Star Wars Debating (2016)

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

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?