Talk:Jedi

Article picture

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

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)

Padawan etymology

I can't cross check the statements about the sanskrit etymology. Following the given online dictionnary Spokensanskrit.de, "Padawan" or "Padavan" does not exist. It seems to follow the form of ending -wan/-wati like in Malaysian Biarawan=monk, Biarawati=nun, hartawan=rich man, ilmuwan=scientist, sejarawan=historian, etc. (source. But if i look at the root "pada", i find only ideas of Foot, Step, Position, Quarter, etc.पद्वन् (padvan)means road or path. If the "pada" root can be identified, we could reason that the female form or Padawan is.. "Padawati"! --Napish (talk) 09:44, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Padavyā is pronounced more like padawā; there is no w.

-- Shyam Has Your Anomaly Mitigated (talk) 04:32, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

There are also four stages.

-- Shyam Has Your Anomaly Mitigated (talk) 04:38, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Your dictionary also has padAdyavid meaning "bad student", pAThavat meaning "well-read" & "learned", pATava meaning learner (there are many for that one).

-- Shyam Has Your Anomaly Mitigated (talk) 05:20, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Category question

OK, maybe there is something I am missing here, but how do the Jedi or the Sith count as "Fictional educational institutions"? I mean yes, there is the mentor/student relationship between the Masters and apprentices and you do have one scene of Yoda teaching the younglings, but does that make the Jedi or the Sith educational institutions? It seems more like the old guild system of a master craftsman and his younger apprentice, and the "training" seems to take place as they go about doing their jobs. If a page was created for the Jedi Academy, which I think was featured in some of the Extended Universe material, then I think that would be appropriate to put in that category.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 23:13, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

• That doesn't really answer my question.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 07:42, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

There is a Jedi Academy in the novels, but the Sith education is described more as a mentorship. Not sure if there is any value added in the category here. Scr★pIron^IV 15:10, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Attribution note

The bit about Stoicism in the new Analysis section originally came from Philosophy and religion in Star Wars; its editing and revision history is there. Most of the other content was merged to or was duplicative of content already at The Force (Star Wars), and the page now redirects there. --EEMIV (talk) 17:46, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Attribution note

Created this table but don't know how to separate it from the rest of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosvel92 (talk • contribs) 02:08, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Jedi Order Master-Apprentice Relationship
Yoda Padawan Children Count Dooku Mace Windu Qui-Gon Jinn Depa Bilaba Obi-wan Kenobi Kanan Jarrus Anakin Skywalker Luke Skywalker Ezra Bridger Ahsoka Tano Ben Solo Rey New Jedi Order

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Jedi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100408195115/http://nasm.si.edu/exhibitions/StarWars/sw-unit1.htm to http://www.nasm.si.edu/exhibitions/StarWars/sw-unit1.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090225181006/http://www.sanskrit-lexicon.uni-koeln.de/ to http://www.sanskrit-lexicon.uni-koeln.de/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060112071240/http://starwars.apple.com/ep2/making_of/x-ep2-wedgie_480.mov to http://starwars.apple.com/ep2/making_of/x-ep2-wedgie_480.mov

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:19, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Order 66 and Grogu

How can Grogu be listed as a survivor of Order 66? Both seasons of the Mandalorean happen before the Clone Wars. It is unclear if Grogu will survive Order 66, therefore he should not be listed as a survivor. I deleted him from the list, but somebody reverted my edit ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:ee:4f1d:a2a4:976:d259:8cc:3ad5 (talk) 11:41, May 14, 2021 (UTC)

Your timeline is incorrect. The Mandalorian takes place five years after Return of the Jedi. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:55, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

and here is a source that verifies this. Though the events in the show itself make it obvious that it happens after the Death Stars both blow up and the Empire has fallen. - Aoidh (talk) 23:21, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

I feel stupid now, you are correct. I was thinking of the massacre by Kylo Ren in the Jedi Temple. 2003:EE:4F1D:A212:976:D259:8CC:3AD5 (talk) 15:20, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

It makes no difference. Grogu isn't a Jedi and wasn't a General so Order 66 wouldn't apply to him - ergo he did not "survive" Order 66 even if he were alive for it. - 195.92.38.22 (talk) 10:51, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

No Knights Templar Mention?

Really? No mention of one of the core influences of the Jedi? Is the fact that they're called "Knights" and their destruction mirroring the destruction of the Knights Templar Order not enough?

Crun31 (talk) 05:04, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Emblème de l'Ordre Jedi.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:08, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

The Hebrew meaning of Yedid is "friend"

not "beloved" as written in the article, in the "etymology" section 5.28.184.95 (talk) 10:00, 15 August 2023 (UTC)