Talk:Force (Star Wars)

Suggestion for Correction of Grammar

The following sentence is in the Force Abilities paragraph, and has rather poor grammar: Within the film series, a number of other force powers are demonstrated, those include but are not limited to telekinesis, telepathy, enhanced empathy and precognition. I recommend changing it into two sentences, or replacing "those include" with "including" and removing the "are". I'd do it myself, but I guess the page is protected so that only administrators can edit or something, because I can't see an edit link. Spock of Vulcan (talk) 21:57, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Let me know what you think. -Quickmythril (talk) 05:38, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

No more cruft

I've just recently archived a lot of the previous conversations and I must say that I was very impressed with the level of intellgience I was seeing from the posts. Unfortunately, nobody was citing their material, and it turned into this Jabba-like blob of cruft. It has since been trimmed down, and its important that new info added be cited. Let me repeat that: don't add uncited information. If you cannot cite it, you cannot add it. The citationshave to be verifiable, reliable and noteworthy. Otherwise, you will have utterly wasted your time, as I or someone else will remove it as contrary to WP policy and guidelines. Please help to improve the article. It would be awesome to have some of those folks come back here and add cited material to expand the article. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 10:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Expanded Universe

Since Star Wars is composed of multiple media (films, novels, video games, newspaper comics, comic books), it might be helpful to distinguish the contributions of each of these media to the understanding, development and evolution of the Force. I am aware that canonicity is going to color these views, and we should probably note that outside of the films, nothing is canon (which certainly affects its notability). thoughts?

Lucas has never proclaimed that the Force arises from micro-organisms, and this article refers to novelizations as canon -- and Lucas rarely (if ever) uses novelizations nor comic books as basis for his films nor filmed materials. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.159.251.136 (talk) 17:58, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, apologies. I just read about it. Must have missed that part of the film. Grar. I hate that. Sorry guys! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.159.251.136 (talk) 18:01, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Too Much Fantasy

This article has so much "uncited" material in it that I've decided to comment out a whole paragraph. If my English was any good I would have rewritten the whole page! Facts only dear ladies and gentlemen. If you write something that wasn't explicitly shown in any of the six episodes then citate. As far as I am concerned this whole article should be deleted. 212.182.163.201 (talk) 23:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The Force is an important part of the culture. It is a factual phenomenon based on a fictional, albeit archetypical supernatural phenomenon. WovenLore (talk) 13:31, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Light side and Dark side

The proposed text I have restored (1) accurately refers to the Light Side as an inference, as it is not mentioned in the films, and (2) accurately refers to "knowledge and defense" as the purposes for which the Jedi use the force, directly quoting Yoda in "The Empire Strikes Back".
Like it or not, the "Light Side" is never mentioned in the films and this fact is relevant to the article. Its existence has been inferred, and it has come to be associated with the "good side" that was described by Luke in "Return of the Jedi", and with the restrained usage of the Force allowed by the Jedi code.
I have never heard of the Jedi "swearing fealty to the light side". I'd be curious to see your source on that. Nizamarain 21:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

You need to cite anything you add, sir. You apply how the force is used without reference. Crazy stuff includes the stuff not specifically cited. That cannot remain. However, I am willing to wait and allow you to explain your edits more specifically. If you cite it, we might be able to include it. Uncited stuff will be swept away with all the chaff. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Arcayne, please see my comment on my talk page, and let me know if the top part of the "depiction" section currently looks good to you. I can then move on to the rest of the article to try to improve it along the same lines. Also, I think some consideration should be given to combining the Dark side of the force with this. Nizamarain 04:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The "light side" is not referred to in the films, but is in the PC and Xbox video game Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic. I could obtain a screenshot as proof. Blumin (talk) 11:02, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Force toy

I think, that due to the recent announcement of that toy that measures brainwaves to move a ball up and down that is centered around The Force from Star Wars, that it should get a mention in this article. See:

• http://www.usatoday.com/life/lifestyle/2009-01-06-force-trainer-toy_N.htm
• http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/around_town/the_scene/Star-Wars-Fans-Can-Now-Use-The-Force-at-Home.html
• http://www.upi.com/Odd_News/2009/01/07/Star_Wars_The_Force_toy_uses_brain_waves/UPI-61271231365060/

219.90.192.25 (talk) 12:41, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

As the Force is a fictional concept/quasi-religious belief, I think a toy that works on the same basic principle of an EEG machine is probably not the same thing. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:43, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Quotes

WHYYYYYYYY do we have a quotes section when we already have May the Force be with you? Is this place turning into TVTropes? And why does capitalizing every word in that title redirect you to The Force (Star Wars)?

Actually, forget that last one.Raekuul, bringer of Tropes (He does it without notability) 00:04, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Shatterpoint, really?

Shatterpoint is another force power.[9] It is used to shatter many materials, often metal, Jacen Solo, while using his Sith name Darth Caedus, shattered a plate of Beskar Armor[10], which is nearly impossible to penetrate with a Lightsaber.

This paragraph feels entirely out of place. Of all the ways the force is used in the Expanded Universe, to highlight this one so specifically giving it such undue attention, just leaves it feeling out of place. Especially with its placement after a fairly concise, well-concluded paragraph. It doesn't matter that it's sourced, it's just miscellany. Perhaps if it was a commonly referenced or witnessed power it'd be worth a mention (albeit a much more seamlessly integrated one), but as far as I know this is an obscure example, especially in comparison to the others mentioned above. 129.171.233.73 (talk) 04:03, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I even went ahead and checked out the reference given for that line - a wiki, which is frowned upon here, though not strictly against the rules. Problem is, they don't even do a good job of describing this particular power. It's described in the wiki as more of a perception of the faults in the structure of something, not the ability to break them via the force. Though this ability is, of course, conferred as a result of the perception, the way the line is phrased now makes it sound like some sort of force laser that shatters things you point at. It also seems as though the power is more frequently used in a more metaphysical sense, perceiving flaws or pivotal figures in events and timelines than it is to affect the physical world. Anyway, yeah, I'm just gonna delete this for being largely irrelevant and a poor description of the subject regardless. 129.171.233.73 (talk) 04:11, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Please wait for consensus from other editors. --Morenooso (talk) 04:19, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Apologies if I went off a bit half-cocked there, but really, there seems to be no redeeming qualities whatsoever of that passage. If someone really thinks listing a poorly-sourced, poorly-described, infrequently-used and referenced power alongside such staples as improved concentration and physical strength and agility with far more detail than is ascribed to any of those is a good idea, then feel free to revert. From where I'm standing, it's pretty clearly a pointless addition to an otherwise well summarized section, and I think I'd be well within rights to invoke WP:BRD here and just see if anyone, save perhaps the original author, thinks that specific power is so important as to deserve that much attention. Furthermore, even if someone does think that this would be of benefit to the article, they at least need to do the research right, because as it stands that description of the Shatterpoint power is at best misleading, and at worst grossly inaccurate. 129.171.233.73 (talk) 21:21, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

[The] Force, redux

Please see this and general MOS conventions re. the inclusion of articles (e.g. an, a, the) at the beginning of article names. --EEMIV (talk) 10:46, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

"These aren't the droids you're looking for"

The first and most memorable and perhaps notable mind trick was "These aren't the droids you're looking for". It has also become emblematic. Why isn't it mentioned? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 16:16, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Because you haven't added it yet! –xeno^talk 16:17, 11 August 2010 (UTC)