I can't believe that there is actually a discussion of "evidence" and "proof" going on here about what was Kirk's first command. I love to debate Trek
minutiae as much as the next guy but, c'mon, this is a freakin' work of fiction. There is no
truth about Kirk's first command because Kirk doesn't exist. Therefore, what we're really dealing with here is everyone's opinion and interpretation, even if that opinion or interpretation comes from Gene Roddenberry or Bob Justman.
The problem here is that if we're going to discuss a work of fiction in terms of what did or did not happen to the characters, we have to all be working off the same frame of reference. This isn't real life where you have scientific laws to adhere to in doing research. This is fiction where we can pick and choose what we go by. Are we going strictly by what has appeared on-screen and nothing else? Are we using supporting documents such as the writer's guide or "The Making of Star Trek"? Are we including novels? How about the animated series? Etc. etc. etc.
And folks here do not seem to be able to agree upon the standard that is going to be used. And until such time as an agreement can be reached on that, these discussions are going to go nowhere. And they are especially going to go nowhere, and cease to be entertaining and fun, if what we end up with a thread of "my evidence is better than your evidence" type posts.
All IMHO, of course.