Talk:Jediism/Archive 1

Redirect
This is very annoying. Jediism existed before the census phenomenon, it is a name that was created BECAUSE of the census phenomenon, to make the difference between the jedi jokers and the real force addicts, and the wikipedia jediism page redirects to the census phenomenon. Also I have no clue why anyone would want to delete a discussion page, but it would be nice to stop such vandalism.


 * I see the issue has been resolved, now "Jediism" redirects to "The Jedi religion". It would be wise to recreate separate "jediism" and "Jedi realism" page once we have significant content on "The Jedi Religion". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.20.158.196 (talk) 01:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments
Kai Tatsu wrote:

''Why does this need to be deleted?

The Jedi Religion is true. It exists and has over half a million followers. www.jedisanctuary.org - Jedi Sanctuary was accepted by the Universal life Church, making it an official religion!''

At 22:43 on 30th August 2008.


 * How does it being "accepted by the Universal life Church" make it an "official religion" (and what is that anyway?). If this is to remain here, it will need to be verifiable, there needs to be reliable, secondary sources covering it in detail. Can you provide such resources? After looking some more and looking at Jedi census phenomenon and what I find on the Internet, I have sincere doubts that it is really notable enough for an encyclopaedic article and would recomment a redirect there (or to Jedi, which is where Jedi Religion currently redirects to). -- Amalthea Talk 23:33, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Right, so you are saying Jediism is not a religion? over half a million people believe in the way of the Jedi, and even though it is a new, and unrecognised religion, it still exists. Please explain to me what you mean by 'there needs to be verifiable, reliable, secondary sources'? Thanks,

Kai Tatsu Posted at 14.47 GMT, 31st August 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kai Tatsu (talk • contribs) 13:48, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I was questioning your "making it an official religion" bit, and was asking about the autority of the Universal life Church, and why it can define what an "offficial religion" is. There already is an article here about the Jedi census phenomenon, explaining most of those half million people away as a practical joke. In any case, the most important principles that any topic must fulfill to be included in this encyclopaedia are WP:Notability and WP:Verifiability—see the exact guidelines behind those two links. For example, the fact the 500,000 people stated their religion as "Jedi" is a verifiable fact that has been covered in detail by various independant news organizations, which is why there is an article about it on Wikipedia. I have not however found significant, independant coverage about a Jedi religion practised in real life. Mere existance isn't an inclusion criteria. If it were, the oft quoted pebble in my shoe would also have an article here. So since this topic seems to fails those criteria it should not be covered by a seperate article, but only appropriately in another article, just as it already is in Jedi and Jedi census phenomenon. I hope this makes it clearer. Cheers, Amalthea Talk 15:13, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

thanks for your help. I'm reading the links about varifiablity and notablity at the moment. I still don't quite understand why the article shouldn't be here... It is a true religion, and lots of people follow it. It is still a relatively unknown religion compared to one such as Christianity, but just because it hasn't got as much internet/press coverage, it doesn't mean it shouldn't be listed here in Wikipedia. I understand the circumstances, and I will try my best to over-come these, but I cannot change the religion. It is a fact that there is a religion called Jediism. It is a fact that those who follow the Jedi way call themselves Jedi. And you Cant say that it doesn't exist. Kai Tatsu Posted 17.37 GMT 31st August


 * I quote: "Wikipedia is specifically not an indiscriminate collection of information, which means there are standards for what constitutes information that should be in Wikipedia. This is to prevent Wikipedia from becoming unmaintainable." The most important standard is Notability, and yes, if Jediism hasn't been covered in detail by reliable, secondary sources, it shouldn't be listed in an encyclopaedia.  Amalthea Talk 16:57, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * After looking at the coverage you provided I removed all that were focusing on the census phenomenon, since that is covered by Jedi census phenomenon, leaving basically only two events (covered by five articles). I am convinced that this is far from enough to establish notability for an encyclopaedic article, and would redirect this page to Jedi, carrying some of the information over, e.g. the foundation of the two churches that have gained some coverage, as well as the jedi-church link. What do you think? Amalthea Talk 18:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I do not approve. Sorry. Two events might not be much, but just because only a few events have been covered by the press, it does not mean that is all the events that ever happened... Kai Tatsu - 1736 8th September 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kai Tatsu (talk • contribs) 16:37, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I disagree with merging this article with the "Jedi" article. The Jedi article should only refer to the fictional and real life Jedi (what they do, who they are, etc...), while a Jediism article should be about the ideology(ies). Also, the person who created the welsh jedi temple was interviewed on TV, though I can not recall which channel it was, and I have no clue what these people actually do, if this can convince anyone that this article is not a joke. 86.20.158.196 (talk) 03:11, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Just popping in to say how glad I am to see a page about Jediism/Jedi realism surviving here on wikipedia. I'll see if I can convince some people to GFDLize any of their works, or if we still have some decent online resources to link to. I'll also do some work on the article. I am not a wikipedia contributor, however we should be able to add some sort of "work in progress" or "poorly documented" header somewhere -- actually they are already on the page. note: There was a Jedi religion before the Star Wars prequels, and before any sort of census phenomenon. This census Joke(tm) has "nothing" to do with the actual religion; "jedi realism" and "Jediism" were created to mark the difference between the joke and the Jedi path.

86.20.158.196 (talk) 02:02, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I have been wandering around the web looking for any "official" talks about Jediism, and, as far as I can tell, no "official" ever said " we recognize Jediism to be a religion". On another hand, it is not the place of any government to tell what is a religion and what is not. As far as I am concerned, the nature of Jediism is similar to Buddhism and others, and most importantly is not organized (so definitely not like Christianity, Islam, and such). see the Religion page. I am unaware of US and especially Texas law regarding "religions", but, as I recall, to be recognized as a religious institution, it has to be called "church", and most importantly, the Jedi church's right to marry people makes it somewhat official, at least in Texas. 86.20.158.196 (talk) 02:45, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

In the US an institutions name need not include the word church to legally be a church. Jewish and Buddhists temples are legally churches as is a local (Beaumont Texas) Christian church named Cathedral in the Pines Christian Center or (also in Beaumont Texas) The Assembly of God. Neither the US federal government nor any state officially recognizes religions but an important point, as you said, an organizations ministers ability to legally conduct marriages does mean that the state 'accepts' it as being a religion / church / temple ect. Thank you for making some excellent points I just wanted to clear up the 'church' designation under US law. Br.John.Henry.Phelan (talk) 19:00, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I have noticed the article mentions "Master Yoda" as the source of the Jedi teachings... This is true, however he is not the only source... and by far. Most people were inspired by non-yoda sources in the expanded universe as well (as the movies carry very little information). As a shadow Jedi myself, I can say that Kreia in KOTOR2 inspired me a lot more than anything else in Star Wars. Also, I feel, just like every other Jedi of course, that we should keep things close to the Star Wars ideology. However, "Master Yoda" is a fictional character and the article should very clearly indicate so, for yoda and everything else. Because many came to Jediism for very different reasons, and follow a very different path, It should probably be best to make a section about the core values (from the original Star Wars trilogy) and their possible interpretations, another section about the different points of view and behaviors in Jediism, and another section about the very open Jedi realists (who mix values from Jediism with their current religions, like Christian Jedi for example). We need a "history" section as well of the online and offline Jedi, and another with the links to Taoism, Buddhism (basically, what inspired Lucas). It should be made clear that Jediism is not centralized or organized, so there is no "THE Jedi creed" or vow and such. I'm all for citing them, just not as "universal truth". Again, since Jediism is mostly Star Wars-based, citing Star Wars works or similar philosophical texts should do the trick for the article sources, as there are no books about Jediism and a lot of the online content was deleted, or simply cannot be found. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.20.158.196 (talk) 03:48, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The Light & Dark Sides

 * "Jediism has two types of 'followers' - Jedi and Sith. Which one you are matters - a lot. Deciding which side" . This is a big generalization. Things in Jediism are far from being black or white... More like various shades of grey. Also, this looks a bit like "jedi propaganda" or content for a jedi site, not encyclopedic at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ren Sydrick (talk • contribs) 20:36, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I removed the complete section, since the given source didn't talk about it anyway. Feel free to readd it if you have sourced content. -- Amalthea Talk 21:00, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It did not deserve to be removed, but yes, a lot of work was needed in this section. people tend to forget about the potentium theory, and many jedi actually share this view. I'll remake a "sides of the force" section when i have time. --Ren Sydrick (talk) 22:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Now onto the subject of Jediism, yes it has been around since time began as time, it was Lucas that coined the term Jedi, but we are the living proof. It is a real religion and not one that is role playing. No one worships Yoda, No one prays to Mace Windu, we revel in the Force. -- Kaldar-maaren —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.216.117.90 (talk) 00:53, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You know for Wikkipedia to use and outdated "religious clause" that was amended by Americans with the formation of the Constitution and Bill of Rights is irreqihensible. The author(s) of this article, I do know well and also know from law studies that they are protected under the 1st Admendment of Free Speak and Freedom of Religion.

Copyright
It seems some of the content is a copy of jedisanctuary.org's content. Maybe I'm just being annoying, but this might be copyright infringement. --Ren Sydrick (talk) 03:52, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

It has not been copied. I read from Jedisanctuary.org and re-wrote it to fit in to the article here on Wikipedia. - Kai Tatsu 17.59 GMT 9th Oct —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kai Tatsu (talk • contribs) 16:59, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Protection
Is it possible, or would anyone agree to protect/semi-protect this page? We didn't have any problems yet, but I can think of at least one "sith" who would be very pleased in vandalizing this page if he knew it existed. --Ren Sydrick (talk) 17:24, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Page protection should not be used as a pre-emptive measure (see WP:SEMI). Also, if vandalism originates from only one user, warning and blocking is often enough. -- Amalthea Talk 18:22, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you. There are so many "guidelines" to read I felt it was faster to ask :) --Ren Sydrick (talk) 19:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Jedi philosophy
I cannot seem to find a way to enrich this article in a readable way. I suggest "we" move the jedi codes, vows and such to a different article. (there are many jedi vows, codes and such, they are fairly short and require explanations... This would allow us to talk about other things, such as the Sith and shadow Jedi, the gray jedi, the sides of the force Vs Potentium theory, etc... Having a separate article about the force would be a good idea too, me thinks. --Ren Sydrick (talk) 03:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

george lucas, not a sgnificant writer in jediism
He did write the SW scripts, so, obviously this should be there (and it is: "based upon the teachings found in the Star Wars films"), however, I have serious doubts about the shadow series, or willow. So I'd rather leave the "books written by George Lucas" out. Also, while the sentence was a bit weird, Most Jedi fictional knowledge (and what attracts people to jediism) comes from the expanded universe. I fail to understand why this has been removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.20.158.196 (talk) 12:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Move/rename the page to Jediism
It makes more sense for the page to be called Jediism than Jedi religion. The religion is called Jediism, and Jedi realism can't be covered in an article that's called jedi religion anyway (well we can, though it is not the main focus, and a Jediism title wouldn't prevent this either). the diverging views of jedi realism could have their own article in the future. Ren Sydrick (talk) 04:07, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Should you decide for the move, stick at the top of  (just in case you don't know). Cheers,  Amalthea Talk 13:05, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks :D I was wondering if anyone actually visited the talk page anymore. Ren Sydrick (talk) 13:33, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * They deleted the "jediism" page for the reason given, I guess I have to move this page over there now. /me tries :D Ren Sydrick (talk) 16:24, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

When I moved the Jedi religion page It didn't move the talk page so I copy/pasted the contents here: Ren Sydrick (talk) 16:33, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I requested the histories of the talk pages to be merged. Copying content via copy and pasted is a bit ugly, since you can't check anything in the history, and is problematic due to the GFDL. -- Amalthea Talk 17:08, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I thought the signatures would be enough :) Good to see there is a right way of doing things for... everything :D Ren Sydrick (talk) 17:50, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't worry about it. In fact, copy&paste-moves with attribution in the edit summary was the only way to move a page in the early days of Wikipedia. But since we can do it properly now we should. :) -- Amalthea Talk 18:12, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

recent contribution does not meet wikipedia quality standard.
I have to remove one of the latest contributions as it does not meet wikipedia standards. If the user could actually register to wikipedia it would be great too (for obvious communication purposes)Ren Sydrick (talk) 11:37, 9 October 2008 (UTC) I will make modifications to the original in this section:

Beliefs

Jediism, when it was created, was based upon many religions such as Taoism and Buddhism (Info is already in article) and Christianity(untrue, the chirstianity part is about the virgin birth in star wars, as well as the jedi order and its christian-like knights). Jedi believe in meditation (citation needed), and think it should be done every day(citation needed), to cleanse the mind of all thoughts(please see meditation, meditation's purpose is not to cleanse the mind of all thoughts). Jedi also believe it is good to not worry about things in the past or future(citation needed and I actually strongly disagree with this point), but to deal with things 'here and now', in the present (then again this sentence just plain sounds wrong, though rewording it should help).

Please note that currently I am stuck in further editing the article because of the lack of sources... It could be great if anyone could bring some well documented evidence Ren Sydrick (talk) 11:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

holy book
the following section is undocumented: Jedi also do not have a 'holy book'. Some people, who do not understand the concepts of the religion, believe Jedi "worship the script of Star Wars as a holy book". This is not true, and has clearly originated from the bad publicity and lack of understanding which surrounds Jediism.

while this seems true, we need to document such claims. Also, the article should be about what jediism is, not what it is not. Ren Sydrick (talk) 11:56, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I plan to change the sentence to adapt it to the critique section, however we still need a citation. (the original sentence is still here in the talk page if needed) 86.20.158.196 (talk) 13:02, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Just like to say a HUGE thanks to everyone who has contributed to this article. Even if it's just been a small edit, everything has helped. This was my first Wikipedia article, and I have learned a lot from it, and I can see there are a few people here (not mentioning names) who have clearly dedicated a lot of time to this article.

The Jedi religion needs to be recognised as a proper religion, rather than as a joke as many people see it. So once again, thanks. I appreciate all your support and hope we can build a large article on the matter with enough references and sources. It's hard because not many websites exist about the topic, but I know we'll get there.

Once again, thanks. -- Kai Tatsu 9th October 2008, 18.04 GMT —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kai Tatsu (talk • contribs) 17:04, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Also there still are some serious expansions needed :D Ren Sydrick (talk) 17:46, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * About this "lack of recognition", you may want to read this, I think the article could do with some proper information about this rather annoying "joke" feeling everybody has regarding Jediism(and eventually exclude the Jedi from religious protection laws)

Lead of the article
The intro must be rewritten. I'll post here any ideas I have or modifications that could be worth having in the talk page, which I enjoy abusing by the way :D Ren Sydrick (talk) 10:22, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * "Many Jedi choose to practice Jediism along with another religion, such as Christianity, or Magick; this movement is known as Jedi Realism." Must be shorter, and right after the first sentence. The information here could be used as a base on a Jedi realism section. Ren Sydrick (talk) 10:22, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * " Jediism is not an organized religion and followers of the Jedi path are from different countries with different backgrounds and cultures, leading to different opinions and views." in shortening process. Ren Sydrick (talk) 10:27, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * " However, most governments involved considered this to be a joke, and some Jedi believe it damaged their image and the community ." and " declared their religion as Jedi " Need to put this somewhere else, in a census/criticism section perhaps ?


 * " At least two Jedi churches exist, one in Beaumont Texas, USA and one in Holyhead, UK." Possibly create a section of the Jedi 'in the world today'. Somewhat i feel this will be hard.


 * " The Church of Jediism has its headquarter at the Holyhead Church of Jediism, which introduced the very first organized training structure complete with training books and courses. They have branches all over the world. The Church of Jediism has over 2,000 Training members and is growing every day." Actually I have very strong doubts about this and will remove it completely. I'd like citations, and not from their website. (british media should have this) We could add a bit about the resignation of one of the leaders after being victim of 'antijediism'.


 * " Ministers of the Temple Of The Jedi Order incorporated in Texas are allowed to legally conduct weddings." this should probably go with the rest. Ren Sydrick (talk) 10:49, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * " I, Br. John Henry Phelan, president of Temple Of The Jedi Order, authorize Wikipedia and its authors to use and publish information from our website as long as it is quoted verbatim, used reasonably and in good faith. In the news:  http://www.ksl.com/index.php?nid=148&sid=4189573  Points of interest:  We are tax exempt under 501(c)3 and ordain ministers on a case by case basis; no instant or 'online' ordinations lacking a direct human input.  Before the Schism of 2007 Temple Of The Jedi Order and Temple Of The Jedi Force were one organization.  We do have a distinct published Creed and Doctrine. Our ministers have the same rights in the United States and Mexico as any Roman Catholic Priest, Rabbi, Deacon, Minister etc.  No discrimination based on race, creed, age, sex or sexual orientation.  Formal organization date December 25, 2005.    Br.John.Henry.Phelan (talk) 06:36, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm no expert, but I am quite sure that any quote on wikipedia goes under fair use, and otherwise anything else has to be GFDL or public domain. Ren Sydrick (talk) 01:32, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure you are correct about fair use I just did not want there to be any doubt. Br.John.Henry.Phelan (talk) 19:06, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair use is extremely limited and generally not good enough for wikipedia. Also I think you should read the GFDL -and know what rights it really gives- because the 'rights' you give on your sites content aren't good enough for wikipedia. Just pointing this out. Generally, If you feel the article could do with some of your (owned) content, you should add it yourself (It'd be the easiest for copyright attribution and gfdl compliance). Quotes must be marked as such. Ren Sydrick (talk) 07:54, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Category
The article currently belongs to the "Jedi religion" category, which is very star wars centred. In fact, the only non-star wars article in there is this one. I will create a Jediism category in which we could list any Force, realism, code and virtues articles in the future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ren Sydrick (talk • contribs) 02:40, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Jediism Holy Days?
Does Jediism have any official holy days? I've heard of Luke Skywalker day, and I know Jedi have a sense of humour, but it's hard to tell where it originated. Luke Skywalker day is on fourth day of the fifth month of each year, and celebrants are encouraged to greet each other in standard Jedi fashion: "May the fourth be with you."--Pariah (talk) 05:24, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No. Jediism doesn't have such organization, and nothing significant enough has happened so far to justify any Jedi holiday. A holiday in Jediism would probably have something to do with human rights or democracy rather than Star Wars. The "humour" of some Jedi is not well seen by the others. Ren Sydrick (talk) 11:00, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * That's unfortunate. Humour, humility, and humanity go hand in hand; all important Jedi values, I would think.  I'd hate to think that a movement inspired by someone like Yoda could end up taking itself so seriously that it lost touch with his gentle quirkiness.  A kindly reminder to all would-be Jedi: taking oneself or one's philosophy too seriously is a sign of a fragile ego, and a step toward the dark side.--Pariah (talk) 01:39, 18 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Couldn't be better said. Like the religion Discordianism blending humour, parody, seriosity and philosophy seemlessly to a mix where the one is indistinguishable from the other. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 18:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * No. Jediism is a religion. Whether some Jedi enjoy talk like a pirate day, luke skywalker day and other days, or not, has nothing to do with Jediism. When I said 'The "humour" of some Jedi is not well seen by the others' I meant the 'Jedi' who claim the path of Jediism and do nothing else but have fun. Costuming and toy lightsabers maybe fun for some, it has nothing to do with philosophy or religion. Wearing catholic priest clothes doesn't make me a catholic priest, It makes me a fraud or a costumist.Ren Sydrick (talk) 08:06, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

There are some "holidays" which a few Jedi groups celebrate. I would like to add these to the article, most notably the Jedi Memorial Pyre, where we honor those who have passed on in the previous year.Jedimasterkyp (talk) 00:20, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to do so. I had no idea some groups had such things. I just work everyday :D80.4.75.175 (talk) 06:41, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Then there is May the 4th, as in "May the 4th will soon be upon us". See the last sentence in this article in The Daily Mail, where it was said somewhat tongue-in-cheek. — Loadmaster (talk) 14:56, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

It's that time of year again! May the fourth be with you!--Pariah (talk) 21:45, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Edited External Links section
I removed the RPG site from the External Links section, as this article is about real Jediism, and not roleplaying. I also added four other relevant links to Jediism websites, and made two minor edits to the "TOTJO" link. I took out the "USA", since they are not the only website for Jedi in the USA, and I gave credit to the founders of the TOTJO, TOTJF, and Praxeum websites. Jedimasterkyp (talk) 19:57, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

JustJedi wasn't just a rpg site, but... now it's gone anyways so it's probably better like this. Ren  ✉  06:46, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Edits to improve the Article
I have edited the following sections to help improve the Article: Introduction: I removed the "Original research" tag and added new sources. Jedi Philosophy: I added the Expanded Universe books to the Philosophic teachings sources, rather than just the movies. I also removed the "citation needed" tag because I added a link to a version of the Doctrine of Jediism. I also added the other influences as well as links to their respective wikipedia articles. The Force: I changed "The Force is what Jedi 'believe' everything comes from" to "The Force is what most Jedi believe everything comes from", because of the varied nature of the different paths: "as there is no set path in Jediism, and no "holy book", there are many codes, all more or less based on the Star Wars philosophy, codes and lessons". I also removed the superfluous "(Joseph Campbell would refer to such acts as "metaphors")", and added meditation as well as a link to it's wikipedia article. I also added the fourth widely accepted aspect of the Force, the Cosmic Force, to this section. Sides of the Force and Potentium theory I cleaned this section up a bit, going into greater detail while making it easier to read and understand, and added references. I also removed the part concerning the "potentium theory" as being the "most accepted explanation" due to the fact that I could only find one reference to it as being the accepted theory. Since the Ashla Knights group does not wish any of their material copied, it makes it difficult to explain the real world application of the "potentium theory" in this wikipedia Article. Census: I have removed "Because the Jedi didn't want to be seen as jokers, they started defining the Jedi 'faith', which lead to the creation of Jediism and Jedi realism." because there have been people following the Jedi path, which is now called Jediism, since well before the Jedi Census Phenomenon. I personally have been following my path since 1994, which pre-dates the Jedi Census Phenomenon by seven years. I know there have been many others as well. The Jedi Census Phenomenon may have sparked the creation of the term "Jediism", but there have been followers of this religion well before the census. The media I cleaned this section up as well, fixing grammatical errors and adding references. Criticism I removed '''"Because of the pop culture origins of Jediism and the use of the world wide web to organize, share and attract others to the Jedi community, Jedi organizations tend to attract very unusual individuals. The website "thejediismway.org" warns about the many "toxic" sites and individuals." ''' because the warning referenced seems to be no longer available. I removed "The Jedi community fails to keep, organize and share its own data. It seems plagued by drama, threats, causing major websites to shut down and contributors to leave the community." for the same reason. I added the Holyhead incident, along with references. I have also corrected a few other grammatical errors to improve the overall look and feel of the Article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jedimasterkyp (talk • contribs) 00:17, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Intro: I think I actually removed the previous citations from this section because there is a wikipedia policy that says somewhere there shouldn't be any in the intros.
 * I confirm. see WP:LS the intro should normally not contain any material that is not in the body, and the citations should be in the body. I suggest moving any mentions of the exitence of churches away from the lead. Ren  ✉  21:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

philosophy: I really wanted to add the expanded universe back in there. I have personally never read any Star Wars books, but I played Kotor one and two and I owe a lot more to Kreia than any other character. As for the influences, I still disagree with putting christianity there (the influence in the movies yes, we have the knights and their order), and I'm not convinced by shintoism. If you look around you'll find that Jediism shares similarities with 99% of the religions on earth.

force I had never heard of the cosmic aspect of the force. turns out it's what i call the force, it's not exactly what i'd call an "aspect", and if it is just a belief then it really sucks :D I was planning to expand the phiosophy section with these aspects, i think that's what needs to be done next, and I think all these aspects need a solid definition, as all i have seen so far was fairly vague.

sides of the force Yes it was a big block of text wasn't it? with no sources, nothing :D

census Yes, something always seemed wrong with that sentence, also i thought i had mentioned something about even the online community already existing before the census, then the coining of the Jediism and realism words. Might have deleted that when I re-ordered the article some time ago.

media grammar? what? want to call Hannigan to help out? I choice to do it this way :P

criticism I want these things back (enhanced and with refs). I'm not being sentimental or anything, but while they may not be documented anymore, they gave birth to this section and very likely are the reason why this article hasn't been threatened with speedy deletions in some time. Also I'm not sure drunk vader should be in this section (but in controversy/politics). Ren  ✉  07:41, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Removed material
I removed the following from the lead sec'n before giving up and tagging the whole article for cleanup, based on my experience that the bodies of articles suffer at least the shortcomings that their intros do:
 * The application of the Jedi teachings to another religion is called "Jedi realism".
 * That info abt the relationship between the content of Star Wars and most of the world's religions may be material for another article. If there is a way to make it relevant to the accompanying article, it has to be done better than just sticking it where i found it.
 * Jediism is not an organized religion and real-world Jedi hold different opinions and views.
 * What is organized religion? We treat it as a Rdr to religion. Terminally vague, until author's intention is made explicit.
 * "Jedi hold different opinions and views"? Bothering to juxtapose those two vague terms for species of assertions, without hinting at how mentioning only "opinions" or only "views" would change its meaning, is sufficient to keep the sentence from conveying useful information.
 * However, they share a common 'belief' in the Force, and follow the rules of the Jedi code.
 * What is the difference between "a belief" and "a 'belief'"? If you mean the first, you say that; if you mean the second, what you are asserting is unencyclopedically vague.
 * I rewrote the sent to "Jedi assert the existence of The Force, and advocate adherence to the Jedi code." Anyone who claims that everyone in a group follows the same code is either lying or a dupe. If you have evidence that Jedi claim they all follow it, we'll report the claim, but there could be no credible evidence justifying our saying they do follow it.
 * According to recent censuses in some English-speaking countries, over 500,000 people declared their religion as Jedi, and...
 * In lite of the apparent visibility of organized efforts to perpetrate insincere claims of adherence via censuses, the census info is too lame for mention in the lead section. (And mention of the numbers, even in a later section, must be either omitted, or accompanied by language that makes it clear (even if politely) that the numbers can't be distinguished from complete bullshit.)

--Jerzy•t 03:51, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Jedi realism is called Jedi realism by those who claim to practice it, and those who don't practice it but know about it. Just like everything else really. Jedi realism could do with an article of its own, except it'd be a copy of the Jediism article with extra christian teachings inserted, etc, etc, etc... Because wikipedia doesn't have it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
 * Organized religion on wikipedia redirects to religion, an article which states in it's lead that " "Organized religion" generally refers to an organization of people supporting the exercise of some religion with a prescribed set of beliefs". I can't be more clear.
 * view vs. opinion: what you see depends on your angle and position, your opinion is the result of processing what you see.
 * belief: I'm actually OK with this, I absolutely hate this word, especially when applied to the force.
 * Jedi code: I dont know what happened there, but there isn't just ONE Jedi code, not even in Star Wars, it used to be " 'the' Jedi code " or something similar. but whatever. the actual article it links to says a bit more, though this needs some work too. BTW, my muslim neighbor is a christian because he doesn't follow the teachings of the bible. (obviously christians lie about the fact that christians believe in Jesus' teachings, or that the bible is god's word and must be followed). Anything else?
 * census: people against Jediism assert the census is correct except for the results obtained on the Jedi, the people who support Jediism affirm the census is generally correct as a whole.Assuming the data regarding the Jedi is "complete bullshit" is pure speculation. There is however a section in the article just for the census, and an entire article just for it too (and this article links to it).

The immediately preceding unsigned contrib by at 06:02, 22 November 2008 has been claimed by the following user, at the time and date indicated:
 * Ren  ✉  06:05, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow, my head hurts. And i wrote the part that elicited RS's part, so it could be even harder on others. I'm going respond only to a refactored version below. --Jerzy•t 05:50, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Refactoring of previous "Removed material" discussion, and continuation based on it
I removed the following several passages, preceded by "Removed:" in the following, from the lead sec'n before giving up and tagging the whole article for cleanup, based on my experience that the bodies of articles suffer at least the shortcomings that their intros do : . To alleviate some heavy sledding, i've created a separate section corresponding to each of the three sentences, and one other independent clause, that i removed. And i've positioned after each what appears, in my best judgment, to be addressed to it. I've also subdivided by adding numbered-list formatting within sections, to facilitate working which comments are related to which others. --Jerzy•t 05:50, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Jedi realism
Removed: The application of the Jedi teachings to another religion is called "Jedi realism".
 * Jerzy•t commented 03:51, 21 November 2008 (UTC):
 * That info abt the relationship between the content of Star Wars and most of the world's religions may be material for another article.
 * If there is a way to make it relevant to the accompanying article, it has to be done better than just sticking it where i found it.
 * Ren Sydrick t responded at 06:05, 22 November 2008 (UTC), by claiming responsibility for the 06:02, 22 November 2008 contrib by 80.4.75.175:
 * Jedi realism is called Jedi realism by those who claim to practice it, and those who don't practice it but know about it. Just like everything else really.
 * Jedi realism could do with an article of its own, except it'd be a copy of the Jediism article with extra christian teachings inserted, etc, etc, etc...
 * Because wikipedia doesn't have it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.


 * Basically, Jedi realism and Jediism may be incompatible in some instances, which is something in fact quite notable. Also it is assumed that the reader of the article will probably want to look around for other sources on the subject than wikipedia, and will probably need to know that some people are christians and Jedi, and that there's a particular name for it. Ren   ✉  06:35, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * After giving it some more thought, I will remove mention of Jedi realism from the lead, at least until we have an article about jedi realism or a section about it in this article. Ren   ✉  02:29, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The [by whom] in your edited/deleted version seems not needed. Jedi realism is called jedi realism by those who practice it, just like for every other religion. So, to me, this doesn't make any sense at all. Ren  ✉  06:38, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

"Religion" in what sense and style?
Removed: Jediism is not an organized religion and real-world Jedi hold different opinions and views.
 * Jerzy•t commented 03:51, 21 November 2008 (UTC):
 * J's first 'graph:
 * What is organized religion? We treat it as a Rdr to religion.
 * Terminally vague, until author's intention is made explicit.
 * J's second 'graph:
 * "Jedi hold different opinions and views"?
 * Bothering to juxtapose those two vague terms for species of assertions, without hinting at how mentioning only "opinions" or only "views" would change its meaning, is sufficient to keep the sentence from conveying useful information.
 * Ren Sydrick t responded at 06:05, 22 November 2008 (UTC), by claiming responsibility for the 06:02, 22 November 2008 contrib by 80.4.75.175:
 * RS's first 'graph:
 * Organized religion on wikipedia redirects to religion, an article which states in it's lead that " "Organized religion" generally refers to an organization of people supporting the exercise of some religion with a prescribed set of beliefs".
 * I can't be more clear.
 * RS's second 'graph:
 * view vs. opinion: what you see depends on your angle and position, your opinion is the result of processing what you see.
 * I don't see what the big deal is all about. organized religion may redirect to religion now (it probably didn't when it was added there though), organized religion still is mentioned in religion's lead. changing 'organized religion' to 'religion' would take less time than putting a 'vague' tag. Ren  ✉  06:50, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * This is the (short) lead of the (wannabe-encyclopedic)article, and I don't see how putting dictionary definitions of view and opinion will help making it better. If it's really too hard for people to understand, then let's change it for something better instead of deleting it. Ren  ✉  06:50, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Dealt with all that stuff. Ren   ✉  02:44, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

What in common?
Removed: However, they share a common 'belief' in the Force, and follow the rules of the Jedi code.
 * Jerzy•t commented 03:51, 21 November 2008 (UTC):
 * J's 1st 'graph:
 * What is the difference between "a belief" and "a 'belief'"?
 * If you mean the first, you say that; if you mean the second, what you are asserting is unencyclopedically vague.
 * J's 2nd 'graph:
 * I rewrote the sent to "Jedi assert the existence of The Force, and advocate adherence to the Jedi code."
 * Anyone who claims that everyone in a group follows the same code is either lying or a dupe.
 * If you have evidence that Jedi claim they all follow it, we'll report the claim, but there could be no credible evidence justifying our saying they do follow it.
 * Ren Sydrick t responded at 06:05, 22 November 2008 (UTC), by claiming responsibility for the 06:02, 22 November 2008 contrib by 80.4.75.175:
 * RS's 1st 'graph:
 * belief: I'm actually OK with this, I absolutely hate this word, especially when applied to the force.
 * RS's 2nd 'graph:
 * Jedi code: I dont know what happened there, but there isn't just ONE Jedi code, not even in Star Wars, it used to be " 'the' Jedi code " or something similar.
 * but whatever.
 * the actual article it links to says a bit more, though this needs some work too.
 * BTW, my muslim neighbor is a christian because he doesn't follow the teachings of the bible.
 * (obviously christians lie about the fact that christians believe in Jesus' teachings, or that the bible is god's word and must be followed).
 * Anything else?


 * I still maintain this is non-sense. I don't see how some people would pretend to be part of a group that has a few lines long code at it's core not follow it. A bit like being Christian but not believing in any deity. The article is not about people who pretend to be Jedi, but people who live it. The lead should be general and carry basic info, so this deserves to be there. Any specific cases that still deserve to be mentioned in this article should have their own section. Somewhere in the article, not in the lead. Ren  ✉  06:59, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Census results
Removed: According to recent censuses in some English-speaking countries, over 500,000 people declared their religion as Jedi, and...
 * Jerzy•t commented 03:51, 21 November 2008 (UTC):
 * In lite of the apparent visibility of organized efforts to perpetrate insincere claims of adherence via censuses, the census info is too lame for mention in the lead section.
 * (And mention of the numbers, even in a later section, must be either omitted, or accompanied by language that makes it clear (even if politely) that the numbers can't be distinguished from complete bullshit.)
 * Ren Sydrick t responded at 06:05, 22 November 2008 (UTC), by claiming responsibility for the 06:02, 22 November 2008 contrib by 80.4.75.175:
 * census: people against Jediism assert the census is correct except for the results obtained on the Jedi, the people who support Jediism affirm the census is generally correct as a whole.
 * Assuming the data regarding the Jedi is "complete bullshit" is pure speculation.
 * There is however a section in the article just for the census, and an entire article just for it too (and this article links to it).


 * This sentence is not a lie or ambiguous. It says 500 000 people are known to have declared they were Jedi on their censuses. It links to a detailed article about it, but does not claim there are 500 000 Jedi out there. The reasons or possible interpretations are not being discussed, however it's the only numbers that can be found. All other articles about religion have numbers in their lead, which can be very different depending on the source. We have an entire article regarding our number in our lead, not just one or two sources. Ren  ✉  07:18, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

General response to Ren
The purpose of this talk page is to discuss the content of the accompanying article, and i moved the four brief passages from the article to this talk for that purpose: i asserted they are unsuitable for the lead secn of the article and gave reasons (or thots that i think suggest reasons, which i'll state more specifically if asked by those who don't find obvious the connections that i had in mind) why they are unsuitable. The tone and intention of some of your remarks may bear addressing, but not on this talk page; at this point, i consider that you have taken exception to much that i have said, without connecting your own remarks to the matter at hand: whether that material should stay removed, and if not, why not. My interest, in line with the nature of the page, is the article content, and responding to your comments before you clearly connect them to the potential article content would be off-topic. --Jerzy•t 05:50, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


 * My interest lies in the articles content too. Somewhat, I feel that once again, this article is not being treated in the same way other articles (including good ones) about religion are being treated. I'll make clarifications in the relevant sections, now that the page's format is easier to work with. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ren Sydrick (talk • contribs) 06:29, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

undone recent changes
I have undone recent changes as changing "organize" to "organise" was unnecessary (it could have stayed though), and the rest of the contribution was inaccurate (in fact it was in contradiction with sentence #2), and made sentence #1 quite confusing (too long). Also I am still reluctant to include any possible definition of "non-organized" in the lead. Jedi philosophy already mentions there is no set path (and not "there are no set paths"), however we could add "there isn't a main religious leader" (instead of "there are no religious leaders"). Ren  ✉  08:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Bad Redirect?
Was just perusing the article and noticed that links to Jedi Code redirect to Jedi, which provides basic information about Jedi from the movies, but doesn't mention anything about a Jedi Code. I understand that from the article that there are many Jedi Codes, but is there a predominant one, or one that can be used as an example and made into a separate article or a section on this page?--Pariah (talk) 07:54, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The Jedi article has been vandalized many times, and I created a Jedi code article based on what I found in the Jedi article's history (really not much). The Jedi code article which I created was 'covering' the Star Wars and Jediism aspects of it. I didn't really work on this article, and it may in fact not have deserved to be on wikipedia at all (it was merely displaying various 'Jedi codes'). Then User:EEMIV blanked it and made a redirect to the inexistant Jedi code section of the Jedi article. There was a Jedi code section some time ago back there, and there might even be a Jedi code article history somewhere too (could be useful, good luck digging!). I was thinking about making the Jedi Code article just about Jediism, and have a link at the top saying it's a Jediism-related page and the reader might have wanted to get some Star Wars info, linking to the Jedi or Star Wars article ( if it ever mentions Jedi codes again). I will start doing this now actually. Hopefully. Ren   ✉  01:52, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I see--I figured it might be something like that. Well, good luck with it.  Just as a suggestion--it probably would make more sense as a subsection of this article, if it's a code specific to Jediism and somewhat separate from the Star Wars canon.  Having it all in one article might make it easier for you to manage and prevent vandalism or disputes over notability, etc.  Anyway, I look forward to reading about it!--Pariah (talk) 02:36, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

latest rv´d anon edit makes a point
There are no official religions in the UK (apart from church of england), and this bit needs to be rewritten. Ren  ✉  05:59, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Minutia
Do we really need a mention that 8 people in a police dept. listed Jedi as their religion? It sounds like minutua to me, even though it is sourced, it seems like local interest. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:46, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It may not seem big or relevant, but "good news everyone!" Some people in the police are in fact guardians of peace and justice in the galaxy/Scotland :D These civil servants may or may not be related to Jediism, and the presence of Jedi in the Scottish police force may or may not be related to the presence of presumably at least 14 Sith Lords there. Ren   ✉  13:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * So are you saying it belongs? Niteshift36 (talk) 13:57, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it should stay. It's only a line or two long, it's in the right section, was on the news, etc. Ren   ✉  15:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)