Talk:Star Wars canon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Star Wars, which aims to build an encyclopedic guide to the Star Wars saga on Wikipedia. To participate, you can improve this article or visit the project page for more information.

Star Wars Portal

1 G-canon of reference books
2 Quote Source
3 New Contributor
4 Canonicity authority
5 ST-v-SW.net
6 ChronoRadio link removal
7 Controversy section
8 I think it's better than I thought.
9 The Steve Sansweet Quote
10 My, what a charming post
11 Go to Wookieepedia Instead
12 Are there lots of fans or a few fans who prefer the canonwars.com approach?
13 Can't we get it over?

[edit] G-canon of reference books

When exactly did "Cross Sections" "Inside the Worlds" and "Visual Dictionaries" become G-canon? I remember this being true, but from where, exactly? --LtNOWIS 01:48, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Actually, Leland Chee(or one of the creators of the current canon policy) later clarified over at starwars.com forums, that cross sections, inside the worlds, and visual dictionaries were considered C-canon, since they are written as and contain Expanded Universe source material in them that was written and imagined by lucasbook authors rather than George Lucas himself, and also were not a direct versions of the films themselves (like the novels, scripts, and radio plays). He mentioned that the confusion by some fans who thought they were "G-canon" was due to Reynolds(one of the authors of the books) stating that his material had become "canon" in an article. Chee clarified though that the canon that Reynolds was referring to was "C-canon", rather than G-canon.

[edit] Quote Source

The source for the quote is "Star Wars Insider." Some random VS debate site that happens to have the quote cited within it is neither the source of the quote, nor does it provide additional information on the quote that is not detailed in the article. --Balancer 10:52, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Then you won't mind adding which Star Wars Insider. --Maru 16:14, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

The article already states this in saying that the first Star Wars Insider magazine is the source of the quote. As you bring it up, it appears that may be incorrect. The site linked, from which the initial description seems to have also been pulled, places it as issue #1. Interestingly enough, most citations of the quote place the issue number of the magazine containing that particular quote as #23. Tentatively, I'm editing the page to reflect this correction, as it appears that only a couple VS debate websites cite the issue as #1, while all other websites and forum discussions on the matter cite the issue as #23. I encourage anybody who has their old SW Insiders tucked away in the closet to go check a physical copy. --Balancer 04:29, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Precisely why I asked. And why I wanted the link there, because it was then not a free-floating assertion which was probably erroneous.

Unfortunately, I've never subscribed to SW Insider (believe me, when I started writing the Grand Admiral articles, I sincerely regretted that.), so I could not tell you one way or t'other. --Maru 05:06, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, a link that reiterates a probably erroneous citation isn't any better. Frankly, there don't seem to be any individually authoritative links in terms of citation details - it's simply that everybody and his brother, uncle, cousin, roommate, and friend say the quote comes from SW Insider #23, with the notable exception of mrpoesmorgue.com and 1-2 others. Balancer 15:21, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I should have been clearer- I was citing a quoted comment, which allows for greater verifiability than just a quote; perhaps it would still be erroneous, but it is a far better base to correct than without the cite. --Maru 23:24, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] New Contributor

Well, looks like we're gonna have to call in Nathan Butler to clean this article up! The Wookieepedian 05:37, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, looks pretty good now. Is the cleanup tag still necessary?Balancer 03:57, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

After considering the changes between September and now, I've decided that there's been enough improvement to remove the tag. It ain't perfect (no article can ever be so), but it's looking a hell of a lot better now than before. -- Saberwyn - 01:38, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Canonicity authority

Personally, the prequel trilogy does not count as canon for me. Obviously, it has formal corporate recognition, but the extent of the contradictions with the SW trilogy cannot be cast aside lightly. There is, afterall, a heavy commercial influence buckling the continuity (ie scenes, characters, vehicles with no narrative function are cosmetically added because they're profitable, not because they reflect StarWars reality/continuity/nature). I'd like to see acknowledgement of, perhaps, "Original Canon", or more reflection on what canon means. [Dj]

Please specify what exactly you mean by "original canon". The Wookieepedian 02:17, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I can't seem to remember them explaining every character(take the cantina scene) or vehicle(A and B wings) in the original series. I also think that the canon of the prequels is still tied in with the original story and is as much a part of the overall canon as the post-4, 5, and 6 extended universe. Just my opinion, though.

[edit] ST-v-SW.net

Keeping this link is not "unfair," nor is it not allowing people to make up their own minds about the subject. It is undeniable that this site blatantly contradicts LFL's stated official canon policy. Do you think it would be appropriate to link to Neo-Nazi Holocaust denial websites in the Holocaust article, as if it was legitimate information about the subject? JimRaynor55 13:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

That is your opinion. Others disagree. And bringing Nazis into any argument is never a good idea, especially as this is hardly in the same league. TheRealFennShysa 14:48, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

No, it is 'not opinion, it is a matter of fact. It is clear from numerous statements by LFL employees that SW canon includes novels and other sources besides the films. That site disagrees, and tries to make its case by twisting words. As for Nazis, I fail to see how it is "never" a good idea to mention them, nor did I say that this is as serious a matter. Do NOT misrepresent what I'm saying. My point is that the facts about SW canon, like the Holocaust, are well known and backed up by many, many sources, and that links to delusional/dishonest sites should not be linked to as if they are legitimate information about the subject. JimRaynor55 14:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

This community operates on consenus opinions, and thus far, the consensus has been to make the link available. Let readers make up their own minds. You don't want to read it, that's your right - but leave the link in. TheRealFennShysa 18:01, 13 July

2006 (UTC)

This community is also a supposed encyclopedia, and I thought it was supposed to be about the truth. Once AGAIN, this is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of fact. That site is full of lies, and completely contradicts this article and numerous official statements from LFL. It's not up for debate, it's just wrong. Read the "Links normally to be avoided" section of the External links style guide here at Wiki. #2 says "Any site that contains factually inaccurate material." It's right there in the rules, we are not supposed to link to any dodgy website out there just to pretend that we're being fair to all sides. JimRaynor55 22:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I hope you are all aware of the fact that the individual who runs the site managed to make a complete fool of himself on not only the SW Official Boards but also the ST Official Boards in the span of just one week? Apparently, he knows the canon policies of both franchises better than the employees of both, who tried to debate with him. (Personal attack removed) Captain Günsche 00:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I fail to see why that link is there. Star Wars canon is an uncontroversial topic and universally agreed on among the Star Wars official ommunity. That site contradicts it (and poorly). I see no reason to put that there anymore than someone should put a link to moon-landing hoax theories on a wiki about the moon-landings.Beryoza 01:10, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it's the exact opposite. If you'll read any Star Wars forum, you'll see that it's one of the most controversial subjects among Star Wars fandom. The only thing more controversial is the whole original trilogy vs. prequel trilogy/special editions debate. The Wookieepedian 02:45, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Seconded, if Wikipedia talk pages can count as a Star Wars forum... --maru (talk) contribs 03:49, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm for keeping the link as well. It doesn't hurt anyone, and for a controversial subject, I think it's wise for a reader/interested party to see all the viewpoints before making an informed opinion of their own. I don't care what the article author did on some message board somewhere - that's not relevant to THIS discussion, THIS page, and frankly, your continued use of loaded words to describe both the article author and the link itself ("blatantly dishonest", "lies", "complete fool", "crackpot", etc.) isn't helping your argument at all, which is starting to sound more like a personal vendetta against that site and/or its creator than anything else. MikeWazowski 14:21, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

If you'll read any Star Wars forum, you'll see that it's one of the most controversial subjects among Star Wars fandom. I spend a lot of time on SW forums. While fans debate minutia or which canon source outranks which, the consensus is that the EU is still canon. ST-v-SW.net disagrees with that consensus. It doesn't hurt anyone Except for the people who read this article, and get misled by its lies. I think it's wise for a reader/interested party to see all the viewpoints before making an informed opinion of their own. This is NOT a debateable subject, thus there are no worthy viewpoints other than what LFL says. your continued use of loaded words to describe both the article author and the link itself ("blatantly dishonest", "lies", "complete fool", "crackpot", etc.) isn't helping your argument at all It's the truth. JimRaynor55 20:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm curious as to why the ST-v-SW.net defenders haven't answered my points about how that site violates the officially stated canon policy of LFL, and how Wikipedia's style guide says that factually inaccurate sites should not be linked to. Instead, they haven't done anything other than repeat the claim that all viewpoints should be expressed so that people can "make up their own minds." Don't evade my points, either offer a rebuttal or concede. JimRaynor55 20:52, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

"I'm for keeping the link as well. It doesn't hurt anyone, and for a controversial subject, I think it's wise for a reader/interested party to see all the viewpoints before making an informed opinion of their own."

The problem is, that site contains a biased POV from its creator, who doesn't follow official canon rules. Therefore it has no value. Delete it. Captain Günsche 17:27, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I've noticed that no ST-v-SW.net supporters have responded in several days, when before my recent edits to the article were reverted within minutes. Does this mean that you have nothing to refute my point that the site is factually incorrect, contradicting LFL's policy? I'm going to delete the link. JimRaynor55 01:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

No, what's happening is that you're not listening - the consensus opinion is for the link to remain. Your opinion is that the site is factually incorrect, but others disagree. Please stop removing the link. TheRealFennShysa 03:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

What consensus? You and a couple other guys? Funny, there are a couple guys on my side who have posted recently. You're not even trying to answer my points. This is absolutely ridiculous. I make a point, you don't answer for days on end, and then you come back and STILL refuse to respond to my points. You're demonstrating broken record behavior now. Stop dodging and either do something to show how ST-v-SW.net is factually accurate (which Wiki's own style guide says it should be), or concede. And do not declare something "bias" in the history page when you don't even have the courage to explain why here. JimRaynor55 04:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Correct. There are basically two canons. One is Lucas' and one is Lucas Licensing's. And this makes sense. To put this in perspective, would Matthew Stover consider the Thrawn trilogy to be part of his work? I don't think so. Yet, like Lucas, he would acknowledge that Zahn's Thrawn trilogy is part of the overall Star Wars story. The Wookieepedian 16:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Lucas to my knowledge has never acknowledged any of the licensed properties as being part of the "overall Star Wars story", and in fact has denied same on a couple of occasions. Your "two canons" argument doesn't hold water based on Lucas's own statements and the definition of the word "canon". In point of fact, what it sounds like you are implying is that Lucas, the creator and controller of what is "real Star Wars" has his own ideas as to what does or does not count in the Star Wars Universe, and the fans have another set of ideas. You further imply that the fans' opinions win out over the creator and owner of the property simply because they (the fans) want their opinions to be counted as equal (or even superior) in consideration to Lucas's. This argument makes pretty much this entire article POV, with the specific POV being that of a fan of the "EU", which Lucas himself has stated is not, will not, and will never be "canon" for Star Wars. Its my opinion that the entire "second canon" meme should be deleted and the article rewritten to reflect Lucas's statements regarding what is and what is not canon in his own science fiction universe: specifically, that "Star Wars Canon" consists of the films and nothing but the films.

Your argument does not hold water. First off, canon is officially defined by Lucas Licensing. Second, Lucas has never said that he doesn't consider it part of the overall story, he simply doesn't consider it part of his story that he is trying to tell. And third, Lucas himself has made many references to the EU in the films, which serve as nods to the EU. If he didn't support it, I doubt he would make so many references to it. The Wookieepedian 15:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed)

Your appeal to authority (that LFL's statement of canon overrule Lucas's) is nullfied by the fact that LFL itself has stated that Lucas himself is the primary authority when it comes to canon. Once again, Lucas has stated unequivocably in at least two interviews that his films are all he considers official and that the EU is "other than official".

Your repeated references to the "overall story" is Circular Reasoning. You are claiming that the EU is part of the "overall story" because the "overall story" includes the EU.

The "references" argument is an example of the Questionable Cause fallacy. Just because Lucas has adopted some individual names from certain EU works (such as Coruscant as the name of the Imperial capital)does not also imply he considers the EU official (and in fact, Lucas has emphatically stated that just because he likes a name from one of the novels and used it in his films does not make the novel in question official).

Whose argument was it that you said didn't hold water?

I once again propose that the entire "extended canon" content of this article is an example of POV writing, and thus not proper content for a Wikipedia entry.

I'm trying to find where the "Star Wars Community" has a concensus about what is and what is not Star Wars canon, given that Lucas himself has made statements that quite obviously and blatantly point out that what LFL considers canon is all well and good for the books and the toys and the games, but when it comes to the "real" Star Wars, the only thing that counts are the films... specifically, the latest versions of the films to be released... and that the EU is all smoke and vapor as far as he is concerned. Riiiiight. Go to the forums at the OFFICIAL site, or theforce.net (the largest SW fan forum), and see what interpretation of canon they have there. Furthermore, there is NO controversy, and you're being dishonest by saying that Lucas's views on canon are different than those of his company. Can you explain why George is allowing his EMPLOYEES to contradict him and lie about things, publically and officially? (Personal attack removed) JimRaynor55 17:26, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

"When it comes to absolute canon, the real story of Star Wars, you must turn to the films themselves - and only the films. Even novelizations are interpretations of the film, and while they are largely true to George Lucas' vision (he works quite closely with the novel authors), the method in which they are written does allow for some minor differences." - Steve Sansweet Oh great, THIS quote again. Funny how if you didn't LEAVE OUT the rest of it, it actually SUPPORTS the view that the EU counts, but is merely below the films (G-canon). Here's another part of the same quote:

"The further one branches away from the movies, the more interpretation and speculation come into play. LucasBooks works diligently to keep the continuing Star Wars expanded universe cohesive and uniform, but stylistically, there is always room for variation. Not all artists draw Luke Skywalker the same way. Not all writers define the character in the same fashion. The particular attributes of individual media also come into play. A comic book interpretation of an event will likely have less dialogue or different pacing than a novel version. A video game has to take an interactive approach that favors gameplay. So too must card and roleplaying games ascribe certain characteristics to characters and events in order to make them playable.

"The analogy is that every piece of published Star Wars fiction is a window into the 'real' Star Wars universe. Some windows are a bit foggier than others. Some are decidedly abstract. But each contains a nugget of truth to them. Like the great Jedi Master Obi-Wan Kenobi said, 'many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our point of view." (bolded for emphasis)

So no, that quote does NOT support you. (Personal attack removed) JimRaynor55 17:26, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Statements made by George Lucas himself have contradicted this "canon policy", however, throwing the entire issue into confusion. While Lucas Licensing claims that the so-called "Expanded Universe" (or "EU") is canon, George Lucas himself has denied the Expanded Universe has any part in the "official story" of Star Wars, stating that the EU is a part of a "parallel universe" that has no effect whatsoever on his vision of what Star Wars is and will be in the future. This has been supported by Lucas Licensing, the division of Lucasfilm, Ltd. charged with keeping track of such things -. MORE twisting of the truth. Yes, Lucas does refer to the EU as a "parallel universe," however, you are lying when you say that it has no part in the official SW story:

"There's my world, which is the movies, and there's this other world that has been created, which I say is the parallel universe - the licensing world of the books, games and comic books. They don't intrude on my world, which is a select period of time, [but] they do intrude in between the movies. I don't get too involved in the parallel universe. - George Lucas (bolded for emphasis)

In the context that Lucas was using it, "parallel universe" was merely a select period of time. Not only that, but George himself says that it does intrude between the movies (the other select period of time). (Personal attack removed) On the official forums, a fan asked Leland Chee (going by the user name "Tasty Taste"), a Licensing employee, "a clarification is needed if the C and G level are separated, i.e. do they form independent canon or are both part of the overall continuity?" Mr. Chee responded "There is one overall continuity." There you have it, G (movies) and C (EU) canon are NOT separated, despite what you may want everyone else to believe. (Personal attack removed) JimRaynor55 17:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

It is obviously pointless to argue this with you, since you refuse to use the definitions the rest of the world uses for such concepts as "continuity" and "canon". Further, your rather... interesting... misinterpretation of George Lucas's own words makes me believe that even if God himself were to come down from the heavens and say "YOU ARE WRONG!" you'd find some way to convince yourself that you weren't, really. As for labelling everything I have said as being "agenda-based", I suggest this is actually more of the pot calling the kettle black than anything else.

Well, in that case, God and JimRaynor would simply have different opinions. The Wookieepedian 23:48, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey anonymous user (try registering for an account), why don't you please EXPLAIN to me how I'm wrong and supposedly misinterpreting Lucas's quotes? I bothered to put in the effort and actually show the reasoning and EVIDENCE behind my claims. You just complain and bring up God in an attempt to make me out to be stubborn. Come on, if you have a rebuttal to my latest posts, then MAKE it. The same goes for you, TheRealFennShysa. I'm getting sick of you reverting everything as if you're automatically right and not required to explain yourself. JimRaynor55 07:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

If anyone feels the need to restore the link for the umpteenth time, please explain how ST-vs-SW follows LFL's continuity policy and not the personal ideas of the webmaster. I also fail to see why Lucas statements contradict the offical position of the EU. Why bother saying they don't intrude on his story, which is a selected period of time, if they're "in an alternate universe that's unconnected to his"? Then there's also the upcoming CW series, which he is said to be helming. Why does he bother with EU (periods in-between the films) if it doesn't matter to him? Captain Günsche 13:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

For the last time - I am not a supporter of any one site over another. I don't care what kind of fanboy feud you're having with the creators of that site - I really don't. I read a lot of the page at the link in question, and I found it a credible, well-written overview of the many inconsistencies and contradictions that have developed in regards to Star Wars canon and continuity over the years. For those interested in the subject, it seems like a valuable link to follow to get a better grasp on the situation. Apparently, several other long-time editors with a varied edit history (i.e., not all of our edits are devoted to one article) seem to agree. However, you and Captain Günsche come in here, both relatively new, with a low edit count, both nearly all on this article recently, and start demanding your way and demanding immediate answers from others. Pardon me for having a life and not spending every waking moment on Wikipedia. You yourself have thrown out insults, personal attacks, and have alleged duplicity on not only the part of the owner of the site, but us as well. That's not the way things work around here. If you don't like the site, DON'T READ THE BLOODY THING! But as I said before, let readers make up their own minds. You don't want to read it, that's your right - but leave the link in. Don't make us have to start considering your edits to be in bad faith or vandalism if you keep this up. TheRealFennShysa 15:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I read a lot of the page at the link in question, and I found it a credible, well-written overview of the many inconsistencies and contradictions that have developed in regards to Star Wars canon and continuity over the years. Then you obviously didn't read it well, since it blatantly contradicts LFL's official stance on the matter, and dishonestly uses a number of quotes, some of the SAME quotes which I explain right here in this discussion page.

For those interested in the subject, it seems like a valuable link to follow to get a better grasp on the situation. Actually, no. To the part of the fandom that is interested/cares about the subject (SW enthusiasts and/or "Star Trek vs. Star Wars" debaters) that site is largely dismissed as garbage. It certainly is NOT supported by LFL, whose employees have refuted him on the official SW forums. JimRaynor55 18:24, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Apparently, several other long-time editors with a varied edit history (i.e., not all of our edits are devoted to one article) seem to agree. However, you and Captain Günsche come in here, both relatively new, with a low edit count, both nearly all on this article recently, and start demanding your way and demanding immediate answers from others. Pardon me for having a life and not spending every waking moment on Wikipedia. Demanding immediate answers? I've given you days, WEEKS to give me an answer or rebuttal. You STILL have not. Come on, out with it. Explain to me how that site is factually accurate, and not inconsistent with LFL's official policy. Tell me WHY I'm wrong.JimRaynor55 18:24, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

You yourself have thrown out insults, personal attacks, and have alleged duplicity on not only the part of the owner of the site, but us as well. That's not the way things work around here. If you don't like the site, DON'T READ THE BLOODY THING! But as I said before, let readers make up their own minds. You don't want to read it, that's your right - but leave the link in. Would you deem it acceptable if someone linked to Holocaust denial sites, or other conspiracy theory crackpot sites on other articles, as if they were legitimate? JimRaynor55 18:24, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't make us have to start considering your edits to be in bad faith or vandalism if you keep this up.I ALREADY consider your edits in bad faith, since you apparently don't care to explain your position. JimRaynor55 18:24, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The funny thing is, I have explained my position - you ignore it and refuse to admit that anyone can hold an opinion counter to yours. As to your edit summary where you mistakenly claim that I was referring to yourself, Beryoza, CaptainGunsche, and Wookieepedian as unregistered and/or on your side, you've made another error, as I was referring to anonymous IP editors. However, as you've no doubt noticed, the Wookieepedian is on the side of keeping the article. Beryoza has made only one edit here, has a tiny edit count, and has already been accused of being a sockpuppet once in regards to an article you also had an interest in, so that editor's opinion is extremely suspect. That leaves you and CaptainGunsche against myself, Wookieepedian, MikeWazowski, and Tigerhawkvok. That's a consensus of experienced editors against relatively inexperienced and/or new editors, which is how this community operates. If you don't like it, go elsewhere, but if you're coing to contribute here, learn how to play by community rules and learn how to compromise. People might give your opinions more weight then. TheRealFennShysa 20:24, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The funny thing is, I have explained my position - you ignore it and refuse to admit that anyone can hold an opinion counter to yours. No, you have not. You STILL refuse to answer my point that the link is to a site that is factually inaccurate, something which the style guide discourages. This is not about opinions, it is about FACTS. Come on, what are you afraid of? Just explain why this site isn't factually accurate, or concede that it's not. It's that simple, there is no reason for you to have avoided the question for over TWO WEEKS. All you do is repeat "consensus."JimRaynor55 20:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

However, as you've no doubt noticed, the Wookieepedian is on the side of keeping the article. He has recently decided that he wants a "compromise." Looking over the history, he seems aware that the site in question is not consistent with LFL's official policy.JimRaynor55 20:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Beryoza has made only one edit here, has a tiny edit count, and has already been accused of being a sockpuppet once in regards to an article you also had an interest in, so that editor's opinion is extremely suspect. You have no proof here, and I can easily say that some people's activity here is agenda driven and therfore "suspect."JimRaynor55 20:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

That leaves you and CaptainGunsche against myself, Wookieepedian, MikeWazowski, and Tigerhawkvok. That's a consensus of experienced editors against relatively inexperienced and/or new editors, which is how this community operates. I've had my Wiki account for a while now, and I HAVE contributed on other articles before this, albeit not that much. However, I AM an experienced editor; I have made many edits at the Star Wars Wiki over the past year (same name there). I am knowledgable about this subject, apparently a lot more than you. Furthermore, simple outnumbering does NOT mean that your side is right or the "consensus" (especially when you're talking about a small pool of people that can be counted on one hand). Wiki's guideline page about "consensus":

Note that consensus can only work among reasonable editors who make a good faith effort to work together to accurately and appropriately describe the different views on the subject. You're supposed to be working to accurately describe the different views on the subject, not just take any official policy-contradicting opinion and put it in the article as if it's legit.JimRaynor55

At times, a group of editors may be able to, through persistence, numbers, and organization, overwhelm well-meaning editors and generate widespread support among the editors of a given article for a version of the article that is inaccurate, libelous, or not neutral, e.g. giving undue weight to a specific point of view. This is not a consensus. It's NOT consensus just because you're stubborn and outnumber the other side, but are fighting for an inaccurate version of the article. Even using this part when referring to you is giving you too much credit, 4 guys is not "widespread" or "many."JimRaynor55 20:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

You appeal to Wiki's guidelines so much, you apparently missed the part where it actually cares about accurate information. JimRaynor55 20:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Wookieepedian, the vast majority of fans who even care about words like "canon" and "continuity" accept the officially stated policy, which is that the EU is canon but on a lower tier than the movies. Again, I cite the official forums on starwars.com, as well as the massive fan forums at theforce.net. This isn't so much what a significant portion of fandom believes, but more like the beliefs of a single obsessive "versus" debater who wants most of SW canon dismissed so that it's easier for him to argue that Star Trek could win in a fight. JimRaynor55 21:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to play the "Whose got the biggest *knowledge*" game with you - I don't need fannish validation THAT much. Since you seem intent on ignoring my stated position (I read the site, I found it a balanced representation, I feel the link deserves to be there for all readers to form their own opinions), there's nothing much more to say. TheRealFennShysa 21:12, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

there's nothing much more to say. An explanation of why that site is "balanced" and factually accurate, perhaps? I've been waiting for over two weeks already. JimRaynor55 22:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Is someone trying yet another baseless accusation of sockpuppetry on me? That accusation has failed once. Please feel free to try again- whether someone is a sockpuppet or not is not determined by their edit count, thank you. My opinion in this matter remains the same- the link has no place on the page.Beryoza 01:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

In addition to the link provided by JimRaynor55, Leland Chee has also refuted the notion of the Expanded Universe as taking place in a "parallel universe" over at the official forums. Furthermore, the webmaster's claims about the structure of Lucasfilm Ltd. has been refuted by several people working for LFL on the official forums 1, 2 and by the documents on the various LFL divisions sites 1,

2. ST-v-SW.net is not an authority on the Star Wars canon. People working for LFL has quite clearly explained how the Star Wars canon works and it doesn't work in the way described by the webmaster of ST-v-SW.net. The link should be removed. --SincereGuy 14:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

My thought is that, since the linked webpage is not a good source, why should it be included in the Wikipedia as a reference? However, for the sake of immediate balance in representation, I've added a few links which disagree with his conclusions as well as explain why they disagree. Neocapitalist 04:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
That's a consensus of experienced editors against relatively inexperienced and/or new editors

Since I suspect you haven't even read the website in question, what criteria did you use to determine it's adherence to Lucasfilm Licensing policy? Captain Günsche 19:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

The entire article, as written, is the POV of the Warsy community.

"Star Wars nuts"? "Warsy community"? What is that supposed to mean? Was degrading Star Wars fans your sole purpose in making a 'contribution' to this Talk page? Childish.

--SincereGuy 16:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be enlightening for people to read this debate -- the first link in each window deals with the website in question's canon policy. Neocapitalist 21:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

All of this reminds me of every other forum the Warsies take over. The first thing the Star Wars nuts do is shut down any dissenting opinion by claiming "factual inaccuracies", misinterpret quotations, attribute more authority to determine what is and is not canon to LFL rather than the one man even LFL says makes those sorts of decisions, and otherwise just ignores any counter-arguments. We're trying to "shut down" dissenting opinion? Funny, I've asked the other side to explain their position NUMEROUS times. It's not my fault they can't/won't. Why don't you bring up any actual points, instead of degrading us "Star Wars nuts?" Look up ad hominem, and come back when you have something to actually contribute to this discussion page. JimRaynor55 22:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's now been approximately one and a half months since I asked the people in favor of keeping this link to defend it as being factually accurate, and NONE of them have done so. I'm going to finally remove this link later today, since it's ridiculous that it's still up there. Any of you have any last minute things to say in ST-v-SW.net's defense (don't bother with red herrings, ad hominems, or appeals to your seniority at Wikipedia)?JimRaynor55 04:08, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I think it's you that refuses to listen to others arguments, or refuses to accept the perfectly legitimate compromise that it appeared everyone accepted. Do not remove the link - it needs to stay, and your continued efforts to remove it (along with your edit history failing to show any significant contributions to Wikipedia other a consistent campaign against that link) read more along the lines of bad faith edits and/or vandalism than anything else. MikeWazowski 06:19, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Both the ST-vs-SW and Stardestroyer.net links are fansites using their own interpretations of canon rules. Neither of them are in any way official, so remove both or I will. Captain Günsche 15:51, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Günsche, there's a difference: Stardestroyer.net accurately reflects the Star Wars canon. ST-vs-SW.net doesn't. SincereGuy 18:56, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Come on MikeWazowski, give me an answer. What are you afraid of, if you think you're in the right? At some forums I go to, repeating a claim while refusing to back it up is considered troll behavior. And as I have already said, I have QUITE a few contributions over at the SW Wiki. Don't give me any more lame ad hominems about how I'm some vandal who doesn't have any contributions to Wiki. JimRaynor55 05:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't know how many times or ways I can say this - I have explained my position, and you refuse to accept that. As to your contributions to the Wookieepedia, that's all well and good, but that's another site. HERE, you have barely contributed, and the large majority of those contributions have been trying to remove a link that you've attacked with loaded and biased language, and frankly, your arguments against the sire read as more of a personal grudge than anything else. You're the one attacking arguments as lame here, not me. Those links are JUST AS VALID to someone to make up their own mind about this subject as any other. If you don't like the site, don't patronize it, but let other readers form their own opinions based on a wide selection of viewpoints on the subject. MikeWazowski 21:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't know how many times or ways I can say this - I have explained my position, and you refuse to accept that. No you haven't. Almost 2 months ago, I challenged your side to EXPLAIN how that site is factually accurate, as Wikipedia's own style guide says external links should be. You have NOT done so, and the fact that you keep carrying on after such a long period of time is quite frankly ridiculous.JimRaynor55 05:24, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
As to your contributions to the Wookieepedia, that's all well and good, but that's another site. STILL a Wiki, and it shows that I actually care about SW and have goals beyond attacking this one site. JimRaynor55 05:24, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
HERE, you have barely contributed, and the large majority of those contributions have been trying to remove a link that you've attacked with loaded and biased language, and frankly, your arguments against the sire read as more of a personal grudge than anything else. Yeah sure, despite how I pointed out the BLATANT contradictions that site has with the OFFICIAL statements of LFL employees on the OFFICIAL forums. JimRaynor55 05:24, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Those links are JUST AS VALID to someone to make up their own mind about this subject as any other. Riiiiight. An UNofficial site that contradicts the OFFICIAL ones is supposed to be just as valid. Uh huh. JimRaynor55 05:24, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
FOR THE LAST TIME, explain how that site is factually accurate, as I challenged you to do two months ago. Don't keep giving me this stuff about how you've already done so, because it's clear to anyone with a pair of eyes that you haven't. JimRaynor55 05:24, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, I'd rather see you back up your claim that the site is factually inaccurate, rather than toss out your opinion as if it were the word of god - it's not. Many people have different opinions on the subject. From WP:EL - On articles with multiple points of view, a link to prominent sites dedicated to each, with a detailed explanation of each link. The number of links dedicated to one point of view should not overwhelm the number dedicated to any other. One should attempt to add comments to these links informing the reader of their point of view. If one point of view dominates informed opinion, that should be represented first. (For more information, see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view – in particular, Wikipedia's guidelines on undue weight.) MikeWazowski 06:21, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, I'd rather see you back up your claim that the site is factually inaccurate, rather than toss out your opinion as if it were the word of god - it's not. UNLIKE you, I actually HAVE provided real arguments and logic. Seriously, your comments and attitude regarding the site in question, and this debate, make me question whether you even bother READING anything. Scroll up to the comments posted in late July. Some anonymous poster (who I strongly suspect to be the owner of ST-v-SW.net) tried to argue that the movies were the only canon. He used that "parallel universe" quote to try to dismiss the EU (just like ST-v-SW.net), and I shot him down by pointing out that the context of the sentence shows that Lucas did NOT literally mean that the EU is a "parallel universe" as most people understand that term. In fact, Lucas considers "his" universe (the one of the movies) to be merely a select period of time, and states that the EU does intrude between the movies.

The Starlog quote which ST-v-SW.net tries to use to show that Lucas considers the EU to be a separate world from his movies, was shot down by a Leland Chee quote that is RIGHT THERE IN THE ARTICLE.

"On the other hand, the quote you provide makes it sound like the EU is separate from George's vision of the Star Wars universe. It is not."

Furthermore, I linked to the [1]official forums] where Leland Chee confirmed that the movies and EU are NOT separate canon, as ST-v-SW.net alleges:

Q: a clarification is needed if the C and G level are separated, i.e. do they form independent canon or are both part of the overall continuity?

A: There is one overall continuity

What's this, if not a COMPLETE CONTRADICTION of ST-v-SW.net's conclusion on the canon debate?

All of this was posted already, and I should NOT have to post it again just because you don't put in the effort to read. Try to keep up, instead of just being stubborn. Now, YOU start explaining yourself (which you have failed to do for MONTHS). All I keep hearing are ad hominems against me and other users on my side, and appeals to a supposed "consensus" of a mere HANDFUL of users who think the link should stay up. Give me a REAL argument, or concede. JimRaynor55 07:32, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Look, I'm getting sick of this. You're only adding in parts of the questions, addressing minor distinctions. That question was not about the debate as a whole. And while you hold up Chee's quotes as Gospel, I could do the same for Lucas. After all, Chee is an employee of Lucas, and frankly I hold Lucas' own statements in higher regard. The simple fact of the matter is, which you continue to ignore, is that this is a subject that a LOT of people have differences of opinion on. Reasonable people need to be able to make their own opinions, and the fact is that overview on that page, with the listings of various interpretations and differing FACTUAL quotes on the subject, is a valuable resource for those who WANT to make up their own opinions, as opposed to having one shoved at them, as you seem to want to do. You don't want to read it, fine, then DON'T. But let people make that decision for themselves. The simple fact that a link exists is not an endorsement of one viewpoint over another - it's simply a link for further reading. And I'll thank you to drop the "vandalism" comments in your edit summaries - there's no reason to lower the level of discourse here with inaccurate and loaded statements. And before you say anything about "biased and agenda based", keep in mind that that's a factual statement based on many of your previous responses here, as evidenced by such statements of yours as labelling the site as "full of lies"[2] or "delusional/dishonest" [3], or even attacking your dissenting editors as delusional and dishonest. [4]. You clearly intend to represent anyone with a different viewpoiunt than yours as misguided or stupid or worse, and that's just sad. MikeWazowski 16:02, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Look, I'm getting sick of this. You too?JimRaynor55 02:50, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

You're only adding in parts of the questions, addressing minor distinctions. No I'm not. That Chee quote, along with NUMEROUS official quotes and even GEORGE LUCAS'S own words contradict ST-v-SW.net's claim that the movie canon and the EU are separate. JimRaynor55 02:50, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

And while you hold up Chee's quotes as Gospel, I could do the same for Lucas. After all, Chee is an employee of Lucas, and frankly I hold Lucas' own statements in higher regard. Lucas does NOT say that the EU is separate from his movie universe, as I have ALREADY shown. Try reading before you talk. JimRaynor55 02:50, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

The simple fact of the matter is, which you continue to ignore, is that this is a subject that a LOT of people have differences of opinion on. Reasonable people need to be able to make their own opinions, and the fact is that overview on that page, with the listings of various interpretations and differing FACTUAL quotes on the subject, is a valuable resource for those who WANT to make up their own opinions, as opposed to having one shoved at them, as you seem to want to do. No, that page is a distortion of that facts. It's not about opinions, it's about FACT.

And I'll thank you to drop the "vandalism" comments in your edit summaries - there's no reason to lower the level of discourse here with inaccurate and loaded statements. And before you say anything about "biased and agenda based", keep in mind that that's a factual statement based on many of your previous responses here OH PLEASE. Don't try to take the high road here, anyone with a brain can see what's been going on. I labeled your edits as vandalism because I am fed up with your continual statements that I'm biased and agenda based, even though you don't even TRY to debate the points with me and show how I'm wrong. JimRaynor55 02:50, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Funny, I still don't see an explanation from you about how ST-v-SW.net is factually accurate. Your latest attempt at evasion, by claiming that I had not explained myself either, was easily shot down. Now explain yourself already. It's been two freaking months, and you still refuse to respond to a simple question. Stop your broken record about differing viewpoints and just give me an answer already.JimRaynor55 02:50, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I notice you reverted the article again claiming that I'm ignoring your explanation, when you STILL haven't posted it. It's as if you didn't even see my previous post asking for an explanation, AGAIN. Are you even READING things? Or are you just stubbornly convinced that you're right, all evidence and logic be damned? Or maybe you're just editing in bad faith. Your actions don't convince me otherwise. JimRaynor55 11:38, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

At this point, it's not even worth debating with you anymore. You consistently ignore reason, you refuse to compromise (which several other editors have tried to do with you), and you stated that NO COMPROMISES were acceptable to you. Talk about logic be dammed - are you the pot or the kettle? And again, thanks for bringing the level of discourse here by claiming bad faith on my part, when it's obvious, based on your edit history, that you apparently have very little interest in making any real contributions here other than disrupting things to make a point. Good day, sir. MikeWazowski 13:33, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll also remind Mr. Raynor that he's now getting ready to really violate the 3RR rule, should he revert again, immediately. Stop the edit war, please, and see reason, and accept the compromise that other editors TRIED to offer you. MikeWazowski 13:46, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

You consistently ignore reason WHAT reason? I asked your side to explain and back up your position TWO MONTHS ago. I've given you NUMEROUS chances, and EXCESSIVE amounts of time. You STILL haven't done so. This is the most ridiculous "debate" I've engaged in in YEARS. (Personal attack removed) JimRaynor55 13:48, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

you refuse to compromise (which several other editors have tried to do with you), and you stated that NO COMPROMISES were acceptable to you. No compromise SHOULD be acceptable when one side is completely and clearly wrong. JimRaynor55 13:48, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Talk about logic be dammed - are you the pot or the kettle? Do you even KNOW what real logic is? Logic means choosing the right side, the one that's supported by evidence. It's NOT about compromising. Ever read about middle ground fallacies? JimRaynor55 13:48, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

And again, thanks for bringing the level of discourse here by claiming bad faith on my part What else is it when you refuse to provide any logical arguments or evidence for your position, but continually make edits? JimRaynor55 13:48, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

when it's obvious, based on your edit history, that you apparently have very little interest in making any real contributions here other than disrupting things to make a point. Oh great, THIS ad hominem again. It's only been shot down how many times on this page. My interest is Star Wars, and I've already shown that I've made HUNDREDS of edits on numerous topics in the SW Wiki. Editing this article in the regular Wiki is no different than that. Only an (Personal attack removed) would try to draw a distinction between the regular and SW Wiki, and try to use that to portray me as a single topic agenda pusher.JimRaynor55 13:48, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll also remind Mr. Raynor that he's now getting ready to really violate the 3RR rule, should he revert again, immediately. I'll revert it again in short time, I can assure you.

Stop the edit war, please, and see reason, and accept the compromise that other editors TRIED to offer you. Beggin me to lay off? No way. Why should I compromise with someone who can't so much as say why he's right? (Personal attack removed) JimRaynor55 13:51, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for lowering the level of debate around here. MikeWazowski 14:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for never raising this debate beyond the level of "That's the way it is because I say so." Why are you STILL refusing to explain your position? Your repetitive, substance-less posts aren't doing anything except confirm what I say about you. This is Wiki, EVERYONE can see what's been going on. JimRaynor55 14:24, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Still not answering? How long are you willing to carry on with this evasive behavior? I probably shouldn't even respond to you if you're going to keep making the same substance-less posts, always bringing the same middle ground fallacies and ad hominems, without so much as bothering to support your position. From now on (until you give me a real answer), I'm just going to respond by posting the amount of time that's gone by since I first laid down the challenge. JimRaynor55 07:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

You're back now, RealFennShysa? How nice of you to make another revert without justification. And as I promised, each time one of you guys revert or otherwise post without the explanation I asked for, I will respond by posting the number of days that have gone by since I first pointed out that an external link should be factually accurate, as Wikipedia's own style guide says it should be: 54 days. How long do you guys want to keep embarrassing yourselves? Do you really want to be known as the guys who were so hard-headed that you kept reverting without justification after say, 100 days? 200 days? A year? JimRaynor55 23:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Seeing as how I said my piece back in July, and your little crusade is still on-going, I see very little to be gained by restating what I've already posted on this page. The main difference, though, is that you are confusing "factually accurate" with opinion. You may disagree with the conclusions on that page, but seing as how it is based on "factually accurate" quotes and statistics just as much as the other pages, what's the problem? Show me a "factually inaccurate" quote on that page, or one that's been made up, and maybe, just maybe, I'll consider that you MIGHT be trying to act honestly here. You keep throwing around the "factually inaccurate" criteria as grounds for deletion, yet I could just as easily throw out #3 on what should be linked to: On articles with multiple points of view, a link to prominent sites dedicated to each, with a detailed explanation of each link. The number of links dedicated to one point of view should not overwhelm the number dedicated to any other. One should attempt to add comments to these links informing the reader of their point of view. If one point of view dominates informed opinion, that should be represented first. (For more information, see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view – in particular, Wikipedia's guidelines on undue weight. - because if there was ever a subject with multiple points of view, this is it. I'm sorry that you have trouble understanding that, and that while you may believe wholeheartedly that you are right, that doesn't neccessarily make it so.

Seeing as how I said my piece back in July, and your little crusade is still on-going, I see very little to be gained by restating what I've already posted on this page. Here is an overview of all your posts in July. EVERYONE can simply scroll up and confirm this for themselves:

July 13 No logic or evidence whatsoever, just a statement that my position is just an "opinion." Pointless complaining about my Holocaust analogy, trying to misrepresent me as putting ST-v-SW.net on the same level as neo-Nazi sites.
July 13 No logic or evidence, just an appeal to a supposed "consensus" of Wiki users in favor of keeping the link. Further discussion reveals this "consensus" to be...4 guys. One of whom was Wookieepedian, who actually DOESN'T think you're right.
July 19 Repeat of your "consensus" defense again, with nothing new added.
July 31 You claim that ST-v-SW.net is "credible" and "well-written," without EVER actually explaining why. You follow this up with ad hominem attacks against me and Captain Gunsche, trying to use IRRELEVANT things like edit counts or "personal attacks" that I made to dismiss our arguments.

As I keep saying, it's all here on this page for everyone to see. You're not fooling ANYBODY. If you made your case back in July as you say here, you basically admit that you have nothing to back yourself up with. JimRaynor55 14:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

The main difference, though, is that you are confusing "factually accurate" with opinion. Mind EXPLAINING how I'm doing this? Oh sorry, that's just something you won't do. JimRaynor55 14:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

You may disagree with the conclusions on that page, but seing as how it is based on "factually accurate" quotes and statistics just as much as the other pages, what's the problem? Do you even KNOW what being accurate is? And just what sort of STATISTICS are even involved in this debate, which is about canon policy? If you want to say that somebody's independent FAN site is as accurate as OFFICIAL sites, then you're going to have to come up with some damn good evidence. JimRaynor55 14:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

yet I could just as easily throw out #3 on what should be linked to Wow. You CAN'T just separate each guideline from the others and treat them as individuals, picking and choosing which one you want to adhere to. OBVIOUSLY, that page was trying to build up a BODY of guidelines, and good external links should adhere to all the rules, or at least NOT violate some of them. What you're trying to do here is COMPLETELY illogical. Going by the logic that you can put in a link to another viewpoint, without regard to it's factual accuracy, maybe someone should link to Holocaust-denial sites in the Holocaust article. JimRaynor55 14:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

because if there was ever a subject with multiple points of view, this is it. YEAH RIGHT. As I keep saying, go to the official forums. Go to the forums at theforce.net, the biggest online SW forums. Look at the NUMEROUS official quotes which say the EU and films are part of the same whole. The widespread consensus (a REAL consensus, not 3 guys in one small pond page like this one) is that the EU is canon. Dissenting fringe opinions from a few fans, relying on misinterpretations of official quotes, are NOT a legitimate alternative. JimRaynor55 14:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Show me a "factually inaccurate" quote on that page, or one that's been made up, and maybe, just maybe, I'll consider that you MIGHT be trying to act honestly here. As I told MikeWazowski only a couple days ago, read before you talk. On September 2, Mike Wazowski laid down this same challenge for me (while STILL avoiding his end of the explaining) and I shot back with several examples showing how wrong that site is. JimRaynor55 14:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

BTW, you have failed to explain yourselves for about 55 days now. JimRaynor55 14:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I swear, this is getting ridiculous. You claim that You CAN'T just separate each guideline from the others and treat them as individuals, picking and choosing which one you want to adhere to, when in fact that's exactly what you're doing. You disagree with me, that's obvious, we all get that. You dismiss others opinions outright, when the fact that there are what appear to be credible sites out there with differing opinions on the subject that even Lucasfilm has not been consistent on over the years (although they're more consistent these days) makes it *obvious* that there's a multiple viewpoints on the subject. Also, you've invoked Godwin's Law again, I see - never a good sign.

What I've seen you do here is throw around other quotes as if that immediately solves your argument. Other people disagree with you. There is a legitimate difference of opnion here, and yet you refuse to see that, constantly dismissing or deriding any dissenting viewpoint from your own. I don't really give a damn who is right at the moment - I'm more interested in keeping things civil, and trying to make sure that all sides are presented here, because this is NOT a clear-cut situation. You show no interest in this process, no interest in compromise, only a demand that you be allowed your way. It doesn't work that way. And for your information, don't lecture me about reading TheForce.Net or other sites - I'm on the staff there, *AND* I'm a Lucasfilm licensee, and I believe I've been a Star Wars fan longer than you've been alive. I know what I'm talking about. TheRealFennShysa 16:16, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

You dismiss others opinions outright, when the fact that there are what appear to be credible sites out there with differing opinions on the subject that even Lucasfilm has not been consistent on over the years (although they're more consistent these days) makes it *obvious* that there's a multiple viewpoints on the subject. AGAIN you claim that site is credible, STILL you refuse to explain why. JimRaynor55 19:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

What I've seen you do here is throw around other quotes as if that immediately solves your argument. Other people disagree with you. There is a legitimate difference of opnion here, and yet you refuse to see that, constantly dismissing or deriding any dissenting viewpoint from your own. Wait...so my quotes (EVIDENCE) don't have to be dealt with because other people have different opinions. That's basically what I've been getting from you this whole time. JimRaynor55 19:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't really give a damn who is right at the moment Thanks for being honest about this. JimRaynor55 19:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm more interested in keeping things civil As far as I'm concerned, things stopped being civil when your side decided that you didn't have to address my sides arguments, and REPEATEDLY resorted to ad hominems and BASELESS accusations of sock puppetry. JimRaynor55 19:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

For the record, I brought up the sockpuppet issue about *another user*, not you, and that was in reference to accusations that others had made about that user in another matter that you were involved in. I never directly accused *you* of being a sockpuppet, merely pointed out that the timing was suspect, especially from a user with a low edit count and limited contributions. TheRealFennShysa 20:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, you've invoked Godwin's Law again, I see - never a good sign. OMG, you mentioned the Holocaust!!!!! Like everything else, you don't bother to explain HOW my analogy is bad. Meanwhile, you've been giving bad signs continuously for the past 2 months, by refusing to answer simple questions. JimRaynor55 19:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm on the staff there So you're knowledgable about TFN, but you actually think the consensus is anything other than that the EU counts? Yeah OK. JimRaynor55 19:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe I've been a Star Wars fan longer than you've been alive. I know what I'm talking about. If you know what you're talking about, you SURE as hell aren't doing anything to show that, by continuously bringing up red herrings, ad hominems, appeals to a fictional "consensus" that I can count on one hand, and other poor debating fallacies. JimRaynor55 19:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I REALLY would like to see what basis you have for giving me a last warning, threatening me with a ban if I "vandalize" the page one more time. JimRaynor55 19:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Show me a "factually inaccurate" quote on that page, or one that's been made up, and maybe, just maybe, I'll consider that you MIGHT be trying to act honestly here.

In a debate, it is the one giving a statement that must prove it, not the the opponent's job to disprove the statement. Provide evidence, like I asked for weeks ago, that SW-vs.-ST adhers to LFL policy. Captain Günsche 22:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Since it is impossible to get the opposing party to provide any sort of backing to their statements, here is one of many factually incorrect quotes from SW-VS-ST:

"'Gospel', or canon as we refer to it, includes the screenplays, the films, the radio dramas and the novelisations. These works spin out of George Lucas' original stories, the rest are written by other writers. However, between us, we've read everything, and much of it is taken into account in the overall continuity. The entire catalog of published works comprises a vast history -- with many off-shoots, variations and tangents -- like any other well-developed mythology."»

Those words were written by Lucas Licensing employee Allan Kausch and LL Publishing editor Sue Rostoni (though they are often erroneously attributed to "Production and Continuity Editors at Lucasfilm"). Those words . . . the first official declarations from anyone at a Lucas company in almost 15 years . . . were taken as the gospel on the subject for a long while by some Star Wars fans. The quote established the contents of the canon (albeit in a haphazard order) and gave us a general sense of what canonicity is based on . . . an important consideration given the lack of specifics. They also noted that, between them, they paid attention to much of the entire catalog of non-canon works of other writers.

Here, the author suggests without any sort of official backing that works by people other than George Lucas are automatically non-canon, even though that is not stated by the LFL employees. In fact, they say the opposite of what the fansite author concludes. This practice of multiple layers of canon, which all end up in an official continuity, is different from the policy of Paramount regarding Star Trek, where every non-TV or non-movie work is automatically non-canon and is not part of any official continuity. And this is just one point where he errs. Now can we remove his site? Captain Günsche 22:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I've yet to see the advocates of keeping this link justify why it is there with arguments that his view is actually correct (which it is not). I will use my analogy again- should we suffer moon hoax landing links on an entry on the Apollo missions? Should we "let people make up their own minds" about that too, evidence be damned? After all, you don't have to read it, right?Beryoza 09:53, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Just to note, Lucasfilm and Paramount officials have directly told Robert Scott Anderson (the owner of ST-v-SW.net) that his analysis of canon policy is factually incorrect. In my opinion, that is more than enough to exclude him as a source. To quote:

"I understand you have the most frequently visited site concerning Star Trek canon. As a service to those who visit your site, you should either post the truth or clearly state that the site reflects only your opinion and is a work of fiction." -- Kevin Killiany, Star Trek author, in the course of a long argument with Mr. Anderson concerning his theories on canon. [5]

That very same week he tried to argue with LFL officials on the official Star Wars site's boards, and got schooled there as well, that time by Leland Chee, who is in charge of maintaining canon and continuity at Lucasfilm, and therefore knows what he is talking about.

"GL is certainly not bound by the EU, though he's certainly open to using things created in it (Aayla Secura and the Coruscant name, for example). On the other hand, the quote you provide makes it sound like the EU is separate from George's vision of the Star Wars universe. It is not. The EU must follow certain tenets set by George through the films and other guidelines that he provides outside of the films." -- Leland Chee, continuity director at Lucasfilm. [6]

His site is factually incorrect and as such has no place as a source for anything, least of all an encyclopedia article. Rogue 9 10:58, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I think JimRaynor55 has already pointed out the Leland Chee quote which amounts to basically a direct repudiation of the entire argument of the disputed link. Of course, the counter-argument has been that Lucas' should be "held in higher regard" or some such argument. The unspoken implication in this is that those presenting this point of view think it reasonable to posit that everyone who actually works for Lucasfilm doesn't know anything about their own company's policy. The moon hoax analogy is quite apt. If you actually read and listen to the actual policies as enunciated by Lucasfilm representatives, you're supposedly running up the wrong tree, and what you really need to do is visit some random guy's website. It's factually inaccurate. Period. I don't see why this should be the subject of debate. You want official policy, read official material and statements. Beryoza 12:13, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify things, since you guys are mistaking and/or misrepresenting a few things - Kevin Killiany, as an author of licensed Trek fiction, is no no way a Paramount official, simply a hired gun. Neither is Leland Chee a Lucasfilm official - he is an employee of Lucas Licensing, and there is a diffference. Don't try to puff up your sources to make them sound more important than they really are. As it is now, I'm done with this. I find it interesting that so many of you show up at once with a certain viewpoint. As I said, I really don't care, I've been trying to see that a compromise could be reached, but you are clearly uninterested in that. TheRealFennShysa 15:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

And do you seriously think for one second that an author wouldn't know the licensing and continuity rules that he has to work under for his livelihood? As for Mr. Chee, this is his job. If he doesn't know how to do it, I would expect that he would be fired. Rogue 9 01:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Leland Chee, as part of the Lucasfilm Licensing subsidiary, is a Lucasfilm employee. He handles continuity issues and categories that entail all of Lucasfilm's stories, whether they are books, films, games or comics. In recent years, all the different subsidiaries to Lucasfilm were brought closer together to the mother company, making it even more unified than before (as it had been many years ago). This is not up for debate. Captain Günsche 11:25, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

And you people try to say that others don't read what you post - sheesh... Did I ever once say that Chee was not an employee of a Lucas organization? No, I made a distinction, and in the corporate world, that kind of distinction is very important, expecially when a previous editor tried to claim that Chee was a Lucas*film* official, when that is not the case - he is a Lucas *Licensing* employee. To take the analogy further, just because someone works for, say, New Line Cinema, does not automatically make them an employee of Time Warner. As to another point addresses above where Rogue 9 tries to put words in my mouth, again, you're missing the distinction. I never claimed that anyone did not know the rules of their job - I merely made the distinction that others were trying to misrepresent certain individuals' titles and or heirarchy, and was correcting them. Please, if you're going to continue arguing about this, seeing as how you've already bullied the process (and apparently corralled some new editors from somewhere that had no prior history on this article) into getting your way, or in my case, given others reason to throw up their hands in disgust over the matter, at least try to debate over what people actually say, instead of inventing new things that were NOT said you get your knickers in a wad over. TheRealFennShysa 14:50, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I wasn't "corralled" from anywhere. I happened across this article in the course of a discussion unrelated to any of the editors here and happened to notice the link. As I happen to know, as point of fact, that Robert Scott Anderson is a delusional liar, especially in the area of canon policy, I saw fit to remove the link. I'm not surprised that others before me also wanted it's removal, as it is clearly from a patently unreliable source. (And I make that as a statement of fact, not a personal attack. Wikipedia deals in truth, and I will not have that truth censored under a flimsy pretense of WP:RPA.) Rogue 9 15:50, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the link should be added back in. That point-of-view is NOT unique to one man. I don't agree with the Warsies' assessment either. In my view, the best interpretation is this: First, Lucas, and perhaps others (in the 2005 Starlog quote he said "we" made a decision to have two universes) consider the EU a different universe that is not part of the same one as the films. Second, the parts of the company responsible for creating the EU (like LucasBooks) consider it "canon" (naturally), and use this policy when making it. Third, making something consistent with the film does not make it "canon". I could write a bunch of fanfiction that was 100% consistent with all six films but that would STILL not make it "canon". Of course you have a right to disagree, but the fact remains there IS controversy over it. There's been a thread on the official StarWars.Com forums relating to canon that has been going on for YEARS now. A lot of people have differing views on what is "canon". Just thought I'd throw a little more fuel on this fire. 70.101.145.211 03:54, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter who the point of view is unique to or not. What matters is the point of view as put to a Lucasfilm employee and he said it was not the case. Further, if you're going to talk about what is "canon"- there is no other canon policy for Star Wars. None. If you check the thread where Leland Chee is quoted above, you will see he says that as well, when asked whether "Lucasfilm Ltd" has a canon policy (a favorite argument of those would would argue the EU is "not canon"- simply claim the policy and all the statements that contradict their interpretation is only for "Lucas Licensing" and therefore is superseded by some sort of "superior Lucasfilm Ltd" canon policy:

Does LucasFilm Ltd. itself actually have a Canon Policy?

No. I'm not exactly sure what the existence of such a thing would actually mean.

There is no other policy out there, and attempts to simply invent one based off of interpreting various public statements and claim it is a "policy" is garbage. This article is about Star Wars canon, and there is only one policy about what is Star Wars canon. Reporting the existence of controversy among disgruntled purists is more than enough. Anything else is factually inaccurate and deceptive, and it doesn't matter how long the argument has been raging.Beryoza 07:09, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, they just might not have been told (that IS the book/licensing company after all not the film company, and if the film company or Lucas has some sort of policy for their use, it might not apply to the book company.). George Lucas obviously only considers the films "true" canon so he has some sort of policy for himself, if it applies anywhere else I don't know. Your idea that it is "factually incorrect" is an opinion, and I do not agree with it. George Lucas has said there are two universes, not one, that a decision was made (but he doesn't state with who although it's obviously not the book company) to have this, etc. Does this apply to Lucasfilm, Ltd.? Perhaps. Does it apply to LucasBooks/Lucas Licensing? Certainly not. They consider it all the same universe. Anyway, I don't agree with the page, but I'm also not going to get in an "edit war" over it. I'll leave it the way it is. At least it does mention the controversy, and therefore it is good enough. 70.101.147.60 02:41, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree with the Warsies' assessment either. So now the "EU is canon" side are "Warsies?" Can't there be misguided SW fans who think the movies are the only canon, or SW fans who would prefer it that way? Your words make me suspect a bias. JimRaynor55 21:33, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Well most of the ones I've argued with are Warsies, although some have claimed otherwise. But there is one camp that supports the EU = canon view, and one camp that does not. Is this a bias? Maybe, maybe not. Will I edit the article to reflect it? No. 70.101.147.60 02:41, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

In my view, the best interpretation is this: First, Lucas, and perhaps others (in the 2005 Starlog quote he said "we" made a decision to have two universes) consider the EU a different universe that is not part of the same one as the films. Oh please. Why do the movie purists keep bringing up the SAME exact refuted quotes? Other George Lucas quotes before show that he throws around "world" or "universe" pretty loosely at times. He said that the EU was in another world in the SAME quote where he explained that his own world was merely a select period of time, and that the EU did intrude in between his periods of time. Leland Chee, who I think would have a FAR better understanding of George's policies than random no-name internet fans, explained that George did NOT mean to say that the EU was separate in the Starlog quote. JimRaynor55 21:33, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Are you sure? I mean, did he actually TALK to Lucas (Maybe I should ask him, you know.)? I want to hear something from LUCAS (and I have) and unless you can prove that he speaks for Lucas himself on the subject then you can't say his interpretation of Lucas's words is what Lucas meant. But I won't edit the page to push my point of view as "right". Everyone does have a point of view, like I do, but it shouldn't be pushed in an article (of course). I'm just offering my idea on this. George Lucas is tough to interpret, that's for sure, but the Starlog quote was reasonably decent in what it said. Anyway, I'm not going to argue this anymore, nor am I going to change the page to reflect my point of view. And I'm done with this argument at this point, I just wanted to throw in a little 2 cents, and that's it. My belief is that Lucas has his view on canon, the book company has another. REMEMBER: This is MY point of view, and I am not attempting to push it in the article, nor will I. 70.101.147.60 02:41, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

How nice of you guys to add a new "Controversy" section. You guys carried on and evaded questions for months before FINALLY removing the link from the External Links section, only to put it right back in a new "Controversy" section. Technically, there's nothing explicitly wrong with the section, but it makes it look like both sides are reasonable simply by OMITTING the fact that the movie purists are dead wrong. I've seen similar "Controversy" sections added to other Wikipedia articles many times before when one side knew it couldn't cut it in a debate. Would it be okay if I added "Controversy" sections to the Moon Landing or Holocaust articles? And don't even bother bringing up "Godwin's Law" or "it's my opinion" again with me. I'd like an actual reasoned response instead. JimRaynor55 21:33, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Not bothering to answer in the discussion page anymore? I guess that's no different than responding but completely avoiding the questions. Come on, be honest here, is this "Controversy" section anything but another evasion, to keep the link in but say "Ha, it's not technically in the External Links section, so it's ok!" Do you see legit encyclopedias (which Wiki strives to become) like Brittanica putting in "Controversy" sections at the end of its articles, with connotations that a side which COMPLETELY goes against the rest of the article preceding it as valid? Do you think it's appropriate to have conspiracy theorist "Controversy" sections at the end of the Holocaust or Moon Landing articles? I would like to see you actually defend this section as appropriate for an encyclopedia. What does it say that can't be summed up in a brief sentence or two in the "History" section? How do you justify a part which CONTRADICTS its own article? Do you really think I don't know what you're up to? It's not like this is the only time a "Controversy" section has been appended to the end of a Wiki article before. That's typical behavior when one side can't prove it's right. A brief mention that some fans still can't accept the CLEAR AND OFFICIAL statements that the EU is canon is okay, but making connotations that they're holding up in debate is NOT. JimRaynor55 02:10, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I didn't notice this before, so I didn't bring it up. But on closer look, the way the "Controversy" section TAKES APART the Sansweet quote and uses the bit with Obi-Wan talking about POV is VERY sneaky. That Sansweet quote UNDOUBTEDLY supports the idea that the EU is canon, and the context shows that Sansweet was referring to stylistic and gameplay issues across various mediums when he was bringing up that quote. He was NOT saying that official canon policy is not established and open to different POVs, as MikeWazowski makes it look with the way he cut and placed that quote fragment. This is a distortion, and is unacceptable. JimRaynor55 02:10, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

So now LFL's canon policy is "internal" and not "official?" As if to say it has a different canon policy than the billionaire who owns the company? Against the statements of its employees, who say there is ONE canon policy? Give me a break. You guys have complained loud and long about how I've been offensive to you with my "personal attacks," but I am offended that you continue to carry on like this, IGNORING all the clear evidence I've presented and NEVER bothering to explain how you're right. JimRaynor55 02:15, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Can any of you guys explain the Chee quote where he flat out says that there is ONE continuity, in response to a question asking if G and C-canon is separate? That's a simple request - but then again so was asking you to explain how ST-v-SW.net is factually accurate. I guess facing rather than dodging questions is too much to ask you guys. Shall I resume my count of the number of days you guys have carried on with this childish behavior? JimRaynor55 02:25, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

The link provides extensive sources, which answered your question of factual accuracy before you even asked. Just because you don't agree with the material or its interpretation does not mean that it is factually inaccurate. People who draw different conclusions than you do are not automatically liars and scoundrels. Wikipedia is based on a neutral point-of-view. In any case it is clear you have a vested interest in the matter. A little research shows that you have frequently blasted the individual on the stardestroyer.net forums, and you have also solicited assistance at theforce.net from those with Wikipedia accounts and others to "join in" and help you here. The note of complaint regarding the three-edit rule is also a nice touch. In short, you are attempting to quash dissenting opinions and enforce your POV via argumentative behavior with others, solicitations of assistance from off-site ("vote farming"), and general silly behavior. I would request that you cease your attempts to force Wikipedia to conform to your POV, and listen to Obi-Wan's comment about point of view from the Star Wars films. AxonicBomb 06:00, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

AxonicBomb, the site[s] consistently ignores what has been said by the owners of both the Star Trek and the Star Wars franchise and the webmaster's opinion doesn't accurately reflect the canon policy of either franchise and the webmaster isn't an authority on canon policy. SincereGuy 07:16, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll offer what is perhaps a different reason for keeping it off. First of all I will state my position here in detail, then I'll state my reason for keeping it off. For one, I do not believe it "blatantly contradicts" Lucasfilm's, etc. policy. Rather I think it shows that other's interpretations of that policy are wrong. You are free to disagree with this assessment, though. My view does admit that Lucas Books Lucas Licensing considers the EU "canon material", but it also admits that George Lucas & possibly his film production team, consider only the films to be "canon", actually maybe that isn't even quite right: they consider the EU and films to be their own separate universes. The EU forms the canon of it's universe, the films form the canon of another. George Lucas said that a decision was made with someone (he doesn't state who, however, but is implied by his use of "we" in "we decided") to have the universe of Star Wars split into two. However the book, game, comic, etc. companies have decided to maintain consistency with the movies even though they don't have to. It's a policy they created for themselves and it does NOT contradict the "two universe" doctrine already in effect for Lucas and whoever he made the decision with, because they can write whatever they want in the EU and constrain their writers to whatever rules they want by virtue of it being a separate universe. The EU is not in the same universe as the films themselves. Outside of the six films, we have no clue as to what happened in their universe. Ie. Lucas Books, Lucas Licensing, etc. have one policy, and LucasFilm Ltd. Proper, George Lucas, etc. have another, and the way they are made ensures no fighting within the "corporate empire" occurs (as I showed above it is indeed possible for both to coexist in the same "Lucas Corporate Empire" without "friction".). That is what I believe is really going on. Once again I must reiterate -- you do not have to agree with my viewpoint, and I will not attempt to bias the article in favor of it in violation of the neutral point-of-view policy here at Wikipedia. I debated this on this same page a while ago, in fact. At least I can agree with some of my opponents that the Lucas Licensing, etc. "all-is-canon" policy IS valid SOMEWHERE... I just acknowledge the existence of another "policy" as well. (PS. I'm the one with the "70.101.145.211", "70.101.147.60" addresses (and perhaps a few others but they are all 70.101.xxx.xxx addys) above -- my IP keeps changing...) But even though I still hold firm to this view, which is close to what is on ST-v-SW.net, I can see that it is probably not OK to include the site in the links section simply because it is too controversial and disputed. Just thought I should give a thorough explanation of my position and also my verdict on the inclusion of the site, which is NO. Even though I agree with many of the arguments there at least as far as the canon thing is concerned, it is simply too "hot" to be included. Too hot, too disputed for a neutral encyclopedia. 70.101.144.160 09:06, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ChronoRadio link removal

Due to the recent unpleasantness, it seems fair that all links that are fannish in nature should be removed, since there has been so much vitriol on one side of the argument over one link in particuluar. While Nathan Butler has written one piece of licensed Star Wars fiction for one comic book, this does not make him a Lucasfilm employee or an expert of the subject, since the story he wrote has no relation to the question of Star Wars canon. The ChronoRadio project is a strictly fan-based project of Butler's, and is no way endorsed, approved, or even acknowledged by representatives of Lucasfilm, Lucasarts, or any of their subsidiaries. Futhermore, since the link in question references an mp3 file with no transcript available, what information in there is unavailable for quick review to check for "factual inaccuracies", as certain individuals like to continually harp on as a qualifier. Therefore, in accordance with the recent unpleasantness of late, the link has been removed. TheRealFennShysa 15:32, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Controversy section

While JimRaynor55 obviously believes that others are wrong in their interpretation of canon, and has been quite adamant about wiping clean the existence of any link to those that believe otherwise, it's quite clear that there is a difference of opinion among various camps. Just because one disagrees with them does not give one the right to unilaterally delete the section, to deny the fact that a controversy exists. It's intellectually dishonest.

I'm not taking either side here, which Raynor seems to continually misunderstand, along with his continual misunderstanding about how "factually inaccurate" applies to one of the links in question - the difference being that that link's conclusions *might* be in error, but that is a matter of "opinion", not fact. The opinion presented there is based on quotes and statements that are, as far as I can make out, factually accurate. People said the things they are quoted as saying, and references have been provided on that page.

The "controversy" section is presented without bias towards either side. The beliefs of each side are presented factually, and without undue weight to either one. Also, splitting the quote from Sansweet is also not misleading - in the context of the article as written, the line about "point of view" is more appropriate at the end of the article, because the entire controversy is based around differing points of view. It serves as a perfect summation.

What's become abundantly clear here is that Raynor's actions of late appear to be dedicated to one thing only, and that's to eradicate any mention of a view counter to one he believes in. Unfortunately, neither the world, nor Wikipedia, work that way. I'll point specifically to the Neutral Point of View (NPOV) doctrine, a fundamental Wikipedia principle which states that all articles must be written from a neutral point of view - that is, they must represent all significant views fairly and without bias.

I applaud Beryoza recent edit for understanding that most of us are trying to improve the article and its presentation of the subject, and his edit to clarify the controversy section, as opposed to Raynor's deletions, show to me that he's willing to work towards that goal. Kudos to TheRealFennShysa as well for restoring things, while still keeping some of Raynor's non-deletion contributions.

I'm sure this response will be greeted with skepticism or looked at as a dodge, again, by certain individuals. Whatever. At least I'm willing to work towards a compromise, as opposed to blindly deleting the opposing opinions. MikeWazowski 04:10, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Just because one disagrees with them does not give one the right to unilaterally delete the section, to deny the fact that a controversy exists. It's intellectually dishonest. Oh, there are SOME fanboys who think that they're right, and that LFL's OFFICIAL policy is wrong. My gripe is the undue weight you're giving to this "controversy," simply by calling it a "controversy" and saying that both sides maintain that they're right gives the connotation that the movie purists actually have a point. They DON'T. Answer my question. Do you think that a "Controversy" section that is "unbiased" in presenting conspiracy theories about the Moon Landing or Holocaust is appropriate? You are NOT in a position to sling accusations of intellectual dishonesty, seeing as how you have dodged questions and ignored evidence for over 2 months now. BTW, what do you have to say about your DISTORTION of the Sansweet quote?JimRaynor55 04:43, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Issues such as the moon landing or the Holocaust are not relevant here, and your continued insistence on dragging them into the discussion speaks volumes. We're not talking about real events here - we're talking about differing opinions on how to interpret whether one made-up chain of story events is more "real" than another made-up chain of story events. Also, to distort the Sansweet quote, I would have had to have changed the words, which I in now way did. It means the same thing there as it does above, where Sansweet is simply saying (in both cases) how you interpret these differences depends on your own point of view. MikeWazowski 05:15, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

the difference being that that link's conclusions *might* be in error, but that is a matter of "opinion", not fact. The opinion presented there is based on quotes and statements that are, as far as I can make out, factually accurate. Again you say the site seems factually accurate, and AGAIN you don't do anything to show why. Come on MikeWazowski, why are you holding back? I'm asking you for a VERY simple thing. JimRaynor55 04:43, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I did not say the site was factually accurate - I said the opinions presented there are based on factually accurate quotes. There is a difference. MikeWazowski 05:15, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I applaud Beryoza recent edit for understanding that most of us are trying to improve the article and its presentation of the subject, and his edit to clarify the controversy section, as opposed to Raynor's deletions, show to me that he's willing to work towards that goal. Beryoza can speak for himself. I'd like to see if he REALLY accepts your little section, as you suggest here. JimRaynor55 04:43, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Seeing as how he added a clarification to the section without blindly deleting it, I'd say odds are my interpretation was correct. MikeWazowski 05:15, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Kudos to TheRealFennShysa as well for restoring things, while still keeping some of Raynor's non-deletion contributions. On the contrary, shame on him for being a grown man who sticks his fingers in his ears, closes his eyes, and IGNORES the mountain of evidence against him. JimRaynor55 04:43, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah, coming close to personal attacks again, are we? How incredibly nice of you. MikeWazowski 05:15, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure this response will be greeted with skepticism or looked at as a dodge, again, by certain individuals. Whatever. At least I'm willing to work towards a compromise, as opposed to blindly deleting the opposing opinions. THIS right here highlights the difference between you and me. You OPENLY disregard any need to explain yourself and provide evidence. It seems to me that you don't CARE about the truth. No, in your world, everything is governed by the middle ground fallacy. While logic to most people means going along with what the evidence shows, a "logical" person to you is someone who bends and "compromises." You're simply NOT a logical person. JimRaynor55 04:43, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I've explained myself over and over again, yet you continually try to claim otherwise because my reasons don't fit with your narrow worldview. MikeWazowski 05:15, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I've explained myself over and over again, yet you continually try to claim otherwise because my reasons don't fit with your narrow worldview. Really? Or is it because your supposed explanations are anything but? I just see a bunch of middle ground fallacies and ad hominems about how I haven't made a lot of edits to the regular Wiki (ignoring all my contributions to the SW Wiki). If you've explained it already, then why don't you just post it again? Come on man, copy and paste! It's not like I haven't had to post anything over again because you apparently don't read. I'm asking you to do a very simple thing, but apparently simple things are too much for you. JimRaynor55 11:42, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Do you really want to embarass yourself by continuing to carry on and making up falsehoods about how you've explaine your position already? I exposed the truth about TheRealFennShysa, making an overview of all his posts in July. I'll do the same for you. JimRaynor55 11:48, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Issues such as the moon landing or the Holocaust are not relevant here, and your continued insistence on dragging them into the discussion speaks volumes. We're not talking about real events here - we're talking about differing opinions on how to interpret whether one made-up chain of story events is more "real" than another made-up chain of story events. No. The Moon Landing, Holocaust, and what LFL has officially stated are all real-life things with mountains of evidence. Just like LFL's official policies, some people out there "interpret" (throw out) the evidence about the Moon Landing or Holocaust. JimRaynor55 12:00, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, to distort the Sansweet quote, I would have had to have changed the words, which I in now way did. WRONG. By snipping out context, and by placing a quote in a certain place immediately after talking about something, you CAN distort the meaning. Sansweet was in NO WAY trying to give validity to the people who can't see the mountain of evidence saying that the EU is canon. JimRaynor55 12:00, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I think it's better than I thought.

Hi.

Well, after looking over this again, it seems OK enough. Although it seems to "force" one into the idea that the canon includes the EU at the beginning, it also provides the various quotes without suggesting any "preferred" interpretation, which to me is pretty neutral and allows someone to make up their own mind. It also acknowledges that controversy exists, instead of not mentioning it at all. 70.101.144.160 19:00, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

The current state of this article is pathetic. It doesn't "force" the idea that the EU is canon, it proves it with evidence. Sorry movie purists and Trekkie fanboys, but the EU is canon. There's a quote RIGHT THERE from Leland Chee that says that G (movies) and C (EU) canon are one and the same. There's a separate classification for non-canon, which is N. Why does the N classification even exist if nothing but G is canon? Giving legitimacy to the small portion of whiney fanboys who think otherwise (claiming that LFL can't even decide it's own company's canon policy) is NOT being neutral. It's about as neutral as a "controversy" section that talks about the International Flat Earth Society (yes, there's such a thing) in a Wiki article about the planet Earth. BTW, that quote at the end of the article does NOT belong there. It's dishonest, for the simple fact that it's being taken out of context and applied to something which it wasn't even referring to. If anybody thinks otherwise, SUPPORT its inclusion in the article with real evidence and logic, NOT more whining about "neutrality." I took a break from this place for a while because of real-life obligations, but now I'm back. I'm not going to let this perversion of truth and "neutrality" stand. JimRaynor55 15:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Things I want to see from the "neutrality" and "EU isn't canon" crowd:

Evidence and logic supporting the claim that only the movies are canon.
A logical reason explaining why a "controversy" section giving legitimacy to the movie purist position should be included in what is SUPPOSED to be an encyclopedia article striving for truth and professionalism. This goes back to #1. Lacking evidence, wouldn't this essentially be giving credit to a baseless, incorrect position?

Tell me, is this demanding too much? Or are ad-hominems about how impolite I supposedly am, whining about opinions (on a FACTUAL topic which is decided by whatever LFL says) or appeals to a twisted "neutrality" all you guys can bring up? JimRaynor55 15:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Constantly labelling your opponents arguments as "dishonest", "whining", and a "perversion" certainly doesn't help your case. People have expressed their reasonings on many occasions, and you have steadfastly and consistently ignored or derided them. Please stop removing sections that are (and even by your own admission, over at TFN) accurate, however much you may disagree with them - your own personal opinions on the matter are not truth, nor should the article reflect your biases as truth. TheRealFennShysa 15:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Constantly labelling your opponents arguments as "dishonest", "whining", and a "perversion" certainly doesn't help your case. No, the numerous quotes from Leland Chee and others who work for LFL do. BTW, isn't this pot calling kettle? All you do is throw around words like "vandalism" and accusations that I'm impolite. JimRaynor55 15:59, 7 November 2006 (UTC) People have expressed their reasonings on many occasions, and you have steadfastly and consistently ignored or derided them. Really? Where? Can you point out a specific comment, on a specific date, that does what I asked for, which is provide evidence that the EU isn't canon? I seem to recall embarrassing you by going over ALL your posts in July, showing that you had done no such thing. Again, if you've already posted it, why don't you just copy and paste it again for me? Why the evasion? JimRaynor55 15:59, 7 November 2006 (UTC) Please stop removing sections that are (and even by your own admission, over at TFN) accurate Whoah, whoah, whoah! *I* supposedly admitted that on TFN that the controversy section and placement of the Sansweet quote are accurate? Is THAT what you're claiming here? Don't make things up. Show some proof of this, if this is what you're trying to say. JimRaynor55 15:59, 7 November 2006 (UTC) You've sunk to a new low, TheRealFennShysa. Now, instead of just being stubborn and illogical in this debate, you've stooped to putting words in my mouth. I DEMAND that you show evidence that I admitted on TFN that the disputed sections of this article were accurate. JimRaynor55 16:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Oooo, you demand. Okeydoke. In this thread, in a post dated September 19, you tried to enlist aid in your quest to remove information here. No one replied or helped you out. You also posted, in regards to the Controversy section, "The guy who wrote that section insists that there's nothing wrong with it. Technically there isn't..." Yes, you went on to bring up your Holocaust connections again, and try to rationalize your POV as the correct one again, but in that one line, you admitted that the section is technically accurate. End of story. TheRealFennShysa 16:29, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Oooo, you demand. Okeydoke. Yes, I demand EVIDENCE. Like an adult, not a child who thinks people can say what they want without backing it up.JimRaynor55 16:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC) You also posted, in regards to the Controversy section, "The guy who wrote that section insists that there's nothing wrong with it. Technically there isn't..." Yes, you went on to bring up your Holocaust connections again, and try to rationalize your POV as the correct one again, but in that one line, you admitted that the section is technically accurate. End of story. Wow, just WOW. I implore everyone reading this discussion page to look carefully at this post, as well as to go to theforce.net and read what I said there. Really, this says it all. People who rely on TECHNICALITIES are almost always desperate. Oh yeah, the section is technically true, same as how it's technically true that there are wackos out there who think the Earth is flat. Does that mean Flat Earthers warrant a "controversy" section in the article about the planet Earth? Did I make an "admission" that it was accurate? HELL NO. It is NOT an accurate portrayal of the situation when there's no debate (it's an open and shut case), but you try and give legitimacy to the whiney side that refuses to look at the evidence. Furthermore, and more blatantly, I sure as hell did not admit that that OUT OF CONTEXT Steve Sansweet quote that you guys keep posting is accurate. Nice try. JimRaynor55 16:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

JimRaynor, if your position is so secure then why are you so desperate? You're trying to scream louder and meaner and now again you're calling for editing assistance at yet another website. Opinions differ, people who disagree with you aren't evil. So don't be evil to them.

[edit] The Steve Sansweet Quote

THIS is what Mr. Sansweet actually said:

"There's been some confusion of late regarding the 'Infinities' symbol, and Star Wars Expanded Universe continuity in general. Terms like "canon" and "continuity" tend to get thrown around casually, which doesn't help at all.

When it comes to absolute canon, the real story of Star Wars, you must turn to the films themselves - and only the films. Even novelizations are interpretations of the film, and while they are largely true to George Lucas' vision (he works quite closely with the novel authors), the method in which they are written does allow for some minor differences. The novelizations are written concurrently with the film's production, so variations in detail do creep in from time to time. Nonetheless, they should be regarded as very accurate depictions of the fictional Star Wars movies.

The further one branches away from the movies, the more interpretation and speculation come into play. LucasBooks works diligently to keep the continuing Star Wars expanded universe cohesive and uniform, but stylistically, there is always room for variation. Not all artists draw Luke Skywalker the same way. Not all writers define the character in the same fashion. The particular attributes of individual media also come into play. A comic book interpretation of an event will likely have less dialogue or different pacing than a novel version. A video game has to take an interactive approach that favors gameplay. So too must card and roleplaying games ascribe certain characteristics to characters and events in order to make them playable.

The analogy is that every piece of published Star Wars fiction is a window into the 'real' Star Wars universe. Some windows are a bit foggier than others. Some are decidedly abstract. But each contains a nugget of truth to them. Like the great Jedi Knight Obi-Wan Kenobi said, 'many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our point of view.'

Returning to the question at hand. Yes, Star Wars Gamer is part of continuity, though as game material, there is room for interpretation. Only specific articles marked with the 'Infinities' logo within the magazine should be considered out of continuity.

Fans of the old monthly Marvel Star Wars comic will be heartened to know that LucasBooks does indeed consider them part of continuity. Decades of retrospect haven't been kind to all the elements of the comic series, but the characters and events still hold weight and are referenced in newer material whenever possible.

In order to allow unlimited freedom of storytelling, the Infinities label has been placed on the anthology series, Star Wars Tales. This means that not only can the stories occur anywhere in the Star Wars timeline, but stories can happen outside continuity. Basically, if an event happens in Tales, it may not have necessarily happened in the rest of the expanded universe. For some stories, the distinction is largely inconsequential. For others, it's the only way they could exist (for example, there's a Darth Vader vs. Darth Maul comic coming soon)."

This, or a more complete version closer to this, once existed in the article. I bolded the part which certain stubborn editors keep taking out of context and putting in that "controversy" section of their's. Everyone, read the WHOLE Sansweet quote. The man clearly supports the position that the EU is canon, just not as indisputably correct as the movies (which is consistent with Chee's G/C/S/N canon tiers). Sansweet bring's up Obi-Wan's comments about POV when talking about different artistic interpretations and practical changes that have to be made across different mediums, such as comic books and games. The whole entire quote is evidence against the movie purist position being given credit in the "controversy" section of the article, and Sansweet's quote has NOTHING to do with the EU's canon status being open to interpretation. I'm sick and tired of this. Someone better explain how it was appropriate to cut this small part out of context and use it in a way it was never intended to be used. But I'm sure all I'll get is another baseless claim that such evidence was already provided, and that I'm just not listening to it. JimRaynor55 17:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I notice that your article reversions always come a lot more quickly compared to your answers to my questions and requests for evidence (if they come at all). Funny. JimRaynor55 17:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Still no response? Although you had time to write about what I said at some other message board? Come on, why aren't you answering? How are you going to justify this quote's out-of-context and misleading use? Oh, I know: You'll just claim that you've ALREADY justified its placement in the "Controversy" section, and that I'm just ignoring you. JimRaynor55 07:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Seeing as how I *did* post my justifications in the "Controversy" section, what more is there to say? I see no point in copy and pasting something which is clearly visible in a clearly marked section above. MikeWazowski 08:10, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My, what a charming post

Apparently Mr. JimRaynor has decided he needs to again canvass other sites for support, since his missive at TheForce.net's message boards several months ago asking people to come to his aid here generated no support. In this wonderfully eloquent post over at this message board, he apparently felt the need to call those who disagree with him "idiots", "retards", "Rules and Golden Mean whores", "Trektard", "loser", "fanboy", "evasive, dishonest shitheads", "basic, low-level morons", "fanwhore", "utter dumbasses", and "dishonest assholes". Civility is apparently not his strong suit.

I'll remind Mr. Raynor that according to Wikipedia policy, It is considered highly inappropriate or unacceptable to advertise Wikipedia articles that are being debated in order to attract users with known views and bias, in order to strengthen one side of a debate... Advertising or soliciting meatpuppet activity is not an acceptable practice on Wikipedia. MikeWazowski 06:21, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

MikeWazowski, don't you think you should be more concerned with whether Jim Raynor is correct or incorrect than with the language he uses? Neocapitalist 20:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

My my MikeWazowski, such terrible language! At least I had the decency to save that kind of language for another message board. Don't pollute this encyclopedia with those obscenities! On a more serious note, to anybody reading this, go and take a look at that message board post MikeWazowski linked to. Go, and READ the entire thing. As anybody with the patience and/or masochism to read through this horrid, repetitive discussion page knows, I'm not afraid of the evidence. As anybody can plainly see, at the end of the post that MikeWazowski is so offended by, I clearly asked people with existing Wiki accounts to come here. Therefore, MikeWazowski's accusations that I was soliciting for meatpuppets is FALSE. Like just about everything else he says here. JimRaynor55 07:20, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, that is rich! Trying to take me down for posting "such terrible language" when I'm quoting you! That's funny, Raynor! Seriously, I'm laughing my ass off right now. And the fact of the matter is that you were caught soliciting off-site for editors (new or otherwise) not currently involved in the debate to come in an potentially give undue influence to the discussion. That was the reason for the warning, which if you would have actually read at the link provided, you would see. If you feel that a debate is ignoring your voice, then the appropriate action is not to solicit others outside Wikipedia. Instead, avoid personal attacks, seek comments and involvement from other Wikipedians, or pursue dispute resolution. These are quite well tested processes, and are designed to avoid the problem of exchanging bias in one direction for bias in another. You solicited others outside Wikipedia, and you post personal attacks on those who disagree with you. Your actions speak volumes, my bitter little friend. MikeWazowski 07:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, that is rich! Trying to take me down for posting "such terrible language" when I'm quoting you! LOL. Did you not see the point that I said those curse words OFF of Wikipedia, and didn't bring them to this encyclopedia? Who cares if a book writers says "**** this!" to when he's off the job? Anyway, you are being completely paranoid by thinking that I'm trying to "take [you] down." Did you not see where I said "on a more serious note?" JimRaynor55 08:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

That's funny, Raynor! Seriously, I'm laughing my ass off right now. Please stop your cursing. You're not quoting me anymore. JimRaynor55 08:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Your actions speak volumes, my bitter little friend. Your inability to post a single piece of evidence pertaining to the actual debate speaks volumes, my "friend." JimRaynor55 08:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Go to Wookieepedia Instead

For better information about this subject, instead go to the canon article at Wookieepedia, the dedicated SW Wiki. It's managed by SW fans who are knowledgable and care about the facts, who care little about "opinions." JimRaynor55 09:01, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Are there lots of fans or a few fans who prefer the canonwars.com approach?

At face value, the only fan who subscribes to the canonwars.com approach is the man who maintains that site. Even if he has a small following (does he?), I don't see why the article ought lend false credence to the idea that there is a sizeable minority of fans who agree with the canonwars.com approach to Star Wars canon. I therefore stand by my wording of the controversy (oh, the irony) section: it should reflect the article's content and point out that a large majority of fans agree with the usual approach, and only a very few follow the canonwars.com approach. Neocapitalist 15:32, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Addendum: this is no different than, say, Creationism articles pointing out that an overwhelming majority of scientists subscribe to one approach, and only a few agree with another one. Neocapitalist 15:39, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

First off, the problem is in you framing it as canonwars.com vs. the stardestroyer.net, when that's missing the point. Those are simply the most visible links for each perspective, and are used simply as identifiers in the article. Also, what proof do you have that a sizable majority of the fans feel either way? Because you happen to believe one way over the other? That's a very large mistake to make, as there's no quantifiable way to guage exactly how the size of these groups stack up. I've been trying to work with people here; those who've been willing to talk about this rationally, anyway, which I'm glad you're trying. I'm not trying to give credence, false or otherwise, to either side, as we have no way of accurately knowing numbers here.

Simple word choices here are very important. Originally I wrote the section to present it as this side/that side, with no undue balance given to either side. I'm fine with the qualifier "many" in regards to the first group, as it still doesn't prejudice the reader very much. However, "most" is very loaded, and combined with "very few" or "a few" to describe the second shows a bias and gives, as you say, false credence to one viewpoint, which is what we should not be doing. I'm somewhat okay with the link to the "arguments", although the wording on the page at that link is worrisome, since the language used there is definitely loaded to side the reader with one camp over the other.

This is hardly like the creationism debate, where one would be dealing with quantifiable numbers, peer reviews, journals, and other reliable citable sources as to how a community presents itself. But fandom? Certainly the groups at places like StarDestroyer.net are loud, vocal, and very opinionated, but they're only a small fraction of fandom. Same for the other site. Fandom is large, and the online community is a drop in the bucket, as, say, the Snakes on a Plane people found out earlier this year. And yet even fandom is a drop in the bucket compared to the casual fan, who probably doesn't frequent fannish forums, doesn't endlessly debate (or care) how big a starship is, or wonder which franchise could kick the tailfeathers of the other. That person may only just now be discovering the EU and its fannish offspring, and should be free to make decisions for themselves what they will choose to believe. A page like this should serve as their portal into more information, should they choose to follow it - and front-loading it with language to give undue influence to something that cannot be factually, quantifiably backed up is just wrong. Everything else in this article is laid out factually, with citations; this section should be no different. There is a controversy out there between various camps, and we have no way of knowing quantifiably which one is more popular - although we do know which one is certainly more vocal. MikeWazowski 14:30, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

You're right. Thanks a lot for a very neutral and accurate sum of the state of the Star Wars community! :) There are so many viewpoints out there, and it's all quite "mushy" stuff, with few numbers, etc. to really pin it down in a hard, quantitative manner, which makes it difficult to write a truly encyclopedic discourse that is totally neutral to all parties involved. 74.38.34.192 21:31, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Can't we get it over?

Hi.

With regards to the big ST-v-SW.net debate here, I was wondering: can't they just get along with each other? If each side wanted to see where the other made good points and not just face off and attack each other (look at all the "Personal attack removed!" tags in there! And all the "YELLING" and "SCREAMING" caps, etc.). It seems that the parties involved are waaaaaaay too defensive and ingrained in their position instead of wanting to produce worthwhile discussion that can lead to a joint conclusion and resolution of the issue! 74.38.34.192 21:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/t/a/Talk%7EStar_Wars_canon_b10d.html"

Categories: WikiProject Star Wars articles | Unassessed Star Wars articles