't even get the main character's name right!). There is nothing wrong with what Paramount is doing with the licensing (except in cases when the property is attached to cheap junk, but again, that is certainly not unique to Star Trek); their choice not to incorporate the licenses into the continuity is a perfectly reasonable decision.
What makes Star Wars unique is that it is owned by Lucasfilm, a company controlled by the franchise's creator. As a result, the creator also has unlimited control over what is done with it; he could decide that not one more Star Wars related item be licensed right now, and no one could stop him. Since it was Lucas' goal in creating Star Wars to establish a modern mythology, trying to create a fully-integrated universe, while a full time job, would certainly fit into that vision. His choice to use his company's resources towards that end differs from Paramounts approach. Neither one is "wrong" for doing it their own way, nor are we wrong for choosing to do it their way.
By the way, I've learned that JMS, the creator of Babylon 5, takes a similar approach to Lucasfilm; the material in the licensed products are carefully controlled and included in his overall continuity. Again, that doesn't really reflect on Paramount, it just shows that Lucas isn't alone in his POV.

2. But, you include novels and manuals for Star Wars, but not Star Trek. Doesn't that seem rather unbalanced?

Is three years of the original series, seven years of Next Generation, seven years of Deep Space Nine, seven years of Voyager, four years of Enterprise, and ten motion pictures not enough to balance out a hundred or so books? Star Trek footage has Star Wars footage outnumbered over sixty to one; is that not enough?

3. I don't agree with your rules.

Well, here's what you can do:
- Start a (rational) debate on the subject of continuity
- Debate within the confines of our rules, even if you don't agree with them.
- Don't debate
Here's what you can't do:
- Try to debate without adhering to ASVS continuity policy
Otherwise, you'll open yourself up to scorn and ridicule... and frankly, you'll deserve it.

4. Your rules were created by a Warsie majority! I want rules from an IMPARTIAL person.

This is not a frequently asked question, but I will address it anyway. The rules are actually quite simple: we will follow the canon policies of Lucasfilm and Paramount. What would an impartial person say; that we should make up our own? We have that right (as does every fan), but isn't that rather arbitrary? There are many points of canon admissibility that we disagree about (i.e. the TNG Tech Manuals, the Holiday Special, etc.) but the group, Trek, Neutral, and Wars alike, feels that the overall principle is sound.

5. I refuse to follow your stupid rules!

Then you will be mocked by all sides and treated like a troll.

Final Thoughts

Maintaining the ASVS FAQ has roughly as many demands as the Minister of War for Greenland. It's a piddley responsibility, but one nonetheless. That being said, I think the above exercise is the greatest foray into geekdom I've ever been forced to make; to have to sit here and have to present evidence to show that, hey, maybe the stuff from the official website might just be considered part of the Star Wars universe shows just how far some opponent's to truth are willing to go to perpetuate their fantasies. If you still don't accept it, sorry, but this is as far as duty takes me.