, of course there isn't any indication in a medium where the thinking of combatants isn't elaborated on. An absence of evidence isn't an evidence of absence.
The statement references the duel before Pallp's ultimate decision not to kill Maul and hence is referencing the duel in it's entirety prior to Sidious deciding to spare Maul. It is not just when he was using lightning which was after he'd decided to not kill Maul
What? There are ways to convey a character is toying with someone without it requiring a novel.
Further, the fact you admit here that the TV show doesn't indicate Sidious is toying with Maul only further hurts your point. The writers of this biography aren't going to be creating new content - they don't have the authority to do that. They are explaining the existing content based on the material we also have. Thus, it's clear that they are referring to the parts where Sidious is actually toying with Maul, not the parts where he isn't.
What? No. It doesn't state it's referring to the duel in it's entirety. It doesn't give a specific point at which Sidious is toying with Maul.
It could be referring to the entire fight, but that's an assumption - and a poor one at that for reasons listed above.
What? As far as I can see, the biography was removed from Maul's actual page. It's only accessible if you have the specific link to the biography, meaning it's removed from all intents and purposes.
Thus, this argument is pointless. It's removed. It's gone.
What? Terrible example, then. The video-game can be considered canonical even within Lucas' universe, hence why I use it.
It's not remotely comparable to a non-canonical novel that has literal no authority whatsoever.
__________________ "There is only Revan. Only he can shape this galaxy as it is meant to be shaped."
Last edited by Jaggarath on Oct 14th, 2017 at 07:17 PM
Uh, yea, they don't indicate he's not toying either. It's open for interpretation and is a grey area which means there's no contradiction with material that clarifies what's going on here. You can't force contradictions based on an absence of evidence or based on your personal interpretation of a scene. Hence why nobody argues Yoda>Sidious, even though that's certainly something you could interpret based on what we actually see in the movie.
Again, you're baselessly assuming there was a specific time he was toying with Maul when the quote refers to the fight in it's entirety. I'm also at a loss how you think the duel the quote was mentioned was excluding the actual "lightsaber-dueling" portion of the fight. You're forcing a specification which is alluded to nowhere in the text.
Also, it's fairly logical that if Maul was toying with him when he used the force, he also toyed with him in their actual duel which is exactly what the supplementary material suggests, your personal interpretation of the episode notwithstanding.
, as the quote is specifically talking about when Sidious had yet to decide he was going to spare Maul which happens before Sid's blasts him with lightning. If you're going try to make up sh!t that isn't present in the text, please make up sh!t which doesn't blatantly contradict the text you're trying to add it to.
Click the "see more" button bro(you'll need to do so twice), it's the last entry(33out of 33) and I just accessed it by looking up Maul's biography page. It was never removed.
Shadow Conspiracy can't be considered canon in the universe of TCW because...
And since when was the video game canonical?
You want to source me on the video game being more canonical than Shadow Conspiracy?
Last edited by Rockydonovang on Oct 14th, 2017 at 07:40 PM
For whatever reason, the computer doesn't do anything when I click print screen and there doesn' seem tobe either
A. a screen lock on my keyboard and
b. I can't find it in settings either.
Anyhow, I'm gueissing it's just a browser issue since I'm able to access it fine with Microsoft edge.
If you get to the main point, I'll respond after my soccer game.
Anywho, the main point is starwars.com has no authority to actually comment on this one way or another, which gets us into the question: who or what has the authority to actually create Canon?
Frankly, not much / many.
Canon is defined by the Story Group as content that is absolute, as in future works cannot contradict said work because we know this work absolutely happened. Interestingly, elements of the films themselves aren't even Canon. The dialogue presented in a Canon novel is just as legitimate as that in the film, making neither truly Canon, since neither is absolute. The Story Group describes differences within works as "differences within the medium." What Canon is, then, is mainly core story points and ideas.
Which gets us into who are the arbiters of Canon? The Story Group. The Story Group has the authority to decide what is Canon and what is not Canon. Further, their job is to oversee Canon and make sure everything that is Canon is consistent and beholden to other Canon works. Now, on the subject of starwars.com, the Story Group has stated that they don't work on the databanks. In fact, when questioned on whether or not the Databanks would change in light of a new work, the Story Group responded by asking the starwars.com team since they don't handle that matter.
This makes sense: the starwars.com isn't inventing new Canon. As outlined, that's incredibly difficult for anyone to do, and by all accounts it seems the Story Group doesn't even monitor their actions. Which is shame, because there are tons of errors, such as it listing Rebels chronologically after Return of the Jedi on Anakin's biography. What they are doing is summarizing preexisting events, not creating new ones. Thus, the starwars.com has no authority to create a new development such as that Sidious was toying with Maul in a lightsaber fight. That is outside their jurisdiction. All they can do - all they are suppose to do - is to summarize events. To create a new Canon event would be a big deal.
And then let's bring up Absolutely Everything You Need to Know. Within the book, which was Story Group monitored and sanctioned, it has Darth Maul as a greater lightsaber combatant than Dooku. Even then, it's not Canon, since the Story Group has said they wish to avoid in practically all absolutes, but the point is that such a statement holds infinite more Canonical weight than a starwars.com mention stating that Sidious may or have may not toyed with Darth Maul.
Now, what would you need to prove Sidious did toy with Maul?
First, something not vague. You'd need an explicit statement that Sidious toyed with Maul for the entire lightsaber fight.
Second, you'd need something Story Group monitored, approved, and published by Disney.
Finally, you'd need to contact the Story Group for them to confirm this is indeed Canon, meaning it is beholden to all future writers describing the fight.
You don't have any of those. Thus, using this one quote as the debate-ender is pretty... baseless.
__________________ "There is only Revan. Only he can shape this galaxy as it is meant to be shaped."
Last edited by Jaggarath on Oct 14th, 2017 at 08:44 PM
Interestingly, this new policy was created exactly because of fans like us who are obsessed with absolutes.
Canon debating is a matter of evidence, not fact. You can say Maul's superiority to Dooku is evidenced by a source stating he's better, but unlike in Legends, that's by no means a debate-ender. That's more of a debate starter.
The issue is that, since everything is so subjective, it's a lot harder to persuade people since they can simply and legitimately just... disagree.
__________________ "There is only Revan. Only he can shape this galaxy as it is meant to be shaped."
, of course there isn't any indication in a medium where the thinking of combatants isn't elaborated on. An absence of evidence isn't an evidence of absence. 
Oct 14th, 2017 07:00 PM
, as the quote is specifically talking about when Sidious had yet to decide he was going to spare Maul which happens before Sid's blasts him with lightning. If you're going try to make up sh!t that isn't present in the text, please make up sh!t which doesn't blatantly contradict the text you're trying to add it to.
