Talk:Princess Leia/Archive 1

Update biography TODO

Somebody really needs to bring her biography up to the level of Anakin, Luke, and Han. --LtNOWIS 22:00, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I've taken a step towards it. It could use some more detail, but at least now it does not omit practically the whole of the Expanded Universe. --Maru (talk) Contribs 01:14, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Somebody needs to expand on Leia's Force powers, strength, and lightsaber training 06:23 January 19 2006 (UTC)

Titles

If you want to add new titles for Leia, (ie Princess, First Chairman, Grand Poobah etc) PLEASE don't just replaced the one that's there. It's there for a reason- to link her with preceeding Senators of Alderaan. If you replace the text, it stuffs it up. If you want to add more titles, add more boxes. --QuentinGeorge 06:10, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Need better image

Somebody REALLY needs to find a more appropriate image... --Frenchman113 21:05, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

Really, how can we have an article on her without a shot of her in the metal bikini? :D --Golbez 06:55, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

We did, but Frenchman113 complained. --Kross 09:00, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry for pissing you guys off, I really didn't care that much. I was just thinking that some christian fundamentalist would change it anyway. --Frenchman113 21:43, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

We don't really have any information on Leia's role in RotJ either... Perhaps a new section on that, including the metal bikini?

What do you mean, "some Christian fundamentalist would change it anyway"? Am I the ONLY one who would really care about that kind of stuff? Are you ALL just a bunch of Christian-hating editors? I agree that, since the metal bikini seems to be very popular, it would be difficult to have an article without an image of her in the bikini, but let's not get into a Christian-bashing discussion here! --Scorpionman 03:47, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. Her profession is described as a senator. The first picture of her on the page shouldn't be her in a metal bikini and it shouldn't be her hefting a blaster either. It should be more dignified. Put the other pictures further down on the page if you want, but her character serves a greater purpose than eye candy and deserves more respect than that. 216.242.114.115 19:10, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Biblically there is nothing against Leia's slave costume. All her "private parts" are covered and that is all the Bible explicitly says is needed for "modesty". Saying "some Christian fundamentalists" would object is wrong because that is not a "Christian" view at all, merely a personal view created from personal opinion, what is acceptable in society at the time and how they grew up. Yes may Christians do tend to be “old fashion” as many would say nowadays, but from a strictly Christian point of view she's fine. Any LESS clothing and yes then you might have a problem but I'm pretty sure Wikipedia prohibits those kinds of images. --The Matrix Prime 03:21, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not prohibit such images, but that's beside the point because there aren't any such images of Leia. =) Powers 17:45, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

If you ask me it needs to be an actual shot from the movie. That picture of her in the bikini in the ROTJ section doesn't have the collar or chain. So it's probaly just a pose she did. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Animasage (talk • contribs) 21:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC).

Y'all need a better image? how 'bout better images!. Thats right! I just put in a TON of images of leia, with two of them in her bikini. The ones I put in aren't so robust and pop out large, but i included the old one that you argued wasn't in the movie. i included the link to that one, and i have an image of leia on there. Jackson Smith 01:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Leia's Lightsaber

I'm just curious whether or not Leia constructed her own lightsaber during the Expanded Universe of Star Wars. I know Luke managed to construct a lightsaber that all his own, but did Leia construct a lightsaber that's all her own?

I believe she did. --Maru (talk) Contribs 01:20, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

"Born Leia Amidala Skywalker"

That one is a complicated issue, because Padme's real last name was Naberrie, not Amidala. I believe Leia's full name is Leia Naberrie Skywalker Organa Solo.

Her name 'Leia Amidala Skywalker' is stated in the Star Wars Revenge of the Sith Visual Dictionary. Actually, Leia Amidala Skywalker just happens to be her birth name. It is later changed to Leia Organa when she gets adopted by Bail Organa. --Jill Tan 19:26, 11 June 2005 (UTC)

Why is she "Leia Amidala Skywalker" and her brother is plain "Luke Skywalker". Shouldn't he be "Luke Amidala Skywalker". Giving children both their mother's and father's name doesn't seem common in GFFA. Leia's kids Jacen Solo, Jaina Solo not Jacen Organa Solo or Jaina Skywalker Solo nor is Luke Skywalker's son Ben Jade Skywalker -12 March 2006 3:40 UTC

I have no clue. We're just going by what the canon sources have said so far. The Wookieepedian 06:46, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Isn't the surname Solo a spoiler? The original triology gave the impression that she might have been in love with her own brother (which before the 3rd film, 6th episode, was an unknown fact). For that, isn't the birth surname Skywalker another spoiler? In fact, in the recently released 3rd episode she is named "Leia", simply. As she is adopted by Senator Organa, she is given his family surname. As for Luke, his entry on Wikipedia states that his surname is given after his father for unknown reasons, but it's not a spoiler since he is known to be Anakin's son in the 3rd episode and is early self-proclaimed Luke Skywalker in the 4th when rescuing Leia.

You know, I am glad to see that the ones writing the Star Wars books treat Padme and her name with respect. Giving Leia the names of Naberrie and Skywalker is fair to both parents, and really how people should treat the issue. Just adding my two cents to the argument. --The Wookieepedian 11:39, 5 October 2005 (UTC

I find strange that, in a very far galaxy, and a long time ago, peoples have this typical American way to call women. I think that it's irritating to add husbands' surnames to the proper surnames of married women, humiliating for them, considering that men don't add their wives' surnames. For what I know, this is a custom typical of USA and gives a sense of strangeness, of alienation, applied to a different galaxy in a science-fiction saga. I think proper that everyone had his/her own surname, taken from father or mother. In every case, Leia is called Organa in the original movies, and I think that this surname is enough. --Val

Finally! Someone who sees it the way I do! When I tried to change the article to "Leia Organa" over at the star wars wiki, they attacked me with their twisted ideas, insisting she be called "Leia Organa Solo." You would think that, as you say, a civilization as advanced as that of the Star Wars galaxy would be a little more advanced culturally, as well. Somehow, I just don't see Leia, Padme, or Mara Jade taking their husband's surnames. Of course, as I pointed out over at the star wars wiki, these characters and stories were written by earthly humans, mostly americans, who have this strange mindset of "men are superior to women and control women," so, what can you expect? It may be "canon" that they take their husband's surnames, but that just doesn't seem like much of a characteristic of that Galaxy of people. The resident's of that galaxy would be more, well, equal, and would be about as far away ffrom the traditional American ideals as possible. And yes, believe it or not, you are hearing this from a guy, so... --The Wookieepedian 13:12, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

The reason why she is called Leia Organa Solo is because that is what she calls herself in the Star Wars Universe. Even characters like Mara Jade and Mirax Terrik also call themselves with their husbands surnames. However, there are some characters like Padmé who didn't take her husband's surname. Even her sister Sola Naberrie kept her surname and also passed it down to her children, excluding her husband's one. So this shows that in the Star Wars universe, it is actually up to a woman whether she wants to take her husband's surname upon marriage and how she and her husband would want to name their children. At the Star Wars Wiki, it is their policy to name the characters by their latest names, and since Leia decided that she is to be called Leia Organa Solo, that is what she is to be called in that Wiki as it is her latest name in the Star Wars universe. Yes it's true that the Star Wars books are written by earthly humans, but don't forget that the Star Wars Universe is actually conceived by George Lucas who is an earthly human as well. Besides, it doesn't mean that when a woman takes her husband's surname means that her husband is superior to her. It's because that's how society is like even in today's world! I know a lot of successful women who don't depend on their husbands but still they took their husbands' surname upon marriage. Even if the Star Wars galaxy is considered equal to both men and women, they still have their own traditions and cultures as well. Also, what does it matter? It's only a name! It's not like Leia's position has been turned down just because she's a woman. She even became Chief of State of the New Republic and is also one of the most highly respected people in the galaxy. You know what, you're hearing this from a girl! And I don't find it disrespectful when woman takes after her husband's surname and that she is inferior to him. Just as long as she has the freedom to what both men and women can do today. --Anon.

Shouldn't it just be Leia Organa and not Solo since it is never mentioned in the movies if she does marry Han Solo. The expanded universe is typically just canon and goes into the realm of possibility but not reality. Who's not to say that Leia marries the son of Darth Maul's brother? It is never really 100% positive she does marry Han.

• Yes it is. The EU makes that very clear. And, for film purists, Lucas has stated that Leia marrying Han is what he "envisions" would happen. The Wookieepedian 23:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

• It doesn't get any more official than the Star Wars website, and here's Leia's databank entry: [1]. Note that it's alphabetized under Solo. Powers 00:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Quotations

I question whether the Quotations section is really all that necessary. I think it could be deleted entirely, but if not, I think it should be edited so only relevant, important quotes are retained (it seems like a lot aren't necessary). It also needs to be formatted better. – Mipadi 01:56, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Hairstyle

I know this is rather trivial, but shouldn't there be at least some mention of the Episode IV hairstyle? --AnonMoos 18:26, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Maybe something mentioned at the beginning of the ROTJ section about her changed her.--Animasage 21:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Young marriageable Hopi Indian women wear a very elaborate "Squash Blossom" hairdo that superficially resembles Princess Leia's. It takes a hairdresser about an hour to make. Some references for this are [2], [3], and [4]. Josh-Levin@ieee.org 21:51, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

There was actually a not too unusual hairstyle amongst fashionable ladies in 14th century Europe that closely resembles Leia's 'cinnamon bun' hair. I don't know how important that would be to mention. Also I don't feel like trying to track down the sources; I've studied medieval costume for many years and have seen probably a thousand pictures or more and can't always remember from which book I saw which picture, and don't really feel like tracking the bun-hair down at the moment. --68.35.94.119 06:02, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

RfC/poll – Darth Vader/Anakin Skywalker: one article or two?

So, who's her daddy? What do you think? E Pluribus Anthony 19:35, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Comcast key?

There was a Comcast key hidden in the Killik Twilight? Not only were the rebels trying to overthrow the Empire; they were pirating cable, too? Is that right? --EngineerScotty 20:42, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

You'd think that the Rebels would've learned of the dangers of pirating cable from Sealab 2021. – Mipadi 21:51, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Name

If we are going to rename this, shouldn't it be Leia Organa Solo? The Wookieepedian 16:35, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

• She is more commonly known as Princess Leia to most fans. Here in Wikipedia we name articles on people by using their names which are most well-known by the public. The reason why I moved the page is because there already another page on another and different Princess Leia. I then made the Princess Leia page a disambiguation page which will lead readers to the two Princess Leia articles. Also, adding Solo to it would easily give away a spoiler (that she married Han Solo) to those who don't know anything about her or the Star Wars universe. DivineLady 17:24, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
  • That's what I thought. I was wondering why you changed it in the first place, as she is more commonly known as "Princess Leia," than "Princess Leia Organa." So I thought that if you were going to go ahead and change it, why you wouldn't change it all the way. But, I see your point now. The Wookieepedian 21:29, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

With her bare hands

I've often wondered how far Jabba the Hut took his molesting of Princess Leia in Return of the Jedi. When Leia killed Jabba on the floating barge. There seemed to be a lot of hostility in the act and her eyes were very angry. Was all of this rage from a couple of sloppy kisses that the film showed? Or was there more? Did he possible sexually assault her? What do you think?

The thought alone disgusts me. However, the first question that comes to my mind when considering this is "How would Hutts have sex, anyway?" The Wookieepedian 07:51, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Those are good questions. But gross. Considering how the reason the green dancer was killed was because she refused to have sexual actions with him that is a possibility. This brings another question though, How did they get Leia to change? Forcing her to do it or forcing it on her?--Animasage 21:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

That thought is so......personally disturbing i don't even want to think of it. It makes me cower to think of what she dealt with if the latter happened....'large shudder'. -Starwarsfighter

Leia as Jabba's Slave: What Really Happened

I fully support the popular notion that Jabba did, in fact, "molest" Leia to certain degrees. My theory, however, is supported by several facts presented by what the movie actually shows, and not by the innacuracies of fan fiction or the imaginatively lewd imagery of locker-room talk.

The first of these "facts" is that an unspecified period of time had lapsed between her capture and the first shot of her in slave garb sitting before him - this completely dispels the notion that Jabba didn't have enough time to do anything to her.

Fact #2: Leia went from wearing her Boussh costume to wearing a highly exotic "metal bikini," as well as being chained by her neck to Jabba's throne, during her time as his slave.

Fact #3: Jabba obviously enjoyed sexually humiliating females. This is exemplified by all the various scantily-clad women (human and otherwise) strutting around his palace, frequently seen performing exotic dances at his every beck and call.

Fact #4: Look at Oola's reaction to Jabba when he was pulling her chain (a noteworthy act in itself - he's trying to pull her to himself); she resists his orders, attempting to pull her chain away from him, terribly upset and scared. As a result, Jabba has her killed.

Fact #5: Jabba seems to enjoy "making passes" at Leia. When she's first captured, he pulls her to himself very closely (and if observed carefully, it is apparent that Jabba makes an emphasis on pressing Leia's lower body close to his own), and proceeds to "slop-kiss" her. Then some time later (perhaps several days?), after she's been forced into the now-famous "metal bikini," Leia is repeatedly pulled closely to Jabba, including during a suggestively erotic repeat of their original embrace while on the Sail Barge - and this latter instance is another fact in itself.

Fact #6: Jabba had pulled Leia's chain, to be true, but Leia made a deliberate effort of running to him, leaping onto his throne, rising before Jabba, and pressing her lower body against his before fully leaning into him, after which Bib Fortuna places his hand on her back to keep her close. This brings me to the last fact...

Fact #7: Leia hardly flinches while with Jabba. When he first captures her and licks his lips, she groans and turns her head away in disgust. However, from then on, every shot of the two of them shows Leia looking unhappy, but not grossed out. Even as Jabba pulls her to himself in the aforementioned Sail Barge scene - even as her bare belly pressing against his squishy, inhuman flesh - Leia does not show any sign of disgust, but only worry for her friends. Obviously, Leia had to have gone through much personal change in her time with Jabba, namely getting used to the feeling of his loathsome touch.

In retrospect, it is safe to assume that A--Leia spent more than one night with Jabba as his slave, B--Jabba forced Leia into the metal bikini during this time, and C--Jabba had performed actions upon Leia/forced Leia into performing actions which resulted in her relaxation around his presence.

I rest my case.

Questions? USEFUL comments? E-mail me at starsidetraveller@gmail.com

I think that Fact#6 is just bad acting

Your statements are either over heated speculation or circumstantial. --maru (talk) contribs 04:40, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Maru nailed it on the head. I was going to reply to you when you first posted this theory, but I couldn't muster the strength to actually explain why a.) this is unencyclopedic, b.) this should be kept to fan-forum discussion and not on the talk page of a factual (whatever that may be) article, and c.) why your statements are prime examples of original research. As such... I'm trying to be civil, but there is no way that these speculations are going to be included without some heavy citation. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 16:35, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the only "theory" here is that nothing of this kind occured between Jabba and Leia. The fact that it DID is substantiated by many other facts, from both Canon and Expanded Universe (which are now considered canon, if to a lesser degree than the six films) sources. The only thing not documented is what the exact acts of molestation were, which we're all better off for. However, Starsidetraveller(?)'s point was that molestation OCCURED--not what it was or to what degree. This is indeed fact. Starside is wrong for calling it a mere theory, although some of his facts were definitely evidence of original research, but that is all irrelevant because his main point is a proven fact.

Linuxbeak, you wanted heavy citation, but I really think you should provide some first. I really can't think of anything disproving this at all, not even to the point of classifying it as original research--it's obvious, it's intentional, and it's backed up by a lot of facts. If anyone still objects to this, I will provide very heavy citation. --Scannerx rephain@gmail.com 11:54, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I would like citation, as I remember nothing of the sort. --maru (talk) contribs 17:41, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, so I'm assuming we all agree that Jabba did these things with previous slaves, which means the topic under discussion is IF he did that to Leia. If that's not the case, and you just don't think Jabba would do that to any of his slave girls . . . well, then, that's a whole other discussion entirely (on Jabba's Wikipedia page, I would assume). So for now, it's the topic at hand.

I'll just present the facts and not my own opinions. Now I would really appreciate seeing some facts that discount what happened to Leia, so we can at least decide if it's open to speculation.

1) In TheForce.Net's interview with Femi Taylor, the actress who played Oola, Scott Chitwood asked her what the filmmakers told her about the character of Oola. "I was setting the scene for Carrie Fisher. . . . I was held in captivity to give pleasure to this slug-like creature Jabba, and my hopes were to escape from this horrible existence, or barring that way, to die cleanly and well and escape that way. My sadness came from my life being at the mercy of his webbed hands."

2) Immediately after Leia is captured, in the Return of the Jedi novelization, page 25:

"We have powerful friends Jabba. You will soon regret this . . ."

"I'm sure, I'm sure," the old gangster rumbled with glee, "but in the meantime, I will thoroughly enjoy the pleasure of your company."

He pulled her eagerly to him until their faces were mere inches apart, her belly pressed to his oily snake skin.

....

Threepio peeked out momentarily, then immediately withdrew again. "Oh no, I can't watch."

Foul beast that he was, Jabba poked his fat, dripping tongue out to the princess, and slopped a beastly kiss squarely on her mouth.

3) After Han is thrown into his dungeon cell, RotJ novelization, page 26:

Leia! The star captain's stomach dropped at the thought of what must be happening to her now. If only he knew where he was. Tentatively he knocked on the wall behind him. Solid rock.

What could he do?

....

Money? Jabba had more than he could ever count. Pleasures? Nothing could give Jabba more pleasure than to defile the princess and kill Solo.

(Read this with the previous bold statement in mind)

4) Again, right after Leia's capture, this time in Tales From Jabba's Palace, page 114 ("The Whiphid's Tale"):

Jabba smiled, then turned to leer at the human female (in reference to Leia) with the same cruel lechery he had gazed on the Twi'lek dancer. His slimy lips gleamed with spittle.

....

There was still time. As much time as Jabba remained preoccupied with the human female.

5) Right after that, in Tales From Jabba's Palace, page 217:

As the band launched into 'Ode to a Radioactive Ruin,' two dancing girls stripped off Leia's clothes

6) Mara Jade's flashback to her undercover assignment in Jabba's Palace, from "Mara Jade -- By the Emperor's Hand":

http://img205.imageshack.us/img205/1658/marajade2big1go.jpg

7) RotJ novelization, page 30, as Luke and Bib Fortuna approach Jabba's throne:

Luke saw Leia seated there, now, by Jabba's belly. She was chained at the neck and dressed in the skimpy costume of a dancing girl. He could feel her pain immediately, from across the room -- but he said nothing, didn't even look at her, shut her anguish completely out of his mind. For he needed to focus his attention entirely on Jabba.

8) And finally, there is actually a shot of it occuring in the film, although only a glimpse during a panning shot to avoid being graphic. Jabba is shown molesting her as Luke, Han and Chewbacca are being brought to his throne, right before she says, "I'm here." Jabba stops when he begins announcing the fate of his prisoners. In the novelization, she even lies to Han "to put him at ease" by saying "I'm fine, but I don't know how much longer I can hold off your slobbering friend here," even as he is still stroking her. Han can't see this. (Novelization quotes from page 36)

So there are the citations. I think it's undeniable, but then, I do admit I have a bias for my own views. So if you can disprove it, that's fine -- this is a place for fact, not popular views. At the very least, though, I think that the article should say that the sexuality is STRONGLY implied, and popularly believed to be true. -- Scannerx 23:57, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

If you can attribute it to fans other than yourself, that'd be alright. --maru (talk) contribs Nakin

So I'm assuming you didn't approve of my citations -- but yeah, I'll do some (non-original) research to back up the popular view thing. Maybe you could do some, too...? -- Scannerx 00:17, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

*raises hand* Here's at least one fan to whom it attributes. Good arguments, Scannerx. Also, to clarify citation #8, the "molestation" in question was mostly Leia squirming to pull away from Jabba while he was forcibly rubbing her right shoulder and pulling on the chain attached to her neck. His insistence of her staying close to him is further exemplified as Luke and the others are being led out for the Sarlaac execution. Luke says "That's the last mistake you'll ever make," Jabba laughs, and with a quick tug, Leia falls back against his belly, and Jabba's hand falls down onto her shoulder again. Could the evidence be any more obvious? -- User:theotherness

I'm just wondering how the "long period of time" statement can be justified (re: Leia's captivity with Jabba). Jabba's dungeons aren't exactly the cleanest of places, but when Han, Luke and Chewie are sentenced to be thrown into the Sarlacc, Han's shirt is a nice crisp white still! He can't have been in the dungeon for long. Unless the Gamorrean Guards have a wonderful laundry service that is :)

In response to the clean clothes: Remember, its only a movie. Not everything needs to make sense. If it did, then our creative industry would be in shambles, woudln't it?

It can be justified as "a long period of time" by the fact that Jabba's palace had just recently had the disturbance of Leia's intrusion. You can imagine all that Leia went through between point A, of being discovered, point B, to when she was first given the slave bikini, point C, to the point where she had begun to be utterly submissive and sit quietly and undefiantly next to Jabba, who had a history of sexually enslaving his slave girls, point D.

How does this discussion of Jabba sexually abusing Leia have anything to do with making this article better? I see no point unless you want to include all this! In my opinion, you just love talking about leia and how she looks so sexy in that ridiculously skimpy golden bikini!- anonymous

Shouldn't it be known exactly what happens? I know it may sound like being obsessed with the sexyness of Leia in her slave bikini (she was dubbed the #1 nerd fantasy by Maxim, after all), but this is more then just speculation, it is strongly backed by pieces of evidence not only in other Star Wars works that revolve around this time, but also within the movie itself. I mean, Leia doesn't exactly look like she's jumping at every chance to escape now, is she? Woudln't that mean she's gotten used to her position, but her resistance still shows that she knew what the evil Hutt wanted from her? I just think its worth noting and whomever is putting this up seems to feel in a simular way, y'know?

Okay. Well, i read over the facts, and those would be great to include in the RoTJ section. Anonymous.

Cut content

I just cut an entire section from the article. It was labeled "Talents and appearances", but nothing in it had anything to do with either, and was written very, very poorly. I also removed a bullet from the trivia for the same reason. Feel free to re-add them after rewriting them; I would have done it myself, but I'm short on time. EVula 19:48, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't Look Like Her Mom

Why is it that Princess Leia doesn't look like Padme? She's supposed to be her daughter. She also doesn't bear any resemblance to Anakin. I mean, of course, it's just a question of casting, but why did they have to pick Natalie Portman for Padme's role? They should have chose someone who resembled Leia more. Padme just looks far more beautiful than Leia. Yeah, and Luke also didn't have the looks of his father.

You people! It's a just a goddamned flipping movie! Who cares if the actors don't resemble each other, they aren't really relatives and the charecters don't really exist! Sure, George Lucas made an incosistency because the old movies are the last three, wha else is new! GET OVER IT!

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.5.121.190 (talk • contribs) .

I think you're a bit too picky. Acting ability and a basic resemblence are far more important than close resemblences. Powers ^T 01:49, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Escapee?

As Princess Leia escaped from the Death Star and the Imperials' death sentence on her, does that make her a Fictional escapee? Siyavash 18:35, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

No, she was resqued, so that would make her a fictional Damsel in distress, or possibly a pricess needing to be saved, like Princes Peach.

Memory of Padme

There really should be some verification of how Leia remembered Padme, considering how far-fetched a notion it is. I'm not accusing anyone who wrote this of fanwankery, as they were just stating the information that has been given, but the idea that Leia would say "She died when I was very young" instead of "She died giving birth to me" when she was five seconds old is just a bit silly. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by A gx7 (talk • contribs) 12:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC).

I agree wth you whole heartedly, but technically five seconds old is "very young". She wasn't lying when she said that, but I've heard of people remembering people who were alive when they're REALLY YOUNG even though they never knew them. It was rare though. Or, (I've said this fifteen flippin times today) George Lucas made an inconsistency because he made the last three episodes in the 1970's and he made the first three in the twentyfirst century. THAT IS MOST LIKELY THE EXPLANATION, because why don't you write a book, and release the sequel first then the first book, your bound to be somewhat inconsistent too. Or mabey the empire buld a giant ray and zapped the universe and turned everyone in Epsiodes IV, V, and VI nito stupid morons who use terms which don't accurately describe what happened! The horror! Why didn't they blow up that instead of the death star! Yeah, I hold on the George Lucas screwed up because he wrote the last three first and first three last theory.

Spielberg?

Can someone back up the assertion that she is named for Steven Spielberg's mother? This is the first place I've heard it.

I'm the guy that originally posted this. I had heard in the media (I forget where or when) that George Lucas was at a party or social function, and so was his friend Steve Spielberg. He overheard Steve's mother being referred to as "LEH-uh", and thought it would be a good name his "Princess".

Sometime after this, I was at a family reunion at a resort in the Catskills, and a waitress pointed out that my brother greatly resembled Mr. Spielberg, and this launched a series of reminisces. It turns out that my mother, and Spielberg's mother, were girlhood friends a long long time ago, but not in a galaxy far far away, but rather in Cincinnati, Ohio. Actually, Leah Posner Spielberg Adler is about 4½ years older than my mother, and was a bit closer to one of my aunts. Those present at the family reunion indicated that it was a well-known fact that Princess Leia was named after Leah.

Wait, there's more. Leah was once engaged to marry my mother's first cousin, the late Rabbi Charles E. Israel. The engagement was broken off, she married Arnold Spielberg, and the rest is history.

Leah is currently the proprietress of a Kosher dairy bar in the Hollywood area. I would provide the name of her establishment, but then she might be inundated with phone calls. My mother, my brother, and his wife and kids visited there once. Leah came up to my brother, gave him a good lookover, and then commented "You look like Steve." Josh-Levin@ieee.org 21:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

how about making her dance

Jabba made his slave girls dance. So why is there nothing about leia dancing for Jabba? When oola didn't dance she was beat up. So why nothing about leia? She could not have layed there the whole time for his pleasure. --128.187.0.178 08:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)ranger101

Leia didn't have any experience. Besides her chain was shorter. She was more like a pet.--Unknownsage13 19:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Besides, the fact remains that we simply don't know if Leia danced for Jabba. We have no proof—the movie doesn't show it, and I don't think any of the books reveal it either. Saying Leia did dance for Jabba is speculation and should be avoided. Arwen Undomiel ^talk 21:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

In the Radio Play, this is actually referenced; during her first night in the palace, Lando comes to check on her. When he assures her tha Luke is on his way, she replies, "Well, he'd better make it soon. My dancing's not so good...I'm going to wind up in that pit a lot faster than Oola did!" June 6, 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.81.202.56 (talk • contribs)

It might be that Leia was simply afraid Jabba would make her dance at a future time. I'm not Lucas, so I don't know, but please remember Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Arwen Undomiel ^talk 23:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Er, actually, your argument is original research; if an official source (non-canonical though it may be) states something, it can be addressed in the article, as long as it isn't presented as fact (ie, it should say something about "In the radio adaptation, Leia expresses concern over her dancing abilities, yadda yadda"). EVula // talk // ☯ // 00:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I meant we simply don't know what happened. The above quote was vague and does not necessarily imply that Leia was forced to dance. The radio adaptions are canonical, so it might be OK to mention that statement if we don't state it as an absolute fact and if we reference it. Arwen Undomiel ^talk 00:23, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Fanfic

I don't have the time right now to remove the absolute shit that is the second paragraph of Return of the Jedi. Anyone else want to have a crack at writing a decent summary of her time in the movie? As much as I love that costume, the movie isn't entirely about that bikini... EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

The only thing that would really be considered what you claim it to be is the ideas of stripping raping by Jabba's guards. There really isn't a point to add that, nor is there proof of any of Jabba's guards taking advantage of her. The only one you can make a case for is Jabba. I think perhaps just adding the note that there is a theory that she might have been a sex slave, just as some other user has put up, is enough on that note. I also can't stand the graphic details that some real horny toad is putting in. Why don't they just write a fanfic? lol. And for cryin' out loud, she escaped Jabba! Luke and Lando didn't die and she wasn't forced to remain Jabba's slave forever. That should be obviously some horny fanboy's fantasy. I think what is there now is fine though.

I have commented out the utter crap in the article until someone fixes or deletes it.--74.134.146.52 07:50, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

So I cleaned up all the soft core porn fanfic that someone inserted into the article. I rewrote it and I suspect that if someone wanted too, they could dig back into the archives and restore the original. Obviously, this is becoming a problem as some horny fan has a huge Leia in a slavegirl outfit crush. (Not that that is a bad thing, but it doesn't belong here) Jroyale 15:24, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Leia's Nightmare

Okay. With all the stuff people are saying about leia's sexual harassment, why does no one put it on the page? Seriously, the facts need to get out! - leialover —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jackson Smith (talk • contribs) 01:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC).

Leia Political Affiliation

Could someone have an idea of Leia political leaning and affiliation? Right or Left, Republican or Democrat... I know that those are not in the Star Wars Universe but just to have an idea.207.134.243.138 18:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Bikini section

I gave the section a copy-edit, and took out most of what appeared to be original research or fanfiction like emotions, but it still needs work. It is overly long and seems to go over every little bit of the plot. Just thought I'd bring that up on here. Darthgriz⁹⁸ 02:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree, the article reads far too much into that one part of the movie. At times it felt disgustingly graphic in its descriptions and read more like a dirty novel than a wikipedia article. jbonner01.

meow

Someone let in a cat? There is a "meow" in the text. cb

I removed it and warned the IP that put that in there. DarthGriz98 02:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Merge with Princess Leia's Theme

I don't think that's a bad idea at all! It would certainly be appropriate—since Wookiepedia's page on Leia already has that title as a section—and would give the article a relieving boost. — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 02:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks :) In addition to helping the theme article (which has no apparent notability on its own), I think it would be a nice boost to this article as well. AnmaFinotera (talk) 02:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

BTW, I've noticed, by skimming the Theme article's history, that you've had to deal with an IP vandal who kept on trying to add the Leiabikini image. I and several others have had to deal with that same IP vandal over the past few days, and I thought you'd might like to know that he's been temporarily blocked. Kudos to you for handling the situation so well. ;) — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 02:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Leia's memory of her birth mother??

How did she remember her mother? Amidala died moments after Luke & Leia's birth. I know both her and Luke have the Force, but Luke (who's more trained in the Force) couldn't remember their mother. Perhaps Leia was thinking of her step-mother (Mrs. Organa). This should be added to the article (not sure how). GoodDay 20:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The only way for that to be added to the article would be to find a source, probably George Lucas himself, saying that it was Organa's wife that Leia remembered. Luke did ask her "Do you remember your mother, your real mother?", so I think it's safe to assume that some how she remembered Amidala through some plot hole or something answered in the books perhaps. DarthGriz98 01:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm guessing plot hole. I mean, the Force. A gx7 09:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Check out this link http://blogs.starwars.com/ghent/26 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.49.154.34 (talk) 03:07, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

In the original Revenge of the Sith script, Amidala DID raise Leia while Luke was on Tatooine. This is because she didn't die in the original. I guess they changed it to be more dramatic. Like it wasn't enough already! Son of Jadoja 12:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, it is to be noted that George Lucas confirmed that Leia was in fact remembering Padmé, dealing with the stronger mother-daughter bond and Leia have a connection through the force to her mother. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.240.182.184 (talk) 03:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Already has been. See here. Cinemaniac (talk • contribs • critique) 03:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Just curious why we're bothering to mention this as a "plot hole". Jedi are often known to be able to use the Force to enhance their memory. Leia has alot of Force potential. AND she never did say that she remembers her mother. She simply states that she remembers her mothers negative emotions at the time of her birth. She never stated that she remembered being born or her mother. Anyways, I just fail to see how this is a plothole. WPinky (talk) 22:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

It is true that Leia does remember that her mother was sad at the time of her birth. However, in RotJ, Leia does, to the best of my knowledge, also comment that her mother was beautiful, which would imply that she saw and, more importantly, remembered her mother. I believe I read somewhere that Lucas was, at the time of RotJ, going to keep Padmé alive, but later changed his mind. This would make it a plot hole, but unless someone can properly reference that, it can't be added. Grey Maiden ^talk 20:01, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Allrighty. I was re-reading it prior to looking back here, and I was going to correct myself. I agree, it is a plot hole. It might be able to be covered, if anyone could get Lucas to say that Leia used the Force :) WPinky (talk) 05:50, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't a plot hole. In the novel Revenge of the Sith, and in The Life and Times of Leia Skywalker (brand new by the way, I pre-ordered so I don't expect you to have heard of it), Leia's eyes were open when Obi-Wan presented her to Padmé. Luke, on the contrary, had his eyes shut tight, so he didn't see a darn thing. Now, Obi-Wan saying that Yoda trained him in The Empire Strikes Back but having Qui-Gon train him in The Phantom Menace. Now THAT'S a plot hole. Gnmng Jreck

Not necessarily. Yoda trained younglings, and therfore must have trained Obi-Wan prior to Qui Gon. On another note regarding Leia remembering her mother. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to recall the novelization of ROTJ had Leia remembering she and he mother running in fear and Leia being hidden in a tree. Though that novel also stated Owen Lars was Obi-Wan's brother, and Vader didn't know Padme' was pregnant before Obi-Wan hid her away to protect her. I like these plot points better than the eventual back story.

to see straight to Florida

As a non native speaker I don't understand what is meant by that. Can someone help me, and, would it be relevant to add that information directly into the article? thanks.

It's a slang term - for a definition see the second meaning in the Urban Dictionary entry for all the way to China. Hope this helps.

I don't think the meaning can be paraphrased in the article without the explanation being longer than the quote and placing undue weight on a sentence that adds interesting colour but is not otherwise essential to a reader's understanding of the section. Euryalus (talk) 05:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

It means that the person standing behind Carrie Fisher in the metal bikini costume could see her, um, private parts. DarkKnight1939 (talk) 23:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

involvment in force unleashed

according to this force unleashed page she plays a major role in the multimedia project i feel this should be added —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.102.5.162 (talk) 17:39, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:HeirToTheEmpire.jpg

The image Image:HeirToTheEmpire.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --12:36, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Slave Leia wouldn't happen if..

Have anyone thought, "slave Leia" wasn't in Luke's masterplan of saving Han Solo? It happened because Leia failed to escape with Han. She was caught with Han & without wearing her mask, so Jabba knew, the bounty hunter was a female human. So, what was Luke's real plan? After his friends came one by one to Jabba's palace, then he came alone. Was he trying to beat Jabba & his allies in the palace, not on the sail barge, like in the movie? I just wanna know.. Ario_ManUtd 12:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Apparently so, given the fact that Luke tried to make some bargains and then, when Jabba refused, Luke pulled a pistol on him. It seems more likely that Luke was planning on defeating Jabba and his goons in the Palace, but the enslavement of Leia, and capture of Han and Chewbacca, and battle with the Rancor, basically forced him to change his plans. --- Cinemaniac 04:31, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Alright guys, while this is an interesting topic, Wikipedia is not a forum. Let's move the discussion somewhere else, yes? Arwen Undomiel ^talk 01:59, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Go to the unofficial Slave Leia MySpace page ([5]) and we'll spare Wikipedia of our discussions of everything about what REALLY went on between the scenes in Jabba's palace...::: —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.91.176.109 (talk) 20:04, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The discussion in question wasn't concerning what happened to Leia behind-the-scenes at Jabba's Palace—which I do not wanna delve into—but rather if the "slave Leia" concept was actually in Luke's plan—which it clearly wasn't. But I see your point: Wikipedia is not a forum. — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 02:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Of course it's not a forum. That's why there was the suggestion to go to to e Slave Leia page on MySpace, which is a much more adequate place for the discussion of what happened between the first embrace and loathsome kiss and the resulting enslavement. 11:30, 26 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.62.83.70 (talk)

Image removal

I am again removing Image:LeiaStranglesJabba.jpg per WP:NFCC #8 ("Significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding."). This image does not substantially add to readers' understanding of the subject, and removing it does not obfuscate our understanding of a very straightforward plot point. All the article says about this scene is "Leia seizes the moment to kill Jabba by strangling him with the very chain that bound her." This is pretty clear cut; the image (like many in this article, frankly) is superfluous. --EEMIV (talk) 23:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

her name

her name is leia organa solo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.118.200.168 (talk) 00:31, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Later on in the Star Wars universe, yes, it is. But in the three films she's a major character in, which is how most people know her, it isn't. Leia Organa Solo redirects here anyway. EVula // talk // ☯ // 00:35, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Bikini image

Why is this such a huge image? Wikipedia isn't for titillation. This article should be a mature analysis, not an objectification, of the character.

That seems to be an overall problem with the article. DarthGriz98 00:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

While I agree that Wikipedia isn't for the "wow factor" when it comes to the costume, it is a pretty significant costume, and really does deserve at least some mention (and visual identification). I wholeheartedly agree that it was far too large, though; 150px seems just fine to illustrate the image, but not sensationalizing it. EVula // talk // ☯ // 00:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I downsized it to 150px, it shouldn't exactly be the focus of the article, even though it is important. I've been working on copyediting that section too, it's a lot longer then the other summaries. DarthGriz98 01:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I support retention of the image because it is probably the best-known Leia image from Return of the Jedi. I don't support (and have removed) the "forced to wear her iconic gold bikini" text reference because it is unnecessary in the context of the plot summary and is already captured in the inclusion of the image. Other views welcome. Euryalus 02:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the "bikini image" is the best Leia pic we have in "Wikipedia." Think we should use it as the character's main picture? Theanswertolife42 21:41, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that it's rather sad that the best pic of Leia we got is of her in the gold bikini. We should at least get a decent pic of a close-up of her face with her trademark cinnamon bun curls. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.112.195.74 (talk) 06:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

See this discussion for others' responses to this. I agree, it'd be better if we had an image of Leia with her "bunhair", but I'm not all that great at uploading images. Cinemaniac (talk • contribs • critique) 17:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Im a geek too! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikas36 (talk • contribs) 04:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Princess of Naboo?

Why is this listed as one of her titles? There is no source, either in the films or the EU, that lists her as that- and since "Queen" is an elected title on Naboo, there's no reason to assume that the daughter of a Queen would be considered a "Princess." That's without even getting into the fact that Leia was adopted and has never had any relevent connection with the planet. Removed unless someone finds a source that refers to her as such. ChrisStansfield ^Contribs 14:21, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Same Picture Twice?

Why does Princess_leia_film.jpg appear twice in this article? Once as the article's main image, and then again here. 92.17.29.123 (talk) 03:59, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Quality

I'm not sure what makes it C; it's definitely a long article, but when I think of C-class, I think of something that is, while rough around the edges, more or less done. It has had a references cleanup tag for three and a half years that has clearly not been addressed; counting the unusable references, we have two IMDB links, a dead link to "xspaces", two Wikias, one fan site image, one YouTube video, one forum link, two links that have no mention whatsoever of Star Wars or Leia, a dead link to "Axel Jacob", a dead link to the Star Wars official web site, a dead link to an MTV interview (that, from the tone, does not sound like it is usable for what it is referencing), and 12 references that come from the films or people with a vested interest in the films. As it is, there are only three reliable sources that are actually accessible. Two other clean up tags, each dated about two and a half years ago, assert that their respective sections lack references, while one of the main cleanup tags assert that the content is written in an in-universe fashion. Can an article that will probably need to be rewritten for GA really be called anything more than Start? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 03:53, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Golden Bikini Slave Outfit

Does anyone have any idea how the costume garnered such enormous fame? Sure, I'll admit Fisher looks very beautiful in the costume, but I'm curious as to why it has gained such a large fan base. Can anyone help with the answers? — Cinemaniac (talk) 00:07, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Um...cause it was so darn sexy i think. Shalalalala-Kiss the girl (talk)

Realising that my question wasn't being answered, I went ahead and did some research. While I didn't find out exactly why the costume has garnered such fame, I did stumble upon some interesting, solid, and valid facts concerning it. (A lot of it is from IMDb and the Star Wars databank.) I've edited in this info for a number of reasons. Firstly, the costume is noteworthy in itself. Secondly, I've noticed that the article's been vandalized a lot for this very subject, so I hoped that presenting a fairly impartial view of the costume would, at the very least, discourage (or satisfy) the IP fandals who constantly ruin the page because of their obsession. I hope the new secion is good enough to remain in the article. If you have any questions regarding it, you know where to call me. — Cinemaniac (talk) 17:50, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Um...it got answered. didn't you notice? Shalalalala-Kiss the girl (talk)

You have to see the character from the perspective of a boy in the 11-14 age range, seeing Return of the Jedi in 1983. The first two films established Leia's character, which was characterized by purity (white clothes, butter-wouldn't-melt-in-her-mouth attitude) and authority. The first two films had acquired deep significance in the imaginations of kids of that era, who might have seen "A New Hope" in '77 before they were ten years old. So anyway, here's this previously chaste character suddenly thrust into an overtly sexual setting, just as much of the audience are in the process of discovering their own sexuality.

It would be interesting to see if the tentacle porn that users sometimes edit into this article could find a legitimate home as an example in a separate "psychological significance of Princess Leia" article. Episodes 4-6 had a big role in many people's coming of age process. AdamGrant (talk) 17:25, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Try the 15-21 range and you would have it right. 76.19.251.152 (talk) 04:42, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for answering. It looks like somebody else at Wired.com agrees with your "theory", so I'll add this so-called "theory" into the article and provide a ref.

"Tentacle porn"? Ha! Now that was laugh-out-loud hilarious! Don't think it flattered the IP vandals, though...

Finally, re the proposed "psychological significance of Princess Leia" article: That's not a bad idea. I tell ya, I'll consult my lawyer. And if he advises me to do it...I'll get a new lawyer. :P — Cinemaniac (talk) 03:27, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I've taken steps towards adding citations and footnotes. However, these have all been for the section of the article I created (although I am thinking of adding a section about Leia's "cinammon bun hairstyle" and providing footnotes). The whole article (along with many other Star Wars characters like Luke Skywalker and Han Solo) are unsourced, I notice. But I can only do so much, especially considering I don't know where a lot of the statements in the article specifically come from. Anybody else mind taking a shot at it? --- Cinemaniac 04:28, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is notable enough, but at this site, I found confirmation for some allegedly controversial material. According to that site, Leia, despite the horrible molestation she experienced from Jabba the Hutt, decided to preserve the golden slave outfit, apparently because it would be worth something. Furthermore, the site confirms that Leia did wear the outfit at least once when she slept with her husband Han Solo. It reports that shortly afterward, however, she had the outfit destroyed, disgusted by what it reminded her of. I don't know if that's speculation or not, so I put the info up here before I edit it back into the article. — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 16:59, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

To whom it may concern: Although leiasmetalbikini.com provided no link or source for aforementioned story, they apparently got it from here. While admittedly interesting (and much more well-written than a lot of other fanfic I've read in my years), it's obviously N-Canon, and therefore unverifiable speculation. Sorry about that, folks. — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 00:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... I've found another source that reports similar info. I don't wanna get in trouble for not adding info that should be, so I think I'll go ahead and edit this back into the article for now, since it does seem to deal with elements in the Expanded Universe. Anyone who disagrees can discuss it here. — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 17:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

As you point out above, fan fiction is neither reliable nor part of the canon. I could add a story to fanfiction.net saying the gold bikini was melted down and used by Vader as a prosthetic limb, but that wouldn't justify the inclusion of this viewpoint in the article. I note that you have a second (more credible?) source to back up the fanfiction story. Could you post it here for furtehr discussion? Without it I would argue the "Leia had sex with Solo while wearing Jabba's bikini" sentence should be removed from the article. Euryalus (talk) 03:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

And on that note, the sentence is gone. Thanks for confirming my doubts. :) — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 17:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:37, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

---

Princess Leia Organa → Princess Leia – Surely simply "Princess Leia" is the most common name. A google news archive search gives 3,900 results for "Princess Leia", compared to only 208 for "Princess Leia Organa". Similar story with google books: 12,200 results for "Princess Leia", compared to 1,110 for "Princess Leia Organa". Princess Leia already redirects here (and has since 2006), so primary topic is not an issue. Jenks24 (talk) 23:43, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

• Support as the most common name per the guidelines. The lead sentence can mention "Organa". Erik (talk | contribs) 00:14, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
• Support. A princess with a surname? Don't fanboys read WP:NCROY? I also have to wonder about Leia Organa Solo. Do we know whether or not Alderaan women change their surnames when they get married? Kauffner (talk) 12:27, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Doesn't matter whether it's typical of Alderaanian women or not, as that's what she's called in every post-marriage source. Powers ^T 18:24, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Though oddily enough, neither of her step-parents were apparently King or Queen of Alderan. GoodDay (talk) 14:49, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
• Support per nom as the most common name. I'm surprised this hasn't been changed yet. (Oh wait—no I'm not, as I recall the fanatical devotion to names amongst some in the Star Wars community.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:08, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

First Kiss & Other Things

I thought Leia's first kiss was Luke, or was that in Return of the Jedi? To be honest I think that the way the 'first kiss' passage is phrased is a perfect example of the overarching problem with this article - that it's far too casual. The article gives a complete summary of the films from Leia's perspective. I'm not sure that chronicling every one of Leia's appearances is the best way to describe her character. If it is, then they should be far more succinct and far less informal. Davidovic 05:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

You're right; Leia's first kiss (on film, at the least) was with Luke, depicted in The Empire Strikes Back. The most obvious reason for this is because of the natural attraction that Leia had to both Han and Luke (and vice versa), and the tension resulting among them because of this. If I remember correctly, she kissed Luke because an argument broke out between her and Han, and it was possibly done to make Han jealous. Han and Leia wouldn't kiss each other until later in the film. Remember, it wasn't until Return of the Jedi that Leia was revealed as being Luke's sister. I'll try to edit this 'first kiss' passage to make it more succinct. Thanks for the comment. — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 00:41, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I find this article cool. I sure am happy my real mother concerns have been added. GoodDay (talk) 16:35, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Leia gives Luke two pecks on the cheek in ANH. I think she felt he was more approachable, but she was always more attracked to Han. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.67.234.133 (talk) 05:07, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Gold

I think its only natural based on all the discussion above, that we make the image of her in a bikini the main photo of the article, afterall its what the fans want :) (otherwise make the photo bigger)69.157.63.75 (talk) 01:47, 10 May 2009 (UTC) Oh good God, can you fanboys get off the bikini talk. It was a rape outfit. Jeez — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.67.234.133 (talk) 05:13, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

=

Bad British Accent

There has to be some reason why she spoke in a terrible British accent in her first few scenes! I've yet to read a conclusive factual reason (from Georgie Lucas). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.67.104.4 (talk) 14:28, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Not sure, but it may be because Carrie Fisher attended college in London at the Central School of Speech and Drama. Which aided her a lot in quickly and clearly delivering the mouthful of lines Lucas wrote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.67.234.133 (talk) 05:18, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

More info on bikini

This article in the Huffington Post gives more info on the golden bikini. I'm not really into the subject(I just came across this article looking for something else), but it could be used by someone here to reference more content.
Some points hit on that aren't mentioned in the article and could help show it's significance:

• Leia's bikini has become an indelible part of pop culture and it's been featured on such diverse TV shows as Family Guy, Dancing with the Stars and Deal or No Deal. There's an episode of Friends in which David Scwhimmer's character, Ross, confesses that he has an erotic fantasy which involves the garment. Much to Ross's (and the audience's) delight, Jennifer Aniston winds up wearing the outfit to seduce him.
• The Star Wars community largely rejects the notion that Jabba sexually assaulted Leia.
• For many fans, Leia is an exemplary personification of female empowerment. She's a smart, feisty, brave diplomat and warrior. And for these admirers it is disturbing to see her formidable stature diminished by the endlessly evoked image of her as a sexual object. As Audrey Brown writes on her website Born For Geekdom: "I just resent the fact that out of all of Leia's actions from the entire Star Wars trilogy, this is the moment that has been removed and sanctified."
• With that in mind, it's potentially disturbing that the image has been so highly marketed and merchandised. The toy company Hasbro manufactured Slave Leia action figures for children to play with. When first released in 1997, they immediately became a sought after collector's item.
• Amanda Kloerne, who writes about human trafficking, considered the implications of the cult of Slave Leia and concluded in her blog: "It seems to be that most people can make a clear distinction; women being forced into prostitution as slaves is not sexy: Princess Leia as a slave in a gold bikini is."
• Earlier this year, the costume group The 501st and G4's Attack of the Show raised money for the Make-A-Wish Foundation. Their money raising method for the esteemed charity? A car wash populated and operated by beautiful woman dressed up in, you guessed it, Leia's metal bikini.

Happy editingWikiposter0123 (talk) 19:58, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

If this happened to woman in reality, there would be outrage, but since it's a fictional character some guys think it's fine. It just shows the true sexism that lies in their hearts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.67.234.133 (talk) 05:21, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Bikini

I don't see why you all are reverting this image change. That shot of her in that metal bikini HAS GOT TO BE the BEST image of her on the Web! In case y'all haven't noticed, she is REALLY hot in that bikini! 76.213.150.5 (talk) 02:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Apparently you didn't realize that the bikini image was already being used—appropriately, mind you—in the metal bikini section of the article! Having the same picture appear twice in the same article is confusing and unnecessary. — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 03:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I still don't see what the problem is. Practically everybody recognizes Leia in her metal bikini! The image is used on several other websites, and so is arguably the most famous photo of Leia. (Plus, she is smokin' hot in that skimpy bikini!) 70.245.24.112 (talk) 01:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

In case you didn't know, here's what User:Euryalus had to say at your talk page: "There is no consensus on the talk page for the insertion of original research of this kind. Feel free to start a discussion on it if you like but stop just re-adding it to the article. Wikipedia articles like this need to be based on the official canon of works, not fanfic inserts." Amen to that, brother! — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 02:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The image used in this type of article is generally a simple headshot or full-body portrait of the character in their generic attire. Check out portraits used in Luke Skywalker and Han Solo. Some would say that Luke looks "smokin hot" in his Dagobah training outfit, but that's their POV only. I don't see the appeal of Leia in her metal bikini, and if I came to this article for information I'd much rather see an infobox picture that tells me something about the character herself. The current photo suggests that she is mature and takes her self seriously which is a far better description of her character than the metal bikini photo gives. Davidovic 10:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Is Leia attractive? Sure. Does she look good in the costume? Of course. Fisher was twenty-six at the time, so it benefited her to let her hair down and show off her figure, as I'm sure the modest, butter-wouldn't-melt-in-her-mouth attitude of her character would eventually get tired. But is that metal bikini the real point of the sequence? Well, maybe. . . if you're Jabba the Hutt. . . IMO, though, the real shocker is that Leia was the one who managed to kill Jabba, not Luke or Chewie. She also improvised it skillfully, what with the chain and all (it brings to mind something from a 1970's gangster movie, although I can't remember which). That was the real shocker to me, when I first saw it, but most fanboys merely remember the bikini and nothing else, including what Jabba did to the princess while she was wearing it. — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 02:27, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Well said. I think the picture of her from ANH more clearly represents the personality of Leia. The fanboys seem to think they are the only SW fans. Forgetting what a role model Leai was to girls. The bikini outfit was inflicted upon her to wear. It should not, and does not best represent her character. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.67.234.133 (talk) 05:25, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Hairstyle

As I remember it, the headphone hairstyle appeared in Episode V, not Episode IV as stated. In Episode IV, she wore Austrian style Heidi plats. ixo (talk) 13:32, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

File:Princess leia film.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Princess leia film.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 16:05, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Name Change

Is there any way that we could change the article's name to "Leia Organa Solo"? This would be a good idea, since Wookieepedia's article on her has the same name as I suggested. She currently (as far as continuity goes) goes by names such as Leia Solo, and even "Jedi Solo". I'm not saying we need to change her name to those names, I'm just suggesting a simple, Leia Organa Solo. Without the "princess" title.--Jedi Kasra (talk) 05:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I might be making this up, but I seem to remember something about titles not appearing in article names (ie. George W. Bush is not President George W. Bush or Henry VIII of England, not King Henry VIII of England). I'm resistant to changing the article to Leia Organa Solo, but that's just because I'm biased towards the film canon and dislike the books >_> Leia Organa Solo is probably the correct name for this article, as much as I dislike the 'solo' bit :P Davidovic 10:27, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Common name is the general rule and her common name is Princess Leia, Leia, or maybe Princess Leia Organa - making her last name Solo seems WP:Fancrufty to me.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 15:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I pretty much second Doug.'s comments. IMHO, I also think that "Leia Organa Solo" would be a dead giveaway to users not too familiar with these characters—however unbelievable that may seem—that she eventually married Han Solo. Cinemaniac (talk • contribs • critique) 16:01, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Given that the character name in Force Awakens is Leia Solo<ref>https://www.pathe.nl/persoon/8692/carrie-fisher</ref>, it's probably time to make that change to the name. WarrenA (talk) 08:40, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

None of us have seen the movie credits yet, and I don't know how you think the random website you're citing is proof of anything LOL. But even so, her common name is Princess Leia, and I don't think whatever they may call her in the new film could undo that. Editors supporting a change to Leia Solo or whatever may be using the novels or extended universe as a frame of reference, but a person/character's common name is how they are best known in the real world at large, and it seems pretty clear to me that 99% of mentions of the character in mainstream media call her Princess Leia.— TAnthony^Talk 14:27, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

References

Dead Link

The Summer 1983 issue of Rolling Stone magazine poked fun at this appearance. (talk) 14:49, 5 may 2015 (UTC)

This has been taken care of in the article.— TAnthony^Talk 15:22, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

References

Carrie Fisher should be mentioned in intro

I think Carrie Fisher needs to be in the lede or at least intro (before table of contents). She is so iconically associated with the role. When people picture Princess Leia, they don't envision the baby in Episode III or fan fiction drawings. I added it once and it was undone. I would like to say that Leia was portrayed by Carrie Fisher in four of the seven films spanning three decades. —Мандичка^YO 😜 15:57, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Um, she's named in the very first sentence.— TAnthony^Talk 16:04, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Wow I'm stupid. LOL my eyes went to the second sentence. Sorry! —Мандичка^YO 😜 16:25, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Ha, no prob. ;) — TAnthony^Talk 16:30, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Mixed up character description and reception

It seems to me that the current article mixes up the description of the character with the character's critical reception. For example, the first sentence in the "Character" section is: 'Princess Leia has been called a 1980s icon,[1] a feminist hero[2] and even "the toughest woman in the galaxy".[3]' The fictional character of Leia, in the Star Wars universe, is not a 1980s icon. She probably isn't a feminist hero in the Star Wars universe either, but I don't know - maybe in some expanded universe story she is.

This section should tell us what kind of character she is, not what critics think of her. Right? Popcornduff (talk) 05:51, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

The section to which you are referring is called "Overview" and not "Description" ... I see what you're saying, but I think this approach is very useful and in the case of an iconic character like this it seems more important to convey the full scope of the character before we get into all the in-universe stuff. Which is basically the rest of the article. How would you reorganize?— TAnthony^Talk 15:20, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I mean, perhaps we add a more traditional Description section and see if it feels right to keep a smaller overview section and move a lot of the info down to a Reception section. You may notice that each film section contains a bit of character analysis, do you think that should be collected into the section you're suggesting? The film sections would be all plot but at least they would be short. I've been working on trimming and organizing the expanded universe plot stuff but right now it's so giant it seems like a lot to get through before the reader gets to what I would consider important information.— TAnthony^Talk 15:31, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

OK, I think you've actually got to the crux of the matter: IMO, we shouldn't have an "Overview" section at all. (Hear me out!) The lead should summarise the entire article, and each section below that should deal with a distinct, clear component of the subject (like "Character", "Creation", etc etc). I'm not sure, as a reader, what a section labelled "Overview" is going to give me - and sure enough our current Overview section gives us a muddled mixture of different bits of information. It doesn't make for a coherent read.

Moreover, if a reader who knows nothing about the character reads the article (ignoring the lead for the sake of argument), the first piece of information they receive is "Princess Leia has been called a 1980s icon". This doesn't begin to meaningfully explain who the character is. It's a really weird information to lead with.

How should we do it instead? Well, IMO, we need distinct, clearly labelled sections that each focus on one facet of the subject. Like the Alan Partridge article (which I wrote, full disclosure!), or the Homer Simpson article.

In the case of this particular article, my instinct is to go for sections covering character, creation, roles/development in the various films and EU stories, popular culture and reception. Popcornduff (talk) 17:41, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the more I think about it, the more I agree with you. The lead can include a bit to summarize the Reception section that will satisfy me LOL. I'm trying to think about what of the existing info should go into the Character section. Suggestions?— TAnthony^Talk 17:52, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Leia Organa

According to the Sunday, December 6, 2015 LA Times article, "'Star Wars': The Women Blasting Bounderies", the 2015 film reintroduces Leia as a general "very much in command" who is no longer a princess. Should the article be renamed and updated to reflect that she was a princess, past-tense? --Samantha Ireland (talk) 05:41, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. The page should be called "Leia Organa", as that applies to all the films she appears in, including Revenge of the Sith, A New Hope, The Empire Strikes Back, Return of the Jedi and The Force Awakens. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 12:00, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

The most common name is "Princess Leia", so the name of the article should remanin the same. RJ4 (talk) 12:38, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

The stats collected for the Requested move above establish that the common name is Princess Leia.— TAnthony^Talk 15:21, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm updating the search for the sake of this discussion: a Google news archive search gives 455,000 results for "Princess Leia", compared to 5320 for "Leia Organa and only 823 for "Princess Leia Organa". Same with Google books: 22,300 results for "Princess Leia", compared to 6000 for "Leia Organa" and 2760 for "Princess Leia Organa".— TAnthony^Talk 18:16, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't really care either way, but presumably the OP was suggesting removing the "Princess" part, because she isn't a princess in every instalment, apparently. So the article would be renamed to "Leia Organa" or even just "Leia" or something, not "Princess Leia Organa". Popcornduff (talk) 18:28, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes I forgot to add "Leia Organa" which I just did ... but regardless of her current title or whatever in the latest film, the article should be named per the common name for the character in the real world, which is simply Princess Leia. — TAnthony^Talk 18:50, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Yep, cool. 04:38, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

How Many Children?

How many chidren do Leaia and Han have? There appears to be a discrepancy here. Is Han Solo killed by his son, who has gone to the dark side, or what? I will explain tomorrow, bur I really would like to know who the Organa-Solo children are. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:31, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

The new film establishes that they have one son, Ben (Kylo Ren), who has gone to the dark side and kills Han. In the novels from the 1990s and 2000s, which are now non-canon, they have three children ... one of whom also turns evil, but his name is Jacen Solo.— TAnthony^Talk 05:37, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

So the real problem appears to be that there is a split in the canon between the Expanded Universe and the new movie. I think that the articles should be updated to reflect the discrepancy, although now the movie is canon and the novels are non-canon to the extent that they differ. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:11, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

As I just noted at Talk:Kylo Ren, the infobox and lead of this article specify the alternate continuities, and Kylo/Ben is noted in the Force Awakens section. It couldn't be clearer. This article is structured from a real-world perspective where all works are presented.— TAnthony^Talk 17:31, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 14 January 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No move. While a number of oppose !votes really made no argument and were thus given little consideration, it's pretty clear that there's consensus against the move at present. It will be worth revisiting the subject in the future as more sources (and films) come out that refer to the character as other than "Princess". Cúchullain ^t/c 22:38, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

---

Princess Leia → Leia – "Leia" currently redirects here. And she is no longer a princess (as seen in The Force Awakens, which is canon). Kailash29792 (talk) 12:32, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

• The most common name is "Princess Leia", so the name of the article should remain the same. RJ4 (talk) 13:26, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose - As discussed many times in the past (most recently above), the WP:COMMMONNAME is overwhelmingly "Princess Leia". The new film has yet to change that.— TAnthony^Talk 16:00, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support per WP:CRITERIA since "Leia" is still recognizable, precise, and concise. The character is clearly no longer "Princess Leia" in Star Wars: The Force Awakens, the biggest movie of 2015. "Leia" is the most common root name here. (If "Leia" meant other things, I would have supported Leia (Star Wars) instead, but "Leia" stands alone apparently.) The opening sentence can mention "also known as Princess Leia". Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:45, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

The film came out a month ago, it cannot possibly undo 40 years of sources and collective humanity calling her Princess Leia. So the current title most readily satisfies the "naturalness" component of WP:CRITERIA (which Leia alone does not), and meets all the others as well. And for the in-universe record, the novelization mentions that she remains a princess but that she doesn't like to be called that. But we don't name Wikipedia articles based on what characters want LOL. — TAnthony^Talk 17:35, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

And "biggest film of 2015" that it may be (which doesn't matter), many/most of the sources I've seen reviewing and discussing the film have called her Princess Leia anyway.— TAnthony^Talk 17:39, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

History can be used as precedent to keep an article title, but it does not always apply. We've changed the article title if a country changes its name, if a company changes its name, or if a transgender person changes their name. Here we are dealing with a fictional character, and I do not see any guidelines for such topics. I do see sources still use "Princess Leia" even with the new movie, but I also see sources using just "Leia". I think WP:CRITERIA can still apply here where "Leia" is still recognizable even as it is more concise. The opening sentence can include "past" and "current" detail pertaining to the character. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:14, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

A real-life country or person changing their name creates a legal and respectful duty to use that name because the entity wishes it to be used, we don't have that obligation here.— TAnthony^Talk 18:52, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose come on. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:28, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

  So who is this? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:35, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

IMO, you're looking at this in an in-universe manner; here in the real world people think of her as Princess Leia, it's practically reflexive when thinking of/talking about the character and is the most obvious search term.— TAnthony^Talk 18:52, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

That's Princess Leia. In ictu oculi (talk) 20:25, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, even if we look at it from an in Universe perspective should still be princess Leia, just as Edward VIII is at his best known royal title and not as the Duke of Windsor - his title in the last "canonical episodes".·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:38, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose her status in the canon movies is irrelevant. What is relevant is how readers know her.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:41, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment Is it possible that more older users would recognize her as Princess Leia and younger users are looking for her as just Leia? I'm not wedded to either name, as long as there is a redirect. Personally, I think of her as "Princess Leia," but I'm over 40 and that may color how I see her. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:46, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Well the film only just came out, and in the cultural consciousness she has always been Princess Leia, so it seems to me like anyone who was aware of the character before this Fall would know her that way? — TAnthony^Talk 20:21, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

• Sources for discussion:

• Rosen, Christopher (November 30, 2015). "J.J. Abrams discusses Leia's transition from princess to general in Force Awakens". Entertainment Weekly. Retrieved January 14, 2016.
• Hains, Rebecca (November 17, 2015). "Princess Leia is a general now. But why isn't she in more toy stores?". The Washington Post. Retrieved January 14, 2016.

Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:41, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

They are all entirely irrelevant, because they do not show that she is now better known simply as Leia, only that her character transitions to a new role within the fictional universe.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:47, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Hardly "entirely irrelevant". There are no set rules here for how to name articles after fictional characters. "Leia" is still recognizable on its own, and the above links discuss going from being princess to general. So the core identity is "Leia". Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:58, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, entirely irrelevant - there is no policy suggesting that fictional "core identity" has any relevance for what to name an article.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:12, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

There's no need to be entirely dismissive. There is no policy about fictional characters at all. WP:CRITERIA is what we have, and it is possible to still have an identifiable article title in "Leia" especially when sources talk about how she has gone from being a princess to being a general. The sources above discuss the relevance of a "Princess" title being applied here. What do you think needs to happen in terms of coverage for it to be just "Leia"? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:29, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Evidence that "Leia" has replaced "Princess Leia" as the most common way of referring to the character in the coverage. No argument based on in world development will have any effect on where the article should be located.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:34, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. WP:COMMONNAME. And WP:INUNIVERSE. And the fact that the closing credits for The Force Awakens still credit the role as "Princess Leia". That's right, Carrie Fisher is still credited as playing "Princess Leia", not anything else. We write from an out-of-universe perspective. oknazevad (talk) 20:46, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

  That's a fair point about the credits. I was wondering that since I could not recall what they showed. Sources writing from an out-of-universe perspective (such as the two above) do discuss "Leia" apart from being "Princess Leia". Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:58, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

• Topic for comparison: James T. Kirk is also widely known as Captain Kirk but has also been known as Admiral Kirk and Commander Kirk (on a much lesser scale). The Wikipedia article gives his full name without title. Should that article be at Captain Kirk? If not, then this would be inconsistent. I am suggesting that a character's attached title is not immutable and does not have to be treated as such here. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 22:09, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Well (surprisingly) a Google search favors James T. Kirk over Captain Kirk. But I don't think that has any bearing on this argument, this is more like Princess Diana vs. Diana (though obviously "Leia" is more unique than "Diana"). I don't think I'm seeing a real-world justification to your change except that the film has deprecated Princess, which is irrelevant, as Maunus has noted.— TAnthony^Talk 22:29, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose if this is renamed it should be to Leia Organa -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 08:09, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose per TAnthony. sst✈ 13:06, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose per Oknazevad. Nothing to show that the CommonName has changed yet. Meters (talk) 19:27, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose: The common name is still "Princess Leia". --Carnildo (talk) 02:00, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose: The 'common name' that people still largely use is "Princess Leia". It shouldn't move.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:08, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. Overwhelmingly the common name for the character. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:06, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Ingvild Deila

I disagree with listing Ingvild Deila in the infobox for portraying the character in Rogue One. It was a brief cameo and Carrie Fisher's face and voice was used. Deila was no more than a stand in or stunt actor. This seems to be a case of WP:UNDUE. If nobody objects, I'm going to remove her. JDDJS (talk) 15:53, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

I object. She was listed in the closing credits. Therefore she's on record as having played the character, and should be listed as such. oknazevad (talk) 16:19, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

I was going to say, I removed her previously on the same grounds, and was reverted on the basis that Deila was credited in the film. The procedure in articles for soap opera characters (who often have many portrayers) has historically been to list actors who played the roles in a significant way in the infobox, but any babies or non-speaking children, or temporary fill-ins during illness or flashbacks, be listed in the prose section of the article about Portrayal. In the case of soap operas, I think this was a means to minimize clutter in the already-sprawling infoboxes. I agree that putting Deila in the infobox makes more of her contribution than is probably necessary, but the baby from Revenge of the Sith is in there too LOL.— TAnthony^Talk 16:29, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm also all for removing the baby as well. If more editors don't get involved in this discussion, I'll start a request for comment. I just think that it's really a case of WP:UNDUE to list her in the infobox. JDDJS (talk) 21:42, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Episode 9

Kathleen Kennedy apparently said that Carrie Fisher would not appear in Episode 9. Well, this article isn't on Carrie Fisher, it's on Princess Leia. Unless she states the role will not be recast, there shouldn't be anything indicating that Princess Leia won't appear in episode 9, just that Carrie Fisher won't. Curse those dang bras... -A lad insane (Channel 2) 21:43, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

That is a very good point! Fixing that now.— TAnthony^Talk 22:06, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

:) -A lad insane (Channel 2) 00:56, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Too long

It's clearly crazy to have such a lengthy article for a FICTIONAL character when we can't keep a page up on REAL people who do prominent things. There is an incredible amount of disproportionate significance given to FICTIONAL CHARACTERS on Wikipedia. I would encourage active editors to work on editing down (deleting) such unnecessary information. Tleeditor (talk) 17:10, 9 June 2017 (UTC)