Jump to content

Talk:The Force/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Dark side comparison to real world philosophy

I´m altering a little the part where de DS is compared to existentialism; as i believe that there are both reasons to make the connection and to dismiss it. The same debate is going on in the DS entry at the wookipedia.

Gorsh ( i need to creat an account ... )


Fandom "Hard Sci-Fi" Force explainations

What about adding a paragraph or new page about the fandom non-canon hard-scifi "explainations" about the force which seems to circulate arround the people who grew up with StarWars but then realised it is more of a sci-fi/fantasy mix and tried to "compensate".

Mostly it goes along the line that coruscant became a planet wide sentient-AI in prehistoric times and then used nanotechnology (midi-chlorians?) coupled with some FTL-communication to keep the galactic humanoid population "in line" in a non-intrusive way, that also being the origin of the balancing dark/light siders etc. I don't know the further details or the deeper implications but the brief explaination I heard was quite intriguing.

Force in the real world

"Some of the abilities seen in the Star Wars movies are reported to have been attained by high-level Kung-Fu Masters." (From this article)

Is there any source or evidence for this claim? As a Chinese person myself who believes in God (or as we Chinese would say Shang Di) - I am a Christian in fact, I wouldn't completely rule this possibility out. However, I will not simply believe in this either as I think one's beliefs should be based on logic and evidence. I'd say some of the martial arts done by the Shaolin monks (e.g. smashing bricks with one's bare head - this I have definitely seen) are probably close to "borderline" cases, but still a long way away from anything done by people in the Star Wars universe. So this claim is probably somewhat exaggerated. Perhaps one should edit it a bit?

Remember that the Ground of Being is intelligent (omniscient in fact) so just because it is theoretically possible does not mean it will occur in our world. The Force has its own will, if you like. I have read about a reason for such "supernatural" abilities to not exist in our world from a Chinese source: The Ground of Being/God is intelligent and good, and therefores does not permit such abilities to exist in our world because our world is morally not enlightened enough. Imagine if those Star Wars abilities really are possible and accessible to a large number of people in our world, what will be the result? I fear many will turn to the dark side and the whole world will be plunged into war and chaos. So it is for our own good that such abilities do not become available to us.

My Force "philosophy"

I think Force is both the immanent omnipresent spiritual energy in the universe and the transcedent omnipotent and omniscient root and Ground of Being for all existence, especially for all life. It is similar to both the Hindu concept of Brahman and the Chinese concepts of Qi and Taiji.

Force itself is perfectly Good. There is fundamentally no evil in it. The Jedi are right to seek balance in the universe by preserving the "unbalance" between the light and dark sides, because ultimately Good and Evil are asymmetrical. Metaphysically there is only Good and no Evil. Evil is only an emergent property. Consider this analogy: The fundamental qualities of the universe are like the individual keys on a piano, every fundamental quality is intrinsically good just like every key on the piano produces a pleasing sound. So where does evil come from? Just like individual keys which by themselves all produce pleasing sounds can combine together in a non-harmonious way to form noise, the fundamental good qualities of the universe can combine together to form evil.

Even though strictly speaking everything is ultimately good, even qualities like hatred and anger, the Jedi Code does have its wisdom because although it is not absolute, it is a very good approximation of the Truth. For just like on a piano some keys are used far more than others when producing a beautiful piece of music, certain qualities (such as Love and Compassion and Courage) are required far more often than others (such as hatred and anger and fear) in order to produce a "combination" of fundamental qualities that is Good at the emergent level. So although there are exceptions (there are such things as "righteous anger" or "justifiable hatred" or "understandable fear") to the rule, if one simply lives by the rule of the Jedi Code, one will certainly not be far off the mark and will be very close to the Truth, because it is only in the really rare and extreme situations that the "dark side" passions become good at the emergent level.

I think the two fundamental differences between the light side and the dark side are not the exclusive use of certain fundamental moral qualities (such as love and hatred, though it is certainly true that the light side has love far more often and the dark side has hatred far more often), but in one's fundamental philosophical perception of the universe and the Force. The light side person considers the whole to be philosophically more fundamental than the individual, thus he/she will value co-operation and peace more and be more altruistic. The dark side person considers the individual to be philosophically more fundamental than the whole and therefore he/she will value competition and violence more and be more selfish. The light side person sees himself/herself as a servant of the Force and accept the Force's guidance (May the Force be with you) whereas the dark side person sees the Force as a tool to be used for personal gain (May the Force serve you well).

Force criticism

The Force is the mumbo-jumbo George Lucas came up with to explain various aspects of magic or rather the Jedi knight's use of either positive or negative energies in the universe. However, I fail to see why this subject deserves its own link. Star Wars, no matter what anyone really thinks is hardly high art. The Force is not going to become the off-shoot of a major new religion, and expressions like "May the force be with you" have already gone out of fashion. I understand the desire to well document entries and make sure as much as possible is covered, but this is getting into trival minutia that could have been taken care within the main article itself. That there are several different links to Star Wars movie instead of just one Star Wars link is a little silly. Hard core Star Wars fans already have plenty of websites to look at, there seems little reason to make this yet another one. --Egospark

ps: thanks for the format move! --Anon
No problem and Welcome! --mav

Okay, now that I've re-logged in, I feel better...ANYWAY:


General discussion: linking

I'm curious what the rest of people working on definations think. I've noticed a lot of other areas that seem to be calling for links when a few words of explaination can be tossed in within the main article. I've also noticed that some of the "most wanted articles" deal with people or subjects that seem close to pointless -- case in example is the request for info on "Jay." Again, I understand the desire to cover all the bases, but many of them could be taken care of within the main article itself. A request for "tooth" surely could be done in a longer article on TEETH. The Tooth Fairy would be worth an article, but do we really want one article per tooth? Some editing of the overlinks is needed. --Egospark

In general I agree. If and where you see pointless edit links simply remove them. If others disagree they can just put them back. --mav
Yeah, but does the Death Star need its own link? Or the Force? or Jedi Knights? Or Obi Wan Kanobi? It's a hyperlink party that could be done in a single Star Wars article. Maybe, MAYBE, each movie episode could be seperate, but sheesh... I'd hate to see what's in store when a Planet of the Apes fan finds this place. That could be worth 100,000 mini-articles right there, from Ape make-up to Roddy McDowell and Zeera. --Egospark
Does it really matter? It's not like space is limited! If/when the wikipedia starts to run out of entry space THEN is the time to start weeding and combining... Star Wars is not just a movie - it was and still is a cult phenonemon. I can think of how to write a real article on this subject quite easily, and I'm not even really a Star Wars fan. The whole point of having seperate articles is to avoid unneccesary duplication. Sure you could put an explanation of 'the force' into each movie article, but do we really need to write it out six times AND for each of the 35 Star Wars books if somebody decides to write articles for them? As long as its clearly pointed out that 'the Force' is a fictional concept related to the Star Wars universe I don't think it hurts to have an article for it... Ooops... forgot to sign my comment --KJ 20:40 Aug 4, 2002 (PDT)
It's not the space, it's the endless hyperlinking I guess. I suppose twenty years from now, when the Star Wars series is finally over, there might be some questions about the force, but I'm still not sure if there needs to constant links back to it's "meaning." We'll end up writing sentences like Darth Vader, Jedi Knight seduced to the Dark Side of the Force decides to activate the Death Star using his vega-matic light-saber from Wal-Mart. --Egospark

I agree with most of this, but the some things like the quote 'May The Force Be With You' would deserve a space of their own, no matter how small, simply because of their overpowering popularity. In this case, it features consistently on several lists of top quotes from over the years. And Egospark, your last sentence with the dozen hyperlinks does make a valid point, but some minutae do achieve a status of their own. - Nickyindia

Midiclorians and cause and effect

Are more midichlorians the cause of stronger Force powers, or just a measurable side-effect? (My recollection is that it's never been clearly stated one way or the other, in which case the article ought not to state so strongly that the former is the case.) --Paul A 05:26 Feb 19, 2003 (UTC)

Damn, midichlorians are merely the "alias" for mitochondria - the small organisms within EVERY cell of living things. These organisms convert oxygen and glucose into energy.
The "light side" is they allow all living things to "live", move and exist including making decisions and interacting with other living creatures.
The "dark side" is that this process of energy creation creates heat and toxins which slowly age and then kill the host cell.
Hence the obsession lately with anti-oxidants - which retard the mitchondria and the conversion of energy when not required, thus slowing the aging process.
Now stop wasting mitochondrial time and go out and live or the dark side will slowly devour you LOL. --Anon.
Midi-chlorians are inspired by mitochondria, but they're not merely an alias for the same thing. Mitochondria don't give you Force Powers. :? Irrevenant 23:11, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Notability

Any cultural phenomena that makes more than a billion dollars, spins off more than a dozen idioms used commonly in the language (even if we would like them to go away), or is still generating new material (books, cartoons, comics as well as movies, video games) after 25 years, does deserve lots of articles... examples include Lord of the Rings, Batman, Superman, Spider-Man, Sherlock Holmes, Star Trek, James Bond... hell it's pathetic but this stuff is the English speaking culture. And look at all the entries for all the characters in the Ayn Rand novels. And no doubt Harry Potter will be equally elaborated. These iconic characters are often used as metaphors, and so a strong case can be made for outlining them to at least the degree we would outline figures in Norse mythology or Egyptian mythology which are also dead ends not worshipped any more, but leaving us a substantial legacy. Without knowing who Loki or Osiris without having to read all the story-telling about them, how the heck are we to comprehend anyone's cultural references?

Agree completely with the above.
Good!


Is there a Dark Side?

I understand that in the New Jedi Order books, Luke Skywalker decides that there is no dark or light side of the Force anymore: its just one unified thing. I haven't read the entire NJO yet, but it seems like a very important path for the Jedi to take. Therefore we need to cover it here.

Another question to be asked is there a light side. I've heard that Lucas has explained that the Jedi (at least in the movies)never refer to a light side of the Force, only the Dark Side. The Dark Side seems to a corruption of the use of the Force to rule over life instead of to serve and promote life.

There is a light side and there is a dark side. Jon Hart 02:21, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
The light side and dark side aren't really defined; the force is an omnipresent thing. It isn't the force that is dark-sided, but the wielder. _-M o P-_ 21:21, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Heretic! The Jedi Council will have your head for saying that! --maru (talk) contribs 02:21, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
"What do Jedi see? What I allow them to" - Kreia. --Darth Revert (AKA Deskana) (talk) 22:08, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
I think that is just the typical power-controlling attitude of a Sith Lord. _-M o P-_ 22:18, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
"Entertain what illusions you will". --Darth Revert (AKA Deskana) (talk) 23:08, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
"Actually, if you search the screenplays for the original trilogy (and the prequels), the term "light side" is never used. Likewise, if you examine the novels in order by their release dates, the term first came into use in Kevin J. Anderson's Dark Apprentice--and we all know what a wonderful writer he is. As a side note, none of Timothy Zahn's novels use the term, thus I am obliged to say that the insistence on the duality is an argument perpetrated by the weak-minded.

Scientific explanation of the Force

Woven into and intertwined with everything - from the smallest molecule to the largest star - is the Force. The Force is an essential part of nature - like energy or matter. It is a field of energy that spans the universe. It surrounds and penetrates all things. This energy field is made up of chlorian "particles" - subatomic, high energy, fluctuations in the quantum state of the space-time continuum. Chlorian particles exist throughout the universe as "background" radiation. Even in the deepest void of space, one can find chlorian particles. Due to the unique nature of chlorian particles, they affect both matter and energy. Chlorian particles are not true particles, but do possess mass. Chlorians also exhibit the wave motion properties of electromagnetic radiation. Hence, they travel through most matter at light speed, while still interacting with matter on an atomic level.

Every sentient being, with a few exceptions, have a symbiotic relationship with microscopic creatures called midichlorians. Since these midichlorians exist in a state of interspatial flux, outside of normal space-time, they cannot be detected by most conventional technologies. We provide them with a place to live and a way to nurture themselves, and they "let us in" on the Force. Midichlorians generate a specific and unique energy. In a similar fashion to the way mass distorts the space-time continuum to bend the fabric of reality and produce gravity, the energy generated by midichlorians distorts the universal chlorian field. The presence of the midichlorian energy causes an increase in density in the chlorian field i.e. the Force itself.

Some sentient beings are able to exert a certain amount of control over chlorian particles. The process occurs during the interaction between midichlorian energy and chlorian particles. In such interactions, the midichlorian energy can alter the wavelength and frequency of chlorian wave properties. Midichlorian energy can also alter the density, quantum oscillation, phase and other properties of chlorian particles. By influencing chlorian particles, they can be directed, used to manipulate energy, matter, spatial anomalies and other phenomena. Now, the more midichlorians one has, the stronger their connection to the Force. However, it is rare for anyone to be able to manipulate the Force with less than 7,000 midichlorians per cell.

The Force, itself, is defined in many different ways. A two ways are the Living Force and the Unifying Force. The Living Force represents all living things while the Unifying Force is everything that lives in the past and future. The Unifying Force is the collective pool of all the energy in the universe. This means it also includes non-living things as even non-living things have matter and matter and energy are interchangable. The Living Force is the collective pool of the energy of living things. It encompasses living things and therefore also sentience.

The light and dark sides of the Force relates to the nature of most sentient beings and of all creatures who have free will. It represents the dark and light sides to us as living creatures, and our ability to control those sides of "good" and "evil". The light represents the good in all, and the dark represents the evil.

Palpatine was around 90 in Return of the Jedi, and I'd say that he was about as fit and healthy as you could expect for someone his age. Sure, Yoda was doing acrobatics at the ripe old age of five hundred something, but it isn't really fair to compare Palpatine to the man who was, in his prime, probably the single most powerful Force-user in centuries. Sith may not have the extended lifespans of Jedi, and the use of the Dark Side is definitely corrupting, but there is no evidence in the movies that Dark Side Force users are any less healthy than mundane (non-Force-using) members of their species. -- Gordon Ecker 01:19, 30 December 2004 (UTC)
Actually, Yoda was in his 800's when he did the acrobatic stuff in Attack of the Clones. And the aging affect of the dark side due to the corruption is talked about in either the novels or Dark Empire. Does any of the DVD commentary or extras talk about this? It is obvious they are aging Palaptine quicker than normal in the movies. Palpatine had a cloning facility setup so he could perpetuate his spirit from one body to the next and theoretically live forever. It is also specified in the Dark Side Sourcebook (p. 39) from Wizards of the Coast that long-term use of the dark side will wither the physical body.
Also, don't forget comparing Yoda and Palpatine is literally comparing apples and oranges. They are different species. --Maru (talk) Contribs 00:20, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
The "aging effect" of the dark side isn't really age; it is just the extreme physical toll the dark side takes on its users. The intense raw hate and lust for power corrupts them both in mind and body. That doesn't mean they can't perform acrobatics; Darth Sion is composed of a billion tiny shreds of flesh and he still jumps around like a frog. Opposite is the kind of "face lift" the light side brings, as the user is so calm that they don't experience regular bodily stress. _-M o P-_ 22:16, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

RandomDude-So in youe defintion of the force, The force has no will or sentience at all? doesn't that go against a lot of jedi Ideals?

I se no reason to belive that Force-users live much longer than others of their species. In Episode I ther is a women of the same (unnamed) species as Yoda: her name is Yaddel. She is said to be 340 years jet considered young for her species. I don't know if her age is canon but it suggest that their kind live at least ten times as long as humans. It helps explain why Yoda has not aged noticeably between Episode I and V. (It is 35 years betveen the episodes.) In that case Yoda has not aged much more than Count Dooku. Both have their athletic abilities amplified by use of the Force. Additionly, Count Dooku may use some kind of (scientific) medical treatment to appear younger than he is. If you ask me he looks 25 years younger!

Qui-Gon Jinn is something compleatly different. He was orininally INTENDED to be about 60: similar to Obi-Wan Kenobis age in Episode IV. However, when shouting Episode I Liam Neeson's role was not considered that old, probably at max 45. Don't mix up early drafts with te final result!

2006-11-25 Lena Synnnerholm, Mästa, Sweden.

Moving The Force to Force (Star Wars)?

I propose moving this page from The Force to Force (Star Wars). See Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Avoid the definite article ("the") and the indefinite article ("a"/"an") at the beginning of the page name. The article uses lowercase "the", as in "life is the Force". Other articles use the same convention, as in "destined to bring balance to the Force." (Anakin Skywalker) Objections? Dbenbenn 18:00, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Done! --Dbenbenn 19:32, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Should we fix the old links or just let the redirect take care of it? I already did quite a bit of fixing the old links, then it suddenly crossed my mind that maybe I should ask someone else's opinion. --Aidje 20:54, 2005 Mar 22 (UTC)

So in your defintion the force has no will or senteince at all? Doesn't that go against a lot of Jedi Ideals?-randomDude.

It is good practice to fix the redirects. --Maru (talk) Contribs 00:20, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Origins of the Force, etc.

First of all, let me say that I think the Force definitely deserves its own page, if for no other reason that the fact that it has become equivalent to a religion among many people around the world. There are statistics somewhere showing how many people now conider themselves 'Jedi' and believe literally in the Force. Perhaps something should be mentioned about this in the article? Also, I would like to suggest improving the "Orgins of the Force" section. The brief statement about being similar to Taoism, explains very little, and is somewhat inaccurate. Perhaps someone more experienced at this that I am could go into more detail about the relationship between the Force and the Chinese/Japanese beliefs in chi/ki, or at least discuss some of the various ideas that George Lucas combined to come up with the Force? -Thanks, Jeremy 24 Jan 2005


Capitalisation for the sides/Sides of the Force

I've noticed a terrible inconsistency in the Star Wars articles when speaking of the sides/Sides of the Force. It is the "Light side", the "Light Side", or the "light side". Same with the dark/Dark side/Side: is it "Dark side", "Dark Side", or "dark side". I think it would be beneficial for a consensus to be reached and used. (I am aware that each of the sides/Sides has one more possible manifestation, although I've never seen "light Side" or "dark Side" used. I think it's highly unlikely that they ever would be.) --Aidje 21:10, 2005 Mar 22 (UTC)

It's light side and dark side, no capitalization. "Dark" is capitalized in "Dark Jedi," but when merely speaking about sides of the Force, it is lowercase.


When can the Force be used against Jedi/Sith?

Quoting the Star Wars databank entry on Maul

"Kenobi, enraged, attacked Maul. This barrage was deflected by Maul who used Obi-Wan's touching of the dark side as a conduit for a Force attack; using the Force, Maul pushed Obi-Wan into a deep mining pit."

I also remember in the Clone Wars cartoons Anakin blocked a force push from the female sith, but other times he didn't block it and was thrown down. Also in the Clone Wars movie Anakin couldn't do anything against Dooku's lightning, but Obi-Wan could at least channel it into his lightsaber, while Yoda could catch it barehanded and even throw it back. So I was just curious as to if there was some deeper explanation of when the force can be used against other practitioners of the force, because that quote about Darth Maul makes it seem like you can't just use the Force against Force-wielders willy nilly --Fxer 19:28, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

In the novel 'Shatterpoint', it's mentioned that resisting Force kinetics is one of the first things a Jedi learns.
In Episode III, Obi Wan and Anakin attempt a Force Push at the same time, and they cancel out, then after some effort, both of them get thrown back. I think the general idea is that for one Force user to throw around another, there either needs to be a serious difference in their respective power levels, or the target must be caught off-guard.


Origin of The Force: one claim

George Leonard, also a resident of Marin County, wrote a book, titled The Silent Pulse, that may be the source of the description of the Force, as delivered by Obi-wan Kenobi in Episode IV. The author has stated that he and his daughter picked up on this when they saw the film for the first time, and he confronted Lucas about it later.

The Force (naming again)

Why isn't it located at The Force? it is always referred to as "The Force", and everyone will know what you're talking about, and as far as I know there is no other The Force to disambig with. --Supersaiyanplough|(talk) 9 July 2005 05:54 (UTC)

"The Force", seems better to me. It's how it's referred to in the stories after all. "Force" by itself could refer to any kind of force, from gravity to magnetism to force of will.
Perhaps a compromise of "The Force (Star Wars)" would be in order.--JC
I agree with JC. It's always referred to as THE Force, and the Star Wars disambiguation is appropriate. Irrevenant 23:20, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

It is not "The Force," it is "the Force." —Preceding unsigned comment added by PopCultureIsGood (talk • contribs) 02:17, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

Need Help With Major Edit

I have a whole lot to say on this topic, and I plan on doing a major revision to this article in the coming days - complete with references and everything. I am looking for somebody that is in favor of minimizing this article to keep my edit in check (through discussion and perhaps debate) so that a proper article may be formed. Message me if you're interested. --jonasaurus 15:51, 12 July 2005 (UTC)


Regarding the Balance of the Force

It strikes me that the interview is long and unwieldy, and provides a minimum of information. I think that it would be best if the interview was summarized. --jonasaurus 00:37, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Can someone explain how destroying all Sith lords would bring balance to the Force? I mean, that would surely be no balance if the Dark Side is no more? I think I'll add this to my list of doubts in my user page. --Lacrymology 05:13, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
You're not the only one wondering; when me and my dad saw Episode I, we kept asking each other on the way back, "But the Jedi rule supreme, they defeated the Sith! Things are seriously unbalanced towards the Light side! Why would they want to "bring balance to the Force"? Isn't it obvios that implies the rise of the Sith?" The only conclusion we could draw (years later) was that the Jedi misunderstood and thought it referred to the balance between the Living and the Unifying force. --Maru (talk) Contribs 00:20, 30 October 2005 (UTC)


Keeping the EU separate...

I'm new here, so apologies if this has come up already, but am I the only one interested in seeing all the Expanded Universe information moved to its own page? Possibly with a title such as "Force (Star Wars EU)?" The EU information is plastered all over these articles and presented as fact, and I know a lot of people who don't like that sort of thing. I don't want to get into a debate on whether or not the EU is acceptable, I just think the two should have their own separate pages. There are little disclaimer clauses in a lot instances (ie: "in the Expanded Universe..."), but there are so many EU occurrences on this page that it looks a little ridiculous. I think it definitely deserves its own page. Thoughts?

The EU is valid. Moving it would damage the article and stigmatize EU subject matter. --Maru (talk) Contribs 00:20, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
That's your opinion. The EU should definitely be kept separate. 17:40, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
That's your opinion. The EU should definitely be kept in. --maru (talk) contribs 18:03, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sayin it should be cut out altogether, it should be kept of course, only in its own proper place! 18:15, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
It's in its proper place. Jon Hart 02:19, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Jerzy notes that the {{copyvio}} tag was placed due to the Balance of the Force section. Since there is almost no real content for this section, I'm going to trim it out (for now) and remove the copyvio note. If someone would like to expand this section (so as not to be a copyright violation), please, by all means, do so. – Mipadi 15:34, 27 August 2005 (UTC)


Force traditions

I've been pondering whether to add the Emperor's Hands to the list of Force traditions. They do deserve a mention, as they were an organized group of Force-sensitives, but I feel adding them is a bit of a stretch- they graduated to Dark Jedi or Sith status, and rarely met one another, so their quasi-Grey Jedi methods could not have evolved. What do you guys think? --Maru (talk) 01:17, 22 October 2005 (UTC)


The Baomarr monks

I don't have my copy of the ROTJ handy; can anyone tell me whether the Bao'marr monks make an appearance, even if only cameo? This is relevant to what organized Force traditions appear in the original movies. --Maru (talk) Contribs 21:01, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Lightsaber weights

I'm not sure if I need to mention this here but since G. Lucas said that the sabers were supposed to feel as if they were heavy I deleted the line in the article that said they felt weightless. It was something about a kind of gyroscope effect from the rotating energy fields or suchlike. He said that was why Luke held and moved the saber the way he did in ANH when he was first experiencing it.

George Lucas said they were meant to be heavy originally but then changed that concept- notice how in ANH Darth Vader and Obi-Wan wield their lightsabers with both hands? George Lucas said the lightsabers were supposed to be difficult weapons to handle. He doesn't consider them to be heavy weapons anymore, I don't think. -- His Imposingness, the Grand Moff Deskana (talk) 21:43, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Tai Chi/martial arts parallel

From the context, I think the term wanted isn't "empty force," Ling Kong Jing, but "concealed force," An Jing. An Jing is the term in the internal arts for the highest development of energy, where it is no longer obvious (ming jing) where the power is coming from, like it is with a lower level practitioner. Think of a Tae Kwon Do flying kick as opposed to Bruce Lee's one inch punch for an illustration.

Ling Kong Jing refers specifically to no-touch knockouts and is imaginary or grossly hyperbolized at best, An Jing refers to subtle force and demonstrably exists.

Forceless beings

"The only known beings without the Living Force are the Yuuzhan Vong,". What about the Ysalamiri? Irrevenant 23:26, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

They not a-Force so to speak; rather they are anti-Force (that actually isn't a good way to phrase it; anti-Force makes more sense to describe Waru. They are living creatures within and of the Force, which repel the Force.) --maru (talk) contribs 01:16, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Can I suggest that the section about the Yuuzhan Vong being Forceless beings be moved to Unusual Force occurances in nature? It just seems more suitable there than under Living Force. --AndreRD 12:35, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Image

Is there a better image that demonstrates the usage of the force? Because the current one shows Obi-Wan Kenobi waving his hand. I think I'll dig up an image of Palpatine and Yoda dueling with the senate seats in EpIII. _-M o P-_ 21:20, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

To-do list in my opinion

  • improve lead
  • merge:
    • "May the Force be with you" into the lead or any other section (too small to merit its own section).
    • "The Living Force" with "The Unifying Force" and rename section.

Other than that I think this article is pretty good, and a minor clean up, a few more references, maybe a notes section and this article could become featured. – Tutmøsis (Talk) 14:28, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with your deletions. The NOT section does not support what you want to do- lists are not deletable just because, as the continued existence of many lists prove. In addition, those lists can be useful (I'm thinking of the organized tradition one here) because they back up some assertions, provide some cross-references, and is interesting in its own right. --maru (talk) contribs 19:08, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for replying, I still maintain my original arguement but if you wish to keep it, I certainly won't delete it. – Tutmøsis (Talk) 23:21, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. --maru (talk) contribs 00:22, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree that May the Force Be With You should be merged here. Maestlin 22:42, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Longetivity

your entry on this article reads: "As for longevity, this comes from the lines of Tarkin in A New Hope who thought that Obi-Wan had died of old age." However, with the insight of the prequels, it this quote is logically erroneous. When Tarkin made the remark "surely he msut be dead by now" one may have thought old age in the old days, but now the logical choice is that he must think that Obi-Wan must have died from Imperial Troops by now. Because of Order 66, if any trooper sees a Jedi, he will kill him instantly. And since the troopers are everywhere it was highly likely that Obi-Wan would have been killed by them. He didnt take into account that Obi-Wan defies all odds.

I se no reason to belive that Force-users live much longer than others of their species. In Episode I ther is a women of the same (unnamed) species as Yoda: her name is Yaddle. She is said to be 340 years jet considered young for her species. I don't know if her age is canon but it suggest that their kind live at least ten times as long as humans. It helps explain why Yoda has not aged noticeably between Episode I and V. (It is 35 years betveen the episodes.) In that case Yoda has not aged much more than Count Dooku. Both have their athletic abilities amplified by use of the Force. Additionly, Count Dooku may use some kind of (scientific) medical treatment to appear younger than he is. If you ask me he looks 25 years younger!

Qui-Gon Jinn is something compleatly different. He was orininally INTENDED to be about 60: similar to Obi-Wan Kenobis age in Episode IV. However, when shouting Episode I Liam Neeson's role was not considered that old, probably at max 45. Don't mix up early drafts with te final result!

2006-11-25 Lena Synnnerholm, Mästa, Sweden.


The Force: Disambig or redirect?

I see that this page used to be at The Force but was moved, which I agree with; sticking (Star Wars) clearly differentiates it. That said, the number of entries on the The Force disambig page (which I recently changed; there were inexplicably two separate pages for The force and The Force...) is fairly small and the other entries are mostly obscure. I think that The Force should be a redirect to Force (Star Wars), and then this article should have the usual hatnote with "This is about the Force in the Star Wars universe. For other uses, see The Force (disambiguation)"; then move the current The Force page to The Force (disambiguation). I imagine that's what most people mean, at least. Thoughts? SnowFire 18:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Lead section - one sentence?!

I thought Star Wars fans were better at writing than what we have here! Surely we can do better than a one sentence lead section? - Ta bu shi da yu 13:03, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Capitalization of title

I think the title should be "May the Force be with You", as per title naming convention. Any objections? -Slash- 04:04, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

I've just removed some vandalism that someone did to the Jedi Code. It seems to me that it'd be a good idea to protect this article, since it's the sort of thing that would see constant vandalism. --Muna 17:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

It is claimed that the Palpatine of Dark Empire was just a hoax. There are so many widespread misconceptions about reproductive cloning! According to Steven Pinker 50% of the personality is due to pure random chance, 40% – 50% is decided by the genes and at max 10% by parenting. (This should NOT interpreted as a request to parents to abandon their children! After all, children ARE mentally hurt by not feeling loved.) Consequently, a clone always have an unique personality. Above all, the clone don’t have the cloned person’s memories, and skills have to be learned from scratch. You can’t even be sure that a clone speaks the same language as the cloned person: it all depends on where the clone grows up, what language the guardians speak, an which languages he/she gets the opportunity to learn. To what extent does this apply to the Star Wars universe? Episode II gives some clues. It is unclear how much of the personality a clone shares with the cloned person. Bobba Fett is a clone of Jango Fett: they suggest that a clone don’t have the same personality as the cloned person but a similar. However, it is clear that clones don’t have the cloned person’s memories or skills. In the movies it is also apparent that Forcesensitiveness is hereditary (at least in humans) but that conscious Force use is a learned skill. The Palpatine of Dark Empire obviusly have the original’s memories and skills. So the most credible explaination is that the dead Palpatine’s spirit really took place in a cloned body. That explaination is at least compatible with the Star Wars movies. Does not all agree that they and their scripts are the most canon?

2007-01-20 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden.

m theory

does the force seem alot like m theory to anyone? It says that everything in the universe, including the universe, is connected by a infinitely expanding yet infinitely thin membrane. It has its roots in string theory, and is thought to be the much sought after "theory of everything" in the physics world. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.162.241.244 (talk) 03:07, 9 April 2007 (UTC).

you misunderstood what Tarkin siad

I'm responding to this: "As for longevity, this comes from the lines of Grand Moff Tarkin in A New Hope who thought that Obi-Wan had died of old age. Vader reminded him not to underestimate the Force. "

No, what Tarkin meant was a Order 66 should have killed him by now. Your interpretation would be the most logical one if it werent for the prequels. Come on people! Its supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a forum. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by RevSavitar (talk • contribs) 06:01, 11 May 2007 (UTC).

OR like none

"Some think of the Force as a sentient entity that may be...while others simply consider it something that can be manipulated and used as though it were a tool... A common compromise is that it is an "energy tool" but.." U must be kidding? weasel, POV, OR and unsourced. This has to go.

"An analogy is a sword with no handle—it can only be used by gripping the blade and therefore any attempt to strike someone would result in similar harm to the hand of the striker—the sword itself has no sentience or morality, but nevertheless exacts a price on those who use it unethically." Well, this is a bit farfetched and should be explained more. How can u use it ethically then for example? --Echosmoke 01:20, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Cruft, anyone?

This article needs citation, and badly. I would hate to have to begin removing unreferenced statements, as I think it would leave the article an essentially empty page. Therefore, we should wait about a week, to see if some citation work (remember, reliable, verifiable, non-OR references, please) begins making its way into the article. If the article doesn't get more citable, we will have to start removing uncited statements. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 16:06, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Just an update. on the 16th of this month, I will be removing any uncited material remaining in this article. If you have citations to add to this article, now is the time to be adding them. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 04:32, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
As noted on the 14th, the article has now been trimmed to remove inadequately or non-sourced statements, OR by synthesis and probably a lot of utter cruft. If anyone wishes to add material back into the article, please make sure to provide a solid, reliable, verifiable source. If adding a point from a novel, please cite the book within the statement and provide a reference for it. Thanks. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 22:34, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

EEMeltonIV rocks!

After I went through with a scythe, clearing out al the cruft and doing some copy-editing, it was the exceptionally solid, thoughtful efforts of EEMeltonIV who ties all the ends together nicely. Exceptionally well-done, EE. :) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 23:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks; I probably wouldn't have tried to straighten things out if you hadn't trimmed a lot of the plot summary. It was pretty daunting. --EEMeltonIV 02:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

No more cruft

I've just recently archived a lot of the previous conversations and I must say that I was very impressed with the level of intellgience I was seeing from the posts. Unfortunately, nobody was citing their material, and it turned into this Jabba-like blob of cruft. It has since been trimmed down, and its important that new info added be cited. Let me repeat that: don't add uncited information. If you cannot cite it, you cannot add it. The citationshave to be verifiable, reliable and noteworthy. Otherwise, you will have utterly wasted your time, as I or someone else will remove it as contrary to WP policy and guidelines. Please help to improve the article. It would be awesome to have some of those folks come back here and add cited material to expand the article. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 10:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Force toy

I think, that due to the recent announcement of that toy that measures brainwaves to move a ball up and down that is centered around The Force from Star Wars, that it should get a mention in this article. See:

219.90.192.25 (talk) 12:41, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

As the Force is a fictional concept/quasi-religious belief, I think a toy that works on the same basic principle of an EEG machine is probably not the same thing. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 14:43, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Expanded Universe

Since Star Wars is composed of multiple media (films, novels, video games, newspaper comics, comic books), it might be helpful to distinguish the contributions of each of these media to the understanding, development and evolution of the Force. I am aware that canonicity is going to color these views, and we should probably note that outside of the films, nothing is canon (which certainly affects its notability). thoughts?

Lucas has never proclaimed that the Force arises from micro-organisms, and this article refers to novelizations as canon -- and Lucas rarely (if ever) uses novelizations nor comic books as basis for his films nor filmed materials. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.159.251.136 (talk) 17:58, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Actually, apologies. I just read about it. Must have missed that part of the film. Grar. I hate that. Sorry guys! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.159.251.136 (talk) 18:01, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Quotes

WHYYYYYYYY do we have a quotes section when we already have May the Force be with you? Is this place turning into TVTropes? And why does capitalizing every word in that title redirect you to The Force (Star Wars)?

Actually, forget that last one.Raekuul, bringer of Tropes (He does it without notability) 00:04, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion for Correction of Grammar

The following sentence is in the Force Abilities paragraph, and has rather poor grammar: Within the film series, a number of other force powers are demonstrated, those include but are not limited to telekinesis, telepathy, enhanced empathy and precognition. I recommend changing it into two sentences, or replacing "those include" with "including" and removing the "are". I'd do it myself, but I guess the page is protected so that only administrators can edit or something, because I can't see an edit link. Spock of Vulcan (talk) 21:57, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Let me know what you think. -Quickmythril (talk) 05:38, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Light side and Dark side

The proposed text I have restored (1) accurately refers to the Light Side as an inference, as it is not mentioned in the films, and (2) accurately refers to "knowledge and defense" as the purposes for which the Jedi use the force, directly quoting Yoda in "The Empire Strikes Back".
Like it or not, the "Light Side" is never mentioned in the films and this fact is relevant to the article. Its existence has been inferred, and it has come to be associated with the "good side" that was described by Luke in "Return of the Jedi", and with the restrained usage of the Force allowed by the Jedi code.
I have never heard of the Jedi "swearing fealty to the light side". I'd be curious to see your source on that. Nizamarain 21:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

You need to cite anything you add, sir. You apply how the force is used without reference. Crazy stuff includes the stuff not specifically cited. That cannot remain. However, I am willing to wait and allow you to explain your edits more specifically. If you cite it, we might be able to include it. Uncited stuff will be swept away with all the chaff. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 06:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Arcayne, please see my comment on my talk page, and let me know if the top part of the "depiction" section currently looks good to you. I can then move on to the rest of the article to try to improve it along the same lines. Also, I think some consideration should be given to combining the Dark side of the force with this. Nizamarain 04:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
The "light side" is not referred to in the films, but is in the PC and Xbox video game Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic. I could obtain a screenshot as proof. Blumin (talk) 11:02, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Shatterpoint, really?

Shatterpoint is another force power.[9] It is used to shatter many materials, often metal, Jacen Solo, while using his Sith name Darth Caedus, shattered a plate of Beskar Armor[10], which is nearly impossible to penetrate with a Lightsaber.

This paragraph feels entirely out of place. Of all the ways the force is used in the Expanded Universe, to highlight this one so specifically giving it such undue attention, just leaves it feeling out of place. Especially with its placement after a fairly concise, well-concluded paragraph. It doesn't matter that it's sourced, it's just miscellany. Perhaps if it was a commonly referenced or witnessed power it'd be worth a mention (albeit a much more seamlessly integrated one), but as far as I know this is an obscure example, especially in comparison to the others mentioned above. 129.171.233.73 (talk) 04:03, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I even went ahead and checked out the reference given for that line - a wiki, which is frowned upon here, though not strictly against the rules. Problem is, they don't even do a good job of describing this particular power. It's described in the wiki as more of a perception of the faults in the structure of something, not the ability to break them via the force. Though this ability is, of course, conferred as a result of the perception, the way the line is phrased now makes it sound like some sort of force laser that shatters things you point at. It also seems as though the power is more frequently used in a more metaphysical sense, perceiving flaws or pivotal figures in events and timelines than it is to affect the physical world. Anyway, yeah, I'm just gonna delete this for being largely irrelevant and a poor description of the subject regardless. 129.171.233.73 (talk) 04:11, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Please wait for consensus from other editors. --Morenooso (talk) 04:19, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Apologies if I went off a bit half-cocked there, but really, there seems to be no redeeming qualities whatsoever of that passage. If someone really thinks listing a poorly-sourced, poorly-described, infrequently-used and referenced power alongside such staples as improved concentration and physical strength and agility with far more detail than is ascribed to any of those is a good idea, then feel free to revert. From where I'm standing, it's pretty clearly a pointless addition to an otherwise well summarized section, and I think I'd be well within rights to invoke WP:BRD here and just see if anyone, save perhaps the original author, thinks that specific power is so important as to deserve that much attention. Furthermore, even if someone does think that this would be of benefit to the article, they at least need to do the research right, because as it stands that description of the Shatterpoint power is at best misleading, and at worst grossly inaccurate. 129.171.233.73 (talk) 21:21, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

[The] Force, redux

Please see this and general MOS conventions re. the inclusion of articles (e.g. an, a, the) at the beginning of article names. --EEMIV (talk) 10:46, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

"These aren't the droids you're looking for"

The first and most memorable and perhaps notable mind trick was "These aren't the droids you're looking for". It has also become emblematic. Why isn't it mentioned? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 16:16, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Because you haven't added it yet! –xenotalk 16:17, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Midichlorians

Midichlorians forwards to this page, but is not mentioned on the page.

80.238.181.8 (talk) 15:15, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Too Much Fantasy

This article has so much "uncited" material in it that I've decided to comment out a whole paragraph. If my English was any good I would have rewritten the whole page! Facts only dear ladies and gentlemen. If you write something that wasn't explicitly shown in any of the six episodes then citate. As far as I am concerned this whole article should be deleted. 212.182.163.201 (talk) 23:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The Force is an important part of the culture. It is a factual phenomenon based on a fictional, albeit archetypical supernatural phenomenon. WovenLore (talk) 13:31, 31 March 2010 (UTC) [[User:Anon] supernatural ? so it's just magic? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.227.140.141 (talk) 17:37, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Vitalism

Shouldn't the Force be categorized as Vitalism ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.72.115.89 (talk) 23:33, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Not without some discrete, sourced mention in the article. Otherwise it's original research to make the comparison. oknazevad (talk) 01:27, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

In universe material explosion

Okay, this article has long had issues with too much in-universe material, excessive detail and plot regurgitation, and has been tagged as having such for years. Why the heck has it gotten worse? Why does one anon make such an effort to put in every detail he can think of? That the Force is a major plot element of one of the most significant pop-culture franchises ever is no doubt true, and that an article about it is completely appropriate, but for Pete's sake this is getting ridiculous! It's one of the worst articles I have even seen! Every attempt to revert the addition of fanboy cruft has been reverted, so I see no reason not just to roll back a months worth of edits outright. oknazevad (talk) 22:59, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome for this. LOL. — TAnthonyTalk 16:05, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Ancillary believes about The Force by Star Wars actors

Many years ago, in the 80s, Barbara Walters interviewed Harrison Ford. In that interview Mr. Ford commented that he was constantly asked by fans if he believed in The Force. It got to the point, that out of frustration, he would always give this answer: "The Force is within you... Force Yourself!"

I am unsure where this information might be added to this topic. I'm sure there must be a transcript of that interview somewhere. I've always found it very interesting and has become a part of my own philosophy. Crgrove (talk) 17:04, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:59, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

The Dark Side

I excised a significant portion of the dark side section since it delved into uncited trivia and sweeping in-universe generalizations. In restoring the content, NadirAli's edit summary read, "it tells more about the subject- which technically is in-universe in itself." For one thing, articles at Wikipedia are expected to treat elements of fiction from a predominantly out-of-universe perspective (NB WP:WAF); being "in-universe in itself" doesn't warrant an in-universe treatment of the topic (for that enterprise, venture to Wookieepedia). Also, "it tells more" isn't a compelling reason to add or retain content. Conversely, there is an affirmative onus for editors adding or restoring content to provide references to third-party sources to substantiate any claims. I'm grateful to TAnthony for again removing the material and am happy to discuss it further with you (or anyone else) NadirAli. --EEMIV (talk) 21:12, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

The Dark Side can easily be discussed from an out-of-universe perspective as well. You may not know, but the Dark Side had it's own article before I merged it here, since I don't feel it needs an article of it's own.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 21:22, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Since you brought it up, the entire article then is technically in-universe to some degree save for Lucas's interview. I try to keep a balance of both to better understand an in-universe subject like this.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 21:28, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure how this justifies the content EEMIV removed, which as he says, is uncited.— TAnthonyTalk 22:24, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Two things: 1) The whole topic save for the section on origins and perhaps philosophy is technically in-universe, so the whole article might as well be blanked out. Technically the topic itself is in-universe. 2) A section citing few or no sources doesn't meant they don't exist. The dark and light side issue explains the concept and context of the subject. It gives people an idea of the subjects relevance to the story and not just an in-universe --NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 02:25, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
OK let me provide a random example. Why does Star Wars: The Force Awakens have a plot section? Isn't that in-universe? Shouldn't it go away? No, according to you. Why? Because it tells more about the subject. Well same logic applies here. Readers looking here will want to know about Star Wars and it's relevance to the saga. It's no more "in-universe" than putting a plot section in a fictional film. The purpose of the dark side section is to describe the subject and it's relevance to the subject (the force). What we need is more out-of-universe discussions and citations, like the concept inspiring the dark side etc.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 02:39, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
I don't disagree that elements of fiction benefit from a brief, succinct and not-trying-to-be-exhaustive coverage of their role in a story, or the story itself. In fact, many of the articles I've made significant contributions to (James T. Kirk, Star Destroyer, TIE fighter and Boba Fett come to mind) include some pretty beefy chunks that've stood the test of time for a few years now. And I do agree that content about fictional topics must include an out-of-universe perspective about the subject's development, critical response etc. That all is why once or twice I've linked to WP:WAF, after all. All that said: the content I've removed from dark side reads far too inside baseball for a general knowledge encyclopedia. The tone, too, is simply far too sweeping in the absence of third-party references. --EEMIV (talk) 02:50, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

@EEMIV we need the fictional part as an intro and description of a subject that itself is a work of fiction. It is no different from movie plot-lines or characters. This is by no means an exception. The dark-side is there just to inform of the subject and it's concept. If it's too in-universe, we fix, not remove it.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 03:23, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Confusion with magic?

This is a school essay. I look forward to seeing the reliable sources which make these points about the Star wars franchise, as it currently reads like editor opinion. The sources should also be attributed within the text to make it clear whose observations we're talking about. Good luck with that.— TAnthonyTalk 03:38, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Also, pls see WP:SYNTHESIS, WP:OR and WP:POV.— TAnthonyTalk 03:39, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Saw this after I excised the section. Perhaps the user develops this section in user space at User:NadirAli/Force and magic before reintegrating it here. --EEMIV (talk) 12:56, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, that was my next suggestion but I was giving NadirAli a little more time, to mitigate the fact that I am always giving him a hard time with his edits. You make my exact point in your edit summary that there is "no citation to third-party source that 'the Force gets confused with magic' is a meaningful aspect of this topic."— TAnthonyTalk 14:53, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
You two can tag the section if you feel necessary, provided you explain on the talkpage exactly what is the concern. Do you seriously think a long standing editor would leave something un-sourced for so long? Ha ha--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 20:55, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
TAnthony's already laid out here the specific concern, and I in the edit summary: the material is uncited original research, with no substantiation that this apparent confusion is so significant than any meaningful third party has done academic/serious commentary or research on it. --EEMIV (talk) 21:08, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Again, do you think a user like me with more than seven thousand edits in his history would so naive as to leave a section unsourced? You might also want to see don't rush to delete articles and that goes for TAnthony as well.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 21:26, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
We're not rushing to delete articles, we are removing obvious rubbish that can be reintroduced later if actually improved. And your grasp of proper sourcing does not encourage me to believe this will ever be acceptable. My initial concerns:
  • As currently written, you as an editor are asserting that "People confuse the Force with magic". You as an editor cannot present opinions or observations of your own; you require a third party source (an outside journalist, author, etc) who is making this observation or otherwise stating its validity as a notable aspect of this topic.
  • You then cite examples which, in your opinion, support this view. An editor cannot interpret, or determine what is "significant". There may be magic used in this examples, but you are synthesizing disparate information to (sort of) support your unfounded point. This is fine for a college essay, not for an encyclopedia.
  • Wookiepedia is a user-updated and therefore unreliable source, like a message board. You cannot cite it, or use is as a source within the text.
  • Your comparison of the Force vs. magic is also synthesis; you have juxtaposed the description of magical terms from a fantasy franchise with a statement from the Tao of Star Wars. An editor cannot make his or her own comparisions in this manner.
  • In the future you should work on controversial material in a sandbox before introducing it. Even if you are "working on it", any editor has a right to remove unsourced material from an article. You left this material "unfinished" overnight and should not expect it to be left indefinitely, especially considering it is opinion rather than factual information.
It's a bit frustrating that you still insist on adding this kind of material when I have tried explaining to you some of these same content concepts in regards to your edits to Technology in Star Wars, Star Wars sources and analogues and other articles (I just discovered Physics and Star Wars). You present your own opinions, observations and topic summaries as fact with no direct support from citations. If you think you know what you're doing better than EEMIV and I do, I encourage you to nominate any of these articles for Good article status and see what kind of assessment you get.— TAnthonyTalk 21:40, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
I have to agree with EEMIV and TA here. If you're looking for ways to take it, I've seen a fair few things noting how Star Wars drew more on fantasy and magic than hard sci-fi, but not much saying how the Force is "confused" with magic. I don't have the Taoism book on me, but I wouldn't say this is reliable for these purposes either: it seems to be a basic description of magic in Ilona Andrews's Hidden Legacy series.
If you really want to keep working on it, I'd really suggest using your sandbox or a user subpage. It's already been reverted several times, by more than one editor. – The Millionth One (talk) (contribs) 22:21, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

" You present your own opinions, observations and topic summaries as fact with no direct support from citations" I'd be very interested to know where I did this. This alone is an opinionated unproven claim that you're making.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 02:11, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, to start, there's this uncited assertion: "many have misinterpreted the Force with magic." That premise for this whole section needs substantiation. The footnote at the end of the paragraph is to Wookieepedia, which fails to meet Wikipedia's criteria for a reliable source (NB WP:USERGENERATED). Moving on, the notion that "The existence of magic in the Star Wars galaxy is subject to debate since any occurrence of it is seen in low or non-canon works" is uncited, and the inference (i.e. "since any occurrence..." etc.) is itself your own original conclusion/research absent, again, substantiation from a third-party source. The following sentence's assertion of "minor examples (emphasis added) is likewise your subjective assertion, i.e. original research, and likewise the assertion of "More significant examples" in the next sentence and "Even more significant examples" in the sentence beyond that. I'm also not certain the Ilona Andrews references are apt: my (admittedly quick skim) suggests the "Magic 101" section is germane to that author's fictional universe, and not the kind of scholarly "magic in all sorts of media" read that would presumably be appropriate for what you're trying to construct. --EEMIV (talk) 02:37, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
I'm not talking about my current edits. I'm talking about my previous edits on the other articles. All my edits are reliably sourced. He of all people should know when I was expanding empty or small sections, he even claimed he didn't want to edit the article until I was finished working on it.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 04:42, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

NadirAli, let me step back for a second and apologize; my intention in this discussion was never to malign you as an editor and I do not mean to dismiss the hard and careful work you do here. You do introduce valid and interesting topics and provide adequate citations in articles, and my making a sweeping comment about your editing in other articles was inappropriate. If I have an issue with certain articles or edits I should discuss them on the appropriate talk pages, with diffs and with a fair argument. This discussion is about specific sections of this article, and I realize that I was going off on a tangent, and insulting you. So I'm sorry for that.

Back to the current topic, I think we're sort of waiting for you to finish working on the new text, so let's focus on that. EEMIV, The Millionth One and I have weighed in with constructive criticism that I hope you will address. I am keeping an open mind about the content, and once you indicate that you are finished, we can all take a look and see what we can do. My goal isn't to remove the new sections. If there is valuable information there, which there may be, we should preserve it.— TAnthonyTalk 14:49, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

@TAnthony, no offense taken and apology accepted. See this section for updates and explanations.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 03:36, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

User:TAnthony, to address some of your concerns, I think the part of the episodes from the animated Clone Wars episodes from 2003 being considered minor examples compared to a full feature film. Perhaps you can ask for third party opinions on this one.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 03:48, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Proposal

Users who are still concerned about what seems to be my un-timely edits in the article can have it one of two ways: 1) I remove the construction tag and put an additional citations needed in the section I'm working on 2) I continue the way it is with the construction tag on top

Because while I may progress, it might be so that I will not be done by tonight. Also the construction tag will then have to be fitted in the scientific & parascientific views section since that is the main section undergoing major construction. What are other users thoughts on that?--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 02:36, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

I can also put templates on statements others users seem to find inaccurate until I finish citing them. Is that you want? Discuss it here. I am getting a fair share of search results, but I need to identify the page numbers and ISBNs.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 02:46, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm still inclined toward the proposal I made a week ago, echoed three days ago by User:TAnthony and yesterday by User:The Millionth One, to wit that you work on the Confusion with Magic and perhaps (Para)scientific View in user space for later (re)integration with the article. You commented earlier that your sandbox is full, but as you know, it's easy enough to create a subpage that avoids the hodge-podge of sandbox edits.
Over the last week, I and two other editors have raised concerns about sourcing these topics. Regarding magic: the base assertion that "many have misinterpreted the Force with magic" remains unsubstantiated. (The following sentence is footnoted to a text, but I'm concerned about that referent: a Google Books search for the phrase "Star Wars" yields one hit in the book and that doesn't come close to backing up any claim in the section.) The concern I raised regarding OR-ish tone about various examples stands. The Wookiepedia and Ilona Andrews sourced have for now been resolved, although by other editors. Regarding parascientific views: there's probably a place in a well-written article about The Force to include references to chapter 5 from The Science of Star Wars, but four paragraphs in a standalone section seems like a stretch.
Taking a step back: to be frank and crass, this entire article pretty much sucks. The long list of footnotes and references are red herrings for overwhelmingly trivial, in-universe content, with virtually no treatment of the topic from a real-world perspective. That Druid Magic book, with that one "Star Wars" hit that has nothing, really, to do with people confusing the Force for magic? That little nugget might be a worthwhile source in a section, say, devoted to how Lucas developed the concept of the Force in the first place. As frustrated as I have been this week regarding this article, I nevertheless appreciate your efforts to connect this topic to the broader world.
I likewise appreciate your obvious passion for the subject. Looks like you're actively working at Technology in Star Wars -- another really struggling article. Although we might both feel as if we didn't hear each other this week, I appreciate that your contributions to the project are well-intentioned. MTFBWY. --EEMIV (talk) 14:01, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

User:EEMIV, thanks for the responses. The scientific views section is what needs work and I am asking again weather I should place the tag there and put citation needed tags for the unverified sections. This could pace up things there. But let's be honest and clear: despite the two missing citations on confusion with magic section, there rest of the section stands.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 02:34, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Then I'll answer the question a little less obliquely: simply tagging the material is insufficient. I and two other editors have been saying so for a week. I would prefer for you to remove the section yourself, and am frustrated by your rather tendentious claim that "the section stands." After all, the basis for that entire section is unsubstantiated. Setting aside the failure to clear the basic WP:RS hurdle, your bold addition of a new section is controversial and we should work to establish consensus here before restoring the content back to the article. Again, the section really should just leave the article until/unless it meets basic criteria for inclusion.
Another option for you would be to request a "third" opinion, or in this case a fifth one, from another editor. --EEMIV (talk) 03:02, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I beg to differ from the last bit. The confusion with magic is more or less reliably sourced meeting the WP:GN guideline. Now all that's left is adding an in-universe source. And as I mentioned before I am proposing the construction tag go down to the Scientific & parascientific views section since that is now the main section to be worked on.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 03:28, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Between "more or less reliably sourced," it's definitely "less." And the core claim ("many have compared or paralleled the Force with magic"), for the umpteenth time, has no citation at all. (As for WP:GNG, that's a criterion for articles, not content within them.)
Regarding adding in-universe sources: if I'm reading you correctly, it seems like your goal is to expand on examples of characters in-universe confusing the Force with magic. That's an entirely trivial, in-universe plot contrivance (character A: "It's magic!" character B: "No, it's the Force" character A: "Oh.") and not even remotely appropriate for a general knowledge treatment of the topic. A catalog of examples, which it sounds like you're hoping to "source," doesn't belong here.
Absent any development/expansion on the idea of audiences (i.e. the real world) confusing the Force for magic, this section (again) just doesn't belong.
For what it's worth, not even Wookieepedia's Legends article on the Force has much reference to magic at all, let alone characters confusing the Force with magic.
Lastly: it's time for the construction tag to go. The article isn't seeing the volume or breadth of edits to warrant retaining it. --EEMIV (talk) 11:34, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Explaining some of my edits

On the section on confusion with magic, I have put two distinct refs- one giving the common characteristics of magic from the examples I added and NOT comparing it to the Force. That is done by the second ref I added, so don't mix them up. I might be a bit slow, but the reason is I've got a library book that I'm using as a source and need to return it soon. The book I'm using has long chapters and I can't just read it through and THEN cite it here. That would take up too much time. I'm adding the stuff here as I read along. I'm posting here before people jump to review my edits and not miss/confuse stuff.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 03:28, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

I'll keep you folks updated here as I progress along.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 03:32, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

About the in-universe misinterpretations of the force, I'll put the sources that Wookiepedia cites (and NOT Wookipedia itself) as sources, but I'll need to dig them out.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 04:03, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

There are no deadlines here, but I still don't understand why you couldn't work this out in a sandbox as you read this book.— TAnthonyTalk 03:32, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

@TAnthony: Anth, my sandbox is full and besides I got a library book to return soon and renew it to continue using it and a whole bunch of stuff to attend to. While this is once in a long while that I make sections with long gaps in between edits, I did that in Technology in Star Wars and you were OK with it. As a long standing editor with thousands of edits and dozens of articles created by me, I request you to be patient and assume good faith. Besides, it's not like this is a featured article or with the whole world waiting for me to fix and fill it. I've already added three reliable sources with the intention of adding more, so you can trust me to finish what I started with a good result.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 06:15, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

@NadirAli: It's been a week, and core concerns with the "Confusion with magic" section still haven't been addressed. I understand there's "no deadline", but this is a pretty major -- if not particularly good at the moment -- article and your arguments that the section is worthy seem to rely on us giving you blind faith. Speaking for myself, I'm not willing to give you that any more unless you provide some direct significant coverage of the Force being confused with magic, no matter how many edits you have or how long you've been on Wikipedia. I appreciate that your sandbox is full, but I highly suggest you work on it on a separate user subpage, e.g. User:NadirAli/Confusion with magic, until the section is complete and appropriate for Wikipedia. If you continue working on it and it ends up not appropriate for Wikipedia, I'd suggest making a blog post.
The restoration of this source without comment despite it twice being removed (with edit comment and reasoning) and outright mentioned on the talk page as probably a bad source for this, it concerns me. I think a certain allowance for editors putting an article through heavy expansion is worthy, but this is a wiki, not your personal writing space. Sorry if I seem harsh, but I think, as it stands now, the section should be immediately removed. Frankly, I'd be bold and remove it now if not for worries over starting an edit war. – The Millionth One (talk) (contribs) 23:34, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Seconded, on all points. :-/ --EEMIV (talk) 01:30, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Lot's of edits have taken place during that week, it's not like it was a stand-still. But I agree I should focus on confusion with magic and postpone Jeanne Cavelos analysis of the Force- that is a reliable but I need more. When I edited Technology in Star Wars it took me up to two weeks to fill up sections- and I never got ONE "push", so you'll have to trust me here. What's been added must stay, it is fairly and reliably sourced.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 02:26, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

"What's been added must stay" ... are you talking about the magic section or the parascientific one? Because the magic section still does not yet demonstrate how "people confuse the Force with magic" is even a notable topic.— TAnthonyTalk 02:49, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
Both. I just added some sources that are specific to the Ewok Adventures being more fairy tales with magic powers and distinguishing them from the main films, despite the sci-fi in it; especially the first one. Now all that's left for that section is to cite the source about the in-universe statement. Regardless of that one in-universe citation needed, that section is more or less satisfied.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 03:51, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
Your statements in this magic section are very general, and presented as if they are universally accepted and understood ideas, like "Star Wars is popular." There seem to be some sources that might bolster these claims, but you ignored my suggestion that you quote some of these sources/authors. Maybe their words and direct ideas would give this more meaning, and assert more notability for the concept? Writing things like "Douglas Brode suggests that audiences think the magic in the animated Ewoks series and the Force are the same thing" or whatever these authors are actually saying (which you haven't shared) would help define what this section is supposed to be about. Which I still don't quite understand. It's kind of like writing in a book article, "People think A Game of Thrones is hard to read" and then citing obscure texts. Isn't it preferred to quote some of the reviews to actually give us an idea what makes it hard to read, and what that means? Certainly citations are not required to be accessible online, but knowing that you are quoting from books not readily readable on the web I think it's helpful to provide at least a more specific idea of their actual content.— TAnthonyTalk 04:09, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
@TAnthony: Then I propose to re-title it "distinction from magic" and cut out the text that confuses it with magic. The magic in the Ewok adventure films is properly cited and no the quotes would take up too much space. The books and their page numbers have been given. These movies even refer to those powers as "magic". I know Luke told C-3PO in Return of the Jedi to tell the Ewoks that he'd use his magic, but is that referring to The Force as magic?--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 04:22, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Now you've lost me. I'm not asking for quotes proving that there is classic-style magic in many non-canon works, I'm asking for quotes that Flotmann or whoever are saying that audiences and fictional characters are confusing it with the Force. Isn't that what this section is saying? Because if you're only trying to point out that there is magic in non-canon works, then it has nothing to do with the Force. As for your Luke example, I would say it's obvious that Luke is trying to explain the Force to them in a way they would understand (since they believe in and possibly have magic), but it only matters what a reliable source says on the topic, not you or me.— TAnthonyTalk 04:34, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
I guess we are not understanding the way you seem to be summarizing the arguments being made in these books, and telling us what they actually say rather than how you're reading them is common practice that seems definitely necessary here, if only for us to help develop this.— TAnthonyTalk 04:37, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
OK I'll post some of them in your talk page, but don't ask me to add them to the article, that's a bit ridiculousness.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 04:45, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for providing urls for some of your citations here and here on my talk page. I also hunted down links to the Stratmann book. Now that I see the quote by Sherman, I see what is interesting about it and what you were going for, but I'm going to tweak the way it is presented in this article to clarify the intent. For EEMIV and The Millionth One's sakes in this discussion I'm illustrating what the article currently says vs. the actual quote:

*Force article: As such, many have compared or paralleled the Force with magic. This includes in-universe characters as well as many audiences. [cited to Sherman]

  • Sherman quote: Many people have argued that George Lucas' Star Wars series is really fantasy rather than science fiction. Seen from this point of view, the Force is magic, and the Jedi are sorcerers, using the Force to weave their spells. There is some evidence for this in the films; in A New Hope, an officer aboard the Death Star snaps at Darth Vader, "Don't frighten us with your sorcerer's ways, Lord Vader!"

With the Ewok stuff, there is a lot of analysis of those two films as fairy tales in Stratmann, but his whole argument is that they are designed that way specifically to appeal to children, so it's really a separate topic from the Star Wars-as-fantasy concept. It's an interesting observation that is tied to the fantasy angle but not as much to the Force, so I think it should remain and hopefully it will fit better as the article is developed. The rest of the second paragraph, though, is just sort of saying there is magic in some derivative Star Wars works, but there isn't a source tying this to the fantasy argument, and even if there was I'm not sure I get how it's meant to support the topic.

In the third paragraph, it's synthesis to connect a description of magical abilities with a separate author's argument that the Force is different than magic. Footman's argument is enough on it own, and I think it bolsters the first paragraph as a counterpoint better than it anchors its own topic. Plus, it's important to specify that Flotmann is comparing SW to Harry Potter and not magic in general.

I'm about to adjust the Magic section along these lines, thanks again.— TAnthonyTalk 06:59, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Can I just put the Wookiepedia entry on magic in the external links?

Since I wasn't allowed to use it as a reference. I'll let you guys decide on that one. If your concerned about it being in-universe let people read the Wookiepedia entry instead.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 22:08, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

This article is about the Force, so that is the only Wookiepedia article that applies (and Midichlorians and May The Force Be With You, I suppose, though I don't know why those would be separate). Anyway, I just read the Magic article, and it is purely some editor's opinion and observations of relatively trivial matters, I don't know why you would want to guide anyone there.— TAnthonyTalk 22:24, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Canon-ness generally doesn't matter

Canon status doesn't particularly matter for the Star Wars wikiproject, the Star Trek wikiproject, or really anywhere at all at Wikipedia. Information's canon-ness isn't a criterion for inclusion; instead, the project is concerned about what is verifiable through citations to reliable sources. As such, "pointing out" canon-ness isn't useful in an article (the exception being if paraphrasing some sort of third-party commentary in e.g. a Critical reaction section, where whether something is canon matters to some sort of scholar or critic). Canon agnosticism goes hand-in-hand with taking an out-of-universe perspective when writing about fiction. Contrast that with e.g. Wookieepedia or Memory Alpha, which take an in-universe perspective and information is closely scrutinized for canon-ness.

All that meaning, expressions like "Both films are technically not considered part of the Star Wars canon", used as an editor's own commentary about cited sources, isn't appropriate in an attempt to offer an encyclopedic treatment of the topic.

Beyond that: it reads awkwardly to, on the one hand, present these films as illustrative of your point, only then to hedge your investment in them as worthwhile examples.

Please remove the superfluous line. Thank you! --EEMIV (talk) 16:05, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes it does. Because we are comparing and distinguishing two elements of fiction, canon notability does count. On Wikipedia noting something is part of the editing process and we sometimes have a notes section.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 19:35, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
It's not about "my commentary", the link provided clearly does NOT list the Ewok adventures as Canon. If you read about Star Trek and Star Wars canon, you would know. And there is nothing "in-universe" about it. It's not considered canon, just as the part of the Star Wars expanded universe.
On the subject of in-universe, why are we cherry-picking here? Why is the fact that Jedi carry lightsabers allowed to exist but mention of the dark side proposed for removal? Why are Force ghosts allowed but not dark side. This "in-universe" accusation is being used as a weapon to selectively remove undesired material which is just not acceptable.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 19:43, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
EEMIV's point that "it reads awkwardly to, on the one hand, present these films as illustrative of your point, only then to hedge your investment in them as worthwhile examples" is exactly why I didn't include the canonicity in my rewrite; your section is asserting that Star Wars has elements of fantasy/magic but then you are explicitly saying that the most magical works are non-canon/irrelevant. The previous version was worse in this regard, but still. The Ewok business barely fits into an article about the Force as it is.— TAnthonyTalk 22:31, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
In addition to TAnthony's comment/rephrasing above, again whether something is (not) canon matters almost always solely for the purpose of identifying whether something is "real" *in-universe.* For the the out-of-universe perspective we overwhelmingly strive for -- and is certainly the tone for the specific section we're discussing -- it's generally immaterial; our focus is instead of simply whether a claim can be reliable sourced/verified.
User:NadirAli, you wrote that "if [I] read about Star Trek and Star Wars canon, [I] would know" this. For one thing, the tone of your comment is condescending and wholly inappropriate; I don't know your intent (just like you don't know how attuned I am to the franchises' canon attitudes and debates), but I certainly found this jab insulting. Beyond that, though, the Star Trek Wikiproject's language about canon is pretty clear and is a practice generally mirrored within the Star Wars wikiproject. It articulates that canon and non-canon status is secondary to simply being sourced, i.e. what I've stated above now a couple of times. (An interesting side note in their policy is that canon status tends to inadvertently influence actual third-party coverage, i.e. non-canon materials in both franchises tend not to receive significant third-party coverage in the first place. But anyway...)
Some of your other phrasing above is a bit baffling to me -- for example, I'm not certain what you mean by "canon notability" (I get the two terms separately, but not together). And I think you must be misapprehending my meaning in pointing out that "the link provided clearly does NOT list the Ewok adventures as Canon" -- I understand the Ewok TV movies aren't (and as far as I know have never been) considered "canon", and have never asserted otherwise. Perhaps a confounding influence in all this is simply a difference in core fundamental language/expression. I recognize that, and maybe you see it, too. I wish, then, that you wouldn't compound the mutual frustration with the ol' "if you knew anything about X, you'd understand Y" trope. It's old and, again, simply inappropriate. --EEMIV (talk) 02:41, 22 May 2016 (UTC)f

Tighten and restructure

This article deserves not to such, so I've whacked away at much of the plot summary/cataloging of examples, found and amalgamated some concept/development stuff up top where it belongs, and created a critical reaction section. The parascientific and magic sections I've put under there, since it involves feedback/commentary from third-party writers. Hopefully the leaner content and structure can help keep this article on an upward trend. --EEMIV (talk) 17:37, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Regarding this revert ... EEMIV's edits were drastic and I haven't examined them in detail, but I do know that this article is bloated with in-universe detail and examples that may be cited to films but are not mentioned as notable topics elsewhere. I've always thought the trivial "Force ghosts" section should be reduced to a sentence LOL.— TAnthonyTalk 22:35, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
I've basically reverted the revert after examining the individual edits. It was a thoughtful and sensible makeover that I might have done myself. One concern though: while there was a lot of cruft and such, I don't necessarily want to excise as many citations. The examples of Force abilities were sort of extensive, but beyond explaining the Star Wars version of telekinesis in more detail, I think reliable sources discussing the Force assert much-needed mainstream notability for the topic as a whole. The Force Awakens sources may be eoungh because they seem to cover an array of Force powers, but Forbes and The Telegraph are more impressive sources to have in the article than the academic theses and seemingly self-published books we're using in some sections.— TAnthonyTalk 23:03, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Darth Vader telekinetically chokes Admiral Motti using the Force in A New Hope,[1] and Jedi and Sith can also telekinetically summon their lightsabers into their hands from across a room.[2]
  • They are also able to influence and control the minds of others by making use of the "Jedi mind trick", or using the Force to implant suggestions with which the subject is compelled to comply.[3]
  • Obi-Wan uses this ability in A New Hope to convince a stormtrooper that "These aren't the droids you're looking for."[4]
  • This same trick is used by neophyte Rey in Star Wars: The Force Awakens (2015) to compel a stormtrooper to release her from her restraints, permit her to escape her cell, and leave his weapon behind for her.[5]
  • In that film, First Order commander Kylo Ren uses the Force to restrain others in a paralyzing telekinetic hold, suppress and influence their motor skills, levitate them in the air or render them unconscious. He interrogates and tortures Poe Dameron and Rey by invading their thoughts, emotions and memories in a manner that causes discomfort and pain. He is also able to suspend, in mid-air, a blaster bolt fired at him.[6][7]

References

  1. ^ Gower, Eleanor (April 17, 2013). "Star Wars actor Richard LeParmentier dies aged 66... 35 years after he was choked by Darth Vader". Daily Mail. Retrieved January 5, 2016.
  2. ^ Lucas, George (2005). "200 Int. Mustafar - Main Control Center - Day". Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith: Illustrated Screenplay. Del Rey Books. ISBN 978-0345431356.
  3. ^ "Databank: Jedi Mind Trick". StarWars.com. Retrieved January 5, 2016.
  4. ^ Shapiro, Ben (December 5, 2012). "Jedi Mind Trick Nation". Townhall.com. Retrieved January 5, 2016.
  5. ^ Kain, Erik (January 4, 2016). "No, Rey From Star Wars: The Force Awakens Is Not A Mary Sue". Forbes. Retrieved January 5, 2016.
  6. ^ "14 things Star Wars fans will love about The Force Awakens". The Telegraph. December 17, 2015. Retrieved December 29, 2015.
  7. ^ Leon, Melissa (December 27, 2015). "Emo Kylo Ren: Star Wars: The Force Awakens' Polarizing Villain". The Daily Beast. Retrieved December 30, 2015.
I understand and appreciate your feedback, and also appreciate you bringing it to the talk page. I'll take another pass at the article this evening, with any eye toward appropriately (re)integrating those sources and some of the details. Thanks! --EEMIV (talk) 23:37, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
I reintegrated some of these sources and added a few others, and also put a *brief* list of specific exemplar powers in the Depiction section. There's a hidden text prompt asking editors not to let it spin into another laundry list of every single power. We'll see how that does. --EEMIV (talk) 02:22, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
@NadirAli:, in your reversion edit summary, you said the subsectioning "makes no sense". I put the magic, parascientific, and quote stuff all under "impact" because all of the content in those parts is third-party sources responding to the subject of the article. It seems an apt organizational schema to me but I'm open to a discussion here. (As an aside, an appropriate second step after reverting my bold series of edits would have been to initiate a discussion -- or respond to my invitation, which I created with this section. Rolling back such a large series of edits cannot at all be sufficiently addressed in an edit summary. Please be more mindful of that in the future and take the civil step of coming to the talk page to discuss major revision or reversion.)
You also asked in the edit summary why I removed "the quote" from George Lucas. That's a pretty vague descriptor (NB suggestion above of coming to talk page), but I think you're referring to the large block quote about Lucas, God, the Force, and spirituality. I kept the beginning of the quote where Lucas connects the notion of the Force to God and his desire to awaken spirituality, since that's germane to the subject of this article. However, the quote then rambles on to Lucas's own personal beliefs, and that increasingly becomes less relevant. In general, I tried to remove blockquotes in preference for shorting excerpts and paraphrasing per MOS:QUOTE. --EEMIV (talk) 17:30, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

@EEMIV: can't you just add new stuff without removing other stuff? And I oppose the tightening see WP:CLUTTER. It does feel a very tight and condensed. As for the construction tag, a bot automatically removes it after a week of no activity.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 17:54, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

I;m also unsure why it should go under "impact". All these section are left independent of one another as they are cited by non-in0universe sources, so it works.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 17:59, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

You are failing to see (and are ignoring TAnthony's statement) that I've removed very little, and instead generally copyedited and restructured the article to bring it more in line with the format and presentationg of good articles (which the revision you are restoring most certainly isn't). Your blanket restoration, however, does remove several additions to much-needed Development and Critical response sections, ad in exchange restores significant plot detail, trivia, and other content inappropriate for an encyclopedic treatment of the subject. I will point out yet again that an editor adding or restoring content has a responsibility also to provide sources, and you are restoring plentiful unsourced content.
You have pointed out specifically removal of the extended George Lucas quote, which I have restored. You also take exception to two sections being subsumed by the Impact section. While I think this is reflective of ownership issues, I would not presume to speak on your behalf and, until we reach consensus, have spun them out. Perhaps you can take the initiative to explain in more detail why reactions/response by third-party writers (e.g. the folks quoted in these two sections) doesn't belong where I shifted them.
I'll also post a request at the Star Wars wikiproject page for additional comment from other editors.
Your link to WP:CLUTTER is not useful, since that's just a link to a handful of essays/notes. Was there one in particular you're trying to steer me toward? Could you, perhaps, paraphrase the actual policy, guideline or idea you're trying to reference? --EEMIV (talk) 18:57, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
I don't think either the magic or the science sections are really "impact", per se. I might suggest maybe grouping them together under "Analysis" or something. That they're being analysed on like this is probably a sign of the impact the Force has had, but I think that's a loose fit for being subsections of Impact. (I'd also argue that the Zoroastrianism sentence doesn't really fit as impact -- though might fit as analysis of sorts.) Contrast the bits on how the Force has somewhat influenced commentary on politics, how the midiclorians were received, and how "May the Force be with you" has become a recognisable quote. As a sidenote, while the Daily Mail headline is probably a sign of impact, I'd argue it's pretty trivial, especially to the Force as a whole, and would suggest removing it. I also think "May the Force..." could probably just be one unsectioned paragraph that doesn't really need an infobox. – The Millionth One (talk) (contribs) 19:41, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
I've rejiggered the sections along these lines.— TAnthonyTalk 14:45, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Critical response section needs to be cancelled out

The comparison to Zoroastrianism is not really a critical response. It can go in another section. The fan response on midichlrorians doesn't belong here. It's not a movie. It can go in a section about the movie.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 03:17, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Why is the quote under a critical response section? Why couldn't it stay as a quote which is what it is...--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 03:19, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

A journalist is reporting in Time magazine that he and other fans don't like this new aspect of the Force, it's a notable critical response.— TAnthonyTalk 14:16, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

@TAnthony: I didn't say that's wrong, but that should go in the article about the Phantom Menace where this was introduced. I think it was already there.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 17:23, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Well then you're saying it does not belong in this article? I disagree. It is a critical reaction to how Lucas changed/updated his concept of the Force, and that belongs in the article about the Force.— TAnthonyTalk 18:42, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

He didn't "change" or "update" I think he already had that concept but did not introduce it. In any case it should be moved to the Phantom Menace, where I think it already is. Or merge it with the midichlroians section.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 19:20, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome to add that tidbit to the Phantom Menace article, but I'm not getting your strong opposition to a critical reaction section. Most pop culture articles have one. When notable people say that a film, book or fictional concept is cool/smart/stupid, we include it.— TAnthonyTalk 19:41, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

@TAnthony: It should go in the section of concept and development where there is discussion on how he changed it later in 1997. I don't see why we need two section discussing the same concept.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 02:31, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

No, it shouldn't. As the section labels pretty clearly imply, one is for how folks actually in control of the fictional topic conceived it and brought it about. The latter is for how third parties responded. Hence separate sections. Hence appropriateness of how it's laid out now. --EEMIV (talk) 02:49, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Unnecessary blockquote

The large blockquote in the Concept & Development section: I restored it at NadirAli's request. However, the one or two details that are germane to the concept(ion) of the Force are aptly paraphrased in the first paragraph; the rest (and vast majority) of the quote have nothing to do with the Force, instead just reflecting Lucas's personal beliefs. In fact, the lead-in to the quote doesn't even phrase it in terms of the Force, but rather there's a god in Star Wars. (Maybe this quote merely belongs elsewhere.)

MOS:QUOTE discourages blockquoes in preference for tighter, smaller quotes and paraphrasing. Can anyone articulate a compelling rationale to retain the blockquote? --EEMIV (talk) 21:03, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

I've brought up the blockquote on the talk page twice now (here and in a few sections up) with no response here as to why it's appropriate to keep in its entirety. i'm going to double-check the Force-related stuff is appropriately integrated into the article and then remove the rest of it. --EEMIV (talk) 13:40, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Science section

Some parts of the section just read wrong to me (e.g. quantum being used as a noun to describe a particle rather than a quantity), so I busted out my copy of the book and took a look myself. For one thing, there was at least one instance of a direct quote from the text not being in quote marks for proper attribution. There were also a few instances of information from the text being presented without full context, and therefore being bereft of meaning (e.g. the bit about gravitons and gravitational fields -- I think that was also an instance of an unquoted direct quote). I will take another read at the chapter and try to additional polish tomorrow morning or afternoon EST.

Additionally, I am removing the construction banner. For one, the bot that does removal looks at the editing timestamp of the whole page, not the section. And, more importantly, this page is so low volume in terms of traffic that the banner isn't all that necessary. We are down to the realm of copy editing and not massive restructure, which further indicates it is not necessary. And it's just an eyesore. --EEMIV (talk) 17:53, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

NM; got back to it tonight. I think it reads better and provides a broad overview with information in more appropriate context. The chapter's kind of long, but beyond the first few pages' introduction seems to go down a few experimental rabbit holes about fundamental physics and forces that are beyond a broad overview/the appropriate use here. --EEMIV (talk) 01:56, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

@EEMIV: I am reading that chapter, please leave it alone, so i can add it.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 02:28, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Yeah...I've been reading it, too. We can both read it and work on the section. I am disinclined to simply "leave it alone" -- you don't own the section.
At this point, four paragraphs distilled from a single chapter of the book is pretty thorough, and perhaps too thorough. I dunno. I found one other source that actually talks about the Force from a scientific perspective (http://www.news.gatech.edu/features/science-star-wars) and really, for this section to be appropriate to stand on its own, it requires additional sources. It strikes me as a bit odd that we have this separate "science POV" treatment of the Force when, by unquestionable leaps and bounds, the vast majority of third-party analysis of this plot device has been in comparison to faith, spirituality, and religion ... which we have covered, but not quite to the same extent. --EEMIV (talk) 14:18, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Tonight's massive reversion

User:NadirAli this evening again reverted (an admittedly massive) series of edits from the course of the day. I admit to my personal and non-neutral perspective on this, having wrought many of them. NadirAli's edit summary cryptically bemoaned that I had "removed it's comparison to the force which is what the section is all about" without any greater specificity. NadirAli has made some additional edits this evening but not come to the talk page to engage in discussion. His reversion this evening also removed, IM(!H)O, huge chunks of worthwhile concept, development, analysis, and impact content (including some significant chunks for the Scientific POV section he created). My take is that such a massive reversion without talk-page discussion is inappropriate. If, in hindsight, I should've been maintaining closer liner notes for my day of heavy editing here, that's my bad, too. I've been trying to actively engage on the talk page, but have not been keeping an assiduous running commentary of my edits. Regardless, I have restored the article to its ~4Kb larger size because I don't think that such massive removal of content over what appears to be a relatively small content concern (again, the "comparison to the force which is what the section is all about") is warranted.

Because NadirAli at least once has not responded on this talk page to my requests for content discussion (NB request above re. a blockquote from Lucas), I left a more direct request on his talk page at User_talk:NadirAli#The_Force. That said, I'm also creating this section as a) a note to the other handful of editors tracking the page and b) another venue for NadirAli to expound more broadly on his specific concern around removed/altered content. --EEMIV (talk) 02:01, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

@EEMIV: the quote specifically compared magic to the Force, which is not what your reversion did. You also removed the title "parascientific" which is unaccaptable since the chapter specifically discusses parapsychology and other parascientific phenomenon. So you can see, it changes the entire meaning.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 02:09, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for using the article talk page.
Okay. I restored those the one word ("parascientific") and changed the paraphrased quote into the longer quote that says the same thing (I think). Also restored everything else.
That said: I don't think the word "parascientific" is useful because the section has only a single reference to parapsychology, and fleeting at that (unless you want to read parascience into the Greeks and Newton). It's a misleading label for the section header.
I also think the longer quote from Mark Clark is unnecessary and it can be aptly truncated and mostly paraphrased. The Manual of Style re. quotes encourages paraphrasing and short quotes over longer quotes.
Current long quote: Mark Clark said the Ewok Adventure films depict "not telepathic or telekinetic Force powers, but the kind of sorcery that (for example) turns a stone into a lizard and then the lizard into a mouse. There is nothing remotely like this in the Original Trilogy or even the Prequel Trilogy".
Paraphrase with shorter quote I initially tried: Mark Clark said the Ewok Adventure films depict "sorcery" that is completely different than anything depicted in the original or prequel Star Wars films.
Proposed paraphrase: Mark Clark said the Ewok Adventure films depict "sorcery" that is completely different than the Force powers [emphasis added by EEMIV] depicted in the original or prequel Star Wars films.
What say ye? --EEMIV (talk) 02:19, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
I say wait till I'm finished adding the info from Cavelos. Then we can discuss that. And besides there's so much to work on than focusing on that. You put an expand-section tag. Why don't you work on that for now? This article is not getting anywhere if we keep prematurely focusing on new content coming in while leaving out old content to be expanded later.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 04:01, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Magic section

Regarding the final paragraph about the Ewok films: seems the premise of that paragraph is that these films depict something other than the Force. Is it appropriate, then, to keep it here? It's interesting commentary, but it seems like kind of a digression from this article's subject. What would be interesting is if someone can find anyone on the production side of things discussing e.g. why they made things more magical and less Force-ical -- was it to appeal to kids? Did they need something more robust than the Force? Anyway, there's a necessary connection missing. --EEMIV (talk) 15:39, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

@EEMIV: There's nothing wrong with that section. The comparison has received sufficient coverage, I don't understand why you disapprove. To answer your questions, yes these movies were made for kids. Why they made it "less Force-ical" is as much a "why" as why are stormtrooper & scouttrooper uniforms in Return of the Jedi white rather than the green/black camouflage as seen in Revenge of the Sith. It's just the way it is.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 02:14, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I see a bit more clearly after staring at the article all day that it's more apt than I thought earlier. "The way it is", though, is kind of a dismissive response that isn't very useful. Lots of writing, style, and content changes went into creating a kid's TV movie, and I wonder whether/what discussion there was around how to approach the mystical element. If you're fine with "just the way it is," I suppose that's just the way it is. But I'll keep looking around for whether the writers or production team offer(ed) any insight into that decision. --EEMIV (talk) 02:30, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
The same sources do say they were made for kids. Do you want to add it to the article? Why they made it "less Forci-cal" is the same as asking why did the storm troopers not wear green camouflage in ROTJ. They just did. What exactly are you trying to inquire here?--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 04:06, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

@NadirAli: - okay. Let me try again. In the beginning, there were three Star Wars films that included "The Force" as a mysterious power. Then someone said, "Let's make a TV movie or two for kids." My question is this: in developing that TV movie concept, was there a discussion about whether to use "the Force" or whether to introduce this new type of magic? I assume there was. Maybe. If so, my follow-up question would be, "What is it about the Force that prompted the shift? Or, what plot need does this new type of magic fulfill that the Force couldn't?" Those behind-the-scenes decisions and discussions about the real-world connection between the Force (plot device) and magic (plot device) would be nice to have in the Concept & development section. --EEMIV (talk) 13:31, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Lengthy section on scientific and parascientific views on The Force

If the section is too lengthy for some people, don't worry, I can contact Ms Jeanne Cavelos and ask for her contributions. I'm sure she can summarize all of it without changing it's entire meaning in relation to the sources. And don't think that she won't, I have personally exchanged with Ms Cavelos on email. She was in fact impressed with Physics & Star Wars and Technology in Star Wars, so I think she can condense it better, but let me finish that section first. The previous edits to shorten it before I was even done, resulted in the context being changed and that is not what any encyclopedia does in relation to it's sources. So leave it alone until it's finished. I think I'm the only user here with the book, so let me handle this for now.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 05:00, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

@NadirAli: -- yes, it's "too lengthy." You have offered eight paragraphs from just one source. Eight paragraphs alone is probably disproportionate and inappropriate coverage of this one aspect of the article subject, and that is compounded by using just a single source. Bafflingly, in what I interpret as blinding ownership of the section, you deleted three *other* scientific perspectives from two sources that were added to try to make the section more useful. I challenge you to find any good article that has such a long tract of language from just one source.
I remain concerned that you have restored direct quotes from the source text without putting them in quote marks, which is a copyright violation. I previously pointed this out on this talk page. I also pointed out that I have the book, too, and several of my edits yesterday were to correct basic errors in your writing: not just grammar, but also inaccurate paraphrasing and use of technical terms.
The section now merely reads as a book report, and it is so lengthy in trying to regurgitate the chapter's contents that it would be too long even for inclusion in the article about the actual book.
In this talk page section, in the section above, and elsewhere on this talk page you ask for more time -- "let me finish that section first". Yet again: time's up. Work on it in user space, perhaps. But let the article itself move forward with input and balance from other experienced (or novice! everyone's welcome!) editors. You created an interesting starting point for the article, but other editors have contributions to make, too.
As for your relationship with the author: cool. Asking her for help? Go for it.
Lastly: I shifted the Analysis section back up above Impact. Again, the general layout practice for elements of fiction is the Impact section landing at the end. Master Chief is a featured article also about an element of fiction follows that pattern. I challenge you to point us toward another featured article (or even a good article) that inverts that pattern. --EEMIV (talk) 13:25, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
NadirAli, I have to agree with EEMIV on all of these points. The extended description of Cavalo's arguments you're trying to add here would be more appropriate in The Science of Star Wars. I also have to ask that when you think material has been wrongly removed, you do not simply restore old edits without checking that grammar and format improvements are retained.— TAnthonyTalk 14:42, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
I am also compelled to comment on these edit summaries by you NadirAli:
None of us love having our contributions rewritten, but in the recent development of this article we have seen three different editors copyedit your work who seem to agree and collaborate harmoniously. I know it can be frustrating when you put time and effort into an article and your contributions get changed from your personal vision, but Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, and when three other editors are making the same points about my contributions, I listen.— TAnthonyTalk 14:54, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Areas/thoughts for expansion

Some "loose scribblings" on some questions/thoughts for continued expansion:

  • Concept and development
    • Adjustments to how the Force was conceived of for ESB, ROTJ, AOTC, ROTS? No mention of midichlorians in the second and third prequel films -- deliberate response to criticism?
    • More from JJ about conceptualizing the Forcce to TFORCEA?
    • The Force's depiction in Clone Wars and rebels -- freed from live-action limitations, any adjustments? Deliberate choices to amp it up, as in The Force Unleashed?
    • Any guidance to RPG or other EU writers about the do's and do-nots of the Force? Ooh, I've got the 20th anniversary version of Heir to the Empire -- I'll go look to see if there are good footnotes from Timothy Zahn. - Nothing good in the Zahn footnotes
  • Depiction
    • Beyond the sound effect, how are Force powers manifested "behind the scenes," e.g. wirework for Luke's acrobatics in ROTJ, CGI for Obi-Wan and Qui-Gon running away from droidekas in TPM.
    • John Williams' score and the sound mix -- somewhere in the Star Wars Oxygen podcast, the hosts quote a John Williams interview in which he refers to "the Force theme," which in liner notes and track lists until then had been Obi-Wan's theme from ANH (or was it Yoda's in ESB?). What decisions does he make to articulate the Force, and how does that play with the overall sound mix?
  • Analysis
    • Without it becoming an exhaustive laundry list of "the Force is like X", what other comparisons to religion?
  • Impact
    • Initial section is a big of a hodge-podge, and I'm not really sure the best way to give it more coherence.
    • Connection between the Force and how it's perceived in a real-world context by adherents to Jediism
    • Additional production and product reviews, perhaps even of e.g. The Force Unleashed which I'm pretty sure specifically talk about the feel of wielding the Force
    • I have a gut feeling that "these aren't the X you're looking for" might be on the cusp of being worth mentioning, esp. in conjunction with the idea of the Jedi mind trick entering the parlance
  • Images
    • I used the TFU image because off the top of my head I had trouble thinking of still images that depict the frequent motion of using the Force. Even McQuarrie's concept art (and Chiang's et al. for the prequels and TFA) are pretty static in their Force scenes. A behind-the-scenes shot of e.g. the lighting rig on set for Palpatine's Force lightning would be cool.

My two cents. --EEMIV (talk) 17:28, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Science section redux

Most of it I agree with. But I don't get what you mean by "in-universe". And I don't agree with the removal of parascientific. Are you suggesting the Force is strictly scientific? Parascience and parapsychology are well established topics, even if their methods are unproven just as psychicology. I simply also disagree with removing the significance of Cavelos to the subject (her being a certified astrophysicist). I also disagree with pushing the analysis subject above since this is mostly a fictional work and should discussed in it's depiction and reception before the more serious analysis being added to the article. If you wish, I am willing to leave the article alone until you're done editing. But I recommend you work fast. I have to return The Science of Star Wars in about two weeks and I want to cite all the relevant portions. One of us has to step aside for the time being for this article to progress otherwise it's not getting anywhere with constant conflicting edits and wasting everybody's time. I can work on other SW articles in the meantime.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 05:49, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

  • "But I don't get what you mean by "in-universe"." - "In-universe" refers to adopting a point-of-view as if elements of fiction are "real" or writing about elements of fiction from the perspective of, for example, a character or historian "inside" that fictional universe. In-universe writing manifests itself at Wikipedia in a few ways, such as writing about an element of fiction only in terms of what it does or says in relation to the plot to exclusion of e.g. information about its concept, design, critical reaction, etc. In-universe writing also sometimes looks like interpreting a general, broad statement about the fictional world based on a single or handful of instances. Wikipedia's guidelines for writing about fiction delves into this far more and is a must read (and re-read).
  • "And I don't agree with the removal of parascientific. Are you suggesting the Force is strictly scientific? Parascience and parapsychology are well established topics, even if their methods are unproven just as psychicology." - Yes, I understand that parascience and parapsychology are "things". We have articles about them. I removed the word from the title, however, because this article has scant discussion of the Force in terms of parascience and parapsychology. If the magic section were labeled "Comparison to magic and baking," I'd've removed "baking" because that section does not include any comparison or meaningful reference to baking.
  • "I simply also disagree with removing the significance of Cavelos to the subject (her being a certified astrophysicist)." - I somewhat agree and have restored "Astrophysicist" as a job title for her, just as we've done with e.g. Dave Filoni and JJ Abrams elsewhere in the article. That said, the long stream of credentials -- really, an entire sentence just about her -- is unnecessary. We have an article about her and anyone who wants to know more about her can click on it.
  • "I also disagree with pushing the analysis subject above since this is mostly a fictional work and should discussed in it's depiction and reception before the more serious analysis being added to the article." - You're free to disagree, but your single personal belief doesn't displace the majority opinion at this article and the broader consensus among Wikipedia fiction-related writers (and I'll again point to the layout of the featured article on Master Chief (Halo)) that an Analysis section is more apt earlier in the article. From my perspective, Analysis/interpretation is a direct response to Depiction, and Analysis/interpretation can in turn drive impact. For example: Concept & creation: George Lucas wanted people to think about the existence of God when thinking about the Force. Depiction: the Force is depicted as a mystical, universal binding power. Analysis: Religious scholars and layman practitioners from several faiths see is as successfully arguing for or at least getting folks to think about the existence of God. Impact: Frank Allnutt in 1977 wrote a book called The Force of Star Wars arguing that Star Wars is a Christian parable, and his book was an instant bestseller (citation, no surprise: Chris Taylor's book). Anyway. Anecdotes like this aren't as compelling as consensus across myriad editors, but it's there to help illustrate the reasoning.
  • "I am willing to leave the article alone until you're done editing. But I recommend you work fast." - I've been editing this article as fast as I can, and sometimes making major changes along the way, for almost 10 years. No promise on when I'll be done, but I imagine it could be another decade. Maybe 9 years, since for the next couple of months I have the luxury of what I used to call "spare time." I'll take your recommendation under advisement.
  • "I have to return The Science of Star Wars in about two weeks and I want to cite all the relevant portions." - don't worry: I have a copy! All the portion in article are currently cited (although I suppose specific page numbers and ranges would be nice). Are there specific areas of the Force in chapter 5 that aren't covered? Think big picture: this is a subsection in a bigger section in a bigger article; we're looking for overall snapshot useful to a casual, non-fan reader. We have the historical context. We have her leading theory for how to "power" the Force. We have an overview of some disciplines that might explain the Force in a "real" world. There's an explanation of the field theory through which the Force might propagate (with a bonus: insight from a totally difference source!) and some idea about how an individual might convey their desires to the Force. Other bonus: the talk about controlling brain waves is a nice little nudge toward the Force Trainer toy mentioned in the Impact section underneath.
  • "One of us has to step aside for the time being for this article to progress otherwise it's not getting anywhere with constant conflicting edits and wasting everybody's time." - No, neither of us has to step aside. I think we continue our discussion about content and structure here, paying attention to the input from other editors. Note, for example, that I was not the editor who most recently restored the Scientific Perspective text yesterday. Nor was I the editor who restored the significant restructuring a few days before. Here's an idea: if you see a chunk of your edits significantly altered, how about waiting to see whether another editor restores them? --EEMIV (talk) 13:53, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

EEMIV, I get most of this. I know what in-universe means, but I don't know which aspect to the article seems "in-universe". I also wish to repeat, I don't think it's a good idea for both of us to be too involved at the same time, so I am volunteering to stay away for the next week or so. That doesn't mean I will stop contributing; I'm just requesting a time-out for each of us. Because let's be honest here: we've tried co-editing the article and it's not leading anywhere. It's only setting everybody back. Why can't we try a new strategy? You could help with something else. I am aiming to create the article on Starkiller base. If you could create that, I could fill it up. But I don't encourage you to do that now. Focus on this for now and I'll add my input when the majority of editing is done. We've gone back and forth for a number of days, so all we can do is try this method now.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 06:30, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

scientific and parascientific views on the force

So I have a drafted version of the section that I am working on in my own work space. I will have to say that it'll need to go below and the cultural impact section up. I mean fans analised it before scientists did, so it's only proper. And besides it's longer. let the reception section go below.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 01:09, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

@NadirAli: - With regard to position and layout: this is a moot point, and your preference is a single, non-compelling exception to what other editors have voiced here and the practice used at other good articles at Wikipedia. Give it up, please -- or, at least offer some new rationale. I've read through the revisions in user space and have some feedback. I'm glad you've retained some of the copyedits reflected in the current article. Large portions of the additional prose, however, need significant editing. Additionally, I have these specific content concerns:
  • The unnecessary long introduction about Jean Caravalos and her qualifications (and, bizarrely, articulating reasons she might not actually be a worthwhile voice). Please see my comment in a previous section about appropriate titling and the utility of a bluelink.
  • A moot point if that section is truncated, but the introduction paragraph about a single author implies that author's work will be the only source. That is inappropriate weight for a single source, and the current article draws on other perspectives on this subject. Your proposed section removes those other voices, which would be a significant step backward for the section.
  • "In such a model, gravity would 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." - two issues here:
  • For one, as with when you originally wrote these words, you omit the hugely important word "NOT" as in "...gravity would NOT be caused..."
  • More importantly, this is one of the blatant near copy-and-paste issues I've mentioned I think twice on this talk page. The original material from the text reads "In this model, gravity is not caused by the warping of space as we discussed in Chapter 4, but by the exchange of tiny packets of gravitational energy, called gravitons, which attract matter to other matter." Simply changing around a couple of words for synonyms is poor paraphrasing and I think toes the line of insufficiently citing the source (e.g. you might as well just keep the original words and put it in quotes).
  • "the vacuum of space actually foams with activity" - essentially word for word copy-and-paste from the source material ("the vacuum of space is actually foaming with activity").
  • The fifth paragraph is what's in the article now ... and it covers many of the topics from other paragraphs in your proposed revision. It's redundant repetition.
  • The term "neurological electrons" -- my first thought is these seems like a made-up term, and a Google search backs that up. The term doesn't appear in the source text. Let's please not make up terms/phrases.
  • A misconstrual of the source text comes with the assertion that "Aerospace engineering consultant Dr. Charles Lurio is claimed to have suggested as far that human biology might already possess telekinesis, to be reproduced naturally": Lurio is actually proposing that the humans in Star Wars developed technology to allow telekinesis long ago, and overtime it became integrated into them and reproduced in/alongside humans over generations.
As I offered a while ago, I'm happy to work with you on this in user space; say the word, and we can shift this conversation to your draft section's talk page and work back and forth from there. I leave it to you to make the request. --EEMIV (talk) 02:23, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Merge

It seems to me that Philosophy and religion in Star Wars should be folded into this article, as all aspects of philosophy and religion in the franchise derive from the Force. It would certainly help bolster the real-world perspective of this article.— TAnthonyTalk 01:09, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Oppose there are many religions in the Star Wars universe and more may be covered with the progress of films. There are many religions in the SW universe such as the Expanded Universe and the discussions of good and evil also are also too general to merge into the force. We could put a link to it, but it should be an article of it's own.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 03:21, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

As far as I know, the Force is the only notable "religion" in the SW universe, and everything in the other article relates to that. If by "other religions" you mean how some characters in some works on some planets may worship specific deities, that seems very trivial and in-universe. Have there been any notable discussions/analyses or simply other mentions of other religions in external sources? I can imagine a section here named "Other religions" comprising a paragraph listing any notable secondary religions from the franchise, but I don't see a significant amount of real information out there to deserve a separate article. — TAnthonyTalk 03:27, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

It might be the only notable religion, but misinformative to suggest or indicate that it's the only one, so I suggest it be left alone.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 06:19, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

To go into the ol' theoretical here, I don't think an article on "Philosophy and religion in Star Wars" strictly has to be about the Force or even the Jedi, since at its broadest philosophy refers to anything from Luke refusing to fight his father, questions of redemption (Anakin again), probably something about family and legacy, and the subject of robot rights. I don't really have a big opposition to an article about philosophy in Star Wars being made, to be honest, since I've seen a fair bit written about it.
However, as the article currently stands, it seems like it might be better for most of the content to be taken to this article, Jedi, and that sentence about robots to Droid, and maybe a few other articles. The mention of Orientalism I don't think is supported by the actual source (that it applies to Star Wars I think is an editor's original research), though I have seen things written about Orientalism in Star Wars, so it might be an area worth exploring. – The Millionth One (talk) (contribs) 11:51, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Yes, perhaps there could someday be a fleshed out article discussing religion and philosophy in the franchise, but the current material is not worthy of its own article IMO. Like I said, you can still have a sentence/paragraph noting any notable non-Force related religions and concepts.— TAnthonyTalk 02:54, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

But you'll have to remember, the topic of Philosophy and religion in Star Wars has a huge amount of coverage. Should I put a friendly search template on the talkpage?--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 05:34, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

  • Neutral, leaning toward Oppose - I kind of feel like if there's an appropriate merge, it'd be the Philosophy of Star Wars + Jedi -- practitioners and their ideas, as it were, and not one of their tools at their disposal. But I also don't know much about third-party discussion about faith and religion in/about Star Wars. The Philosophy article now looks pretty anemic, and I wonder whether it's better of sliced up and its component parts spread across a couple of articles (concept/production section for a few films, this article, the Jedi article, etc.). --EEMIV (talk) 03:08, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Hehe, so, here's the thing: I didn't look at that article before shaking my head at the merge suggestion. But, I've looked now. It's pretty spare, reiterating (in far too many words) many of the notions in this article. I could support a selective merge-and-redirect until such a time as it makes sense to spin it back out again as a standalone article. --EEMIV (talk) 16:26, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
  • @TAnthony: -- what would you like to do with this merge proposal? I lifted some assertions and citations from the Philosophy article and integrated them here, and I don't think there's anything left over there that is absent from this article (save for some disagreement about Prana being an apt comparison for the Force -- that might be a little too inside baseball, and I'm not sure I can accurately paraphrase/adapt the criticism at the tail end of that sentence). There is one piece in the Philosophy article that would probably be a good fit for Jedi -- the stuff about Stoics, since the quote is about the order and not the Force. It might be worth it to nudge the wikiproject talk page to solicit input -- absent that, the Philosophy page could probably just redirect here, or maybe the Star Wars sources and analogues article (caveat: I haven't looked at that article, so that suggestions might be totally off-base). --EEMIV (talk) 16:19, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
I really do think you should boldly redirect it here, since as you said you've already incorporated everything valuable into this article. And I'm sure NadirAli would appreciate you're trying to incorporate what you can into Jedi. Can you leave a comment on the talk page noting the redirect and liking to this discussion, so we have a trail for anyone wanting to object or recreate someday? I don't think the sources & analogues article is the right redirect for this, it's currently more about creative works that influenced or were influenced by Star Wars.— TAnthonyTalk 16:49, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
checkY. --EEMIV (talk) 17:39, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

"Force-sensitive characters" section break

Hiya. I removed this section header. The latter half of the preceding paragraph also refers to characters using the Force, while 1/3 or 1/2 of the content after the break refer to e.g. sound effects associated with the Force, the Force's role in advancing the plot, etc. -- more than just characters' Force-sensitivity. --EEMIV (talk) 17:11, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Force/Archive_1&oldid=1146309009"