Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVkUvmDQ3HY

The foremost issue in Star Wars debating is the lack of community consensus on how to properly view and assess feats and accolades. While one member might view all accolades as canonical, another might dismiss it without feats to support the accolade. This blog will propose a way of thinking that can be accepted by all debaters and properly applied to discussions. I imagine many will be staunchly against this way of thinking.

Due to the fact contradictory sources exist, primary, secondary, and tertiary sources must be established.

Primary source: The work that ultimately created the event being discussed, in which all other descriptions of the event derive from such (ex. the seven films, The Clone Wars, Rebels, most Legends novels, etc.).

Secondary source: A work where a narrator describes an event originally established by a primary source (ex. all novels concerning the seven films, a novel's description of another novel's fight, etc.).

Tertiary source: A work, typically encyclopedia in nature, that highlights or summarizes an event based on previously established sources (ex. The Complete Star Wars Encyclopedia, generally sourcebooks, etc.).

The best example I can provide is the Attack of the Clones fight between Yoda and Dooku. The primary sources of the fight would be the live-action movie and the script. The secondary sources would be the adult novelization, the junior novelization, and the comic. The tertiary sources would be descriptions of the fight from The Fact Files, the official Star Wars website, The Complete Star Wars Encyclopedia, etc. Another example would be the backstory of Freedon Nadd. Despite The Tales of the Jedi Companion working as a tertiary source for characters like Nomi Sunrider, it presents an original backstory to Freedon Nadd, and thus would be the primary source for Freedon Nadd discussions.

Primary sources should take absolute precedence over secondary and tertiary sources when contradictions of preexisting material arise. However, if the secondary source presents new material previously not mentioned in the primary source, then such event holds true with unopposed canonical authority. Members generally like to throw out the term contradiction, but it's used far too frequently. Only in a direct contradiction, in which two sources are in explicit conflict, can one description of an event be discredited. In such a situation, the discredited source would either be the oldest one (in other words, a retcon) or the one with the least amount of sources supporting it (Leland Chee has stated that this is how inconsistencies should be addressed). In other words, if one source from 1995 states one thing, and give sources from 2007 state another, the latter holds true. For example, if one work from 2001 states there were five thousand Jedi in one battle and then from 2003 another lists four hundred, there is a direct contradiction. In such a scenario, the 2003 description is the canonical one. Likewise, if a source states Darth Bandon is the most powerful Sith Lord in history, there is a direct contradiction with the numerous other sources stating Palpatine as such. However, there is no direct contradiction if a source states Sha'Gi is more powerful than a world-consuming entity, if no other source states the latter is more powerful than the former. The fact that the feats do not match up to the claim does not host a direct contradiction. This way of thinking leads to arbitrary acceptance and dismal of quotes.

Accolades are canonical. If any quote is officially sanctioned by Star Wars, then it is canonical. Disputing this means the rejection of canon. Like I just said, when you begin to randomly dismiss quotes because they do not match your preconceived thoughts of character power levels, a formal debate is virtually impossible. Your thoughts on characters should be determined by all existing canonical evidence, which is then appropriately gauged based on the type of source and the level of canon (ex. G-Canon, C-Canon, etc.). If a quote is ever given to prove a character is greater than another character, but then a member dismisses it and demands proof in the form of feats, one does not have to yield to their demands. The member with the quotes have already provided canonical evidence - it is the dismissive member that is in the wrong. For example, if one were to state Shaak Ti is greater than Cin Drallig because of her performance against the MagnaGuards, in which Cin Drallig hasn't demonstrated an accomplishment of that level, they would be factually incorrect. This is because a canonical source has already listed Cin Drallig as the most skilled duelist within the walls of the Jedi Temple during Anakin Skywalker's attack. It's frankly that simple.

To emphasize again: If it is stated or shown within an officially licensed source, then it is canon.

So Bastila = Obi-Wan/Dooku now?

Originally posted by SunRazer
So Bastila = Obi-Wan/Dooku now?
That quote specifically states that is the case within Star Wars Miniatures, in which the text makes a distinction between such and the actual continuity.

So quotes like that do not apply to the above - whether they are canonical or not has more to do with the subject of game mechanics.

Why not just use the old EU guidelines?

In either case, I think there are a few other questions:

1. When should you preference rationalizing, and when should you preference just discarding things?

2. Do we take authorial comments seriously? What about publisher's blurbs?

3. Do statements count as canon even if new information has come in that doesn't directly contradict it, but that the writer of the statement nonetheless couldn't have factored in (.i.e. Sidious being declared the most powerful ever, but Viiate not having been invented yet)

4. Do deleted scenes count?

Originally posted by The Ellimist
Why not just use the old EU guidelines?
They do. I referred to G-Canon and what not in my post. This is mainly referring to conflicts arising when all subjects are C-Canon, but nevertheless does touch on G-Canon vs C-Canon discussions. This way of thinking is consistent with the classical structure, and is ultimately based on it.


Well, those topics can be discussed with the community.

http://i.makeagif.com/media/11-19-2015/re81Us.gif

Thanks. Appreciate your effort in writing this up. Won't be adopting any of this myself. But again, appreciate that you wrote this up and put it out.

In regards to authorial intent I believe we should take their statements seriously if they have contributed a majority of work on the character or were their creator and their statement is not up for debate or backtracked by the author themselves later on.

I.E. Lucas saying Vader was MAYBE 80% of Sidious's power. This along with other quotes implying Vader is a threat to Sidious can be used to establish a basis for the stance but not as actual evidence.

Second example would be Drew saying their own opinion is unreliable.

I try and take anything that compares one character to another at face value unless there's something to doubt it. Bastila being equal to the Count for example sounds a bit hard to believe, unless Dooku and ROTS Kenobi are somewhat equal and him owning Kenobi was a full powered attack, which I know a quote like that exists.

Well it's not so much the quote placing Bastilla on Dooku's level for me since her power is unknown anyways. It's the fact that it places Dooku and Obi Wan on the same level when they're clearly not making the whole scaling system used their inaccurate.

For example Ant showed me another source that puts Bastilla on the same level as Grievous as a duelist. If the system in question is similar to Gillard's system in that it places many people on the same level who aren't based on actual showings and their own comparative performances then I can feel happy disregarding it. If it is all accurate then I'd have to accept Bastilla as a duelist of that caliber.

I have yet to verify the source for myself though I was going to ask Ant for it tomorrow.

I took that quote as the three being more or less in the same tier, though not exactly equals though my previous comment sort of implies that x3

Well if that's the case the ranking becomes pretty meaningless given the gap between Kenobi and Dooku and the fact that we don't know what the lower end of that tier is. To elaborate on that we'd have to know what the tiers meant in general. Like I said if the system is like what I described above ( something akin to Gillard's system ) it wouldn't matter anyways given the arbitrary rankings don't give us an actual scale.

Good effort, but not everyone will endorse it, in which case it will be in no shape or form a binding rule. So will be back to sort of arbitrary placing our favourite characters.

Originally posted by The Ellimist
2. Do we take authorial comments seriously? What about publisher's blurbs?

Comments made outside of published works? No. It's their opinion, nothing more, nothing less.

As for publisher's blurbs - not really sure.



Yes, they do count, because continuity works that way.



"Yes, unless they conflict with something else seen in the films or if the reasoning behind deleting the scene keeps it from being continuity"

-Leland Chee

Originally posted by Azronger
Comments made outside of published works? No. It's their opinion, nothing more, nothing less.

As for publisher's blurbs - not really sure.



Yes, they do count, because continuity works that way.



"Yes, unless they conflict with something else seen in the films or if the reasoning behind deleting the scene keeps it from being continuity"

-Leland Chee

Can you link me the article where ache talks about deleted scenes?

Only delete scenes of the films is being referred to in that quote.

Originally posted by DarthAnt66
Only delete scenes of the films is being referred to in that quote.

And that's totally fine with me.

Don't have the link to that article. Sorry.

So, is Tulak Hord the best Sith Duelist as of Kreia bringing it up then?

Because she and Avellone seem to think so.

Hord's the best ancient duelist from the time of Ajunta Pall to Naga Sadow, yeah.

Originally posted by DarthAnt66
Hord's the best ancient duelist from the time of Ajunta Pall to Naga Sadow, yeah. ...Thats... Thats not what she says though....

She says "The Greatest Duelists of the Sith Lords."

The context makes clear she's referring to the ancient Sith Lords. She wouldn't have any gauge on the lightsaber abilities of Freedon Nadd, Exar Kun, or Darth Revan in his prime.

Would she really have a gauge on any of the ancient duelists, though?

Avellone said she would. mmm

But realistically speaking, is there any more reason to believe she'd have a real, in-depth understanding of Hord's dueling abilities than one of her own ex-apprentice's?

Nope.

Originally posted by XSUPREMEXSKILLZ
But realistically speaking, is there any more reason to believe she'd have a real, in-depth understanding of Hord's dueling abilities than one of her own ex-apprentice's?

Very likely that she found Tulaks Text on Korriban or something? The same one revan gave to Uthar

Originally posted by XSUPREMEXSKILLZ
But realistically speaking, is there any more reason to believe she'd have a real, in-depth understanding of Hord's dueling abilities than one of her own ex-apprentice's?

This.

What Avellone states in his emails isn't canon.

Originally posted by Azronger
What Avellone states in his emails isn't canon.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDn2Xp5ctQM&t=1m26s

Yes, it's in the context of the Ancient Sith, so it doesn't include Revan or Kun.

Originally posted by Azronger
What Avellone states in his emails isn't canon.

The difference between his personal opinions and the actual, published work is that the latter was vetted by other people in the creative process, carefully deliberated on, and then given the stamp by Lucasfilms. Otherwise one author could publish a random novel and then say that a character in it is secretly Barrack Obama.

It's not canon, but it's worth more than a random forum user's opinion. This sort of stuff can only be disproved if you have the material to suggest otherwise. Which is why you can deny "clarifications" like Veitch's explanation of the cause of Force Storms. Otherwise, I'd take an author's clarification of things over a random forum user's opinion, as I said.

Maybe if the forum user's case is well-substantiated (though not directly proven) and extremely well-articulated, I'll take it over an author's shabby, dubious explanation.

Didn't Avellone point out she knew her stuff because of the various Sith holocrons in her possession? Still, not necessarily the most concrete of evidence.

Yes, he did say she read the Sith holocrons in Atris' chamber, but the game already reveals that, so it's hardly groundbreaking.

Besides, nobody here seems to think Atris' holocrons are of any worth whatsoever, lol.

Originally posted by SunRazer
It's not canon, but it's worth more than a random forum user's opinion. This sort of stuff can only be disproved if you have the material to suggest otherwise. Which is why you can deny "clarifications" like Veitch's explanation of the cause of Force Storms. Otherwise, I'd take an author's clarification of things over a random forum user's opinion, as I said.

Maybe if the forum user's case is well-substantiated (though not directly proven) and extremely well-articulated, I'll take it over an author's shabby, dubious explanation.

It's only worth something if you buy into authorial intent, which I don't.

Originally posted by Azronger
It's only worth something if you buy into authorial intent, which I don't. Why? Furthermore, it just makes you harder to debate with, because then its you saying half the argument that what they say isn't canon, and the other guy saying "Yeah, but it should be, because of so-and-so."

Originally posted by Azronger
It's only worth something if you buy into authorial intent, which I don't.

If you don't care about what the author intended to convey, then why even read the book?

Originally posted by NewGuy01
If you don't care about what the author intended to convey, then why even read the book? I think he's talking about the Author's opinion.

Example: Kevin J. Anderson saying that Exar Kun is a good fight for Palpatine, or saying that Hord is the best Ancient Duelist ever.

Originally posted by NewGuy01
If you don't care about what the author intended to convey, then why even read the book? lol

What do you think of a fight depicted one way in primary sources and other supplementary sources about ten years ago, but in recent years, a lot of supplementary sources have stated something else about the fight, meaning that there's a noticeable shift in the opinion of the tertiary writers? What takes precedence then? Is the other simply dismissed without merit?

Can you give me an example?

"Newer quotes" about Dooku contending with Yoda and Vader > Anakin, for instance. Ignore circumstances for the sake of this.

Tertiary sources, regardless of amount, can never overrule a primary or secondary source, only supplement.

For example, a Fact Files quote can never beat out the cinematic or novelization portrayal of a fight.

Ah, so you're one of those who thinks that even 10-1, supplementary material can't override the main source.

Do you think it's acceptable to argue in certain cases that we should take the tertiary sources, since it's our interpretation of the primary source that appears to conflict, and that this may not have been the author's intent? Of course, this only applies to things that aren't set in stone.

No, because that leads to members arbitrarily accepting and dismissing quotes, which puts us back into the issue these rules intend to stop.

Tertiary can supplement and clarify, but can't change the majority viewpoint found between the primary and secondary sources.

This is about whether it's a matter of arbitrary interpretation of the primary source to begin with. I mean, obviously if we have a concrete quotes or something from the primary source, then there's no way to get around that.

Watching blade movements and the flow of fights etc. is arbitrary, though.

Sure, but then it's the secondary sources job to clarify.

The tertiary can support said findings, but can't change it.

So you agree that concrete tertiary quotes take precedence when the "primary evidence" is arbitrary, yes?

Only in a situation where a majority opinion can't be found in the secondary sources either, which is basically never.

So you think tertiary sources are meaningless except for clarification and exposition?

I assume that you adopt an identical stance for primary vs secondary.

"Meaningless" is a misleading term, tbh. Instead, I see it as the fact they have the ability to lift up, not bring down.

Secondary sources are rather rare for non-movie sources. In regards to the films though, they obviously have a large role for reasons you pointed out above.

So in the case of RotS, for example, do you still think that primary > secondary and that no amount of secondary sources can override a primary?