Forum:NB:Use of unconfirmed canonical sources

If any of you have been paying attention the last couple days, I have been trying to reason with JRT2010 in what is considered actual canon and not just a theory. This discussion involves the validity of Anakin Skywalker being considered the Chosen One in the prophecy. Now granted I have my own theory as to who the Chosen One is, and that is because there is no confirmed canonical source as to state that it is Anakin. So far the sources JRT2010 have given me are 2 captions on images from starwars.com, both of which are not on Anakin Skywalker's databank page, and a children's book with every description stating that even though the book follows the movie it does contain the author's own perspective of what took place. I have recently received an e-mail, that I am more than happy to share with everyone, from a representative of starwars.com that states they cannot confirm nor deny whether the captions on the images are considered canonical. This should be more than enough to discredit those captions as it states the canonicity of the captions cannont be verified. As I stated about the children's book Star Wars Return of the Jedi: Beware of the Dark Side, it contains opinions from the author of what took place, which means it also cannot be verified as a canon source. All confirmed canon sources, including the databank page for Anakin Skywalker on starwars.com states, "Anakin Skywalker had the potential to become one of the most powerful Jedi ever, and was believed by some to be the prophesied Chosen One who would bring balance to the Force.". This doesn't confirm nor deny the possibility that Anakin was the Chosen One, but this statement alone is the only thing that is considered canon. I feel that if you want to keep information on this site as canonical as possible, then any information on this site regarding Anakin Skywalker and the prophecy should state what it says on the databank page, and nothing more. I have tried to upload an image of the e-mail for people to be able to view it, but apparently I don't have the proper permissions to do so. I do believe if you were to view it, you would see it as a valid source confirming that the captions cannot be used as canonical sources. I wouldn't have any problems forwarding the e-mail directly to any of you as well so you can verify the authenticity of it as well, as I know things like that can be doctored. I am not asking for my own theory to be posted on this site, but only correct content that is not confirmed by valid sources. TonyPettengill (talk) 03:17, March 5, 2017 (UTC)