You are in the same spot I am with this, in that things like Sherlock Holmes, or Shakespeare, or any form of folk retellings have had recastings over the many years, with each actor portraying those characters in various ways.No, simply no.
James T. Kirk is most definitely not a historical figure.
And Star Trek episodes are not *Thermian singsong delivery* " historical documents. "
Star Trek is fiction. The universe and characters it portrays are imaginary.
At most, Jim Kirk is a figure of modern folklore.
And characters in folk retellings are subject to reinterpretation and reexamination.
Ellie Norwood's portrayal of Sherlock Holmes differs from Arthur Wontner's, who differs from Basil Rathbone's, who differs from Peter Cushing's, who differs from John Neville, who differs from Douglas Wilmer, who differs from Christopher Plummer, who differs from Nicol Williamson, who differs from Jeremy Brett, who differs from Robert Downey, Jr., who differs from Benidorm Cabbagepatch, all of whom differ in significant respectds from Arthur Conan Doyle's literary version while sharing similarities with him.
We're talking about creative dramatic arts, not documentary arts.
Even with historical figures, you have had many people portraying Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, Winston Churchill, Queen Victoria, etc. with a lot of those actors putting a slight variation on those people, despite documentation on how these people spoke, walked, acted, etc.
Funny how people who are fans of a franchise built on open-mindedness are the most closed minded.