This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments or questions on this topic should be made in a new Senate Hall page rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record. Advanced Jedi Training Droid 6 (Talk to my master) 00:33, June 18, 2013 (UTC)
I've had a brief disscussion with Rokkur Shen on the talk page of Breha Organa's article regarding the conflicting sources on the Queen's fate. I suppose everybody knows what the problem is. Many sources portrayed Bail Organa as a single parent rearing his adopted daughter with the help of his sisters, but Star Wars 53 implies that she only died with the destruction of Alderaan in 0 BBY. Let me summarize the facts:
- In Star Wars 53: The Last Gift From Alderaan, Princess Leia mused on her father's last moments before the destruction of Alderaan: "It was night in our palace—were you awake or asleep, with Mother... or alone?"
- In The Complete Star Wars Encyclopedia, Vol. III, p. 111 ("Royal House of Alderaan"), it is said that "With the passing of Queen Breha and the retirement of Bail Organa, their adopted daughter, Princess Leia Organa, became the best-known figure from the royal family in galactic politics." The wording suggests that Breha died at some point before Bail Organa's senatorial career ended (in ]]1 BBY]]).
- According to Children of the Jedi, Star Wars Journal: Captive to Evil and The Princess Leia Diaries, Leia grew up without a mother. She was reared by her father and her three aunts Rouge, Cellyand Tia Organa. Similarly, the the defunct Star Wars Kids segment of StarWars.com clearly referred to Bail Organa as a single parent.
- In in Timothy Zahn's novel Scoundrels, Breha was shown to be still alive around 7 BBY.
The question is: should we dismiss that statement from The Last Gift From Alderaan as outdated canon or should we consider that a primary source actually prevails over an encyclopedia? We all know that TCSWE has been wrong indeed in several occasions (calling Tanbris "Trabinis," stating that Rosh Penin died at the hands of Alora etc.) I intend to bring Breha's article to status some day, so I need to know what the community thinks I should do: should the date of death (0 BBY in the destruction of Alderaan be removed altogether)? --LelalMekha (talk) 11:46, April 1, 2013 (UTC)
- Marvel stuff is S-Canon. Everything else on your list is C-Canon or higher. So, in this case, the S-Canon material has been superseded by the C-Canon material, meaning that Breha's death likely occurred long before 0 BBY. - Sir Cavalier of One
(Squadron channel) 18:25, April 1, 2013 (UTC)
- Alas, that's what I was afraid you'd say. *Sigh* I can't see the point of that retcon, but I'm not entitled to change it. I guess I'll start amending the article. --LelalMekha (talk) 22:56, April 2, 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah, Cav's got it. As a broader rule of thumb though, I believe it's both Holocron and Wook policy that newer sources supersede previous ones; so in this case all you'd have to do is look to the latest publication, and then list discrepancies in the BTS section. I know that won't always be the case—there's always the possibility of a newer source simply getting something wrong against a wealth of prior material. But in this particular case, where the subject matter is grey and ill-defined in the first place, I think it's a policy that decides this issue quite well. — DigiFluid(Whine here) 01:12, April 3, 2013 (UTC)
- A future retcon could conceivably identify the "Mother" Leia refers to as another individual, like a second wife for Bail, say. But, yeah, Cav and Digi are right: later supersedes earlier, C-canon supersedes S-canon. ~Savage
12:45, April 3, 2013 (UTC)
- In the current version of the article, Breha's date of death has been rewritten as "between 7 BBYand 3 BBY." 7 BBY is the last time she was confirmed to be alive (per Zahn's Scoundrels), and 3 BBY is the date of Agent of the Empire: Hard Targets, in which Breha is conspicuously absent while the rest of the family (Bail, Leia and even Winter) attend the anniversary of the Alderaan Ascendancy Contention. --LelalMekha (talk) 13:04, April 3, 2013 (UTC)
- A future retcon could conceivably identify the "Mother" Leia refers to as another individual, like a second wife for Bail, say. But, yeah, Cav and Digi are right: later supersedes earlier, C-canon supersedes S-canon. ~Savage
- Yeah, Cav's got it. As a broader rule of thumb though, I believe it's both Holocron and Wook policy that newer sources supersede previous ones; so in this case all you'd have to do is look to the latest publication, and then list discrepancies in the BTS section. I know that won't always be the case—there's always the possibility of a newer source simply getting something wrong against a wealth of prior material. But in this particular case, where the subject matter is grey and ill-defined in the first place, I think it's a policy that decides this issue quite well. — DigiFluid(Whine here) 01:12, April 3, 2013 (UTC)
- Alas, that's what I was afraid you'd say. *Sigh* I can't see the point of that retcon, but I'm not entitled to change it. I guess I'll start amending the article. --LelalMekha (talk) 22:56, April 2, 2013 (UTC)
