Talk:The Force/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Scientific and parascientific perspectives on The Force - More outside opinions need on the section proposed to be added.

I'm requesting some additional outside opinions and possible improvement on this proposed section. It can be done below and comments can come up here.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 20:08, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Extended content

Scientific and parascientific perspectives on The Force Interconnected energy Former NASA astrophysicist, science fiction writer, and longtime Star Wars fan Jeanne Cavelos has written and commented much about Star Wars from a scientific perspective. Although she is not known to be certified or educated in psychology, parapsychology or in the fields of other paranormal studies, she makes detailed discussions on the Force from both scientific and parascientific perspectives, including commentaries from other scientists and psychologists. Quoting various scientists on the phenomenon, Cavelos gets mostly skeptical answers about the nature of the Force, all but one linking it to quantum physics, another to parapsychology, and another to extremely advanced knowledge of science that physics can be manipulated in the future, making it appear as though magic by modern standards. She begins by addressing the question of the Force from a physics perspective, analyzing that if the Force is an energy field, it would be carried by quanta. Such electromagnetic forces are caused by exchanges in photons. In such a model, gravity wouldn't be caused by the warping of space, but instead by the exchange of tiny packets of gravitational energy, or gravitons, which pressure matter toward other matter. For it to be manipulated to push objects around, it must be everywhere and exist in some form of an interconnected network or field. Cavelos covers the ancient Greek phenomena of the ether, a supposed material or "fifth element" that interconnected all matter, energy as well as empty space. According to her, Sir Isaac Newton proposed that the human brain might be able to trigger waves in the ether, giving humans psychic powers. Cavelos explores the field of virtual particles that constantly pop in and out of existence on the quantum level; the vacuum of space actually foams with activity. Tapping into this vacuum energy would be the challenge in order to manipulate gravitational fields, but poses several scientific problems. Cavelos says the Force "suggests a universe quite different than the one we think we're living in", and that some unknown fields or particles might explain the Force. If the Force were to exist in a universe dominated by particle interactions, Cavelos suggests vacuum energy is one option to power physical Force feats. In a universe instead filled with continuous force fields, a fifth force beyond the four fundamental forces might account for the Force. Skills like precognition are more challenging to explain because of the implied time travel of information, but Cavelos suggests tachyons traveling faster than light might carry such information. Telekinesis There is also the analysis she makes of telekinesis and producing and manipulating energy from the brain by the use of technology, some examples being brain implants that amplify neurological electrons to help paralyzed patient move. Similar implants would send brain signals to operate computers. Even more advanced functions would allow computers to recognize brain patterns in order to obey commands, though not yet fully developed. Dr. Michio Kaku is quoted comparing Luke Skywalker's training on Degobah in the use of The Force with learning to control his brain waves and an electronic chip in his clothing that would pick up the signals. Cavelos draws a distinction between telekinesis of the Force as seen in the Star Wars universe from that produced by the use of technology; also by pointing to the fact that many alien races with different brains can also connect to the Force. Aerospace engineering consultant Dr. Charles Lurio is claimed to have suggested as far that human biology might already possess telekinesis, to be reproduced naturally. Precognition Addressing the issue of precognition (predicting or sensing events before they happen), Cavelos discusses the phenomenon of time travel, a possibility many scientists are resistant to. Still, there is the belief that on the quantum level, particles may move at faster than light. This, when applied to Einstien's theory of relativity, technically at least in theory, allows time to be reserved for the object or person traveling at that speed. Such particles with the capability of such speeds are only theoretical and called tachyons. If these tachyons were channeled by Luke Skywalker through the Force, they could allow him to prevision Han Solo's torture from Degobah before it actually happened. While this could be a theoretical possibility, Cavelos points to other scientific problems such as the famous grandfather paradox and the fact that even in the Star Wars universe, time might not be preordained also quoting master Yoda "always in motion is the future". Multidimensional energy Attempting to define the Force as an interconnected entity as described by Obi-Wan in a A New Hope and it's novelization, Cavelos discusses the multi-dimensional theories such as the super string theory, suggesting the Force exists in multiple dimensions. She refers back to nineteenth century German mathematician Carl Gauss proposal of "bookworms" or hypothetical creatures inhabiting only two dimensions. Further citing Dr Kaku that such feats of 'magic' are possible in hyperspace physics, an impossibility by modern means, at least for another century. Mind control and psychic abilities Commenting on the Jedi mind trick and drawing various examples as seen in the films, Cavelos covers the well-known Jedi mind trick. The closest thing to such phenomenon on our world she claims is hypnosis, which allows an individual's mind to be controlled under the right conditions. This includes making them see or hear things that are not actually there. Citing clinical psychologist Dr. Micheal Yapko, she briefly discusses all the characteristics of hypnosis and the philosophy on it being neither "good" nor "bad", but rather depending on how it's applied -as in the case of The Force and it's usage in the Star Wars universe. The use of hypnosis works in diverse ways, depending on the subject according to Dr. Yapko. Hypnotherapy instructor, C. Roy Hunter, favors using present tense commands under hypnosis, as Obi-Wan does with a stormtrooper in A New Hope. Future tenses, according to him, should specify when the deed is done, as Luke does with Bib Fortuna in Return of the Jedi. Cavelos also discusses the pace and swiftness of the hypnosis which is compared to the Star Wars films. Most current hypnotic techniques work slowly; wheras the films depict a rapid command and obedience tense. One technique most like the films is when the hypnotist gives a sudden and surprising forceful command which could have two possible outcomes: Resistance or a fall into the trance, but may require some preconditions in order to submit. One would be telling the subject they are in a certain condition in an informative manner, such as their eyes stuck with glue, and then testing that information to see weather the subject can move their eyes after giving them a command to do so in the imperative manner. This is considered the most similar the Jedi mind trick. Discussing phenomenon of telepathy Cavelos mentions scientific establishments going back to the 1800s. Still no current scientific theory can cope with can cope with psychic phenomenon according to Dr. Ray Hyman, emeritus professor of psychic phenomenon. Parapsychology is also distinct from other scientific disciplines because it cannot be tested and experimented by conventional means. At the same time, it cannot be disproved either since typical physical experiments result in proving or disproving theories. The telepathy as seen in the films is preferably termed by parapsychologists as "anomalous information transfer". One example of tests conducted on this phenomenon was to cancel out any distraction for the human test subjects. The subjects would then be sent messages by "senders" or those individuals related to the test subjects. They would be shown up to four different videos, which were then later shown to the "receivers" after coming out the isolation chambers. It showed a 35 percent match rate, something apparently chance cannot explain. Other similar tests are claimed to show up to a 50 percent match rate. Cavelos's chapter also mentions the CIA's apparent involvement in psychic experiments and attempts to develop technology to manipulate the phenomenon. However, most studies have not been able to prove or disprove anything at this point. As in the beginning of her investigation of the science of Star Wars, she re-quotes skeptical and inconclusive comments from scientists on it's probability. She also brings up compelling questions of apparent situations such as slot machines apparently giving out huge payments during full moons or can humans affect the growth of algae with their minds or even cockroaches having psychokinetic powers. She ends all this first by citing another experiment conducted with chicks and a robot, which apparently was given random programming, but appeared to be going in direction of the chicks since it had a candle on it's top after the lights went out. The suggestion was that since chicks are startled by the sudden absence of light, they somehow influenced the supposedly randomly programmed robot to go in their direction 71 percent of the time. The second bit of her conclusion is citing all the previous experiments conducted on the phenomenon, including those by the US military, going back about a century and a half with quotations from Dr. Utts that despite not very good evidence existing, it still exists while even skeptics like Dr. Hyman arguing the opportunity to resolve the issue of weather "psi" exists should be left open, though not in his lifetime or so he believes. The National Research Council in spite of negative findings in their results still recommends that future research in psychokinesis, remote viewing, and telepathy be monitored by the US military for security purposes. Cavelos ends all her observations by stating that the future of the world in the next few thousand years will look more like Star Wars. References

It seems inapt to ask for both copyedits and feedback for such a large tract of text on the broader article's talk page. Perhaps you should instead provide a link to the draft you have in userspace, which replicates this content. Since I was the only editor who previously gave feedback on a near-identical draft five months ago, perhaps you should go to the broader Star Wars or Film wikiproject talk pages to request additional feedback. You might also approach the Copyedit request talk page. --EEMIV (talk) 00:46, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

(Para)scientific coverage redux redux

I've reverted the addition of ~10K of material that regurgitates content from just a single source, that plagiarizes a metaphor from the source text (that space "actually foam"s with activity), plagiarizes the phrasing explaining gravitons (with a seemingly high school-level-esque attempt at work around by changing a few padding words/phrases with synonyms), invents a technical phrase ("neurological electrons") that doesn't appear in the source material, misconstrues the source material's depiction of Dr. Lurio's commentary, and that places disproportionate coverage on a relatively minor aspect of the article topic (in turn placing disproportionate focus on a single source, at the same eliminating several other third-party sources). If this summary of concerns sounds familiar, it should: they're pretty well enumerated two sections above, and the restoring editor seems not to have made too many adjustments to reflect these concerns in the previous five months. (Although I do acknowledge a missing "not" has been added to the content.) Anyway, per WP:BRD, I have reverted the narrowly focused 20% growth of the article for discussion here. I invite the restoring editor to solicit broader input at the Wikiproject talk page. --EEMIV (talk) 03:32, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

I saw this discussion a little late. Would please provide a link to the source that the more recent edits did? Because I had the book with me when I cited it. The previous edition was also very poorly written, misleading and cut out all but one or two selected subtopics. It did NOT summarize the topic. The current edition takes commentaries from various perspectives and not just one. I also broke it down into subsections as it would be a bit long as we do when sections get too long.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 05:07, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Regarding your assertion the current section does "NOT summarize the topic": the topic is The Force. The topic is not the scientific or parascientific perspective of the Force. The science perspective of the Force is a relatively trivial component of the broader focus of the article (hence the dearth of sources examining the Force through that lens). Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and your seeming desire to provide an exhaustive overview of each aspect of how this one book examines Force is simply inappropriate for the scope of this project. *sigh* This --EEMIV (talk) 00:58, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

I posted a copy-edit tag. The section needs to be re-worded, not removed. There seems to be a concern for plagiarism? I thought that's for uncited statements and could an alleged "book review" (yes the section in Kaku's comments may indeed read like one pass for one) pass for plagerism. But why don't we just reword this? And not to the previous edition as that was just a one section cherry-pick. It's about different perspectives, yet only one (and a misleading one) was picked yet all the others excluded. The section needs to be re-worded, I agree. I will continue to improve it and have left the tag alone.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 05:15, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Brought here by the copy edit tag. Agree completely with EEMIV. It doesn't need re-wording, it needs to go. It makes up about a quarter of the article and least easily the least relevant part of it. The purpose of this article is to describe the a certain concept within a fictional piece of work. The general structure of the article does this quite well, we state what it is, how it is represented, its cultural impact, some references to its predecessors in other works and philosophies. Personally, I don't like the whole concept scientific section at all but I won't argue for it to come out completely. There is absolutely no justification to spend 20-25% of the article describing one woman's attempts to argue for the explain how a fictional, mystical power 'could' exist in the real world (maybe) in such mind-numbing depth. If you're desperate to include this content somewhere, stick in the article for her book (it has its own article), and anyone cares enough to read exactly how its entirely reasonable for Luke to foresee Hans death because of relativity (duh!) they can go there and read more. I'm aware that came off as slightly ranty but still. So, I'm going to revert the addition. If anyone would like to re-introduce it, would you please make an argument as to how this article benefits from this additional content. Scribolt (talk) 09:09, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Even when a number of physicists have discussed it? The current edition is terrible. I think the whole section then needs to be blanked out. It's misleading and has a randomly selected section. As to answer the question the whole concept is in-universe. The section adds to the relevance of the topic in our universe. Yes I agree, we need additional input. Remember the comparison to magic section was denounced when it was introduced but when someone besides myself reworded it, it was suddenly ignored. But yeah more outside opinions should be introduced and not limited/stuck to just three editors (myself excluded) repeatedly as that just leaves no room for the possibility of improvement.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 19:57, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

The content retained in the truncated science section for the most part maintains a broad treatment of the Force. Perhaps the one or two sentences that delve into specific powers -- telekinesis and clairvoyance -- are a little too in-detail to retain, and I'm fine removing them. Perhaps, NadirAli, you could initiate a request for a third opinion to offer input about the current section. --EEMIV (talk) 00:41, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

@EEMIV: thank you for your suggestion and yes I totally agree about additional opinions. I have invited a third party for now who, like me, is also currently busy but is interested in Star Wars topics and has offered to provide input at some later time as will I. But until then, I left the section I built upon so more people can see it and evaluate it. If it feels too extensive, I'm sure it can be modified/reworded to include all relevant passages while remaining an average looking section.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 02:00, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on The Force (Star Wars). 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/20080309192404/http://www.gametrailers.com/player/20007.html to http://www.gametrailers.com/player/20007.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090728165730/http://comic-con.gamespot.com/story/6214122/force-unleashed-unleashing-more-dlc-sith-edition to http://comic-con.gamespot.com/story/6214122/force-unleashed-unleashing-more-dlc-sith-edition

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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) 03:09, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Checked OK.— TAnthony^Talk 19:13, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

The Hidden Fortress

@A.S. Brown: Thanks for your contributions. There is a section about The Hidden Fortress in Star Wars sources and analogues that could use some attention, if you have any interest. The film is also mentioned (with others) in the two as-yet unused refideas from the talk page:

• Serafino, Jason (October 1, 2015). "The Films That Inspired The Star Wars Saga". Tech Times. Retrieved December 2, 2015.
• Robey, Tim (November 24, 2015). "10 films that influenced Star Wars". The Telegraph. Retrieved December 2, 2015.

Thanks! — TAnthony^Talk 19:07, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Dear TAntony, thank so much for your kind words! Much appreciated! I'll take a look at those links. Thanks so much. Cheers!--A.S. Brown (talk) 19:14, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 21 May 2018

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: Move. Consensus is that this is the primary topic of "The Force". Cúchullain ^t/c 14:53, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

---

• The Force (Star Wars) → The Force
• The Force → The Force (disambiguation)

– Far and away the primary topic by pageviews and cultural significance. There doesn't seem to be any reason the disambiguation page would be at the primary namespace. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:09, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose too many other subjects. And "(Star Wars)" is helpful/ In ictu oculi (talk) 21:52, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
• ZXCVBNM, do you know if page view stats support this move? I think, in terms of long term notability and as a topic of likely interest for the majority of readers searching this term this is correct, but I'd want to see if the numbers back that up.--Yaksar (let's chat) 17:43, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

• I've had a look at page views and now support this move.--Yaksar (let's chat) 22:09, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support. Obvious WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the specific phrase "the Force", which is also clearly a WP:THE exception (it is never used in this context without the leading "the", except adjectivally, e.g. as in "The Emperor shocked Luke with Force lighting").  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:13, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support I was looking for this article and expected it to be titled "The Force." The other items are fairly minor, and some seemed to refer to the SW Force.PopSci (talk) 07:48, 26 May 2018 (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.

Kirlian photography and The Force

In the "Concept and development" section, subsection "Creation for the original films," the article says, In 1970s San Francisco, where Lucas lived when he wrote the drafts that became Star Wars, New Age ideas that incorporated the concept of qi and other notions of a mystical life-force were "in the air" and widely embraced.[4]

One of the New Age ideas "in the air" of the SF Bay Area in the '70s was Kirlian photography. If anyone knows if it influenced Lucas, please add that to the article. If anyone can contact Lucas and ask him about it, please do. ;)

I don't know the date of this short video re. UCLA Kirlian photography research, but by the clothes I'd have to guess its from the early to mid 1970s, when Lucas was forming his ideas about The Force.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfDHy17QpzY

For now, I'm just adding a Kirlian photography Wiki link to the "See also" section of the article.

Phantom in ca (talk) 03:58, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

While well-intentioned, I agree with TAnthony's removal. Perhaps there's a broader article about 70s San Fran counterculture stuff worth linking there, but this one particular sliver -- particularly absent any citation suggesting it influenced the article subject or its creator -- is dubious. --EEMIV (talk) 02:21, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Palpatine telling a story

I 2x removed the reference to the opera dialog about Plagueis and midichlorians. Quoting the dialogue wasn't apt in the production section about midichlorians since it was in-universe. When moved to the final depiction paragraph, the reference is just to the script. However, there's no reference to a third-party source that this appearance of the Force plays an important part of the plot (and all the other listed examples to have a citation to third-party commentary). Additionally, this isn't really an example of the Force playing any role in the story: it's a story about the Force being told within the story. I suggest the restoring editor look for some third-party commentary about the underlying Sith legend (you won't find such a source from a Jedi...) and its import in the plot in the new EU. There might be some material related to the recent Darth Vader comic series, which was made some implications (with the inferences asserted by credible reviewers) about Palpatine learning and wielding Plagueie's powers to drive some of the actual prequel film action. --EEMIV (talk) 03:09, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Original films/Skywalker saga

I reverted a change to relabel the "Original films" section "Skywalker Saga." I think those of us who watch for Disney press releases and follow the franchise get the moniker, but less casual fans/viewers probably are less likely to get the scope of that label. Other thoughts? --EEMIV (talk) 02:16, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Light-Side vs. Dark Side of The Force

Any and all references in this article to, "the Light-Side of The Force" should be removed. Those words have never been uttered by George Lucas nor any canon source. There is only The Force, which is good, and the Dark-Side of the Force. The Dark-Side is merely the twisting of The Force for evil or selfish purposes. Saying that someone is a "Light-Side Jedi" is laughable since the Jedi by their very nature use The Force in its' proper form. If someone can point out canon information showing that Lucas ever used, "the Light-Side of the Force", then I am in error. I hope that someone who has interest in this article reads this and either agrees or disagrees with me. If I don't get a canon justification for that phrase, I will edit this article so that any reference to "the light-Side of The Force" is eliminated. Jtpaladin (talk) 04:16, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

It was used in The Clone Wars and Rebels. Do not eliminate it. oknazevad (talk) 13:45, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Please provide a citation. I've never watched either series and have no idea if the phrase, "the Light-Side of The Force" was ever used. We need a citation in order to make such a claim. Jtpaladin (talk) 23:45, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

If it's on screen, that's the citation itself. It's your responsibility to actually watch the episodes to verify. Especially when the phrase is used many times and therefore difficult to specify a particular reference that is more significant than others. oknazevad (talk) 00:17, 29 December 2019 (UTC)