Talk:Jedi

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Science Fiction (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Film (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the American cinema task force.
 
Note icon
This article needs an image (preferably free) related to the subject, such as a picture of the set or a film poster. Please ensure that non-free content guidelines are properly observed.
WikiProject Star Wars (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Star Wars, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Star Wars saga on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Religion / New religious movements (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by New religious movements work group (marked as Mid-importance).
 

Jedi Temple history[edit]

I wanted to let everyone know that I changed where it said that the Temple can be seen in the Return Of The Jedi over twenty five years after Order 66. The temple was attacked day or so before Luke and Leia were born. Luke is said to have been 19 in A New Hope, 22 in Empire Strikes back and around 22 or 23 in Return of the Jedi making it not quite 25 years — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.130.166.48 (talk) 02:13, 19 February 2012 (UTC)


Missing History[edit]

Why does the history section of the article begin at 32BBY? The language phrasing of "Jedi-Sith Conflict RESUMES" makes it even more obvious that something is chopped. We get no description of the beginnings or early history of the Jedi going back thousands of years. Something at least very brief should be added before this.--Daniel (talk) 19:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Reversion of Vandalism[edit]

I just did a revert as listed on the history page, correcting insulting homophobic comments. Maybe we can get a lock for this page while this is investigated? Coridan 18:55, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Jedi Knight was linked to by SomethingAwful.com... PWNED! --216.253.95.34 18:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

There's been some very straightforward vandalism on the "Science of the Force" section, but I didn't correct it as I'm not sure what it's supposed to say.--70.102.136.132 18:08, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

There is vandalism in more sections than just the "Science of the Force". This page is rife with it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.8.34.148 (talk) 08:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Apparent contradiction[edit]

Under Structure of the Order / Jedi ranks / Padawan, it says "A Jedi may have only one apprentice at a time, and is required to promote the current apprentice before taking another", and two sentences later " Some Jedi Masters have taken more than one Padawan at a time." I haven't seen any Star Wars literature seperate from the movies, , so don't know which statement is incorrect (or needs to be reworded) Dodrian 22:05, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, it is actually true, but it needs to be reworded. I might take care of it later when I have the time. Sephylight 07:11, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
The notion of correct/incorrect is inapplicable here, since this is fiction, or rather several different and inconsistent fictions, although you wouldn't know it from large pieces of this article, which bears little resemblance to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. -- Jibal 20:38, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

In Episode 1 Yoda states clearly an emphatically that a Jedi can only take 1 Padawan at a time, he does so when Qui-gon wants to take on Anakin while he is training Obi-Wan and Yoda says "An apprentice you have Qui-Gon, IMPOSSIBLE to take on a second" and Mace hammers it hard saying "the code forbidds it". It's important here to make the distinction between the stage when a Padawan is with a class tutored by Yoda, when they are young. And when the padawan is older and it's taken by another Jedi to train, it is in THIS stage when the Jedi cannot take 2 Padawans. Bruce_Kenobi April 25th 12:35 PM GMT-5

Choice of pictures[edit]

Why are there no images from the original trilogy? --HappyDog 00:16, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe because the Jedi were exterminated? I guess. But I'm unsure. --Addict 2006 05:22, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

The picture choice is awful, anyone that didn't know star wars would see the picture and think that all jedi could be human, we NEED a differemt picture one with at least one non-human jedi in it. How about the collage at http://images2.fanpop.com/images/photos/2800000/The-Jedi-Council-star-wars-2884888-1024-768.jpg 86.184.16.253 (talk) 19:15, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

NPOV[edit]

"The Jedi are a noble monastic peacekeeping organization from the Star Wars saga" remove "noble", its ruining the NPOV, seriously. (Truth 06 15:41, 1 October 2006 (UTC))

I disagree with the NPOV issue as applied to this type of article. The article is about a Archetypical characters that were written in a work of fiction. It is in fact neutral to record them as they were presented in the context of the fiction. The relevant point is that some Jedi, if of the Light side of the force, were objectively good by definition. It is not a form of bias to say the protagonists are the good guys, it an inherent fact about the story. If one wishes to argue that the Jedi were actually bad, he is free to, but that falls into the realm of Original Work, not objective examination of a work of fiction. WovenLore (talk) 20:17, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


I agree that it is a bit POV, but there was nothing stopping you from making the change yourself. Be bold! EVula 15:53, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Im new to wikipedia and I thought you have to discuss something before you do it yourself. (Truth 06 09:54, 4 October 2006 (UTC))
Absolutely not. Just do what you think needs to be done. Others will let you know if you did it wrong, trust me. ;D Sephylight 07:11, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
That's how Wikipedia works after all. Cheers to the Jedi, mates! Doncroft 19:56, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
For some things, it is wiser to ask before doing them. However, I always prefer to take the initiative. You should always use the edit summary to explain your actions; had you removed "noble" from the article and said something as simple as just "removing POV phrase", I would have checked it, saw that you were right, and gone on my merry little way. EVula 20:15, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

excuse me. are there still any problem about POV? I saw "The neutrality of this article is disputed." on the article page. Pmuean 15:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

This whole artical needs to be rewritten. Just totally scrapped and start over. I don't know who wrote this but they have a poor understanding of the sith and their origins and their knowledge of the jedi is debatable as well. Having seen all six movies, reading the thrawn trilogy and a couple of other pre galactic books, not to mention playing a handful of video games and reading the comics, I see many things that either are untrue or just mere speculation and I have to wonder what the source is for some of this stuff. Maybe we need to consult a jedi master here. -Scarlocke —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.48.250.215 (talk) 11:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Citation[edit]

I'm not sure how I should do a citation but I know I could figure it out if I looked. As for why I'm not doing one - I'm not sure all the publishing data needed to get from the book - as it's at home and I am not. Either way I'm referring to early in this article it asks for a citation referring to the Caamassi. I was the one who added that entry and it comes from the book "I, Jedi" by Michael A. Stackpole. Maybe someone has the data lieing around to actually do that citation. 216.191.40.149 23:03, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Apprentice vs Padawan[edit]

It seems to me that (in the context of the films at least) there is no difference between a "padawan" and the youngling/apprentice thing.

In this article, they are listed as two clearly separate rankings, yet in the films, Obi-Wan is referred to as both an apprentice and a padawan in Episode I, and the same for Anakin in episode II. There's also the issue of Yoda referring to younglings as padawans in Episode II (which is mentioned in the article). And these references are made by Jedi- not outsiders who don't necessarily know about the inner workings of the Jedi or who holds what rank (like in Episode II, Bibble calls Anakin a "Master Jedi").

Is there any clarification elsewhere that I'm not aware of? Because, like I said, going by the movies, there is no distinction between the two "ranks", although 'youngling' appears to only refer to the very young Jedi children- it doesn't seem to a formal rank either. Cheers --DarthBinky 08:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I second that - My understanding was that younglings were the very youngest, the preschoolers of the Jedi, if you will, followed by initates, the 6 to 10-year-olds. They learned in groups, a la Yoda's class in ep II, and eventually got promoted to the rank of padawan, sometimes colloquially called apprentice, when they entered a 1-on-1 relation with a particular jedi knight or master. thing is, I've got no sources for any of this besides vague memory and conjecture.
Mr. Blevins 05:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC) Mr. Blevins

As i understand(mainly from SWKotOR1 and 2) you are an apprentice(might have seperal smaller classes within like younglings) then when you have passed the tests etc. you becomes a jedi(although still in training) of wich the lowest rank is Padawan, when you later advances to a Knight you leaves training -80.160.159.174 21:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

The KOTOR game does make a distinction between apprentice and padawan. It could be like the phrase Jedi. In the movies, it is often used to describe anyone in the Jedi order, but at other times, it is only used to refer to those who are knight and up. Luke, for example, called himself a Jedi Knight but wasn't officially one until he confronted Vader. Emperor001 20:37, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Not sure if this even matters, but it is my understanding that not everyone "makes the cut" and that not everyone becomes an apprentice, i.e., if a jedi knight doesn't take them as their padawan. -Scarlocke —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.48.250.215 (talk) 11:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Please expand Jedi as a religion[edit]

Jedi Religion —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Halaqah (talkcontribs) 01:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC).


I'm not so sure that the jedi qualify as a religion. It is my understanding that to be a religion you need to have a defined god. The jedi never identify a god at all. The force itself wouldn't be a god since they do not actually worship "the force" they "use the force", I think that is a big distinction. If "the force" were in fact a god then it would also always be capatalized as a proper name like the distinction between god and God. And before anyone even says anything about it i'm gonna nip it in the bud and just state for the record that Han Solo calling it a religion doesn't make it so. If someone can provide irrefutable proof that jedi themselves refer to it as a religion then I will consider it. Han Solo wasn't ever a jedi himself so I think that his use of the phrase should be a moot point. Furthermore I have never heard of a jedi praying, though they do meditate, but again there is a big distinction between the two. The whole religion thing should be scrapped and perhaps a better understanding of what the force is would be more appropriate. The force is something that encompasses all life, when jedi die they return to the force, and the force itself is indiscrimate about who can use it. The code of the jedi is not given to them by the force, it is their code so that they don't abuse the force. Conversly the sith use the force for their own personal gain, they believe it is a gift that they can exploit to gain power and use it towards their own selfish goals. Clearly the same god would not condone the two very opposing beliefs. I would like to add that the force is possibly supernatural but that does make it a religion. -Scarlocke —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.48.250.215 (talk) 11:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Why do the Jedi need to acknowldge the existants of a god in order to be a religion. Buddhism does not believe in a god, and I do not think Daoism does either. The force is very similar to the daoist concept of chi which is mystical energy that surrounds everything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.166.230.62 (talk) 00:14, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the one who wrote first. The only people in the movies who call the Force a religion are Han Solo, and some Imperial general (I don't recall who- I think it was not Grand Moff Tarkin), both of whom call it so in a derogatory way. I am 90% certain that that is the ONLY context where it is called a religion in the movies: when people who don't believe in the force are ridiculing those who do. Also, it is a valid point that the force is a power, which can be good or bad, not a god or even a benevolent spiritual entity. And the Jedi do not worship the force, as the first writer said. Moreover the Jedi are an order, not a religion. Even if the Force is religious in Star Wars, the Jedi are not the religion of the Force. That would be like calling monasticism a religion. It is a way of living in a religion, but it is not the religion. Not all Buddhists are monks. If the force is a religion, the Jedi are a religious order, not a religion. And if the force is not a religion, then the Jedi are an nonreligious order. Either wat the Jedi are not a religion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.100.219.84 (talk) 19:42, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

EU material, particularly cortosis[edit]

This article makes little or no attempt to separate canon from EU material. Particularly, I'm wondering if the lightsaber sections needs a description of cortosis. In the movie, lightsabers are powerful, but can be thwarted by hard materials, at least for a time; they are not magical beams that slice through anything. Cortosis never appears in the films. I consider it a questionable concept. If it "resists the Force", what does that have to do with lightsabers, which are technological? Many people use lightsabers, at least briefly, who are not Jedi at all, including Han Solo. And some of Kenobi's comments and other references in Star Wars suggest that at one time, lightsabers may not have been equated with Jedi. The New Hope novelization states, actually, that lightsabers were once common in the Galaxy. Pawsplay 21:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I think Grievous' guards had staffs made from cortosis. But I agree. Most SW related articles fail to differentiate between the actual movies and all this EU material. 68.166.64.57 01:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Why does it matter? It's all Star Wars. ````LordoftheRicheMays —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.182.242.184 (talk) 19:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Let me clarify this point. Everything that is licensed by LucasArts is canon. The only exception might be the lego's star wars line of games which are clearly meant as a parody. I hardly think it's necessary to differentiate between movie and EU since they are all canon. But I definately think that more sources need to be noted, so that it's easier to fact check. Secondly a lightsaber doesn't require a force sensative to use it. However if someone who isn't force sensitive tries to use it then they might find themselves with missing body parts. It would require a great deal of dexterity and concentration to be able to perform some of the feats that the jedi and sith do without the aid of some supernatural force, due to the very composition of the blade. Cortosis doesn't resist the force, light sabers themselves have nothing to do with the force, it's their users that do, Cortosis resists energy, whatever that engergy might be, in this case the unknown energy of a lightsaber. I cannot say for certain wheter general Grievous' guards had cortosis staves or not, what I do know is that those particular staves were shielded whith some type of energy shield. That would mean they don't need to actually be cortosis to deflect a lightsaber. Perhaps someone would be able to give more insight into those particular staves. -Scarlocke

Not any more, the EU is definitely no longer canon - http://starwars.com/news/the-legendary-star-wars-expanded-universe-turns-a-new-page.html - and there should be a wholesale clean up of this and pretty much every SW article to reflect this. To my mind it would significantly improve the quality of these articles and make it much easier to see that it refers to a fictional universe -chebizarro 139.192.41.203 (talk) 09:50, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Canon status is pretty much immaterial at Wikipedia; it isn't a threshold for inclusion or exclusion for Star Wars, Star Trek, or any other expansive genre. Wikipedia is instead considered with verifiability by citations to reliable sources. Furthermore, conflicts like the ones we're all anticipating will arise in the in-universe *plot* of these Star Wars franchise: but, Wikipedia is predominantly concerned with the *real-world* aspects of elements of fiction. Where we cover plot, we do so with summary style, which is rarely so granular for it to be appropriate to zoom in on where fine, conflicting details arise. Where they do bubble up on a big scale, it is sufficiently simply to say, "In work X, this thing happens; in work Y, this thing is true" -- this is what's worked well for a few years in Star Trek articles, where e.g. James T. Kirk have had to cover major conflicts in the character's depiction in the two most recent films. More often than not, though, conflicting details are really just trivial and better relegated to franchise-specific Wikia projects. Boba Fett already has had tons of conflicting information portrayed about the character, but the article doesn't dwell on the minutiae: mainly because the conflicts are on so trivial as to not pass the summary style expectations. One final thought: often, recognizing a "conflict" is an act of inference, another behavior we shy away from at Wikipedia. --EEMIV (talk) 05:11, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Living things?[edit]

Jedi can use ALL things, not just living things. The rocks that Luke lifts as he trains, for example...


(Sigh)...Okay what Luke is doing with rocks and such is no different than we have seen dozens of times throughout the movies, and that's effecting nonliving and innaminate objects. We clearly see Obi-Wan and Qui-Gon pushing droids out of their way and we see Luke lifting rocks, etc, etc. This is a telekinetic ability that force wielders have. Let's compare this ability to kinetic energy. When I lift a rock off the ground I am using kinetic energy to move the rock fueled by the calories that I have consumed. When Luke lifted the rocks he did the same thing, he used his telekinetic energy to move it, powered by the force. The rock contains no force energy just as it contains no kinetic energy until that engery is transferred to it. Please bare with me on that explaination, I know it's not perfect but I was merely trying to simplify a very complex concept. I hope it helps. -Scarlocke

Ranks?[edit]

The Jedi ranks currently stated are Initiate, Padawan, Knight and Master. However, Star Wars Jedi knight:Dark Forces II made it 8: Initiate, Learner, Apprentice, Journeyman, Charge, Disciple, Master/Primarch and Lord/Dark Lord. I've just been looking for this information for twenty minutes before hunting down my instruction manual for the game. Can we mention this somewhere? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:10, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I think only movies should count as source for cannon on the ranks. It can be argued that the books are also important, but the books are not written by the original artist of the movies and so they are open for the editorial mandates of the publisher, there can be an argument that the original artist keeps track of all this but, if we keep true to reality this notion is absurd, the original artist does not read every single book to keep corrections. Proof of this is in the new movies where some ideas introduced by books were abolished. And as to games, it has to be remembered that games take a lot of artistic licenses and put their own spin on everything for the sake of playability and game rules, so when it comes to ranks, I would say: stay with the four we have seen as distinct either by the way they act or by the way they are referred to in the movies: Initiate, Padawan, Knight and Master. Bruce_Kenobi April 25, 2008 12:46 GMT-5

I disagree bruce, as I have stated above it's all canon whether you like it or not. -Scarlocke

Holy Spirit correction[edit]

I corrected the definition of the Holy Spirit in Christianity from force of God to Person, which is what the teaching actually is. To use a heretical teaching to represent an orthodox Christian teaching is wrong.Jlujan69 01:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more, let's try to keep religious comparisons to a minimum in these articles unless they supported by irrefutable proof or are used as valid comparisons where no other comparison fits. -Scarlocke —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.48.250.215 (talk) 12:04, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Anakin's Loss of Potential after Injuries[edit]

Perhaps I don't know because I've only seen the movies, but the Wiki article says that Anakin loses much of his ability after being injuried by Kenobi. Is there any support of this?

I added that. It has been confirmed by George Lucas, in the Revenge of the Sith DVD commentary he declares that Anakin has been reduced to roughly 80% of Sidious' ability from a former 200%. I think it's sourced at the Anakin article. I'll find out.Yanksta x 13:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


Yes, Anakin's abilities were far less be cause his body was now mostly cybernetic. The force requires a full biogenetic body to be used to it's fullest potential. I am basing this on Lumiya's decreased abilities from her being half robot in the series "Legacy of the Force" -VVikKÿ <3's Mysterÿ 3-24-07

If Anakin was 2x as powerful as Palpatine then why did Yoda tell Kenobi he wasn't strong enough to deal with Sidious? Was Kenobi stronger than both Yoda and the Emperor? George Lucas is like the retarded, senile God of the SW Universe. 68.166.64.57 01:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Kenobi's power was nothing compared to Anakin, Yoda, or Palpatine's. Kenobi was a master of Soresu, however, and knew Anakin very well. Yanksta x 21:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think it was more a matter of the fact that Anakin was NOT 2x as powerful as Palps at the time of ROTS, he merely had the POTENTIAL to be. See what I'm saying?````LordoftheRicheMays —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.182.242.184 (talk) 19:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea who 68.166.64.57|68.166.64.57 is but before you throw around juvenile insults, maybe you should have paid more attention to fact that Palpatine was old enough to be Anakans father(possibly grandfather), and as such had great deal more experience and practice with the force. Just because Anakan had more raw power doesn't mean he knew how to use it. Therefore Palpatine was clearly the more dangerous adversary. I see no discrepency there. -Scarlocke

Issue with the Jedi Code[edit]

There seems to be a problem with the Jedi Code. The first code given has all five lines(with the KOTOR added line) but then right below it, it says: All others before or since, going back to the Code's original form as first presented in the 1980s Star Wars Roleplaying Game have only the four lines above. The Star Wars official website still currently features the four-line version as well. The problem being that the code given has five lines and not four. Is someone going to change the code or the paragraph? --70.225.176.94 04:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Corrected --The REAL Teol 18:23, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

The Code was printed in the Star Wars the roleplaying game supplement Tales of the Jedi on page 143 as the five line code. The supplement was set 4000 years before a New Hope. It was published in 1996 by West End Games.--208.107.31.122 08:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Very well, I have added the information on the Tales of the Jedi supplement. I have also removed the extra line from the listing of the code. It makes more sense to present the code as the official star wars website presents it, and as it has appeared for many years before the supplement, and after KOTOR, since those two sources are obviously anomalous. Therefore, what you do is present the longer-running, current and original code, *then* follow with a footnote about the extra line. This is how the article was originally worded, but someone simply went in and added the extra line without thinking or reading more about it. That's why the listing of the code didn't seem to match up with the wording just under it as 70.225.176.94 pointed out.--Daniel (talk) 18:50, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
I see someone has re-added the controversial extra line, making the code (as presented in the article) contradictory with the explanatory paragraph that follows it. To try to make both sides of this argument happy, I have left the extra line in the code but placed parentheses around it. It should be clear now. Johnson487682 (talk) 13:25, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Ideally that line shouldn't be in there for the reasons I gave above. However, given that people continuously come onto the page and, thinking they know the code, clumsily keep adding it back in without reading up on it or checking the discussion page, I suppose I'll just accept it with the parentheses. That's better than continuously having to correct it.--Daniel (talk) 18:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Can I ask what the harm in having the full code in there is? Why would it be wrong simply because it wasn't said in full in other works? Are the jedi not allowed to abbreviate it? Maybe the simple explination is that there are two versions a shortened version and a full version. A good example is familiar rhyme that most people know, "I before E except after C", it's something that people frequently use to remind them of a simple spelling rule. Many don't even know that there is a second verse that goes, "or pronounced aye as in neighbor and weigh". Does that make it any less right? No, of course not. Since the original jedi code and the expanded jedi code do not contradict then I see no reason not to include the entire expanded code. -Scarlocke

But the problem lies in the fact that the paragraphs clearly contradict each other, and it seems very confusing to give out the five lines, and then tell the reader that there are only four lines. I'm removing the extra line for now, since it was the original, but if you do wish to add it, please reword the paragraph underneath it so that it makes sense. Thanks Bharat411 (talk) 23:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Article contained no text of the code, so I added it, using as a primary source the book Star Wars, Episode I: I Am a Jedi, by Marc Cerasini (writing as Qui-Gon Jinn) published in 1999. The discussion here did not indicate any justification for the complete removal of the code, just controversy over a particular line. Any reason why the text of the code should not appear? SteveChervitzTrutane (talk) 06:48, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Master/Council[edit]

"A Jedi Knight may become a Master after successfully training a Padawan learner to Knight status." I thought that the master title was only given to members of the council? In episode III Anakin states that it is outragous that he's given a seat at the council but not a master title. Help clearing up anyone??? --The REAL Teol 18:27, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Qui-Gon Jinn was a Jedi Master, but never sat on the council. The article is correct.
-Arkady, 22:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
To be on the council, you must be a master, but being a master does not mean you are on the council (for example, you have to be 35 to be able to run for US President, but that doesn't mean that everyone over 35 is running). EVula // talk // // 22:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
You obviously don't need to be a master to be on the council, since Anakin wasn't a master/was on the council. Beyond from the horrid logic here, such discussions are inane because you can't do induction on fiction. -- Jibal 20:57, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
What is obvious is that in that setting there are many Masters and only some of them are on the Council. Secondly, that Anakin's situation shows it wasn't impossible to be on the Council without being a Master, but his reaction shows that it was unheard of and traditionally did not normally happen.--Daniel (talk) 18:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Anakin's situation was beyond "non-tradition", it was practically a violation of the way the order worked, it was because Palps asked and the Jedi answered to the supreme chancellor, so they couldn't refuse but it strained their relationship. As stated before: to be on the council you had to be a Master, exceptions are exceptions, the rule stays. Bruce_Kenobi 12:54 GMT-5, 25 April 2008

Bruce Kenobi is completely correct, I see no fault in his logic. -Scarlocke

Bruce Kenobi said, "to be on the council you had to be a Master" - please site a source for that claim or it will be deleted. In the films, all that was said about it was when Skywalker said it was "unheard of". The fact that it had never been done before does not logically mean that it was a rule. There is absolutely no evidence in the film that the Jedi 'practically violated' their own rules - none. --Daniel (talk) 17:01, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Best Known Great and Powerful Jedi and Sith[edit]

Aside from this potentially being original research, I'm not really sure why this section is in this article, as it doesn't really have anything to do with the scope of the article (it's not even Jedi-centric). Thoughts? —Daniel Vandersluis(talk) 16:06, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Shouldnt it state its all fiction?[edit]

at the beginning at least...

Not sure how to use Wikipedia to make modifications to the page. But it appears somebody has entered the following into the pag: -

"The Jedi are wankers [1] keepers of the peace "

Though it now states its fiction, its still a seriously scary article, SPECIALLY considering it has no sources rather than the merchandise of a fictional work: its 48k long, it has at least 10 pictures and a dedication most articles would never dream of. Theres something seriously wrong with the "encyclopedians" here in wikipedia. Perhaps Lucas should make historical characters Jedis on his next star wars movie, think about it, Joseph Fouché the Jedi, that article would go to the roof, Jesus Christ the Sith, it would immidiatelly be a Featured Article, and so on.
Since anyone can edit Wikipedia, that includes fanboys. Given their numbers, enthusiasm, and energy, it's rather hopeless trying to keep an article like this within the bounds of Wikipedia policy. It's ridiculous to characterize "the encyclopedians here in Wikipedia" based on this article, or to suggest that such an off-policy article would be featured. -- Jibal 21:10, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
I see only 1 picture, something that should be revised, to include at least 1 picture per section since it illustrates what the concept is trying to get across. About the importance of a fictional description the same could be said about other fictional works, to chop the article would be against policy and about the description so long, that goes to show the dedication of people. Bruce_Kenobi April 25, 2008 13:06 GMT-5

Samurai influence[edit]

If there is no mention of the Samurai influence it should be made there as I believe and read it is the biggest incluence on Star Wars Jedi.Both are peacekeepers and based on spiritual beleifs.-Vmrgrsergr 04:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

This article is already largely rank speculation and WP:OR. If you can find a citation of George Lucas talking about Samurai influence, then by all means add a quote or a characterization of what he said. -- Jibal 21:15, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of samurai, I thought this line needs to be checked:

"In this regard, the Jedi Knight resembles a Samurai warrior more than a Crusader and, like the Samurai, Jedi have a poor opinion of ranged weapons, such as pistols or rifles, considering them uncivilized resources of battle."

The samurai functioned as horse-mounted archers throughout much of their history, so I'm not quite sure this statement is accurate. It might be better to say that the Jedi are based on "modern popular conceptions of the samurai, which are not necessarily in line with historical reality." Macroidtoe (talk) 21:38, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

There are certain similarities to jedi and samurai, that much is evident, Darth Vaders helmet, the lightsaber, etc. My primary question would be why would we include the part "Jedi Knight resembles a Samurai warrior more than a Crusader" did someone say that they are like crusaders and that it needed that clarification? It seems a pointless distinction. And yes, I would like to see a citation or some other evidence that shows it was based on this. At the very least please make it clear that this is only a comparison and not an actual fact. -Scarlocke —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.48.250.215 (talk) 12:35, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Costume?[edit]

Someone pointed out that some Hanfu (http://www2.hanfushop.com/more_pic.asp?ProdId=0005) looked a bit Jedi-ish and after thinking about it, some do (i.e. long flowing sleeves, y-collars, etc). I was wondering if there are any references to the influence of costume design in SW because I see some Chinese (maybe Japanese as well) influences and there seems to be no mention. --Charlie Huang 【遯卋山人】 11:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

As a matter of fact there are, Queen Amidala's costumes for instance were mongolian inspired. -Scarlocke —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.48.250.215 (talk) 12:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Jidaigeki[edit]

i keep seeing this referenced as though it were the truth, but i don't think that it is. the names for the order used by Lucas in early drafts of the script were "Dai Noga" (dropped because the first particle was too close to "die", according to the annotated script, and later modified for use as the name of the creature in the trash compactor) and "Jedi Bendu". neither of these seem strongly drawn from "jidaigeki". if someone can cite it, then that's one thing, but it should probably be taken out if there's no real evidence for it. as it stands, it looks more like Lucas simply added the "je" to the beginning of "dai" in order to change the sound. Whateley23 03:33, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Visas marr.jpeg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Visas marr.jpeg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 11:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

In-universe[edit]

Anyone seriously interested in improving the article should consider adding some real world related info, e.g. regarding the concept, creation, and/or function of the character within the Star Wars narrative etc. Please consult our writing about fiction guideline, which also includes a list of exemplary articles.

There are currently three featured articles on Star Wars characters: Palpatine, Padmé Amidala, and Jabba the Hutt. What sets them aside from most of the other SW character articles is the effort to write from the real world perspective. Pay particular attention to paragraphs like Jabba the Hutt#Concept and creation, Palpatine#Concept and creation, and Padmé Amidala#Characterization.

Also take a look at Darth Vader, which despite its lack of reliable, published third-party secondary sources features interesting sections on e.g. #Character creation and concepts and Darth Vader as a #Cultural figure.

Even though reliable sources may be tough to come up with, any effort to introduce coherently written real world aspects will be greatly appreciated, because it contributes to the depth of the article and accurate coverage of the topic, and thereby makes for an improved reading experience and increases the encyclopedic value of the article.

AldeBaer 13:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Shaddai[edit]

The "Possible Inspirations Behind the Force" section contains this statement: "Lucas may also have been thinking of some mythological and philosophical writings regarding early origins of life on earth, which contain references to a more highly evolved race of people who once interacted with human beings. In Hebrew the word for these beings was "Shaddai", which means "almighty"." This is an inaccurate representation of the meaning of the Hebrew word. In that culture and time, the last thing on their minds was "more evolved" beings. The word was used primarily to refer to God. Whether or not you agree with their beliefs, they should be accurately represented. - Point7Q 01:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

The whole thing needs to go, the key word in that sentance is "may" which means it's speculative, and inconsistant with the spirit of wikipedia. -Scarlocke —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.48.250.215 (talk) 12:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Cruft[edit]

There is an excessive amount of fancruft in this article. It should be trimmed down to perhaps 10% of its current size. It's nearly unreadable as is for people who aren't Star Wars buffs. D-Fluff has had E-Nuff 19:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

What makes it unreadable? I understand that the article relies heavily on the premise that the reader knows what Star Wars is, and that could be improved by giving context to a lot of things that are just not explained because of the premise stated above. However after these fixes are done (if ever) the article could become a guide for people who have no idea what Star Wars is, and help to understand its often colloquially pop culture references. Bruce_Kenobi April 25th, 2008 13:41 GMT-5

KOTOR and Lucas[edit]

"The video game Knights of the Old Republic added the fifth line 'There is no chaos; there is harmony.', falling between the third and fourth lines above. This is the only official source containing this line and subsequently there was a law suit between Lucas and the developers"

First of all, this is based on a misunderstanding of canon. KOTOR's use of the extra line does not contradict established Star Wars canon, nor does existing canon without this line contradict this. It is possible the other sources merely were incomplete OR that the Jedi Order during KOTOR, which is nearly destroyed by the beginning of the sequel, was the only incarnation to use this fifth line.--Nivenus 00:19, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

See the discussion topic above entitled "Issue with the Jedi Code" which resolves this issue. Johnson487682 (talk) 13:30, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Second of all, I've never heard of a law suit between BioWare and Lucas and I find the line saying that there was extremely suspect. It does not list a source, for one thing and it also seems unlikely that BioWare and Lucas Licensing, which continue to have a strong relationship with one another (see Drew Kapryshyn writing two novels for Star Wars and BioWare forming another alliance with LucasArts), would have been involved in a legal dispute. If there is no source for this, which appears in my eyes to be nothing more than fan wankery from fans unhappy with Knights of the Old Republic's changes to the Old Republic era, than I think it should be excised.--Nivenus 00:19, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Senior Member[edit]

Shouldn't the list of ranks include Senior Member of the Council? I've never heard of Grand Master until I read Wikipedia, but I have always heard Yoda and Windu described as Senior members. Emperor001 20:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Ancient Jedi[edit]

Can anyone find references for the listed ancients, I've be rv'ing obvious inventions, but don't know if there really is legend associated with, for example, Darth Elliot... it sounds unlikely, but I don't know for certain.

I'm tempted to just remove all names without referenced articles. Any opinions on this? Geoff Riley 12:56, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

The Force[edit]

Since the Force has it's own article, isn't there just a little bit too much information about it on here? Just a thought. I think a link to the Force article would suffice. --JerryLewisOverdrive 19:42, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the majority of the information about The Force from the article, leaving in an explanitory paragraph and several links to the main article. --JerryLewisOverdrive (talk) 02:05, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

The intro reads: "They use a quasi-telekinetic power known as "the Force"..." The Force is not a quai-telekenetic power. It's described in the films as an energy field that permeates all things. It's through manipulation of this that Jedi are able to perform telekinetic feats, but the force itself is improperly defined here.

Elitism[edit]

The article should make note of the elitism that plagued Jedi Order. Atris from the KOTOR series is the most prominent example, but even the prequels have a hint of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Simon Beavis (talkcontribs) 15:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Elitism? if take on people that have a Force atunnement and are young enough is seen as elitism then the concept of elitism has changed, because the Jedi didn't discrimitate by race, origin, sex, height, weight or any other bias, *annyone* could be a Jedi (given the circumstances stated above), and the films as well as newer material from the artist go at lengths to prove this: Yoda, the Senior Council Member and absolute master, was not even human, much less tall, so to consider the Jedi elitists is an idea that needs proof. Bruce_Kenobi April 25 2008, 13:35 GMT-5
It is obvious that you do NOT know what Elitist means. Elitist refers to arrogance, and belief that your social standing (which has NOTHING to do with race, sex, creed, etc) justifies that arrogance. Atris and Count Dooku were elitist (and I would certainly not lump Yoda in with either of them), and the fact that Qui-Gonn was denied a position on the council because he disagreed with the more conservative council members. It is definitely more evident in the KOTOR era, but THAT time period IS canon (and the KOTOR series itself is a Lucasfilm endorsed product) so it should not be ignored.

Solo force sensitive?[edit]

I have never seen anything to indicate that Han Solo is connected to the force. The jibberish of only force sensitives using light sabers does not add up. You need to be a force sensitive to BUILD a light saber, not USE a light saber. Although a jedi would be better at using one than a non force user, that doesnt mean they cant turn it on. There are lots of instances of Non Force users using light sabers, check the light saber section. I am removing the bull about han being connected to the force and how thats how he is able to use a light saber. -Doodlebomb —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.205.115.154 (talk) 21:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


Yeah I agree, all Han Solo did was turn it on and slice open a tauntaun so he can put Luke in it to keep warm. Not too hard to flip the switch. Han never deflected blaster bolts or fight with it. Even if he did wield it, he would wield it like a crude club and not have the finesse and skill of a Jedi. The amount of original research and speculation in this article renders it useless to get info on Jedi. Azn Clayjar (talk) 20:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Was there a time when Jedi used physical swords ?[edit]

Can anyone suggest if there was any possibility that the early Jedi used physical swords? Or even staffs? From my understanding the mandalorians had swords /weapons that could resist a lightsabre's cut. In that manner can it be a possibility that the early Jedi used physical swords before the lightsabre technology?--Redblossom (talk) 18:50, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I know of nothing canonically speaking to indicate that they did, it would be reasonable to assume it's a possibility. But then perhaps the jedi used a multitude of things before the invention of the lightsaber. Perhaps the jedi order itself was not formed until after the advent of lightsaber technology and therefore has always been a part of their tradition. It's possible that the lightsaber was invented specifically for the jedi because maybe they needed a weapon that was lightweight and easily concealed. These are speculations but, something to think upon. I wouldn't include this in the article unless there is some hard reference for it though. -Scarlocke

Questionable Sith Information[edit]

The section entitled "The Dark Side of the Force" has the following poorly-punctuated, poorly-capitalized, misspelled, run-on sentence:

As for sith this is the addopted name of the followers of the dark side of the force, the 'sith' themselves are an extinct race of very able force users who had an intense affinity with the force, all the members of this race were aligned with the dark side of the force unfortunatly and eventually destroyed themselves in civil war the survivors went on to train padawans who addopted the name of the sith and founded the sith empire on the planet of korriban where such famous jedi such as exar kunn, naga sadow, and ludo kressh ruled during the golden age of the sith

I don't know enough about the Expanded Universe or the various shades of canon to judge the accuracy of this information, but it appears to be contradicting other parts of the article (e.g. the original Sith were another race?) Can someone address these issues? Johnson487682 (talk) 13:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes the sith were a different race. This is something that is lacking on the sith page and should be added there. I see no reason to include it this article however. To clarify the topic the sith were a seperate race, some jedi were cast out of the order long ago because they turned to the dark side, they intermarried with native sith race which subsequently became extinct. Since that time the term sith was adopted by other dark side users. -Scarlocke —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.48.250.215 (talk) 12:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

STRONGLY suggest creating a new page[edit]

I searched for "jedi religion" and I was automatically sent to this article, yet it is not an article of what I am searching for. This article explains the fiction sense of the jedi, what I search for is the actual, legally recognized religion of the jedi. Do NOT make the argument that it is totally based on fiction because that could spark a debate on the very distinction of what religion is. The jedi religion is one that many people follow and that has evolved far further than the foundations given by the Star Wars saga. It has become a moral way of life to all those who follow it and I believe there is sufficient seperation between it and this article for it's own article to exist. Who agrees or opposes this and why?Ghyslyn

I don't oppose, since the Jedi described in the article is mostly from an in-universe POV, and an article on the people who have adopted the Jedi lifestyle as their own would improve the matter, HOWEVER it would be difficult to start or make an article about a religion from which it is known very little, talking in a real life sense, what does anyone know about these people? do they use the robes? do they have padawans? are they celibate? (they should if they abide by the teachings of the order that was destroyed by the Empire, which could be considered the truest representation of the former since the New Jedi Order has not seen the light of film) do they really follow the Jedi lifestyle or just like the cool costumes? when many and more of these facts are cleared an article would be in order. Bruce_Kenobi April 25th 2008, 13:35 GMT-5
The link below in section 'real world jedi' is about the jedi religion from today's news. User:Pedant 67.49.8.228 (talk) 05:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that this page is cluttered with original research and POV. It certainly doesn't read well - personally, I dislike the intro. However, I think that a complete reworking of the page might be easier than a total rewrite, since there is still lots of useful information present here. I would favour a group effort to reduce the amount of in-universe writing (especially that which is POV), whilst keeping the useful material. And certainly a section on the cultural impact upon the real world would be worth while. The Young Ones (talk) 10:57, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll actually have to disagree with this, because I think that the religion itself, as a recognized religion, deserves it's own seperate article, much as Christianity deserves it's own article seperated from the Bible, or Islam has an article seperated from the Koran, both these books can be argued as being fiction and be based on POV, much as the world of Star Wars can be argued to be entirely fictional, even though in a few thousand years people who are a little less intelligent might mistake it for a representation of a real event.Ghyslyn May 16 2008 22:56 GMT-6

Length of Intro[edit]

Anyone else feel that this page has an introduction that is far too long and tries to tell the reader everything in one go? I would be in favour of slimming it down, and moving text into the bulk of the article if necessary. As it is, the contents box didn't even appear on my screen when I first arrived on the page - I had to scroll down...

I would do this immediately, but would like people's opinions before I just launch straight in.

The Young Ones (talk) 17:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The intro is very long and should be slimmed down. Bluesmanjay (talk) 18:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree as well. This page would make my high school english teacher cringe. -Scarlocke —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.48.250.215 (talk) 12:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree Ghyslyn —Preceding comment was added at 04:00, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Real-world Jedi[edit]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080514/ap_on_fe_st/odd_britain_vader_raider 67.49.8.228 (talk) 18:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Kids and Star Wars: Vandalism[edit]

So many school age kids like making foul edits and vandalising in Star Wars related articles that it is an EPIDEMIC. I suggest that this page be locked from being edited willy-nilly by anyone to prevent this. If you NEED to contribite here ask some high up to get permission.--Nightingale12 (talk) 07:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Sith[edit]

Why does the article say that Sith can use both the light and dark side? I thought that an individual of either side could use both sides but are usually in tuned with just one. I'll used the Knights of the Old Republic Games as an example. In those games, a player can be light, gray, or dark. None of the side affect the which force powers are available to the player, they only reflect point cost (in other words, a Jedi using a dark side power or Sith using a light side power uses more points). Emperor001 (talk) 18:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposed merges[edit]

There is no reason why Great Jedi Purge, Jedi Academy, Jedi Temple, and Jedi Council cannot be adequately described in this article. These articles are currently unreferenced and written in a primarily in universe style which violates WP:WAF. The topic of "Jedi" as a whole has real-world importance (people listing it as their religion on the census, etc.), but these subtopics do not independently. Savidan 14:16, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Please delete[edit]

This article appears to have been poorly written to begin, then further ravaged and destroyed by vulture-like editors and now is near incoherent, plagued with eye sore tags, and only decipherable by Star Wars fanboys. In the 4+ years this article appears to have existed and been commented on, no one of quasi-intelligence has been able to rewrite or revamp it to become somewhat quality and be the Wikihero??

Discuss.

-Signed, Anonymous IP Man —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.86.230.202 (talk) 16:54, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

There is no reason to delete an article only because it's written poorly, especially if it's a rather notable one. You can always be altruistic, step forward and rewrite it, or correct its issues.--TheBearPaw (talk) 22:56, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Just to be clear, your response to him is "NOU" right?


It's fairly awful because it doesn't actually discuss any of the things that a wikipedia article should discuss - how the Jedi concept came about, how it developed over time and so on. --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:14, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

It does read more like a fansite than an encyclopedia. I'll look into cleaning it up a bit. Aristotle WithAGoatee 06:03, 4 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by AristotleWithAGoatee (talkcontribs)

This is a rather sad article, but it has redeeming qualities. I have made efforts to rephrase certain points and to delete a certain unneeded section.

What is really missing here is the excellent idea of getting Lucas' inspiration and ideas, other than whatever interviews he gave (which have been published since the early 1980s).

Also, I agree with some that any references outside the films should be eliminated--if we followed on with the way it is now, pretty soon there would be more confusing references, such as the Jedi-centered novels. (There are only a few, but the one I'm thinking of pertains to Luke as an older man teaching at the Jedi Academy which he establishes--anyone know that one?)

So, we do NOT want to go there. Can anyone help me with researching Lucas' obvious inspirations? Such as (this is ALL I know):

1. Lucas wanted the Jedi to be a combination of Japanese doctors (like in Kurosawa's "Red Beard") and samurai. Only at the last minute he added a BUDDHIST element to them.

2. Jedi is based on the term jidai-gekki, meaning "period piece" in Japanese. Only problem is, "Jedi" is also the Chinese word for "Jewish"...and in some parts of China this word is pronounced "Yoda".

3. Aside from the samurai-Buddhist-Bushido inspiration, Lucas also wanted to spell out a little Shao-lin Temple lore. The Sith represent a faction of greedy, angry Buddhist priests who abandoned their original Order.

4. Do you see why this stuff cannot be included in the article? It needs help and so do I... I'll redo what I can.75.21.144.92 (talk) 14:18, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Major citation trouble: no sources![edit]

This article needs to have a solid citation pattern. As a complete work of fiction, I suggest anything placed here may be cited using the films or certain books as reference material.

Otherwise, some of the "citation needed" indicators should go, because there is no way this common knowledge needs to be cited except to cite the film in which the "fact" appears. I.e., the Princess in the 1st movie refers to Ben as "General Kenobi", establishing that the Jedi were known only by military rank in the Clone Wars. We don't need all THAT in the article, but it is an example of how the original film could be cited as a reference. If not this, where do the nosy editors and admins suggest we turn for sources??75.21.144.92 (talk) 14:40, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

The following books have real-world coverage about the Jedi: 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. There's probably more out there that is under the keyword of "The Force" instead. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:22, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. It is a generally sound idea to explore your suggestions, but my main point is that for the purposes of this article, it would be simpler to stay focused on the films. Hence no need for citations outside the films themselves. For example, I found in the article that Yaddle uses an orange-bladed lightsaber--which I have removed. That sort of detail is both unnecessary and completely without citation.

However, I think anything Lucas or McCallum have to add (such as Lucas' repeated remarks that light sabers were not intended for use against each other) would be great. That is, if these remarks could be cited. For the life of me I cannot think of a book citation but Lucas has been known to state this repeatedly. So we are back to an interesting fact of significance (outside the films) that hopefully someone can cite. Still in all, I really see no need to cite such information too obsessively....75.21.144.68 (talk) 16:50, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

You may want to read this: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction). On Wikipedia, we describe the fictional subject matter from the real world. We can provide in-universe information about the Jedi as portrayed in the film, but the article should have mainly real-world coverage. There is already a specific wiki dedicated to solely in-universe information about the Jedi here. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:56, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh, yes...of course, I thank you for the notification. Hopefully I did not create the impression that I wanted to block references from being cited.75.21.144.68 (talk) 14:33, 23 October 2010 (UTC) Of course (if I may weigh in again)-- you've seen the nominations for deletion of Jedi Academy and Jediism? Doesn't that say something about the extent to which this article should be naturally limited?75.21.112.60 (talk) 13:27, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Grey Jedi Incorrect redirection[edit]

Attempting to look up Grey Jedi results in being redirected to this article, despite the fact that there is no information about Grey Jedi anywhere in this article. Either put in some information about them or create a new article about them.66.41.44.102 (talk) 11:40, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Why don't you Be Bold and do it yourself? Carl Sixsmith (talk) 12:00, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

It's because not only do I have no idea how, I am no expert on the subject nor do I know where to find reliable information on it. Besides, I come to Wikipedia to learn information, not add to it. If I knew where to find the reliable information a subject that is not on Wikipedia, I'd just use that information instead of bothering to put that information up on here.66.41.44.102 (talk) 15:22, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done. I have added a section about them. − Jhenderson 777 15:50, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I have reverted your bold addition -- the content has previously been excised for lack of any type of third-party substantiation/referencing. Wookieepedia seems to point toward some real-world sources, although whether they meet WP:RS, I dunno. Feel free to restore if it's appropriately cited. --EEMIV (talk) 16:36, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
I see that you have reverted me and I reverted your edit with a source within a source. In this case, Wikia would have been a reliable external link just to prove that everything stated is true. And if you are worried about sources in this article, may I advise you to look around. You should delete just about half of everything mentioned in this article if that's the case. − Jhenderson 777 16:55, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Wikia is in no way ever considered a reliable source. I'm surprised you don't know that. I will add a fact tag; if the content isn't substantiated by a third-party source within a week or so, the uncited content will again be removed. --EEMIV (talk) 17:38, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
A fan site, such as the one cited, also completely fails WP:RS. Please review this policy. --EEMIV (talk) 17:39, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
I didn't say source, I said external link. And the reason why I stated source within the source, becuase the site had a source on it. Besides the source is temporary. − Jhenderson 777 18:06, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't mind your trimming it down. Besides this information wasn't from me but just a little information from a revision from the redirection page. You should have done that from the first place. − Jhenderson 777 18:30, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
I know Wikia is not reliable as a source but it helps you know that it existed so you never should have removed it if you already assumed good faith on the edit, instead you should have fixed it like you did the second time. Next time tag it with [citation needed] or something. − Jhenderson 777 18:54, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Trivia?[edit]

I added a section with a list of Jedi Knights that appear as named characters in the Star Wars films, but it was summarily removed with as edit summary: list of trivia. Apparently I have a limited understanding of the notion of "trivia", which I thought meant so much as "trivialities", "very unimportant things", and I don't see how the section I contributed fits that qualification. What do others think?  --Lambiam 01:02, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Trivia is often, particularly on Wikipedia, extended to "fun facts", which used to bloat almost every popular article. Once you start allowing trivia, there's no stopping it. Someone else will add a list of all the jedi in the games, then someone will try to compile a list of all the jedi in the books and comics and the world will end. Some guy (talk) 06:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
You carefully avoided answering the question: Is a list of Jedi knights that appear as protagonists in the films a list of trivia (by which I mean: trivia by itself)? It is most definitely not a list of "fun facts". If you think it is a good idea to delete information not because it is trivia but because it might attract trivia, then why shouldn't we simply delete every popular article? Can't we simply delete trivia when it appears, but let non-trivial information stand even if it might attract trivia?  --Lambiam 16:24, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Real world Jedi[edit]

Should this article mention that people have been, albeit tongue in cheek, identifying as Jedi in various censuses not so long ago? Maybe in the "In popular culture" section? It's just a thought really, although I think there should be a link to the relevant Wikipedia article (Jedi census phenomenon). I'm from NZ and in 2001 there were more Jedi here than either Buddhists or Hindus :=] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.211.70.108 (talk) 09:42, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with him ^^

Rattails[edit]

Where's the rattail info? It's a rattail braid, not just a braid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.18.236.60 (talk) 14:43, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Article picture[edit]

I would like to ask how does this picture goes against WP:NFCC. They are fictional characters, there is no free equivalent (cosplay pictures are not an accurate representation of the subject unless used in a fandom section), it has relevance, and it helps people's understanding about this (fictional) subject. Merely stating that "it fails to meet the criteria" is not a valid argument. LusoEditor (talk) 11:15, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

It's already been explained that there is an entire category on Commons, complete with sub-categories, of free images that depict Jedi. If the article was about a specific character played only by a specific actor that would be one thing but it's not and there is absolutely nothing in that image that cannot be demonstrated by a free equivalent image, of which many exist. Not all of those images are of the best quality, but the fact that an entire category of well over 50 images depicting this topic exists means that the image above unquestionably fails to meet WP:NFCC #1. - SudoGhost 06:07, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
And again, I've already explained that there isn't a single picture on that category (or even its sub-categories) that isn't cosplay, which I think we can both agree that is not an accurate representation of the subject. That image shows the subjects apparel, weapon and relation between ranks (in this case the fact that Padawan learners receive their training from their masters on missions). LusoEditor (talk) 10:07, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
What you just described can be demonstrated by a free image, therefore there's no reason to include that image in the aricle. - SudoGhost 19:32, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Which free image (of Jedi, not cosplay) can describe all that? Now you're the one with the burden of proof. LusoEditor (talk) 23:32, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
You're asking me to prove that it is possible to take a free image of someone with the same apparel and weapon, and even a "relation between ranks" (meaning two of them)? That proof is already present in that category, so I truly don't know what you're asking for. The subject is about a general topic, "Jedi", not a specific character. Therefore, any image which increases the reader's understanding of the subject by highlighting signature features of what a "Jedi" typically looks like benefits the article; that they be a specific actor does not increase that understanding, so that is not required. - SudoGhost 03:08, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm asking how can a cosplay picture be more appropriate or even comparable to one from the source material? I would understand if we were talking about a fandom section, but that's not the case here. LusoEditor (talk) 10:34, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
I'll also add that the article hardly mentions Jedi appearance, beyond a general discussion of robes and "specialized equipment." If the article discussed e.g. costume decisions, hair & makeup (such as Obi-Wan's braid in TMP,), prop design, etc., then the picture might be a contender to meet NFCC requirement #8 regarding significantly aiding in understanding of the subject. However, since the specifics of the image aren't in any way addressed in the article, then the picture's inclusion does not aid in understanding, nor does its absence detract from understanding. --EEMIV (talk) 03:51, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
So if I expand those topics in the article, can the image be used? LusoEditor (talk) 10:34, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
No. There is nothing in that image that can not be illustrated by a free image for the purposes of this article. - SudoGhost 10:40, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Again, how can a cosplay picture be more appropriate or even comparable to one from the source material? We are not talking about fandom. LusoEditor (talk) 16:38, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
This has been explained already, please read this discussion again as this question has already been answered. - SudoGhost 19:31, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
LosuEditor, I'm not sure I entirely agree with SudoGhost's assertion about the article's future state vis-a-vis non-free images, since we don't know the article's final state and how well it might appropriately address the subject in a way that might make a non-free image appropriate. Regardless, though, no doubt that in its current state, I can't think of any non-free images that could appropriately be used with this article. If this is an area of interest for you, I encourage you to work on revising the article and raising the issue again here in the future. Worst-case scenario is that the non-free image bar isn't cleared, *but* the article itself is improved. Make sense? Feel free to drop a line here or on my talk page if you'd like some specific feedback; I keep only a wary eye on this article and might otherwise be slow to respond. --EEMIV (talk) 03:26, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

(outdent)I also do not see how this image fails WP:NFCC#1 by showing cosplay Jedi instead of this image. If these cosplay images were acceptable then we would be using those images for Qui-Gon Jinn and Obi-Wan Kenobi, which currently have fair use images. If the image was replaceable, why was no image put in its place? Since this image is being discussed here, it should stay in the article and not be deleted simply because it is orphaned for a week. Maybe it would help to close this discussion and take the image to Wikipedia:Files for deletion to possibly get more opinions from editors with more NFCC experience. Aspects (talk) 05:00, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

External links are removed by default unless there is a consensus to include them, that same reasoning would most certainly apply to a legal matter such as copyright. Unless it can be shown that all of the requirements of WP:NFCC are met, the image does not belong on the article. There is nothing in this image that conveys anything that a free image would not also convey, that is why it fails to meet the requirements of WP:NFCC. The article is not about specific actors, so what exactly is critical about this image? What aspect of "Jedi" does it help readers grasp that could not be demonstrated by a free image? The specific actors are not required to aid in that understanding, so what is it about this image that is you believe is critical to the understanding of the subject, so much so that it's absence is a detriment to the article? - SudoGhost 05:09, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
This is a difference in opinion as to whether or not the image passes WP:NFCC and I do not see in your opinion how this would clearly violate WP:NFCC that it could not wait until a consensus was reached. Per WP:BRD, now that the image is being discussed it should stay in the article, so I would ask that you add the image to the article until there is a consensus here or take it to Wikipedia:Files for deletion. But to continually delete it from the article while it is being discussed so you can tag it as an orphaned image seems disingenuous to me. Aspects (talk) 05:25, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
It most certainly should not stay in the article, a policy with legal considerations takes precedence over an essay. Again, if there is a difference in opinion then please explain, what is it about this image that is so critical to the understanding of the subject that its absence is a detriment to the article, and what does this image convey that could not be conveyed by a free image? How does this image meet all 10 requirements of WP:NFCC, despite an entire category of free images already existing on Commons? I'm aware that most of those images are of poor quality, but it demonstrates that this image fails WP:NFCC #1, as they have the same encyclopedic purpose. If an image has to be included and none of the images currently available on Commons or elsewhere are found suitable, I'm sure a member of the 501st Legion would be happy to help provide an image, and they are very good at what they do. - SudoGhost 05:32, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Again, you haven't explained how does a cosplay picture can accurately represent the subject of the article, specially when compared to one from the source material? Wikipedia doesn't prohibit fair-use images to be used in articles, unless a free alternative exists but it doesn't. Jedi are fictional characters from a copyrighted franchise therefore any Jedi pictures are non-free. Cosplay pictures can only represent a fandom section, not the subject itself. To post one would be misleading to the reader. And the reasons to use the picture according to WP:NFCC have been presented a number of times. LusoEditor (talk) 10:33, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
I have, actually. Read the discussion again, as has already been suggested. What you have failed to do, however, is explain how this image is necessary and what it conveys that a free image could not. "any Jedi pictures are non-free" is demonstrably false, as already explained. The image provides no context that a free image would not also provide, calling non-free images "fandom" does not diminish that fact nor does that create an exception from WP:NFCC, especially since the subject is not a particular character portrayed by a particular actor, but a general subject portrayed by numerous actors and several media formats and as such a particular image of a particular actor is not required since that is not the focus of the article. - SudoGhost 11:19, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
As I've said before, it helps to give a better understanding of ranking (padawans working with masters on missions), apparel and weaponry of the subject. A free image (in this case cosplay, which is all there is in Commons) doesn't convey the same because it's a mere fan made attempt to imitate the original. I'd say an image from the source material is preferable in order to give the reader more accurate visual information. The image is also of much lower resolution than its source and is easily available throughout the web due to being part of free promotional material. If you don't agree with my reasoning, that's fine, but your opinion is not more valid than mine in order to decide if it fails WP:NFCC or not. I believe to have justified my argument. LusoEditor (talk) 16:01, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
It gives a better understanding of ranking? Two individuals standing together does nothing of the sort. I'm really at a loss as to what you believe the image conveys that a free image could not? Are you suggesting that there can be no free image of two people standing together? An image from the source material is not preferable when it fails WP:NFCC, that is Wikipedia policy. This is not an article about a specific character played by a single actor, or even a subject that exists solely in film, so the argument that this image is the only one that can possibly depict the subject is demonstrably false and utterly fails WP:NFCC. It does not matter if you believe it does not fail WP:NFCC, when there are free images already in existence, the argument that it meets the criteria required is absolutely inaccurate. - SudoGhost 05:32, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
I don't see how the existence of commons:Category:Jedi should mean that we can't use a snapshot from the movies. The pictures on Commons don't actually depict Jedi; those are instead people just dressing up as them. We should illustrate the article with the "real" thing ("real" being subjective here, given the fact that it's a fictional group of people). The Commons pictures could easily illustrate the "In popular culture" section, though. EVula // talk // // 16:13, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Because that is a requirement from WP:NFCC, which the image fails to meet. The actors are also not Jedi, they are people just dressing up as them, so that's not really any different in terms of accuracy. There is nothing the image illustrates that cannot be illustrated by either a free image or the text itself; the lack of this particular image is not detrimental to the understanding of the article, so it fails WP:NFCC #8 as well. - SudoGhost 05:32, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
That is a needlessly strict interpretation of NFCC. Of course those actors aren't actually Jedi; that's because they're a fictional group, which means that any real pictures depicting real Jedi ("real" here being "from officially licensed media" is going to be inherently non-free). Besides, someone dressing up like someone else doesn't qualify as the same as an actual picture of the subject in question. If I slather myself in yellow paint and don a fat suit, I could take a picture of myself and make a freely-licensed picture of Homer Simpson for his article? Really?
I'm not suggesting we stuff the article with non-free images, but a single non-free image at the top of the article would be an improvement (so your #8 argument is rather silly). EVula // talk // // 14:12, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
If it is needlessly strict then please explain how a copyrighted image could possibly convey information to the reader that a free image could not? The subject does not exist, so any image is of someone dressing up like someone else. Your Homer Simpson example highlights exactly why this article does not apply to that logic; that is a single character with a very exact appearance, so much so that any other image would give a false impression of what Homer Simpson would look like, which would be a disservice to the reader. That logic does not apply to this article, as the article does not depict a single character, it depicts a very large and diverse group of fictional characters that vary wildly in appearance and as such a free image is both possible and serves the same encyclopedic purpose, which is to convey information and understanding to the reader. Suggesting that a free equivalent should not be used because it is not "officially licensed media" is not an argument reflected by Wikipedia policy when the free equivalent provides the same exact understanding to the reader; that argument is in direct opposition to WP:NFCC #1. If this were an article about a specific character that argument would make more sense, because only the actor playing the character would be accurate; another person dressed as a specific character would not be accurate. This article does not have that issue. Given the wildly varied appearance of Jedi in the Star Wars universe (both in the fictional sense and real life portrayals), the only real constant between Jedi is the lightsaber, and arguably robes of some kind. That can easily be described in text so under Wikipedia policy a non-free image should not be used anyways, even if the concept of using free equivalent images are unsatisfactory. That is why WP:NFCC #8 applies. That the image be "an improvement" is not the criteria of WP:NFCC #8, so it's hardly appropriate to dismiss that as "silly" without actually addressing the policy or what was said. - SudoGhost 18:50, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
I really don't have the patience to argue this with you. I think you're being needlessly strict, but neither of us is going to sway the other. Knock yourself out purging Wikipedia of anything that could be replaced with shitty cosplay images. EVula // talk // // 19:06, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm not saying "cosplay" should replace images on Wikipedia, that is a complete misrepresentation of what I'm saying. What I am saying is that there is no "official" Jedi, there are actors who have played Jedi in movies, and Jedi have been featured in novels, video games, cartoons, and plenty of other media I'm sure I'm overlooking, but a screenshot from a movie does not convey any information that a free image could not also convey. Those two actors are not "the" Jedi, so that's not a reason to include the image and if the purpose of including it is to convey what a Jedi looks like with robes and a lightsaber, well that is more than possible with a free image. Contrasting that with your Homer example, there is indeed "the" Homer Simpson...that's the difference and why this image fails WP:NFCC where your example would not. - SudoGhost 21:14, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
The free image does not represent the subject because, as said many times here, it's a mere fan made attempt to do so. An official, promotional image is (unlike a cosplay) unquestionably accurate because it's how the creator of the subject envisioned them in the first place. The fact that the subject itself is fictional doesn't mean a cosplay picture can be used as representation. And your interpretation of a possible conflict with WP:NFCC #1 is not more valid than the ones presented here. LusoEditor (talk) 20:18, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
That is both completely inaccurate and inconsistent with Wikipedia policy. Saying "mere fan made attempt" does not somehow make an image less useful in demonstrating something; the goal of images on Wikipedia is to convey information, and to that end there is no difference between "official, promotional" and a free image where this article is concerned, given that this article's subject is a very large group of fictional people. How does one convey information that the other does not? Despite multiple requests to explain that, not once has that been addressed other than to make an argument that the non-free image is somehow conveying information that is impossible to replicate (such as two people being in the image). Even ignoring the free image issue, the image does not provide any understanding of the subject that a sourced, text description does not also provide, so either way the image utterly fails WP:NFCC in multiple ways. There is no "possible conflict" with the policy; it demonstrably fails to meet the very first criteria, there is no ambiguity in that regard and this is not a subject about a specific character played by a specific actor or a situation where only an "official, promotional image" could convey the concept. - SudoGhost 20:54, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
It does make the image less useful at representing the subject because it's a fan attempt at doing so, therefore making it not accurate or as accurate as an official promotional image. Cosplay can only represent, in this case, the influence of the subject in pop culture or fandom. By saying that such image can equally represent the subject like an official depiction by the subject's creator, you are the one who has to prove that it does so. How can a sourced, text description provide the same amount of information as a picture? Not to mention the subjective nature of such concept. LusoEditor (talk) 21:23, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
That is inaccurate on so many levels. First, there is no automatic entitlement to use non-free content in an article or elsewhere on Wikipedia, and as such the burden is on you to demonstrate that it meets all 10 requirements of that policy. Second, I can quite easily explain that a free image of an individual in a robe with a lightsaber can convey the same information. What does this image show that a free image and/or text could not? Nothing. The absence of the image does not take away from a reader's understanding of the subject, especially when this is nothing more than a general example of what two Jedi look like, as there is no "this is what a Jedi looks like" image since they vary so wildly in appearance and the actual useful information gained from the image can easily be described in the article (and indeed already is). If you believe that a sourced text description cannot possibly convey the same information as an image, you are more than welcome to raise that point at WP:NFCC and try to change the policy, but until that happens it's there for a reason and the text in the article already more than adequately conveys the same information as the image in regards to what a Jedi is. - SudoGhost 21:34, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
What exactly is inaccurate? I've already demonstrated how it meets the requirements. An individual in a robe with a lightsaber toy doesn't represent a Jedi, it represents an individual attempting to portray a Jedi. As I've explained before, Jedi are part of a copyrighted franchise, therefore any pictures of Jedi are non free and as fictional characters, only pictures of said franchise can accurately represent them. The NFCC doesn't need to be changed because that same policy asks that very question ("Could the subject be adequately conveyed by properly sourced text without using the non-free content at all?") to the person who wants to use the picture. I believe it doesn't, as I've explained above. And saying that the text in article conveys the same information as the image is subjective and up for debate. I say the picture complements the text (which can also be further expanded upon). LusoEditor (talk) 22:16, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
I already explained what is inaccurate, and "complements the text" is not a valid rationale for including the image. Your rationale about "any pictures of Jedi are non free" is demonstrably false and repeating it does not change this, and using a red herring like "lightsaber toy" does not help your argument nor does it explain how a free image cannot convey information about the subject. As to changing the policy, what you said was "How can a sourced, text description provide the same amount of information as a picture?" The answer is given in the policy. - SudoGhost 22:23, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
I still think it would help to take it to Wikipedia:Files for deletion to gain a wider audience that deals with WP:NFCC. Aspects (talk) 05:49, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
The discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Non-free content review#File:Jedi Knights.png. - SudoGhost 16:59, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

The Jedi using the force to help those in need vs only serving the galactic republic[edit]

My reasons for change were that there seems to be an indication that the Jedi religion functions to serve the galactic republic, but to my knowledge the Jedi existed long before the Old Republic and were later incorporated as the republic's protectors. The Jedi functioned to help anyone in need, only being later inducted as the republic's peacekeepers. The purpose of my edits were to specify this info. What are other's understanding of this? 69.165.246.181 (talk) 01:41, 3 February 2014 (UTC)