![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
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)
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)
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)
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]
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.
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)
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)
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)
Things I want to see from the "neutrality" and "EU isn't canon" crowd:
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. 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. 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.
THIS is what Mr. Sansweet actually said:
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)
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)
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! 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)
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)
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)
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)
Notwithstanding what I now see is the associated controversy, could I just say that that quote
is one of the nicest article closes I've seen on WP? :-)
--
Baylink
00:34, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
is supershadow at?-- Cody6 ( talk) 04:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
It does not seem like he contradicted himself. He did not deny that an overall continuity composed of all the material in that Holocron existed, he simply acknowledged that a second continuity, containing only the films, also existed. That is not a contradiction. Could you explain this? mike4ty4 18:45, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Finally, after a lifetime of conflicting interviews and misinterpretations, as well as well-paid spokespeople, the truth comes out. And it's not pretty.
http://livefeed.hollywoodreporter.com/2010/05/george-lucas-lost.html
Intended as a private letter, it can no longer be debated that the OT is the single biggest fluke in cinematic history... Take it as you will in this article, but I feel it firmly debunks any idea of there being a "vision." 173.56.203.227 ( talk) 15:15, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Is the Star Wars Holiday Special non-canon? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.42.67.153 ( talk) 05:08, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Stay classy wikipedia, stay classy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.194.80.66 ( talk) 01:31, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
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)
2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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:
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)
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)
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":
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)
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)
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)
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.
The entire article, as written, is the POV of the Warsy community.
-- SincereGuy 16:35, 7 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)
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. When in doubt, go for the ad hominem. I'm STILL waiting for an explanation about why that site is factually accurate, after TWO MONTHS. You're not fooling anyone. JimRaynor55 21:39, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
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.
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:
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)
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)
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)
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:
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.
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)
This argument is the very reason that the part of the article in question should be removed. Not to mention, Mike Wong is not a credible source on anything: He is simply a person devoted to hating Star Trek, and therefore he is NOT devoted to preserving Star Wars canon. He himself has re-written canon on many occasions. Anderson is only really concerned with Star Trek, making him a non-credible source on Star Wars canon. Not only is their argument pure speculation, it is speculation on the comparative destructive power of two non-existant combatants, only one of which has any basis in reality at all (Star Trek), the other of which can change its "canon" self at will. (Star Wars) Unfortunately the Star Wats camp is EASILY the more 'bitchy' group, when they should be the least concerned with the non-canon, fictional outcome of a non-canon battle. Keep it off of Wikipedia. 198.85.210.203 ( talk) 14:56, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
In the article "Star Wars: The Clone Wars" is mentioned being one of the only two television show to be included in T-canon, but what about "Star Wars: Clone Wars"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:16D8:FFD4:1:D822:E9AD:7A4E:52D3 ( talk) 01:46, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm removing the second paragraph, as this is an interpretation of the source and original research.
The source page does not state that all old Star Wars canon is S-Canon, in fact, we do not know if LucasFilm Story Group will be using the old canon system at all. If they were, it would be N-Canon, as all Legends canon is moved to an entirely separate category and not at all canon. To understand the old canon system, S-Canon is still canon that is 'secondary', meaning if new C-Canon overrides it, it then becomes N-Canon. With the announcement, ALL pre-April canon is non-canon, thus N-Canon. But again, we do not know if LSG will keep this system, thus we should not mention the levels of canon at all, and instead use the terms we gave us, "Legends" and "Canon."
Besides, I'm pretty sure there is no longer G, C, S or N canon, as the entire point of this LSG and canon wipe is to establish only "canon" and "legends", and LSG's purpose is to make sure all canon is one single, cohesive continuity with no contradictions and that they do not invalidate eachother.
On a second note, I updated "what is canon" in the first paragraph, as LucasFilm has stated that Darth Maul: Son of Dathomir is part of the new canon, as it was wrote off Clone Wars scripts that were intended to be animated, published and broadcasted. Also, LucasFilm announced a new line of books that will be part of canon, that should also be included.
67.63.74.150 ( talk) 13:12, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
In the "Disney acquisition, canon revision and Star Wars Legends" section, the following appears:
"On April 25, 2014, Lucasfilm and Disney officially revised the canon, stating that all previously released materials considered C-Canon would be now conisdered S-Canon, and will be republished under the Star Wars: Legends banner. Any new published EU material will be officially considered C-Canon, unless otherwise stated."
using the reference of the primary source located at http://starwars.com/news/the-legendary-star-wars-expanded-universe-turns-a-new-page.html
This is not what this source says, and I believe the inference expressed in the article is flawed. I believe the tiered structure is being done away with. And while the EU is now relegated to playing the same role as what was previously referred to as S-canon, it will no longer be referred to as such. Nor in the referenced article does it state that new novels going forward will be C-canon. I believe that the tiered canon system is done away with, and all material will be considered just "canon" going forward, as directed by the Lucasfilm Story Group. I take such phrases in the source material as
"On the screen, the first new canon to appear will be Star Wars Rebels. In print, the first new books to come from this creative collaboration include novels from Del Rey Books. First to be announced, John Jackson Miller is writing a novel that precedes the events of Star Wars Rebels and offers insight into a key character's backstory, with input directly from executive producers Dave Filoni, Simon Kinberg, and Greg Weisman."
I agree that this is vague, and other interpretations may be read into this, but I have some information that is "original research" and therefore not an acceptable source for a wikipedia article, but it may help point a researcher in the correct direction. On May 4, 2014 I was part of a tour group at Rancho Obi-Wan and in the library, Steve Sansweet addressed the current fan reaction towards the moving of the EU out of continuity into the "Legends" line. To paraphrase, he said, that fans complaining that we have less canon are missing the point. The EU was never 'canon'. Now with the Story Group, all the new novels and things will be actually canon, on par with the films. We are actually getting MORE canon. Though no longer employed by Lucasfilm, Mr. Sansweet, still has many contacts within the company (as a small number were there that day including ). In fact, Pablo Hidalgo, a member of the Lucasfilm Story Group was present, and did not correct Mr. Sansweet of his assertion. Though I must admit I am not sure he was in the room at the time or in ear-shot when he said this. This was not recorded, and the skeptical-minded should treat my account as hearsay, as it relies on my memory which may be unreliable. Not appropriate to be included in the article, but may help someone have some context for research. ZenMondo ( talk) 10:28, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
First of all I'll like to say that in a Twitter post Jennifer Heddle had explicitly stated that all of the EU was non-canon. I haven't been able to find a reliable second-hand source which cites this statement. However when I do I will mention it in the article. KahnJohn27 ( talk) 07:28, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
I have removed all fabricated text and added what was actually given in the sources. For example, the Star Wars canon is no longer organised based on different levels. Lucasfilms also specifically said that the Star Wars films were the "official canon" and never said they were the "primary canon". Neither they explicitly made any statement regarding the canonicity of Expanded Universe. It is most likely that calling the films as "primary canon" is a fabrication in order to try to say that the EU is still canon. Statements and words should never be changed as to give them another meaning. KahnJohn27 ( talk) 08:02, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
As there is now a new canon and all previous expanded universe content is now "Legends" (non-canon), should we begin updating the Star Wars pages on Wikipedia to match the new canon? ReddyRedCP ( talk) 18:55, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
When is this set? Someone has put down 34 ABY, but according to http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Star_Wars_Battlefront#Overview it has battles set during episodes 4, 5 and 6. Maybe just leave it as a range of dates? Epic Wink ( talk) 18:52, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Now that the EU has been torpedoed and George Lucas is not really that involved with the movies, how will "Word of God" canon be determined? Back in the day, what Lucas said was considered Word, but since he had nothing really to do with The Force Awakens, I feel this situation is a little muddled. Thoughts?-- Gen. Quon (Talk) 16:45, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Star Wars canon. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the
|checked=
to true
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 01:00, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Battlefront needs to be removed from the canon list. It is a game based on canon (except for the expanded universe shadowtrooper armor), but does not add to the canon, unlike other sources.
There is a lot of things that, partly because of this article, people are thinking is canon. Specifically, a guy argued with me recently that it is canon that Boba Fett survived the Sarlacc pit because he appears in the Battle of Jakku level. So does Vader and Palpatine who died previously as well. The book Star Wars Battlefront: Twilight Company is canon, however.
Moviepilot has a list of canon, the game is not on it. http://moviepilot.com/posts/3806036
Stilleon (
talk)
01:03, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Star Wars canon. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 06:21, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
I think the fact that the expanded universe was made to be Legends (by Disney) has been mentioned and discussed multiple times in the article. A good clean-up would chuck this discussion into its own section.
Epic Wink ( talk) 14:26, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
I'm not so sure about the reliability of the two forum sources in the article, even though they are attributed to Leland Chee. More importantly, I'm not actually seeing any references in Chee's posts to the information about T-canon which is cited. The second cited page doesn't even seem to have a post by Chee.
T-canon was Television canon: [1] referred to the canon level comprising only the animated film Star Wars: The Clone Wars and the two television series Star Wars: The Clone Wars and the planned live-action series. Its precedence over C-Level canon was confirmed by Chee. [2]
I'm leaving the material in the article but not these two citations, pending further research.— TAnthony Talk 01:18, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
Someone please add them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosvel92 ( talk • contribs) 08:47, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
So am I to understand that while the seven films are obviously canon, the original novelizations of the first six are not?— TAnthony Talk 22:13, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
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)
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)
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)
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]
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.
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)
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)
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)
Things I want to see from the "neutrality" and "EU isn't canon" crowd:
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. 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. 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.
THIS is what Mr. Sansweet actually said:
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)
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)
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! 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)
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)
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)
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)
Notwithstanding what I now see is the associated controversy, could I just say that that quote
is one of the nicest article closes I've seen on WP? :-)
--
Baylink
00:34, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
is supershadow at?-- Cody6 ( talk) 04:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
It does not seem like he contradicted himself. He did not deny that an overall continuity composed of all the material in that Holocron existed, he simply acknowledged that a second continuity, containing only the films, also existed. That is not a contradiction. Could you explain this? mike4ty4 18:45, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Finally, after a lifetime of conflicting interviews and misinterpretations, as well as well-paid spokespeople, the truth comes out. And it's not pretty.
http://livefeed.hollywoodreporter.com/2010/05/george-lucas-lost.html
Intended as a private letter, it can no longer be debated that the OT is the single biggest fluke in cinematic history... Take it as you will in this article, but I feel it firmly debunks any idea of there being a "vision." 173.56.203.227 ( talk) 15:15, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Is the Star Wars Holiday Special non-canon? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.42.67.153 ( talk) 05:08, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Stay classy wikipedia, stay classy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.194.80.66 ( talk) 01:31, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
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)
2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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:
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)
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)
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":
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)
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)
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)
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.
The entire article, as written, is the POV of the Warsy community.
-- SincereGuy 16:35, 7 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)
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. When in doubt, go for the ad hominem. I'm STILL waiting for an explanation about why that site is factually accurate, after TWO MONTHS. You're not fooling anyone. JimRaynor55 21:39, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
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.
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:
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)
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)
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)
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:
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.
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)
This argument is the very reason that the part of the article in question should be removed. Not to mention, Mike Wong is not a credible source on anything: He is simply a person devoted to hating Star Trek, and therefore he is NOT devoted to preserving Star Wars canon. He himself has re-written canon on many occasions. Anderson is only really concerned with Star Trek, making him a non-credible source on Star Wars canon. Not only is their argument pure speculation, it is speculation on the comparative destructive power of two non-existant combatants, only one of which has any basis in reality at all (Star Trek), the other of which can change its "canon" self at will. (Star Wars) Unfortunately the Star Wats camp is EASILY the more 'bitchy' group, when they should be the least concerned with the non-canon, fictional outcome of a non-canon battle. Keep it off of Wikipedia. 198.85.210.203 ( talk) 14:56, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
In the article "Star Wars: The Clone Wars" is mentioned being one of the only two television show to be included in T-canon, but what about "Star Wars: Clone Wars"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:16D8:FFD4:1:D822:E9AD:7A4E:52D3 ( talk) 01:46, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm removing the second paragraph, as this is an interpretation of the source and original research.
The source page does not state that all old Star Wars canon is S-Canon, in fact, we do not know if LucasFilm Story Group will be using the old canon system at all. If they were, it would be N-Canon, as all Legends canon is moved to an entirely separate category and not at all canon. To understand the old canon system, S-Canon is still canon that is 'secondary', meaning if new C-Canon overrides it, it then becomes N-Canon. With the announcement, ALL pre-April canon is non-canon, thus N-Canon. But again, we do not know if LSG will keep this system, thus we should not mention the levels of canon at all, and instead use the terms we gave us, "Legends" and "Canon."
Besides, I'm pretty sure there is no longer G, C, S or N canon, as the entire point of this LSG and canon wipe is to establish only "canon" and "legends", and LSG's purpose is to make sure all canon is one single, cohesive continuity with no contradictions and that they do not invalidate eachother.
On a second note, I updated "what is canon" in the first paragraph, as LucasFilm has stated that Darth Maul: Son of Dathomir is part of the new canon, as it was wrote off Clone Wars scripts that were intended to be animated, published and broadcasted. Also, LucasFilm announced a new line of books that will be part of canon, that should also be included.
67.63.74.150 ( talk) 13:12, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
In the "Disney acquisition, canon revision and Star Wars Legends" section, the following appears:
"On April 25, 2014, Lucasfilm and Disney officially revised the canon, stating that all previously released materials considered C-Canon would be now conisdered S-Canon, and will be republished under the Star Wars: Legends banner. Any new published EU material will be officially considered C-Canon, unless otherwise stated."
using the reference of the primary source located at http://starwars.com/news/the-legendary-star-wars-expanded-universe-turns-a-new-page.html
This is not what this source says, and I believe the inference expressed in the article is flawed. I believe the tiered structure is being done away with. And while the EU is now relegated to playing the same role as what was previously referred to as S-canon, it will no longer be referred to as such. Nor in the referenced article does it state that new novels going forward will be C-canon. I believe that the tiered canon system is done away with, and all material will be considered just "canon" going forward, as directed by the Lucasfilm Story Group. I take such phrases in the source material as
"On the screen, the first new canon to appear will be Star Wars Rebels. In print, the first new books to come from this creative collaboration include novels from Del Rey Books. First to be announced, John Jackson Miller is writing a novel that precedes the events of Star Wars Rebels and offers insight into a key character's backstory, with input directly from executive producers Dave Filoni, Simon Kinberg, and Greg Weisman."
I agree that this is vague, and other interpretations may be read into this, but I have some information that is "original research" and therefore not an acceptable source for a wikipedia article, but it may help point a researcher in the correct direction. On May 4, 2014 I was part of a tour group at Rancho Obi-Wan and in the library, Steve Sansweet addressed the current fan reaction towards the moving of the EU out of continuity into the "Legends" line. To paraphrase, he said, that fans complaining that we have less canon are missing the point. The EU was never 'canon'. Now with the Story Group, all the new novels and things will be actually canon, on par with the films. We are actually getting MORE canon. Though no longer employed by Lucasfilm, Mr. Sansweet, still has many contacts within the company (as a small number were there that day including ). In fact, Pablo Hidalgo, a member of the Lucasfilm Story Group was present, and did not correct Mr. Sansweet of his assertion. Though I must admit I am not sure he was in the room at the time or in ear-shot when he said this. This was not recorded, and the skeptical-minded should treat my account as hearsay, as it relies on my memory which may be unreliable. Not appropriate to be included in the article, but may help someone have some context for research. ZenMondo ( talk) 10:28, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
First of all I'll like to say that in a Twitter post Jennifer Heddle had explicitly stated that all of the EU was non-canon. I haven't been able to find a reliable second-hand source which cites this statement. However when I do I will mention it in the article. KahnJohn27 ( talk) 07:28, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
I have removed all fabricated text and added what was actually given in the sources. For example, the Star Wars canon is no longer organised based on different levels. Lucasfilms also specifically said that the Star Wars films were the "official canon" and never said they were the "primary canon". Neither they explicitly made any statement regarding the canonicity of Expanded Universe. It is most likely that calling the films as "primary canon" is a fabrication in order to try to say that the EU is still canon. Statements and words should never be changed as to give them another meaning. KahnJohn27 ( talk) 08:02, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
As there is now a new canon and all previous expanded universe content is now "Legends" (non-canon), should we begin updating the Star Wars pages on Wikipedia to match the new canon? ReddyRedCP ( talk) 18:55, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
When is this set? Someone has put down 34 ABY, but according to http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Star_Wars_Battlefront#Overview it has battles set during episodes 4, 5 and 6. Maybe just leave it as a range of dates? Epic Wink ( talk) 18:52, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Now that the EU has been torpedoed and George Lucas is not really that involved with the movies, how will "Word of God" canon be determined? Back in the day, what Lucas said was considered Word, but since he had nothing really to do with The Force Awakens, I feel this situation is a little muddled. Thoughts?-- Gen. Quon (Talk) 16:45, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Star Wars canon. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the
|checked=
to true
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 01:00, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Battlefront needs to be removed from the canon list. It is a game based on canon (except for the expanded universe shadowtrooper armor), but does not add to the canon, unlike other sources.
There is a lot of things that, partly because of this article, people are thinking is canon. Specifically, a guy argued with me recently that it is canon that Boba Fett survived the Sarlacc pit because he appears in the Battle of Jakku level. So does Vader and Palpatine who died previously as well. The book Star Wars Battlefront: Twilight Company is canon, however.
Moviepilot has a list of canon, the game is not on it. http://moviepilot.com/posts/3806036
Stilleon (
talk)
01:03, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Star Wars canon. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 06:21, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
I think the fact that the expanded universe was made to be Legends (by Disney) has been mentioned and discussed multiple times in the article. A good clean-up would chuck this discussion into its own section.
Epic Wink ( talk) 14:26, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
I'm not so sure about the reliability of the two forum sources in the article, even though they are attributed to Leland Chee. More importantly, I'm not actually seeing any references in Chee's posts to the information about T-canon which is cited. The second cited page doesn't even seem to have a post by Chee.
T-canon was Television canon: [1] referred to the canon level comprising only the animated film Star Wars: The Clone Wars and the two television series Star Wars: The Clone Wars and the planned live-action series. Its precedence over C-Level canon was confirmed by Chee. [2]
I'm leaving the material in the article but not these two citations, pending further research.— TAnthony Talk 01:18, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
Someone please add them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosvel92 ( talk • contribs) 08:47, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
So am I to understand that while the seven films are obviously canon, the original novelizations of the first six are not?— TAnthony Talk 22:13, 27 May 2016 (UTC)