Talk:Jediism

about.com source

It relates to Star Wars Jedi, not to Jediism... 82.16.58.234 (talk) 01:36, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Far better source from about.com: http://altreligion.about.com/od/beliefsandcreeds/a/jedi_teachings.htm 82.16.58.234 (talk) 01:44, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Merge with "Jedi census phenomenon"

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Closed, with no support. McGeddon (talk) 09:28, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

---

The "Jediism" article boils down to a lot of context-setting (that it's mostly a census joke but some people take it a bit more seriously), a few lines about what the religion consists of, and some religious discrimination claimed by a couple of followers. "Jedi census phenomenon" has a lot more of the first and some more of the third (including stuff about the Incitement to Religious Hatred Bill and "UN Interstellar Day of Tolerance" which isn't mentioned in the Jediism article).

It seems clearer to present all this as a single "Jediism" article, describing the census campaign, the apparently very small minority who profess to take the religion seriously, and the legal fallout of that minority claiming religious persecution using the census results to bolster their argument. (From the sources given, the "Jediism" religion does not predate the census campaign.) --McGeddon (talk) 08:53, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

• These are two different topics, or at should be. They are plenty of obscure religions and religious sects on Wikipedia and Jediism is just another. If its legitimacy is in doubt perhaps that question should be raised in the Jediism article. If there are truly no credible sources than maybe Jediism doesn't meet notability.Circuitboardsushi (talk) 00:15, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
• I agree. Two different topics. There is enough to pass GNG. Wikipedia has never been shy about obscure religions, no reason this should be the exception. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:20, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Dismissing the "seven years after the census joke, a guy in Wales decided to become the 'founder' of the religion, and got thrown out of a supermarket" story and looking at the sources more closely, it does look like Star Wars fans have been claiming adherence to various Jedi-related religions back into the 1990s and earlier. If we think the census phenomenon is sufficiently different, we should probably compress it into a single section with a {{seemain}} link, rather than using it to explain the history and popularity of the entire religion. --McGeddon (talk) 09:07, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

• Jediism and census phenomenon have little in common. The only link between the two (besides the word "Jedi") are not discussed in either article. 82.16.58.234 (talk) 04:52, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Removal of NZ-oriented content

An IP editor has twice removed content hooking the Jediism notions into events/coverage in New Zealand. I have reverted the removal, since there's nothing about this subject that ties it solely to e.g. the UK (where most of the coverage/hooplah seems to focus). Per WP:BRD, I've reverted the excising editor's edits and am putting a nudge here to offer better explanation for removing the content beyond the limitations of what an edit summary provides. --EEMIV (talk) 05:51, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

This is why the article needs to draw a clearer line between genuine religious adherents and the census joke - it's fair comment for a New Zealand polling company to group Jediism with "The Church of Elvis" in the context of the census, but misleading (and potentially offensive) to suggest that they're commenting on the religion itself. Hopefully my rearrangement of this article to give the census its own clear section resolves some of this. --McGeddon (talk) 09:35, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I am the IP editor. My first revision, 566381824, removed "as a result of a tongue-in-cheek email campaign", because in 2012, in the UK, there was no tongue in cheek email campaign. There was a tongue in cheek email campaign in new zealand in 2001, which we can assume spread to the UK (although I'm not sure this is exactly true, and if it were to be said, with supporting references, it should be said in the census phenomenon article). My second revision, 566383438, removed some irrelevant text about the census phenomenon and the way the australian and new zealand statistics authorities handled it. (it is the "history" section of the "Jediism" article after all. clearly irrelevant). It is true however that Jediism became known after the census phenomenon, as some people(writers, journalists) have since looked at it from a genuine religion perspective. I left this in however it MAY be OR/unrelated. I also removed Possamai, while it is true he did (quickly it seems) research Jediism, I fail to see what this fact has to do with Jediism's history. If possamai shaped Jediism's history in anyway, that's what should be put down (with refs). I removed the UK church of Jediism line, because while it seems true, the UK church is: not the first jedi church (there are at least to I can think of that precede them), and to their own admission, they "cashed in" on the census phenomenon. No information I can find about this church indicates that they have any clergy or conduct "regular church business". As such I feel they are irrelevant to Jediism history, and should probably be mentioned in the census phenomenon article instead. Also, the way it is written, it seems that Daniel and Barney Jones founded the church of Jediism in 2008 because they believed Jediism was an official religion, a claim that is not substantiated by the reference provided (and therefore is OR and may not even be good enough for the census phenomenon article). My third revision, 566384092, removed "although the majority of respondents are assumed to have claimed the faith as a joke." because the reference provided makes this claim about the new zealand 2001 census, not the England and Wales 2012 census, as the reference itself was created in 2002....82.16.58.234 (talk) 04:56, 15 August 2013 (UTC)