Do you support/like the EU?

[Darth Wong]

The EU can't be verified against anything except for other EU; how does this differentiate it from most historical sources, for which physical evidence is either nonexistent or could lead to any number of possible conclusions if NOT for the guiding hand of the historical documents we use? If you're going to argue that all of history is unreliable, at least you'd be consistent, but you're acting as though one method is reliable and the other is shit. There are lots of ways to show that a particular EU item is false (and many items have been falsified). And when the EU discusses matters very far from the subject matter of the canon films (eg- 25,000 years in the past), there is more doubt because there is less verifiability. But again, this is hardly any different from historical sources.

[Guest]

The EU can't be verified against anything except for other EU; how does this differentiate it from most historical sources, for which physical evidence is either nonexistent or could lead to any number of possible conclusions if NOT for the guiding hand of the historical documents we use? If you're going to argue that all of history is unreliable, at least you'd be consistent, but you're acting as though one method is reliable and the other is shit. There are lots of ways to show that a particular EU item is false (and many items have been falsified). And when the EU discusses matters very far from the subject matter of the canon films (eg- 25,000 years in the past), there is more doubt because there is less verifiability. But again, this is hardly any different from historical sources.

There is always some measure of doubt when using historical texts as to their accuracy. There are ways to check and verify the accuracy of those sources though. For example, let's look at the burning of Washington D.C. in 1814 by the British. In the historical record there are no pictures or home videos of Washington D.C. burning. All we have are detailed written records. These written texts, however, are from reliable sources. They corroborate each other and provide a detailed picture as to what happened. In this manner, we know that th texts are reliable sources for historical research.

Visual mediums, such as film and photography, are a more reliable and accurate historical source. In fact, they are superior to literary depictions (which are almost always affected by the bias of the writer). For these reasons, the Star Wars movies are absolute canon. They are the preeminent historical source of the Star Wars universe. They even take precedent over the novelizations. That being the case, we have to rely on George Lucas to supply us with the uncontrovertible historical fact of the Star Wars universe.

Since the absolute canon is a visual medium, the non-canon EU written by other authors is highly speculative. I agree that the EU can only be verified by other EU material. How is that different from the Bible/Qu'ran/Tanakh etc... that can only be verified by itself as well? The very self-verifying nature of those sources is partially what causes it to be suspect from an objective historical viewpoint. Unlike real historical texts (which can be verified in many different ways besides themselves; for example two different texts describing the same incident can be used to provide legitimacy to the other as long as they are from a different source; I'm looking at the EU as being one large source within itself) there is nothing to give the EU a strong historical basis in the Star Wars universe. Considering that many claims and stories of the EU have been proven false by the absolute canon and other EU works this position is not very unrealistic.

I agree that the further one goes from the absolute canon the less accurate and reliable a source becomes. This is the main problem that I have with the EU:

The EU is made up of stories written by many different authors' (other than GL) interpretations of what the Star Wars universe should be like. This makes the EU inherently unreliable as a historical source. If GL were to issue a statement that gave the EU canon status there would be no question of their historical validity. All of the EU material would become primary sources. (Incidentally, I would like to see a book written under the guise of an Imperial or Rebel historian describing an important event in the Star Wars universe; That would give the book a feeling of authenticity anyways).

Please excuse me if this post is too long. I just wanted to provide enough information to convey my position on the subject.

[Yossarian]

As long as it's any good I support it

[Master of Ossus]

Written sources from the time period are often inaccurate, anyway. For instance, Gulliver's Travels was printed with NO mention of it being a work of fiction. One religious leader even read it and commented that he "did not believe a word of it," (much to Jonathan Swift's delight), but Gulliver's Travels is definitely NOT a historical travel book, and should not be treated as a primary source of information on the early 18th century. Neither should Marco Polo's work be treated as factual. By the same token, when you have literally thousands of newspapers printing on a weekly basis, as we did during the War of 1812, it is folly to consider all of them to be primary sources. That is why multiple sources are needed to cross-reference such information that is printed in what were originally secondary sources. On the other hand, information that is written by people who actually lived events should be treated as being more accurate, because they were closer to events as they unfolded. That is not to say that they need not be checked, but when there is reasonable consistency then they should be considered accurate. The same is true for SW novels, except that in SW novels we take the attitude and mindset that they are written by people who are trying to record an accurate record of what happened during the times that they describe to the characters that they deal with, not unlike the way we view Mark Bowden's Black Hawk Down.. That is to say, it is assumed that the work is well researched, but there may be some minor errors caused by the inevitable transfer of information from people who actually lived the events to people who recorded it, and from the minor memory problems that can occur to people and aliens.

[Guest]

="Master of Ossus"]Written sources from the time period are often inaccurate, anyway. For instance, Gulliver's Travels was printed with NO mention of it being a work of fiction. One religious leader even read it and commented that he "did not believe a word of it," (much to Jonathan Swift's delight), but Gulliver's Travels is definitely NOT a historical travel book, and should not be treated as a primary source of information on the early 18th century.

How does this add support to the EU's historical validity?

Neither should Marco Polo's work be treated as factual. By the same token, when you have literally thousands of newspapers printing on a weekly basis, as we did during the War of 1812, it is folly to consider all of them to be primary sources.

Newspaper articles from the time period of the historical event are considered primary source material. Newpapers articles that were written after the fact that deal with that same topic are not primary sources, unless they were written by a participant or in an interview format.

That is why multiple sources are needed to cross-reference such information that is printed in what were originally secondary sources. On the other hand, information that is written by people who actually lived events should be treated as being more accurate, because they were closer to events as they unfolded. That is not to say that they need not be checked, but when there is reasonable consistency then they should be considered accurate.

I completely agree with you on this point.

The same is true for SW novels, except that in SW novels we take the attitude and mindset that they are written by people who are trying to record an accurate record of what happened during the times that they describe to the characters that they deal with, not unlike the way we view Mark Bowden's Black Hawk Down.. That is to say, it is assumed that the work is well researched, but there may be some minor errors caused by the inevitable transfer of information from people who actually lived the events to people who recorded it, and from the minor memory problems that can occur to people and aliens.

So, after saying that we should not assume that textual sources are accurate

="Master of Ossus"]Written sources from the time period are often inaccurate, anyway. For instance, Gulliver's Travels was printed with NO mention of it being a work of fiction. One religious leader even read it and commented that he "did not believe a word of it," (much to Jonathan Swift's delight), but Gulliver's Travels is definitely NOT a historical travel book, and should not be treated as a primary source of information on the early 18th century.

you expect me to just assume that the EU books are historically accurate? You did not address my contention that the self-verifying nature of the EU makes it unreliable as a historical source, and it should not be viewed in that manner.

Many assertions that the EU has made have been proven false. The EU even contradicts itself on many issues. How is this a reliable historical source? We assume the Star Wars movies are completely accurate because GL created them. He provided us with a completely objective view of Star Wars history. The EU books cannot match that accuracy. You can't verify them except with other EU books. Describing the EU as containing reliable historical information is not justifiable. If GL would clarify that the EU is canon there would be no problem in using the EU as a historical sources. Instead, we have a very confusing "Official" category, which I don't think has ever been officially stated anywhere. That is why the movies are the absolute canon and the real story of Star Wars.