Forum:CT Archive/Where do we draw the line between recording canon and being an IU repository?

In some instances it is preferrable to include information from OOU sources, such as RPG Rulebooks and Essential Guides. These are the most clear and consise sources of information we have on many things, so it would be unthinkable to not include them. In other instances, it is not preferrable, however. The opening crawls of the movies are narration, and are thus clearly OOU. Novel authors have a tendency of letting their opinions on subjects shine through the text, more OOU. Comic books have small taxtboxes where the comic author can add descriptions for the sake of the reader, but sometimes these include opinions as well, more OOU. Since we are an NPOV repository, it would be no good to include author opinions, whether through novel text, comic book textboxes, opening crawls, or real-life interviews, into our IU articles. Therefore we shouldn't, and the only way to ensure that, is by having a rule that only IU info goes. But by that same coin, we would be unable to include information from any OOU source, the abovementioned RPG sourcebooks and Essential Guides being prime examples. Therefore I suggest we clairfy this issue and make a policy for it. It seems obvious that we cannot include creator opinions in our IU articles, and therefore need to only embrace info from IU sources. But we need clear exceptions to that rule, so as to be able to include reference works in our articles as well.

Comments
The only problem with Option 3 is that we cannot always know what is an opinion and what is factual. The AHN opening crawl declared the Empire evil (G-canon truth or Lucas opinion?), and the Power of the Jedi Sourcebook declared the Potentium view of the Force misguided (factual information or RPG creator opinion?). DarthMRN 17:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The bottom line is, you can't just say that something is "evil" in an encyclopedia. It's inherently POV and unencyclopedic. Now, I'm not saying the Empire wasn't evil. Certainly, many people are. But you can't just say "This person/entity is evil" in an encyclopedia article. Also, authorial intent is not canon. That's not encyclopedia policy, that's LFL policy. -LtNOWIS 18:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * LFL has said that? Thanks. I've been wondering about that. Where was it? DarthMRN 21:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Could you give more examples of author opinions? --  Riffsyphon  1024 19:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * As for novels, you are better off checking your own or asking Atarumaster88. He is the one who said it, and knowing novels, I am sure he is right. My own are translated into a different language, and are therefore unsuitable as peer-reviewed sources. I do have some english-language comic books, and I had barely to open the first of them to find examples of author bias.

Tales of the Jedi: The Golden Age of the Sith 0: Conquest and Unification:

p. 3: bold explorations, powerful Jedi, wise and skilled

p. 5: The Dark Jedi was treated as gods with unlimited resources and willing slaves, the Jedi exiles forged the Sith civilization into a new empire, bringing about a golden age...of evil!

I am sure I can find more if needed. However, if LtNOWIS is correct, we are free to disregard such, and I certainly hope that is the case. But that would still leave us with interviews of official folks, SW.com posts, and ambigous stuff like reference works and RPG rulebooks. They are not IU, and may well contain a fair amount of bias. Canonical bias which we because of NPOV cannot have in our articles. DarthMRN 22:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * This entire proposal makes not a damn bit of sense. The canon text uses slightly POV terms? It praises the Jedi? Then the Jedi were powerful. That's fact. It says they were wise? Then they were wise. They possessed that quality. It says the period was evil? Then it had the qualities commonly associated with immorality and was likely regarded as such by most people IU. Nitpicking apart little bits you think have bias because they use descriptive language? Because an adjective they use has a positive connotation, we're ordered to disregard it as noncanon? Ridiculous. I really don't see the point of this. Havac 01:58, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That's not author bias. That's narrator bias, if bias at all. There's a difference between author and narrator. KEJ 08:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Either way, it's bias, which is counter to NPOV. We've discussed this sort of change to the NPOV policy before, when we decided to keep our neutral point of view instead of adopting "pro-jedi point of view." jSarek 10:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yup. As jS says, however inconsequential this bias might be, it would consitute C-canon fact which we could include as factual information in articles, which would violate NPOV. If LtNOWIS is correct, which I have yet to see confirmation of, this is not a problem, but if he isn't, there would be a conflict between canon truth and NPOV. One which we need to draw a line between to ensure it doesn't get in the way of the site's completeness. DarthMRN 13:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not inconsequential. In a sense, narrator "bias" constitutes our gateway to the fictional universe in question, and, in some literary theories, the narrative even constitutes the universe itself, so essentially, with the exception of works like I, Jedi, we have no way of figuring out whether it's just bias or whether the fictional universe is objectively structured such that Jedi are good and Sith are bad (in the individual narrative, of course). I think were venturing into a topic that has been a battleground for literary theorists for decades, if not centuries. Due to the paradoxical nature of the situation, as pointed out by MRN, it's going to be very difficult to draw a line... but an interesting discussion nonetheless. KEJ 19:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * "The Empire is evil" cannot be G-canon truth because, well, it isn't a fact, it's an opinion. Regardless of who voiced it: Lucas, Luke Skywalker, or Random Rebellion Officer 42. Also, removed the vote: it's too early for that, if a vote is to be conducted at all. - Sikon 03:15, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It is a fictional universe after all, which GL is free to rape seven ways to sunday if he is so inclined. What if creator/author/narrator opinion is canon? Until proof to the contrary has been presented, all we have is "When it comes to absolute canon, the real story of Star Wars, you must turn to the films themselves—and only the films", which I must say lends more credibility to opinions being canon than not. NPOV would of course be preferrable, but for all we know, the Empire being evil might be as objective a fact in the GFFA as the lenght of an X-Wing. Isn't the purpose of NPOV to avoid editor bias, though? I'm sure Wikipedias article on Creation includes God thinking the Earth, animals, humans and whatnot was good, since the Bible says so, and not an editor. DarthMRN 10:30, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * "X is evil" can never be objective. Neither in the real world nor in any fictional universe. An OOU encyclopedia, like Wikipedia, could just say "X is the designated villain of fictional work Y", but that would be it &mdash; and in, say, plot summaries, Wikipedia wouldn't call X evil even then. We, on the other paw hand, are writing from an IU perspective &mdash; and from that perspective, there are no designated protagonists and designated villains (even if the creators said that X is a villain), just a collection of established events and facts that we are supposed to document. - Sikon 11:41, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * This is a pointless discussion to be having. Read the beginning of the Palpatine article. Notice that, without once using morally evaluative terms, it quite clearly conveys that he was a bad fellow. A good writer doesn't need to say "So-and-so is evil" to illustrate that intent. We can rely on BTS notes indicating who's the main hero/villain, and we can rely on other characters' IU assessment of them (so if, for example, an IU news publication rated Palpatine as #1 Evillest Guy Ever in a poll of its readers, we could report that and not break POV). But the best thing to do is let the facts speak for themselves. All it takes is a little extra intellectual work.  Gonk  ( Gonk! ) 12:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * From what I gather, Leland could scream: "Creator opinions are Canon!!!" into our ears and we still wouldn't make biased articles. This is good IMO. But what, then, of sources which are OOU, and biased, such as the Power of the Jedi Sourcebook and its claims to the Potentium being misguided? It is OOU, and clearly biased. By the precendent we have set, this piece of information has no place on Wookieepedia. Correct? DarthMRN 13:17, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * RPG sourcebooks aren't a good barometer for IU/OOU. Most fall somewhere in between. Plenty of mostly-OOU WEG books will throw in obvious POV. Thus, the Power of the Jedi Sourcebook is no more reliable for that purpose than Darth Awesome's Potentium-Filled Userpage.  Gonk  ( Gonk! ) 13:23, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * What about character opinions, then? Surely, if I can verify that Maul once called Obi a crybaby, I am free to write and cite: "Obi-Wan was described by Darth Maul as a crybaby (ref source ref)? DarthMRN 13:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes. - Sikon 14:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem here is that the issue isn't about "where do we draw the line," it's about "DarthMRN doesn't like what a sourcebook says and wants to force his opinion on everyone under the guise of NPOV." You're violating WP:POINT and I don't appreciate it. -- Darth Culator  (Talk) 13:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I came to terms with that a long time ago, so that is hardly it. And you have too high thought of this site. What we write in our articles has zero affect on the official truth presented in the Power of the Jedi. We chose to deviate from canon, that is our prejorative. The matter is that I am very strict about following the book, so when I percieve a lack of consistency in the way we do things, I want to track down the reason for that, or if there is none, have it rectified so that people don't have to wade through a bunch of admins to find out whether they can write opinions or not, and if so, who's. Truly a well-founded accusation, BTW. Clearly by showing the similarity of an opening crawl and a RPG paragraph, the latter which I had heard several times, on this site, was canonical, I am trying to change the esteemed community's opinion. DarthMRN 13:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Which reminds me, someone should update the NPOV article to clarify that verifiable opinions of IU characters are permitted, while OOU creator/narrator/interview/RPG/referencebook opinions are not, regardless of canonicity. DarthMRN 13:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Follow Neutral POV and enforce it. That's sufficient, in my opinion. -Fnlayson 18:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe you should freshen up on it, then. The policy is very short, and clearly pertains to user POVs. The finer points of the policy, which are unwritten and unspoken, and which I have had quite a bit of trouble digging out, are not even mentioned. DarthMRN 15:14, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Then maybe you should go work on it then.. -Fnlayson 18:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You mean I can edit a Policy page? I thought that was a job for admins only. DarthMRN 19:23, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, it applies to everything written here. -Fnlayson 18:30, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't get it. NPOV applies to everything written in this CT? DarthMRN 19:23, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Just keep batting this stuff around for a while. Whatever.. -Fnlayson 19:30, 18 July 2007 (UTC)