What are your controversial Star Trek opinions?

[MAGolding]

The five-year mission ended in 2270. TMP takes place in 2273.

It's really no more complicated than that.

Except that the dates given in the official Chronology chronology are quite dubious. They may be official, but that doesn't necessarily make them agree with the canon chronologicl date in the episodes and movies,

 

[Farscape One]

Three things.

First, it's quite likely Sisko was ineligible for promotion during the Dominion War due to him being directly responsible for keeping the Bajorans from joining the Federation. (Admiral Whatley said, "I could have your commission for this." Could very well have been a formal reprimand, keeping him from moving upward in rank for a while.)

Second, Sisko was Ross' adjutant during "SACRIFICE OF ANGELS", so he had the authority. (As we've seen elsewhere, position is the deciding factor over rank.)

Third, the plan was Sisko's, so it made sense for him to be the one in charge.

 

[Farscape One]

Except that the dates given in the official Chronology chronology are quite dubious. They may be official, but that doesn't necessarily make them agree with the canon chronologicl date in the episodes and movies,

In "Q2", Icheb's essay on 'Early Starfleet History' had Kirk's 5-year mission end in 2270.

It's in the episode. So... canon.

 

[cooleddie74]

Thank you.

Whether or not it makes sense to some of us is irrelevant. The year is in spoken canon and jibes with the rest of the franchise.