Canon vs. non-canon SG informations about names of races

[TheVoidDragon]

GateWorld just tweeted about canon complexity: https://twitter.com/GateWorld/status/988974975573901312

That article seems helpful, but i've seen a lot of people say things like "MGM never said the TV show is officially part of the same universe as the movie, so they aren't! The contradictions prove they're different" - quite a few people seem to think they're alternate universes or something along those lines. Unfortunately without actual quotes i expect some people will still continue to say that sort of thing, even though that isn't how canon works.

[Darren]

Really interesting thread, gang -- I've just come across it a few days after writing that article on Stargate canon and how we make decisions to try and keep the Omnipedia as strictly canon as possible.

https://www.gateworld.net/wiki/Stargate_Canon

I've been asked to add some documentation to it, which I will do as I am able to dig up official, on-the-record statements from MGM and TPTB. (Brad's first public statements about Infinity were in a 2002 fan Q&A at GateWorld.)

I have recently (March 2018) had a conversation with MGM Consumer Products about the question of canon, especially as it pertains to the tie-ins (novels, comics, RPG, etc.) that their department is responsible for licensing. Let me share their position as it was relayed to me.

"Canon" is the show(s). Licensed merchandise is reviewed to make sure they "fit" in the established universe -- that they are in the "spirit" of Stargate (e.g. there is no misuse of characters). Jack should "sound" like Jack. But this doesn't canonize a piece of work; canon is "static" until there are further shows produced. Novels, comics, etc. extend the universe with creative and engaging stories of what might be possible; they don't add to canon.

(Note that while this conversation didn't touch on the 1994 film at all, IMO "Children of the Gods" and the subsequent use of film elements -- from actors like Erick Avari to references to individual moments, like Daniel telling Chaka "This is how I met my father-in-law" -- presume that the movie is canon.)

[Darren]

I have just checked this wikipedia website. I became so excited that finally I have found some informations about such races and planets which were never named in the tv shows. Then I started to worry that Stargate:Worlds, Stargate:Infinity and all the other SG-1/Atlantis books, comics and mobil games are not part of the official canon. Or are they? Because earlier they stated that only Stargate : Infinity is not part of the BW established canon, so all the other infos are official from other SG resources?

FWIW names such as "Unity" and "Oannes" do come from dialogue in the episodes themselves.

In some cases this simply requires a bit of shorthand and/or supposition -- e.g. the crystals in "Cold Lazarus" say that they are "Energy. Unity. You would describe me thus." That's not quite the same as saying "Hi, my name's Jeffrey, our race is called 'Unity.'" But it's a short hop from canonical dialogue to a workable name for the species.

I hesitate to say anything critical about the SG Command wiki, since GW runs a competing encyclopedia. But it is safe to say that the differences between the wiki and GW's Omnipedia is that the latter works to catalog the Stargate universe in a strictly canonical fashion (and the shows' writers themselves have utilized it over the years as a sort of working show bible). The wikia site catalogs the "extended universe" of non-canonical material. Those are just different sorts of animals.

I do think that people should be wise to this, and that the wiki should revise its documentation to reflect the fact that (per MGM Consumer Products) licensed merch is not canon. Otherwise we have the situation fandom currently faces, which is tons of non-canonical material subtly seeping its way into fans' work and subconsciousness. That the wiki represents its information as canon is a problem.

[thekillman]

Really interesting thread, gang -- I've just come across it a few days after writing that article on Stargate canon and how we make decisions to try and keep the Omnipedia as strictly canon as possible.

Thank you, for explaining neatly in an article how canon works. It may seem trivial, but many people get what canon means wrong because they fail to understand that we're looking at material that gets produced at various levels and can change between those levels.

I mostly appreciate the use of certain examples (e.g. Walter), but also acknowledging the reality of the series (e.g. scripts are the first step not the last, anything not strictly shown on screen can be ignored).

[NickEast]

FWIW names such as "Unity" and "Oannes" do come from dialogue in the episodes themselves.

In some cases this simply requires a bit of shorthand and/or supposition -- e.g. the crystals in "Cold Lazarus" say that they are "Energy. Unity. You would describe me thus." That's not quite the same as saying "Hi, my name's Jeffrey, our race is called 'Unity.'" But it's a short hop from canonical dialogue to a workable name for the species.

I hesitate to say anything critical about the SG Command wiki, since GW runs a competing encyclopedia. But it is safe to say that the differences between the wiki and GW's Omnipedia is that the latter works to catalog the Stargate universe in a strictly canonical fashion (and the shows' writers themselves have utilized it over the years as a sort of working show bible). The wikia site catalogs the "extended universe" of non-canonical material. Those are just different sorts of animals.

I do think that people should be wise to this, and that the wiki should revise its documentation to reflect the fact that (per MGM Consumer Products) licensed merch is not canon. Otherwise we have the situation fandom currently faces, which is tons of non-canonical material subtly seeping its way into fans' work and subconsciousness. That the wiki represents its information as canon is a problem.

Great! Another one who thinks like me! It never occurred to me to consider that the Omnipedia is more-or-less completely accurate about canon. I didn't even know that the writers consulted it, that's cool. I think the reason why I normally referred to the Wiki is simply because I find the whole structure of it much more friendly to use (like Wikipedia itself). This is no offense to GW of course, it was always a matter of perspective and preference.

I realized recently after making a number of posts on SGC, and responding to a number of people asking questions (though it's possible I may have slipped up on occasion) that I'm a walking encyclopedia on Stargate. And I would love to create, or work on, a Wiki that accurately records all the material of Stargate in a way that separates all the levels of canon, much like what Wookiepedia was/is doing (especially prior to the Canon/Legends split). Unfortunately, I haven't managed to attract other interested parties to do that, which is why it's just wishful thinking.

But it's at least great to see that GW is sharing this information and adding clarity to the whole canon/continuity debate.

[WraithTech]

The source hierarchy section is particularly useful. While we are speaking about wikis and information on the races in this thread, misgendering Wraith with the pronoun "it" is not canon and violates sources 1, 2, and 3 in the source hierarchy.

Source 1: On-screen dialogue
Both Wraith and the New Lanteans refer to the males with he/him and the Queens as she/her. This includes the masked warriors.
Examples:
WRAITH: Put him with the others. (referring to masked warrior)
WRAITH: Wake her. (referring to the Queen)
WRAITH: He is in a holding cell. He completed the recalibration that was required. (referring to Todd)
McKAY: Hey, where's Todd? SHEPPARD: He escaped. (referring to Todd)
https://www.gateworld.net/atlantis/s...ar/transcript/

Source 2: On-screen visual cues:
The masked warriors have certain types of armor pieces and the Queens have curvy features.

Source 3: On-screen episode credits:
The Lost Tribe's cast credits state "Male Wraith"
https://www.gateworld.net/atlantis/s5/the-lost-tribe/

Whenever I quote someone misgendering/violating canon, I use [sic] to denote the error. Example: "Ronon promptly runs towards it [sic] and aims his blaster at its [sic] head."

Additionally, misgendering makes Stargate look out-of-touch. One does not see Ninja Turtle Leonardo nor Transformers Megatron being mislabelled "it."

[Platschu]

Darren : Thanks for the update, it is really useful.

http://stargate.wikia.com/wiki/Fanta...ate_Season_One
http://stargate.wikia.com/wiki/Starg...ate_Season_Two
So these were the resources for extra informations about such old SG-1 episodes. They have named most of the planets, the smaller races, even the unknonw Goa'uld characters.

[Darren]

The source hierarchy section is particularly useful. While we are speaking about wikis and information on the races in this thread, misgendering Wraith with the pronoun "it" is not canon and violates sources 1, 2, and 3 in the source hierarchy.

I think that's right. There's also something morally dubious about referring to members of a sentient species (let alone one that has genders) as "it."

So these were the resources for extra informations about such old SG-1 episodes. They have named most of the planets, the smaller races, even the unknonw Goa'uld characters.

I've seen a couple people suggest that Brad endorsed the old RPG books as canon years ago; I have no knowledge of this myself. They enjoyed a sort of pride of place because they were more or less the first licensed product with any such story/continuity details in them (published years before the first SG-1 comics).

The question then becomes whether the show's writers ever respected them as canon, or explicitly contradicted them. Somebody with the books in hand might be able to study them for us. But in my years of being in contact with Bridge I never heard mention of them as a source of canonical information. So there's the practical matter of the (likely) fact that no one ever treated them as canon.

Assuming there are any contradictions in later seasons of the shows, that would set up the dilemma of a produced episode of TV being in violation of supposed canon. Do we eliminate that episode from canon as a result? I think it makes more sense to conclude that the books were de facto de-canonized.

(Again ... this depends on IF Brad ever said that about the RPG, and IF there were any later contradictions by the show. I don't know that either of those things are true.)

[NickEast]

I've seen a couple people suggest that Brad endorsed the old RPG books as canon years ago; I have no knowledge of this myself. They enjoyed a sort of pride of place because they were more or less the first licensed product with any such story/continuity details in them (published years before the first SG-1 comics).

The question then becomes whether the show's writers ever respected them as canon, or explicitly contradicted them. Somebody with the books in hand might be able to study them for us. But in my years of being in contact with Bridge I never heard mention of them as a source of canonical information. So there's the practical matter of the (likely) fact that no one ever treated them as canon.

Assuming there are any contradictions in later seasons of the shows, that would set up the dilemma of a produced episode of TV being in violation of supposed canon. Do we eliminate that episode from canon as a result? I think it makes more sense to conclude that the books were de facto de-canonized.

(Again ... this depends on IF Brad ever said that about the RPG, and IF there were any later contradictions by the show. I don't know that either of those things are true.)

Infodump coming: What happened to the Stargate between 1928, when it was discovered in Giza, and 1945, when it was in America and "first" activated after which Ernest Littlefield disappeared?

Well, after the Stargate was discovered, it was brought to the Egyptian Museum in Berlin, where Langford started doing experiments to learn how it works. He never succeeded due to lack of funds, and then Hitler came to power. Fearing the Nazis, Langford fled to America with his daughter. Meanwhile, Hitler, being obsessed by the occult, created a team to study and activate the gate, or "Doorway to Heaven".

The DHD, having been found in 1906, was recovered by the team and used to successfully activate the Stargate. A team went through and discovered a planet controlled by Nirrti, which they dubbed "Himmel", or "Heaven". During the European conquest, the Nazis also conquered Himmel and colonized it, forcing Nirrti to abandon it.

Meanwhile, Erwin Rommel disagreed with Hitler about how he used the Stargate and arranged for it and all the other artifacts to be transported to Rostock, while leaving the DHD behind to prevent anyone from using the gate ever again.

In the US, Langford informed the government about the Stargate. The OSS eventually intercepted Rommel's requisition orders and intercepted the transport before leaving on a ship to Rostock. Instead, the gate and the artifacts were transported aboard a fishing vessel under Swedish flag to the UK, where it was then flown to the US in early 1944 (try to find a plane in the 40s that can carry a 6 meter diameter ring that weighs 29000 metric tons).

Once the Stargate arrived in the US, President Roosevelt ordered Langford to find out if it could be used as a weapon, and Langford reluctantly agreed. Without a DHD, progress was slow, until in January 1945 when he, with the help of Ernest Littlefield, was able to establish a lock.

And the rest is, as they say, history...

Suffice to say that Stargate: Continuum effectively erased all this, confirming that the Stargate was shipped to America in 1939 precisely to prevent the Nazis from getting their hands on it. Though I suspect the writers on Origins likely read this story and were inspired by it.

PS: You can still get a scanned PDF of the source book and the "First Steps" expansion on DriveThruRPG. Don't know about the other three books. I found them somewhere once and kept them in my library since I can't officially purchase them anywhere anymore, at least not that I could find.

[TheVoidDragon]

(Note that while this conversation didn't touch on the 1994 film at all, IMO "Children of the Gods" and the subsequent use of film elements -- from actors like Erick Avari to references to individual moments, like Daniel telling Chaka "This is how I met my father-in-law" -- presume that the movie is canon.)

The shows very obviously make plenty of references and assumptions that rely on the movie being canon to the show, but unfortunately to a lot of people elsewhere seem to take issue with that. It's a big problem over on the Stargate Reddit sub at least, where most of the time questions regarding canon are mentioned people tend to say "movie canon" as if it's a separate thing entirely from the show which is "show canon".

The problem is quite a few people then take that to mean there's a "movie universe" where things are portrayed like they are in the movie, and a "show universe" where something pretty much identical to the movie but not the movie took place - they make a fundamental misunderstanding about the difference between canon and continuity.

It's the fact that the movie couldn't outright take place in the same universe that causes problems to some. The movie simply cannot maintain continuity with the series. As in, what the movie shows is very clearly not the events exactly as they would have occurred in the Stargate Universe - an easy example of that is the physical appearance of O'Neil or Catherine being portayed by an entirely different actor. Those things cannot be directly fit into the setting of the show, as they are not aspects that can be explained in-universe.

It's as if people try to resolve the differences between the movie and the show while also taking them both at face-value, meaning they try to accept them both as being true at the same time, hence the thought of "It's an alternate universe". That isn't really how canon works though, and unfortunately while the show very clearly does reference the movie, it seems to quite a few people that isn't enough evidence that they take place in the same universe. They miss that the concept of a retcon means that those things simply were never like that in the first place - Catherine was never Swedish, O'Neil never had 2 L's in his name, Stargate Command was never at Creek Mountain etc.

The movie and the show take place in the same canon - everything that happens in the movie happened in the show universe - but at the same time, the movie doesn't show things how they actually occurred. So the movie is canon, but also not true, but it by no means implies it's an alternate reality anymore than say the actor for Weir changing between seasons did at the time.

Overall it's a complex subject but would you be able to perhaps try and clarify that situation at all with the article? I think a brief explanation of the concept of a retcon with some examples would really help somewhat.

I read elsewhere "The producers of SG-1 stated SG-1 is its own thing apart from the film" but i couldn't find what they were referring to, and i also tried to find an example from around the time of SG1's release to see if there was anything mentioned of the show being an official continuation from the movie, but unfortunately i couldn't find anything at all. Have they never said anything that gives their stance on the movie and show in relation to each other?

[Darren]

Infodump coming: What happened to the Stargate between 1928, when it was discovered in Giza, and 1945, when it was in America and "first" activated after which Ernest Littlefield disappeared?

Thanks for the story recap, nivao! That's really helpful, and obviously you're right that Continuum (which we should note was conceived, written, and produced by Brad) disregards the RPG's story as noncanonical.

(Now that you remind me I think I may have a digital copy of the RPG on a drive somewhere.)

The shows very obviously make plenty of references and assumptions that rely on the movie being canon to the show, but unfortunately to a lot of people elsewhere seem to take issue with that. It's a big problem over on the Stargate Reddit sub at least, where most of the time questions regarding canon are mentioned people tend to say "movie canon" as if it's a separate thing entirely from the show which is "show canon".

[...]

I read elsewhere "The producers of SG-1 stated SG-1 is its own thing apart from the film" but i couldn't find what they were referring to, and i also tried to find an example from around the time of SG1's release to see if there was anything mentioned of the show being an official continuation from the movie, but unfortunately i couldn't find anything at all. Have they never said anything that gives their stance on the movie and show in relation to each other?

This is complex, and I think you're right that it probably warrants either its own section in GW's canon page or perhaps an article all its own. I'd need to read a bit further to make sure I fully understand the case(s) being made by the "movie is its own canon" crowd. (Do you happen to have any useful Reddit links where you've seen this discussed in some depth?)

IMO TV and film production realities rule out simple inconsistencies that the producers -- the creators of the canon -- have little or no control over. Roles have to be recast sometimes. Even under heavy prosthetics, I think Patrick Currie's Chaka (and Alex Zahara's Warrick, for that matter) looks radically different from Dion Johnstone's. But we smile and nod because the episode asks us to suspend disbelief and regard them as the same characters.

And sometimes RDA just blurts out a name and we all have to roll with it. I ran into one just this week while tidying up the Omnipedia: the leader of SG-3 through Seasons 2-5 is Major Warren. He's played by Colin Lawrence. In "The Sentinel" Jack addresses him as "Lawrence" ... and now he's credited in the end credits as "Major Lawrence." FFS!

As for the movie: I could buy the theory that in the TV universe "not this but something remarkably similar happened." But it's a hypothetical that is totally useless to the canon question. We know that the major contours are the same, and quite a lot of details are also the same. For my money (and the Omnipedia's strict canon policy) it is best to avoid speculation whenever possible. So we should assume that the particular details of the film are the same in this universe until we have evidence to prove that something is different.

There are a bunch of those. Spellings of "O'Neil" and "Shau'ri." Tyler O'Neil. Ra's true form. The sound a locking chevron makes. All those and more are changed in TV continuity ... BUT (here's the catch) that shouldn't suggest to chroniclers that the movie is entirely unreliable as an alternate universe.

The former assumes that a detail is canon until proved otherwise; the latter assumes that a detail is not canon until re-canonized by the TV show.

[DigiFluid]

I enjoy that you bring both nuance and clarity to this conversation, Darren.

[Platschu]

Exactly. I also like when the GW "boss" is active.

[Platschu]

I have seen same very simple race articles on SG:C, where they used the Unity and Oannes names. Have they copied them from the wikipedia or are these official now?

https://www.stargatecommand.co/feeds...tml&k=fb920687
https://www.stargatecommand.co/feeds...tml&k=fb920687

[DigiFluid]

That’s a good question. My opinion would be that the traditional understanding of ‘it only counts if it happened on-screen’ should still be the case until otherwise told, but then, I am not an official source