Star Wars Debating (2016)
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.