Talk:Jediism/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Jediism vs Jedi

Coruscant (talk) 14:00, 8 September 2009 (UTC) 'Jediism' is not what it is called, it's simply 'Jedi'. e.g "I am a Jedi" i.e "I'm a follower of the Jedi religion."

• Yes it is. Jediism is the name of the real-life religion, and goes beyond the concepts introduced in Star Wars. People who have an other religion but respect and live by Jedi teachings are called Jedi Realists. Star Wars Jedi are just called Jedi. Ren ✉ 18:38, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

UK jedi church

Deleted content:

The UK Church of Jediism

Main article: UK Church of the Jedi

Brothers Daniel and Barney Jones founded the UK Church of Jediism in 2008. The Church is located in Holyhead, Angelsey, where they regularly hold meetings. According to Daniel Jones (Founder), the Church offers lessons on the Force, Lightsaber training and Meditation techniques.

The UK Church of Jediism is looked upon as the headquarters of Jediism by some.

---

Churches and other organizations have nothing to do on this page, and I even doubt such a thing has anything to do in wikipedia AT ALL. (and just reading their article for 5 seconds I already found LIES on it). The fact is, it may be looked upon as HQ for some, it is looked upon as a complete joke by many, and a source of shame for others, and claiming 500.000 members (even boosting the census results!) will not help in changing that.Ren ✉ 18:38, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

---

The UK Church of Jediism, I thought would have something to do with Jediism. May I ask you to list the lies you found in their article? Also, if you're saying Churches and 'other organizations' have nothing to do with Wikipedia, then why are their so many pages on churches and religious authorititive buildings - the Vatican, I name as one. Please reference your comment of 'it is looked upon as a complete joke by many' - I do not believe this for one second. The 500,000 members is a confirmed rounded number of the number of Jedi throughout the World. You may have seen the 390,000 figure, but I'd like to point out this is in Britain only. Please list a reason for deleting the section other than your own opinion. This is like saying 'An information page on Catholicism can't have a brief paragraph on the Vatican, as some non-believers think it is not the Headquaters for them. .Kai Tatsu ✉ 16.53 10 September 2009 (GMT)

• First of all, check out how to sign your comments, instead of copying my signature. The UK church of Jediism has almost nothing to do with Jediism. It is a movement that started after Jediism, after the census and which basically uses census figures as it's own. I'm in the UK, and all of the Jedi whom I know here are not affiliated with this organizations, and on the contrary are ashamed of it. Probably something to do with them going on TV talking about midi-chlorians and playing with plastic lightsabers. They may claim it, but they're no Jedi, only a bunch of delusional Star Wars fans. I'll remove it again, for blatant advertising, and this time I'll tag the other article as well.Ren ✉ 12:16, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Note that the Christianity article is far longer than this one, and mentions the vatican ONCE, as a country which has christianity as state religion. And that's keeping in mind the apostolic palace isn't a crumbling building in a welsh village.Ren ✉ 12:23, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

A Joke?

Should it not be noted that most people who put 'Jedi' on their cencus forms did so as a joke? It is an alternative to writing 'N/A'

• There is a whole article about this (listed at the end of the article)Ren ✉ 03:06, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Yeah, but the point is that it isn't mentioned in this article. You shouldn't have to follow the link to find it out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.67.118.188 (talk) 09:59, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. The census phenomenon is already covered in an accurate manner (unlike this unsourced dubious article) at Jedi census phenomenon. I've removed the numbers from this article. Mdwh (talk) 01:51, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Famous Jedisim Practitioners

Are there any people who claim to practice this religion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elmmapleoakpine (talk • contribs) 01:21, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I guest I found my answer http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1172816/First-police-officer-admit-Jedi-follower-uses-mind-tricks-suspects-truth.html Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 01:24, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Non-theistic

Now, whatever the case may be as to whether this is a joke or not, if there is anyone for whom it is not a joke, I'm not sure that it could be called non-theist or pantheist. There are numerous references in the Star Wars canon that spell out that the Force seems to have a will (see for example Knights of the Old Republic II). It would perhaps be better to call it dualist theism of some sort. Then again, this all depends on whether or not the supposed Jedi-ist in question actually believe the Force in some sense exists in the real world or whether they are simply making a joke about religion in general. Corbmobile (talk) 22:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

There are some who believe the force has a will in Jediism, but it isn't a main feature, and it isn't in Star Wars either (qi-gon in the movies and Kreia in Kotor2). But Jediism is not entirely based on Star Wars, merely inspired by it (Heck, some Jedi don't actually like Star Wars), and draws its non-theism/pantheism from Taoism(In fact some of kreia's views are incompatible with Jediism). Those who believe the Force(Jediism) has a will are called Jedi realists (the mix of Jediism with another religion, often christianity). Ren ✉ 16:12, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Who takes this bullshit seriously?

Noone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.0.108.107 (talk) 22:46, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Please do not post offensive comments on Wikipedia - this is a religion with over half a million followers world wide, according to 2001 censuses. Over 390,000 people in Britain alone claimed to be of the Jedi faith - making it the forth largest religion in Britain, if we're going by statistics from the 2001 census. Kai Tatsu (talk) 21:42, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

But Star Wars is a work of fiction. Right?

Not that I wish to offend anyone and I do believe in freedom of religion. but what evidence is there of Star Wars practiced other than the census’s than may or may not have been made buy followers of this new religion? And lastly I thought Star Wars was generally regarded as a work of fiction not fact. 28.11.09 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.39.128.217 (talk) 19:34, 28 November 2009 (UTC) There's lots of evidence given throughout the article. Also, Star Wars is considered to be an inspiring work of fiction in Jediism. Nothing more. Some Jedi don't actually like SW.Ren ✉ 10:51, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:RS

Please use this reliable source instead of Internet forums:

Possamai, A 2003 ‘Alternative Spiritualities, New Religious Movements and Jediism in Australia’ Australian Religion Studies Review 16 (2): 69-8

Shii (tock) 12:17, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Why was the Yoda quote on the "dark side" of the Force removed?

At the top of the article, it says, "Jediism is a non-theistic new religious movement[1][2][3] based upon the philosophical and spiritual ideas of the Jedi AS DEPICTED IN THE STAR WARS MEDIA.[4]" In the "Sides of the Force" section of this article, there is some question about whether or not a "dark side" of the force exists. I added this direct, sourced quote from a Star Wars movie: "In "The Empire Strikes Back" Master Yoda says to Luke, "Yes. A Jedi's strength flows from the force. But beware the dark side. Anger, fear, aggression. The dark side of the force are they. Easily they flow, quick to join you in a fight. If once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny. Consume you it will, as it did Obi-Wan's apprentice."[15] This quote was removed. Why? Is there another Jediism that is NOT based on the Star Wars movies? As anyone who has watched the movies knows, there IS a "dark side" of the force.114.161.229.100 (talk) 07:51, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Here's another quote, but unsourced (probably from the same movie):

Luke: “Is the dark side stronger?” Yoda: “No, no, no. Quicker, easier, more seductive.” Luke: “But how am I to know the good side from the bad?” Yoda: “You will know… when you are calm, at peace, passive. A Jedi uses the Force for knowledge and defense, never for attack.”114.161.229.100 (talk) 07:57, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

SW material should be used to document Star Wars. Jediism material should be used to document Jediism. Those who live too close to SW are usually branded "delusional geeks". Jediism has more in common with SW Jedi than, let's say, Islam. It doesn't mean that SW Jedi and Jediiism are the same things.Ren ✉ 00:52, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, Star Wars is the source of Jediism, as it clearly states at the beginning of the article. What is your source that there is no "dark side" of the force?114.161.229.100 (talk) 12:41, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

There were some references which were recently removed by another user. Jediism is not a religion present in Star Wars, therefore using Star Wars references is inappropriate. If you feel like talking about Star Wars Force and Star Wars Jedi, I suggest you edit Jedi and Star Wars instead. Ren ✉ 12:14, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

• That is patently untrue. At least three times in Episode IV, followers of the Force (which the Jedi were) were referred to as following a religion. To wit: Gov. Tarkin said "The Jedi are extinct, their fire has gone out of the universe. You, my friend, are all that's left of their religion." Adm. Motti said: "Your sad devotion to that ancient religion has not helped you conjure up the stolen data tapes..." and Han Solo said: "Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid." So tell me again that following Jediism wasn't presented as a religion. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:01, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

So what you're saying is you have no sources, and Jediism is a completely made up religion that is not based on Star Wars and is not connected with Star Wars in any way?114.161.229.100 (talk) 07:53, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I've got primary references, secondary ones are hard to find.Ren ✉ 04:21, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Jediism existed before Star Wars - not all Jedi follow Yoda's quotes, or even like Star Wars. Kai Tatsu (talk) 21:13, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

• When was Jediism founded? Niteshift36 (talk) 01:18, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Why were parallels with other religions removed?

Why was the material in parenthesis removed from the Philosophy section? Without this information, a reader may assume many incorrect things, such as that Jediism recognizes Jesus Christ as the son of God, or that Muhammed is the one true prophet: "It also shares basic ideals with many other religions (such as the existence of a struggle between Good and Evil in the universe, the importance of peace, the value of life, and service to others, for example), the Code of Chivalry, and spiritual aspects of some martial arts.[8]"114.161.229.100 (talk) 08:16, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Religions share many basic ideals with many other religions... If Jediism had anything to do with Jesus, It'd be in the article. Moreover, this: "such as the existence of a struggle between Good and Evil" isn't correct.Ren ✉ 00:49, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Again, you're basing your opinion of Jediism on something other than Star Wars then. What are your sources that there is no struggle between good and evil in Jediism? Clearly, in Star Wars, Darth Vader and the Emperor represent evil, and the Jedi represent good.114.161.229.100 (talk) 12:44, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm basing my opinion of Jediism on Jediism. You're basing your opinion of Jediism on Star Wars. If you feel like talking about Star Wars Force and Star Wars Jedi, I suggest you edit Jedi and Star Wars instead. Ren ✉ 12:16, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, where are the sources to back up your assertions? If there is something besides Star Wars that Jediism is based on, can you provide a reference to it? No offense, by "my personal opinion" is not usually considered to be an acceptable reference to justify deleting referenced material.114.161.229.100 (talk) 07:58, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

• What references were being used? Were they reliable sources? Niteshift36 (talk) 08:23, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

This is the deleted line and the deleted reference: "It also shares basic ideals with many other religions (such as the existence of a struggle between Good and Evil in the universe, the importance of peace, the value of life, and service to others, for example), the Code of Chivalry, and spiritual aspects of some martial arts." Reference: http://templeofthejediforce.org/modules/news/article.php?storyid=92 Jedi Temple Doctrine114.161.229.100 (talk) 08:40, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

• Unless I'm mistaken, that source would be considered a primary source, which usually can only be used to support a third party source. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:54, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Ren is claiming that Jediism is a distinct entity from the Jedi in the Star Wars media. If that is true, the introductory paragraph needs to have the line about Jediism being based on the Star Wars media removed, so readers will realize that Jediism is not related to the Jedi in Star Wars. I made that false assumption apparently. So that should be explicitly spelled out at the beginning of the article. Because every article I've ever seen (every third party source) about Jediism assumes the religion was inspired by the Jedi in Star Wars. And, if Jediism is not based on the Jedi in Star Wars, what are the references as to the doctrine and beliefs of this religion? Because if Jediism IS based on the Star Wars media, we can quote sources to resolve disputes. If it isn't, then anyone can start a Jedi Church and make up any thing they like. And that's fine, but it should be called "The Breakaway Jedi Church of Mike" and it can be based on "The Holy Gospel as Revealed to Mike the Prophet".114.161.229.100 (talk) 08:02, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't say Jediism is based on Star Wars media, it says "Jediism is a non-theistic new religious movement[1][2][3] based upon the philosophical and spiritual ideas of the Jedi as depicted in Star Wars media". And anyone can start a Jedi church, they already do it. Look at these idiots in wales. Ren ✉ 21:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I suspect Shii removed some 'valid' sources. I also see the external websites list is enlarging, and some of them are already in the dmoz template I inserted some time ago. The sentence wasn't removed, only the OR ("such as the existence of a struggle between Good and Evil in the universe, the importance of peace, the value of life, and service to others, for example"). Also I would like to point out that religion articles usually use a lot of primary sources, simply because people tend to study their own religion in details. Secondary sources are very hard to find in Jediism as well.Ren ✉ 13:46, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't OR. It's based on the deleted quotes from the movies and the reference that was deleted.114.161.229.100 (talk) 02:12, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

• Maybe I'm confused and please excuse my ignorance, but how can Jediism be totally divorced from Star Wars? Even if it has evolved away from it, Jediism was "invented" (pardon the choice of words) by the movie. It borrowed the name, terminology and even some (all?) of the tenants from the expanded Star Wars universe, didn't it? Niteshift36 (talk) 22:40, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
• Mostly because the movies, while inspiring, give very little information. Certainly not enough to start a religion. In Jediism the movies are viewed as "inspiring". The movies aren't sacred, Lucas isn't a prophet. Jediism also existed before the prequel and the midichlorians, and has also been influenced by other Star Wars works (video games, books) as well as people like Nietzsche, etc. Ther are inconsistencies, fallacies and "grey" areas in Star Wars, people needed to move beyond that. Things like the Jedi code really don't say much. That's why Jediism moved on from Star Wars. Not to mention that Star Wars evovlves, it's meant to be entertaining (not insightful), and that in the real world there is no republic that needs defending against evil by some kind of religious private military contractor. In fact, I highly doubt the Jedi in Star Wars can be qualified as religious. Their powers are real and lighsabers cut through 'everything'.Ren ✉ 23:47, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

• I wasn't limiting this to the prequels and, if you'd care to note, I specifically mentioned the expanded universe, which does delve into Jediism much deeper than the movies. 00:34, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• Sorry. What I meant is that People's experience of Star Wars vary, and that things like midichlorians, which are Star Wars canon, are rejected by Jediism. There are many contradicting things throughout Star Wars, including the expanded universe. You say the expanded universe delves into Jediism, but it doesn't. What happens in SW is SW stuff and is controlled by Lucasarts. What happens in Jediism is Jediism stuff and is controlled by nonone. Christianity is based on Judaism but these two religions are very different. In the same fashion, Jediism is very different from Star Wars.Ren ✉ 02:20, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• The expanded universe most certainly does go deeper than the movies do, most particularly the books. Of course they remain in the SW universe when they do it, but saying they don't go into it is simply wrong. Midichhlorians are just an allegory for a higher power anyway. In talking about Christianity and Judaism being different, you reinforce what I was getting at earlier. Christianity and Judaism are seperate, yet Christianity doesn't try to divorce itself from the part Judaism played in its history. It acknowledges it. Trying to divorce Jediism completely from Star Wars would be like Christianity trying to erase the part Judaism played in its history. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• Ahem. I guess we mean two different things by "divorce" then. I suggest you read the article anyway. It answers your questions already.Ren ✉ 09:58, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• Which article?Niteshift36 (talk) 13:02, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Jediism. I would like to point out that wikipedia shouldn't be used as a forum, so I'm going to stop here.Ren ✉ 21:34, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• Are you serious? Do you honestly think that I'm in here discussing this (and if you look, you'll see this isn't my first time here) and haven't read the article?!?! That's almost insulting. BTW, I don't see how discussing the direction of the article and what is or is not appropriate content is using it as a forum. I haven't expressed any opinion about the validity of the religion etc. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:20, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

"Real World" Jedi

What are "real world" Jedi? Are there any references to support this line at the end of the first paragraph of the article?114.161.229.100 (talk) 05:59, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

• I feel you're unnecessarily being stubborn. I have no position one way or another on Jediism as a religion. However, if there are people claiming to be Jedi or follow Jediism, that is real world. It doesn't need quotation marks are "real world". That sounds condescending. This is the "real world" and if a Jedi temple exist and people call themselves Jedi, they don't need quotes around real world like we are patronizing them. And I'd say that links in this article lend enough support to the very simply statement that they believe in the Force and that you are simply trying to make edits to minimize their views. You're demanding a citation for that, yet added your own opinion that those who answered a census as Jedi were just "movie fans". There was nothing in the source that said that. A couple of isolated people in some of the sources said that some might be joking. That's a far cry from wat you edited in and wouldn't belong in the leade anyway. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:34, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

The point I'm making is that when people put their religion as "Jedi" on the census, they were basing that on the Jedi in the Star Wars movies, not on some obscure group that is making up an alternative religion that is not based on Star Wars. I'm not saying Jediism isn't a religion, but it's a religion based on the Star Wars Jedi and the cosmology of Star Wars.114.161.229.100 (talk) 06:43, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

• If you look above, I have argued that you can't totally divorce Jediism from the influence of Star Wars. However, wherever it came from, some people now follow it as their religion. To minimize their beliefs is insulting. Further, you have no reliable evidence that tells us whether 1% or 99% are basing their response on a joke, the movie etc versus a true belief in it. You have a gut feeling that most are. You have the isolated opinions of a couple of people interviewed in stories, but no real evidence. This is one of those cases where WP:TRUTH might apply. But please understand that some people do believe it as a religion and care should be taken to not sound patronizing about their beliefs.Niteshift36 (talk) 06:50, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Some of the census respondents were protesting the religion question, and some did it as a joke, but I imagine that most of them were sincere. But it's extremely, extremely unlikely that they were inspired by anything other than the Star Wars movies. Tens of millions have seen the movies. How many church members to you have?11:47, 10 January 2010 (UTC)114.161.229.100 (talk) 11:48, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, calling some believers "real world Jedi" implies that other believers are "fantasy Jedi" and not sincere, which is also insulting.114.161.229.100 (talk) 11:53, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

No. It's not insulting. Fantasy Jedi can be found in Star Wars. Real world jedi can be found in the real world. Before the census "Jediism", the word, didn't exist. People just called it Jedi religion. The problem is that on the census, people replied "Jedi", "Jedi knight" or even "sith", causing the media to write all sorts of rubbish as usual. "Jediism" was coined to distance itself from that.Ren ✉ 15:53, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

• Ren, you can't have it both ways. If Jediism has nothing to do with Star Wars, like you keep telling us, then it only belongs in the "real world". And since the article is about Jediism, then there is no reason to even call them "real world", let alone put the phrase in quotation marks. And since some of the Jedi Temple sites I've looked at use "Jedi" and "Jedi Knight" as appropriate titles, using them on a census form doesn't seem inappropriate. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:08, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

the article doesn't mention "real world Jediism", but real world Jedi. There are real world Jedi, fake real-world Jedi, and fantasy Jedi. The Jedi word comes from fantasy Jedi. Jediism comes from that word. Jediism only exists in the real world, "Jedi" exist in both. Niteshift, please stop acting like a Hannigan. It gives us all a bad name. Ren ✉ 00:51, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

• You clearly missed the point. I don't know who or what a Hannigan is, but is sure sounds like a personal attack. I'm not giving you a bad name sport, you're giving yourself one by acting like you are the sole authority on Jediism. If you want to tell me where to buy your book on the topic, I'll take a look. Until then, you are no more an authority on the topic than anyone else here, so stop acting like you are an expert. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:05, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I defend my contributions. You have been twisting my words every time I have answered your questions. This behaviour is well known in the Jedi community and usually attributed to a single individual, usually referred to as "Hannigan". But, as I said before, this is no place for such non-sense.Ren ✉ 03:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

• Oh wow, a made up insult. I haven't twisted anything you've said. And I stand by my observation that you acting like you are an expert on the topic, that this is your article and no other input is allowed. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:10, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

A: I don't recall reverting any of your edits or ever taking part in an edit war. B: Maybe I am an expert on the topic C: So far your input has been a display of poor social skills towards me and the IP user.Ren ✉ 05:29, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

• A. Did I say you reverted edits or were edit warring? No. So thanks for pointing out nothing. B. I've asked you to point me to your book on the topic. Otherwise, it doesn't matter if you think you're an expert. There is a process to get recognized as one for WP purposes. Until you do, your opinion is just opinion, no more important than anyone elses. C. You have no room to lecture anyone about social skills. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:37, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

A: In which case stop claiming that I do not allow your input or that I said things I didn't. B: I do not disclose my identity on the internet. C: I am not lecturing.Ren ✉ 06:50, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

• You can't stop input, you simply act as if no input that doesn't mirror yours has value. I didn't think that the difference between "acting like" something versus actually doing it was so subtle that you would not grasp it. My apologies for presuming you'd get the difference. If you aren't a verified expert, then you're just another editor. Don't talk to me about social skills. You have no high ground there my friend. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:29, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

"Ren, you can't have it both ways. If Jediism has nothing to do with Star Wars, like you keep telling us" No, I don't keep telling anyone. I'm pretty sure I wrote 90% of that article, including the first sentence: "Jediism is a non-theistic new religious movement[1][2][3] based upon the philosophical and spiritual ideas of the Jedi as depicted in Star Wars media."

That's basically the issue you've had with me. I've assumed good faith long enough with you. I give up. I guess we met before? A quick look at your page suggests why we don't get along.Ren ✉ 09:58, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

• Oh, you're one of those people who thinks that you know everything about me because you looked at some userboxes? LOL. Keep stereotyping, it reveals much. Guess what? You gave up being civil and assuming good faith long ago. Don't pretend like you just did. How about we deal with something substantial? Can you show any good reason (besides "I'm an expert and I say so") for putting "real world" in quotation marks? It's not quoting anything and it's not being used as sarcasm etc. So why would it be in quotes? Niteshift36 (talk) 10:10, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I, A: didn't say I was an expert, you, however, automatically assumed I wasn't. And B: Never objected to the removal of the quotation marks, but supported the inclusion of "real world" as I feel it clarifies the situation in a non-discriminative way. In the same fashion, I repeat, I didn't say Star Wars had nothing to do with Jediism and in fact previously wrote the opposite in the article. I suggest you read this talk page again. What you have been doing is called libel. Since you refuted my possible explanations for us not getting along, then I confirm, it IS indeed bad faith. You've had a go at me when we didn't even disagree on anything about the article... And I'm sure you know wikipedia policies at least as well as I do.Ren ✉ 12:33, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

• I said you've been acting like an expert (there, you missed that subtlety again) and asked you to either show you are one or quit acting like you are. Really Ren, try to read ALL the words next time. I didn't object to the phrase real world, I objected to the quotation marks....then you chimed in about how I was wrong. Don't talk to me about libel. First off, there is none. If you think there is, then I suggest you educate yourself further on the topic. Second, that sounds vaguely like a legal threat and I'll bet you don't want to go that route, do you? I actually started reading the article because I had an genuine interest in Jediism. However, my encounters with you have left me with a bad impression of it. Good job Ren. Way to promote it. I'm done with this discussion. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:24, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Fellas, this is getting old. I've I think made an edit to the article that removes the "real-world" text while retaining the underlying *ahem* uncited claim. Ren, the bit about libel is a shuffle toward a legal threat, which you don't want to escalate. Please, both of you, go find other things to edit for a bit other than this talk page and article. --EEMIV (talk) 14:58, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I apologize. There is no way I wish to make any kind of legal threats... However I find it particularly distasteful when people claim I said or wrote things I did not. It happened to me before, I didn't do anything about it and it tarnished my reputation, something hard to create and easy to destroy.

Niteshift: "I objected to the quotation marks....then you chimed in about how I was wrong" I didn't. My comment regarding that "real world" thing was aimed at the IP user, who claimed that using "real world" (with or without parenthesis) could somehow offend some people, by implying there would be fantasy Jedi(ists?) (in the real world? It doesnt make any sense to me anyway). I don't know why you thought it was directed at you, but I saw your reply as an attack and I became certain you were Hannigan, who enjoys taking the piss at me(and many others) that way... So I apologize. I should have been more generous with that "assume good faith" stuff.

Note: To set the record clear, as it has been my point all along, I do not claim that Jediism has absolutely nothing to do with Star Wars, and only wish for them to be treated as what they are: different subjects. Related, but different. I also never had any objections to the removal of the quotes around "real world", and still do not have any. That's all I want. really. I mean that. Sorry for the confusion and for contributing in the heated exchanges.

EEMIV: Why should we need to get a reference for "real life Jedi"? Why is it necessary to prove that there is a difference between a character in a movie and a real guy? Or that followers of Jediism are called Jedi? Do we need to prove that followers of christianity are called christians, and that some of them live in the "real world"[citation needed], not just as characters in american movies or an old "holy"[explain] book[verify claims]?Ren ✉ 17:11, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

The article already establishes the topic and its followers as real people rather than characters; the phrase is redundant. Also, the quote marks are used colloquially more to convey a tone than anything else -- not an actual quote; the typography is unnecessary. Rather than see this talk-page section come up on my watchlist rather than the article itself, pruning the phrase entirely seemed expeditious. --EEMIV (talk) 17:16, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

? I'm not talking about the quotes, but about the "underlying *ahem* uncited claim". Wait. You were still going on about the pejorative meaning the quotation marks brought along?

Listen I'm getting really confused now, I'm going to edit it my way and someone, please tell me wtf is wrong with it because it's obviously not coming through to me.Ren ✉ 20:59, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Having just read this argument, I got bored after about three paragraphs - I'd like to point out that this only started because of some quotation marks around the words 'real world'. Just thought I'd step in there and put everything back in to context. Kai Tatsu (talk) 21:24, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Not even that, there weren't quotation marks on the article to begin with!Ren ✉ 17:21, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Stripping Article of References

Wow, isn't this article going backwards? I added all kinds of references (numbers of people claiming "Jedi" as their religion on census forms by country, basis of the idea as discussed by George Lucas, quotes from Star Wars about the Force) but they've all been removed. Soon there will be no references left at all, and the article will be pure OR and personal opinion!114.161.229.100 (talk) 11:53, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I know. They are still in the history, I'm thinking about doing some kind of massive revert/merge.Ren ✉ 00:08, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I notice that it's getting SPAM. Somebody starts a site with one or three members yesterday and puts a link. That won't do. Br.John.Henry.Phelan (talk) 02:30, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

The census issue is covered at Jedi census phenomenon and so is therefore off-topic for this article, which is covering the idea of it being followed as a genuine religion. There is no evidence to suggest that all these people were actually members of a real Jedi religion as covered at this article (indeed, the claim is quite absurd). Just because we have no good refs left, is not an argument for putting in more bad refs. You have to go and find good refs - or else it simply shouldn't be on Wikipedia. I already addressed my reasoning for removing the census numbers in the Talk page, so please address that before reverting. Mdwh (talk) 01:41, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

There were many references to news articles about Daniel Jones and the Church of Jediism - these have since been removed. Kai Tatsu (talk) 13:50, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

We've had someone do some adding as well, John. I think those who believe in the UK church are trying to keep this page to themselves. >.> Setanaoko (talk) 07:26, 8 October 2010 (JST)

Are religious people such as the UK Church or Christians being biased by devolving this article and destoying the work of those who have provided referenced contributions? Maybe they are scared that Jediism will become more popular than Christianity, maybe. Wikipedia must not be baised! One cannot remove the facts because they do not agree with the topic. Wikimedia should continue to provide the vehicle for article development and concept clarification, not article destruction. Either way the current state of this article is very poor and needs development, development which has repeatedly been removed.

This has nothing to do with Christianity or any other group. It has to do with policies (such as WP:RS) that I've three? four? times pointed you toward that you continue to ignore. --EEMIV (talk) 18:04, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay, so... removed the links which were gleaned from other sources... why? I don't see that it violates policy, nor is it really OR, nor is it COI, nor does it really break with the purpose of being an encyclopedic reference. Thus, keeping the links supports the usability of Wikipedia as a source of information which has already been published on the web site links which were added. To remove these seems to be clearly motivated garbage and is not in good keeping with policies. It would also go a long way toward preventing claims of favoritism such as those above. --Red Heron (talk) 18:51, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:EL has nothing to do with references. Please see the protracted section at the bottom of the page to discuss the local consensus for the "threshold" to include certain links. --EEMIV (talk) 18:54, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

No improvements are possible without first publishing a vast amount of material which is currently unpublishable under the law (due to restrictions on trademark which most publishers have used as a means to preclude publication), or getting a large number of media resources, thus increasing the length of the article for each organization by one new article reference. After reading a "consensus" to which the others here do not agree (very plainly, I might add), I have concluded that your aim is to prevent the ability for such an article to be usable by anyone who is looking for information about the topic. The only options at this point are options which are neatly prevented by either Wikipedia policy or your own consensus which is not done by consent of those knowledgeable about the topic. Before arbitrarily creating rules and having someone else who clearly doesn't see a purpose in having an encyclopedic entry, you might want to consider that your POV is not the only consideration involved. EDIT: I also believe that in the absence of good research, pointing to OR would be the next-best thing, even while not including it in the article. --Red Heron (talk) 17:39, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Requests for a third opinion are thattaway; feel free to avail yourself of it. If you feel content does not exist/is not accessible to improve the article to an encyclopedic level, then nominate the subject for deletion. --EEMIV (talk) 17:38, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Thus, negating any purpose for attempting to improve it... what a neat little wrap! All we have to do is argue things to death, and then they no longer need publication. You know, I think that this is one of the reasons that Wikipedia is considered unreliable by most serious academic institutions: real information can't even have a pointer to it, unless someone publishes a news article saying it's an authority? This is utter nonsense: I could publish an article tomorrow about the FSM, naming someone as an authority, and whatever they said would then become the source of information which appears. True verification requires a community validation process, not simply a neatly-worded obstruction to adding valid sources of information which can be derived from validated links on the sites mentioned. --Red Heron (talk) 17:45, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Also, Project Toronto doesn't seem to have anything to do with a third opinion. --Red Heron (talk) 17:47, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia pretty clearly lays out what qualifies as a reliable source; it is not a matter of just posting something online. If you think that is the case with some of the cited material in this article -- i.e. you think claims are cited to unreliable sources -- remove the claims and the citations.

WP:3O. Considering how few folks keep an eye on this article, 3O seems a good venue to solicit additional outside feedback. --EEMIV (talk) 18:08, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

New external link

The link for churchofthejedi.org has been removed by more than one editor. The IP address adding it is from the same area that the Church is located in, which is Spring Hill, Florida. Aside from the possible COI, it looks like the site is being added contrary to WP:EL, which advises against the adding of sites to promote them. The domain churchofthejedi.org was just registered on Jan. 16, 2010 by a man in.....Spring Hill, FL. I have to laugh when the home page included 2 things.....a poll that has a spelling error in the question and a big pay pal button to accept donations. Smelling a lot like spam. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:05, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree: sites in the directory need to have both significant development and at minimum a year of continuous operation before they can even be considered for addition. New sites trying to promote themselves should try other avenues. However, the issue of IP addressing is really a non-issue, since people rarely (if ever) host from home or office these days... at best, the COI is not related to the IP, but is instead related to the young age of the domain and its addition to the external links section. I keep adding the list in, because while the Jediist NRM is young, published information about it is really very difficult to come by, for someone who wants to find good information. The best solution I can think of is to include the links to the sites themselves, which avoids any OR claims, balances the POV by allowing significant alternate viewpoints to be represented, and improves the encyclopedic quality of Wikipedia as a reference to find information online. Red Heron (talk) 05:50, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

"Official" Religion

Though people tend to claim that the religion is officially recognised I do not know where this is true. In many US states one need do nothing but register a name to become a "religion". In Canada this process is far more complex. In Ontario one must have an existing organisation for 20 years and then can petition the Ministry of Commercial and Consumer Relations, register a "Book of Common Prayer" and fill out some forms to become an Officially Recognised Religion. The inclusion on the census form only reflects frequency of response, not official recognition.

Universal Life Church will ordain anyone, anywhere for whatever reason. For a dollar you can be a Saint or an Angel even. They hardly count as an authority.

I will point out, though, that although Star Wars is a work of fiction, Lucas was advised by Theologeon Joseph Campbell and the original series includes many Shinto, Buddhist, Hermetic and even Gurdjeiffian concepts. The idea of the Force can be seen in the works of many Hermeticists under the names Life-Power, One-Force, LVX, Limitless Light, and others. Though there may be an historical connection for the ideas expressed in Jediism it is still an NRM/Cult without legal foundation as a religion. (I use the word Cult in its anthropological sense, not in the sensationalist media sense.)

It would also be interesting to know whether or not there is a single "authority" or multiple sects. Also any quotes Lucas himself may have on the subject would be valuable as to the legitimacy of using the term Jedi in the first place. Frater SG (talk) 03:53, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• Registering a name isn't the "gold standard" in the US. Tax exempt status tends to be more important. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:42, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• There are indeed multiple sects and absolutely no centralized authority that is universally recognized by everyone who claims to be a Jedi. Further, the term Jediism may or may not refer to a relgiously-oriented view of the Jedi philosophy and broader Star Wars mythos. Although effort is being made to come up with qualifications on the term Jedi to distinguish those who adhere to the Jedi Philosophy without a religious slant, from those who follow it with a religious slant, the terminology is still a bit muddied up. The biggest problem with this particular artilce is that it purports that all who claim Jediism claim it as a religion, when that simply is not the case. The unifying belief is in this thing called the Force... which is an impersonal force in nature, more akin to Gravity than a diety. Belief in gravity is not something generally accepted as constituting a religion, and so belief in something like a unified field theory is no better a qualification for a religion (in my opinion). Stryse (talk) 17:48, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Lucas' trademarks doesn't cover religion topics. i would like to add that many countries do not recognize any religions, and as niteshift puts it, tax-exempt status (I don't know how it happens in the US) as a religious organization is the way to go. there are a few tax-exempt jedi organizations in and outside the US. One in Canada actually.Ren ✉ 05:17, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

All Rather Pointless

not related to improvement of the article

Considering that to the Jedi , using the 'Force' is the primary aspect of being a Jedi, this renders Jediism a thoroughly pointless exercise. Because the 'Force' does not exist. And so cannot be used. Chunner (talk) 16:46, 3 July 2010 (UTC) That is a statement of belief. While a valid belief, it is no more or less valid than the beliefs held by those who call themselves Jedi. Thus its only pointless to those who don't share that belief. One can not prove the existance of the Force anymore than they can prove the existance of a God. Yet you will be hard-pressed to find anyone who would agree that adhering to (not to mention the exploration of) their own beliefs (and by extension world-views) is a pointless excercise on their part. Stryse (talk) 17:53, 11 June 2010 (UTC) Your point being? The Force does not exist. It is a fictional concept dreamt up by & in the fevered imagination of George Lucas. That is not a point of view. It is a FACT One cannot prove or disprove the exsistence of God or Gods? That is a point of view. One cannot prove or disprove the exsistence of the Force? Incorrect! False!! Wrong!!! The Jedi use the Force to effect drastic, tangible, physical real time changes in themselves, their immediate environment or opponents. Being aware of and being able to 'Use the Force' is the primary aspect, the be-all and end-all of being a Jedi. A Jedi who cannot use 'The Force' is not a Jedi. As there is no Force, There can be no Jedi. But, as you say, if it makes them happy, they should go for it. Yours, as always, and with a smile,Chunner (talk) 16:46, 3 July 2010 (UTC) Not quite a sound argument. First, being able to use the Force is hardly the be-all and end-all of being a Jedi. There are plenty of non-Jedi force-sensitives in the Star Wars universe. Even if we limit ourselves to just the original trilogy, we have the Sith. The be-all and end-all of being a Jedi is in their ethics and ideology. Force-sensitivity may be the prerequisite to begin your path, but it alone will not make you a Jedi. Secondly your basis that there is no Force is that George Lucas invented a 'ficitious concept.' This is not entirely true either. George Lucas adapted a pre-existing concept to a work of fiction. This is different from inventing a concept outright. He didn't dream up something like Dark Energy. He took from a rich history of human spirituality in crafting the Jedi order. The concept behind 'the Force,' he gave a new name and a new interpretation too, but that's what people have been doing throughout time. Humanity has known 'the Force' under many names. Tao, Spirit, Ether, Chi, Akasha, Divinity, God/dess energy, etc. Whatever that 'something' ultimately is, and whether or not it really exists, has been a matter of contention for quite some time. I suppose we might say, in lack of any means to verify the existance or not, that any spiritual pursuit is "all rather pointless" but too many people have found value in it for that to be an objectively true statement. Stryse (talk) 02:49, 16 July 2010 (UTC) Trying to veiw spirituality or religious matters objectivley is a contradiction in point. Religion is a subjective subject! As a longstanding fan of Monty Python I have to say I've come here for the argument! It seems that you are attempting to gather all known spiritual & religious movements and ideas and palm them off as aspects of 'The Force'. This is a foolhardy attempt to justify the possible exsistence of a 'made for TV' pseudo-religion. Humanity has known 'The Force' under many names?...I'm afraid this is getting pretty creepy....Are you serious? If a member of the general public wishes to shop in Tesco's wearing a Hoodie and calling himself a Jedi, It's OK with me. But it don't make him one. Is All I'm Sayin! TTFN Chunner (talk) 19:50, 3 August 2010 (UTC AAAAAAAARRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! THE FORCE LIGHTNING!!!! THE FORCE LIGHTNING!!!!!! GASP!!! *CHOKE* COUGH!!!! THE DEADLY FORCE GRIP!!! THE DEADLY FORCE GRIIIPPP!!!! AAAARRRGGGHHHH! THE FORCE LIGHTNING!!!!! THE FORCE LIGHTNING!!!!!!!!! GASP!!! *CHOKE* COUGHhhhhhhhh................ TTFN Chunner (talk) 19:58, 3 August 2010 (UTC) As you say above, "One cannot prove or disprove the exsistence of the Force? Incorrect! False!! Wrong!!!" Ok then, Please disprove its existence.129.139.1.68 (talk) 21:43, 30 November 2010 (UTC) Let Me Ask You This: Are You A Jedi or Sith? Are You A Force Sensitive? Can You 'USE' the 'FORCE'? No? That's because THE FORCE is a FICTIONAL, quasi pseudo scientific made-for-tv religion. It is practiced and used by FICTIONAL characters in FICTIONAL settings for FICTIONAL plot developments. Ok then? Chunner (talk) 22:09, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Other popular culture

What is the relevance of this section, it doesn't even refer to Jediism but instead refers to the Matrix Memnoich (talk) 18:27, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

• Been a while since I looked at this article. You're right, it has nothing to do with the topic. Removed. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:33, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

You have got to be kidding

Some people decide to have some good-natured fun with a govenment census and merit an article as if it was all done in earnest? Ekwos (talk) 03:09, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

The ones who were *just* having fun with the census aren't typically the ones involved in Jediism (or Jedi Realism). Which of course raises the point that just because census forms shows X number of people are Jedi, we can't really consider that number as accurate since its fairly well accepted that more than a few people filled out Jedi as part of the joke. Nevertheless, there are those who filled in that response with complete seriousness on their part. Any religion can look foolish in its infancy, but if they're serious about it, they'll eventually grow up into something only fools would say is foolish. :P

Of course this article doesn't do a very good job of exploring the wide diversity that is the Jedi movement. 24.205.194.2 (talk) 23:41, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Parody religion

I always beleived that Jediism is a parody religion. Please clarify why this is not put down as a parody religion, whereas other, apparently similarly foolish religions, such as FSMism are not, as it seems to be that Wikipedia is guility of non- impartiality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.152.71.65 (talk) 13:54, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

• It's not put down as a parody religion because Jediism is a real religion with thousands of true believers, rather than a collection of people who have joined for a joke. The Church of Jediism alone has over 3,000 true members who all actually believe in the Force. And that's just one of the Jedi communities out there. Kai Tatsu (talk) 12:34, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

No, this is not the point at all. You must supply citations or even simple links to websites pertaining to Jedi believers. For some, it is not a parody, though it is a misguided and silly pursuit. To include real-world Jedi influence, however, there must be real-world citations. What I find pitiful is that it takes a film to move people into the realm of enlightenment. Therefore, if you wish to flesh out this article properly, there should also be cited objections to the use of a bunch of film characters as the foundation of a religion.75.21.144.68 (talk) 16:57, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I think that it is very likely that many or most people who put Jedi on a census were either mocking religion or mocking the census. It would be misleading for this article to take itself too seriously, but it needs some citations for why people chose to identify as Jedi. Was there a specific campaign asking people to put Jedi on the census? —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 00:28, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

There are now some links to relevant sites, but because of the relative newness of the religion there is a lack of information published except on these websites themselves. As such, any inclusion might be arguably OR. However, simply offering details FOR research is precisely what an encyclopaedic reference should do, and therefore the inclusion of the links to the sites (as requested) should show that there is an active community of believers at the very least. Red Heron (talk) 18:20, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

It began in Australia, because they resented the census. They wanted to foul it up by putting Jedi in the religion box. It was never about "devout Jedis". There was no such move at the time. It began a bit later.75.21.159.227 (talk) 16:47, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

There are plenty of people who practiced it before 1990 (let alone 2000). While the census debacle was clearly not an accurate representation of "devotion" to the Jedi faith, there were online groups of religious Jedi as early as 1987 (and probably earlier). However: this is anecdotal in nature, I have no proof, and so any discussion of validity is pointless. The fact is that now we have "devout Jedis" who practice in a clearly religious capacity. And for the record, the late-2000 chain email started in Aus, but the actual practice began somewhere in California at about the same time as it began somewhere in the UK. Red Heron (talk) 18:25, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

The former Church of Jediism is now Church of Jediism Limited - a for profit business.

The Holyhead UK Church of Jediism incorporated as a for profit business in June 2010. Their Charter says nothing about it being a church or engaging in religious or charitable activities but does say that all profits / dividends go to the sole owner - Daniel Morgan Jones. The corporations model limited by shares does not allow for members. Their legal name is now Church of Jediism Limited. A copy of the Charter is available at http://ChurchOfJediism.org/documents/ChurchOfJediism-UK-CHARTER.pdf . If it ever was a church it certainly is not now. It's a business that sells merchandise with it's logo like, for example, t-shirts and Jedi costumes. Legally it has no (zero) members - only customers.

Anyone may verify the copy of the Church of Jediism Limited Charter listed above is legitimate by purchasing a copy directly from Company House UK for one British pound. It may be purchased online with almost immediate delivery. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.242.103.230 (talk) 12:39, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

• I don't know what to say to this. It's difficult to comment at all without risking offending anyone's religious sensibilities, but surely it's understood that the Star Wars movies are fiction and Lucas never intended to start a religion based on a movie he made? I mean, I am a huge star wars nerd (check out my car:File:Rebelbaja.JPG) but it never even occurred to me that anyone might actually believe in the force as a real thing. Granted, it makes as much sense as believing in a bearded man up in the clouds who sent his son down to be nailed to a tree, but the Bible was never presented as fictional entertainment. I guess what I'm asking is can it really be quantified that the majority of persons involved in these churches actually believe that the force is real and do not accept Star Wars as a work of fiction? Beeblebrox (talk) 01:28, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Shao-lin reference removed

The reference to Shao-lin as a sort of inspiration and as a component of Jediism has been removed. You have no right to say anything other than you have taken INSPIRATION only, from Shao-lin.

If you are not Buddhist, do not live the Holy Vows, especially celibacy and rejection of intoxicants, among all others, you cannot claim Jediism as a form of Buddhism. Shao-lin was the epitomy of Buddhist spirituality in China before the Communist government repressed it into non-existence.

While I commend those who look toward Shao-lin for ideals, you should not disgrace the memory of Shao-lin in this way. Do you have any conception of how many DIED trying to save the Temple? Do you know how many died subsequently, fleeing for their lives?75.21.112.60 (talk) 14:14, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I think the better question isn't "Do you have any conception of how many DIED trying to save the Temple? Do you know how many died subsequently, fleeing for their lives?" It's "Do I care?"129.139.1.68 (talk) 21:47, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

---

"Jediism is not the same as that which is portrayed within the Star Wars Saga by George Lucas and Lucasfilm LTD. George Lucas' Jedi™ are fictional characters that exist within a literary and cinematic universe. The Jedi™ discussed within this website refer to factual people within this world that live or lived their lives according to Jediism, of which we recognize and work together as a community to both cultivate and celebrate. Jedi™ Apprentices, Knights, Commanders, Scholars, Masters, Scribes and High Councilors embrace Jediism as a real living, breathing religion, and sincerely strive to seek out and emulate real life examples of Jediism in the long rich history of mankind. Jediism bases less of its focus on myth and fiction, and more upon those real life examples of Jediism.

The history of the path of Jediism traverses thought which is well over 5,000 years old. It shares many themes embraced in Hinduism, Confucianism, Buddhism, Gnosticism, Stoicism, Catholicism, Taoism, Shinto, Modern Mysticism, the Way of the Shaolin Monks, the Knight's Code of Chivalry and the Samurai Warriors. We recognize that many times the answers to mankind's problems comes from within the purified hearts of genuine seekers of truth. Theology, philosophy and religious doctrine can facilitate this process, but we believe that it would be a futile exercise for any belief system to claim to hold all the answers to all the serious questions posed to seekers of truth in the 21st century. Jediism may help facilitate this process, yet we also acknowledge that it is up to the true believer who applies the universal truths inherent within Jediism to find the answers they seek." [Emphasis mine.]

Retrieved 25/OCTOBER/2010 at: http://www.jediism.org/

I bring this to the attention of the talk page here--this has a few silly statements, but I am offended by the reference to the FICTIONAL "Way" of the Shao-lin monks. There is no "way" except the Middle Way of Buddhism. The Shao-lin have no other "way".

I will keep vigilant to see that this expression and reference to Shao-lin be used IN QUOTES, and that no other reference to a "Shao-lin Way" be referenced here. I feel very strongly about people who express beliefs that are unknown to them.

Anyone who practices Buddhism knows what the Shao-lin Order stood for and how the monastery operated--that is all. There is no more than that.75.21.112.60 (talk) 15:26, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I will haunt this page til kingdom come--and will keep removing the Shao-lin reference UNLESS you re-phrase, allow a re-phrasing, or offer a specific citation that says how this has borrowed from Shao-lin. Do not make me call an admin into this.75.21.159.227 (talk) 16:50, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/User_talk:ResidentAnthropologist ResidentAnthropologist, I know it is you who keeps reverting my corrections to certain statements in the article. Post here, or get ready for trouble. Chzz has been asked to try to bring you to heel, but I know it won't work.75.21.159.227 (talk) 17:01, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

The issue was is you removed references in exchange for your own WP:OR. Thus was reverted The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 17:06, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

That may be true in the sense of bad wording, which I regret. However, I have not added anything of my own--as you have done. You know this. I have added nothing inaccurate, false or fictional.75.21.159.227 (talk) 17:26, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

"The Shaolin have no "way" except the Middle Way of Buddhism???" Is that why they call theirs Chan and others call themselves Theravada, Mahayana, Zen, etc.? While I agree with the removal of the silly wording as pointless and trivial (and wrong), I will also hold that there would be plenty of Buddhists who would point out the minor differences between Buddhist paths, and cite them as equal to the minor differences of Christianity (that's like saying that both the Catholic Church and the Mormons follow ONLY the teachings of Christ). What might be better is to find some other references which talk about the beliefs of those who follow the religion, rather than on the say-so of people who might be practicing (as we all know Wikipedia's policy on OR). Red Heron (talk) 18:33, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

First off, IP 75.21.159.227, sign your posts if you plan on taking such a stand. Anonymous posts are unseemly for recurring editors.

Secondly, you need to settle down. It's true that the (apparently deleted) section referencing Jediism being similar to the ways of Shao-lin is silly, but it's hardly a malicious attack. Someone has just seen one too many kung-fu movies (which are much more guilty of distorting what it meant to be a Shao-lin monk) and thought it seemed neat. A simple post about your position would suffice, you don't need to declare holy war over the issue.

I'm Irish and tens of thousands of my people were killed during the British occupation over the centuries, but I don't flip out every time I see a Lucky Charms commercial. I roll my eyes and change the channel. Like a sane person. So simmer down, yeah? The Cap'n (talk) 16:02, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit reversions

Chzz's reply to me on this subject: "Stop trying to add the same thing, and instead discuss it on Talk:Jediism, to establish a consensus. There is no rush. It takes more than one person to make an edit-war; just relax, and talk about it instead. Chzz ► 17:15, 27 October 2010 (UTC)"

So there we are. He's going to be of no help, but I assure you, ResidentAnthropologist, that I am not going to allow your reversions of my improvements, nor will I allow you to brand me a vandal, which is what you are doing.

I post with all respect. I am not trying to begin Edit Wars here. But I think you are. Why do you not do as Chzz suggests, as I do?75.21.159.227 (talk) 17:25, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

"The issue was is you removed references in exchange for your own WP:OR. Thus was reverted The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 17:06, 27 October 2010 (UTC)"

So I quote ResidentAnthropologist. Well R.A., I say in this topic section as I said above, I have not added anything erroneous, fictional or incorrect to the article, as you have.75.21.159.227 (talk) 17:29, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

"Jediism is a post-modern religious movement, based upon the philosophical and spiritual ideas of the Jedi as depicted in Star Wars media.[1][2]" This is my corrected version of the opening line. Is this not enough? Without citations or sources, why keep reverting to the old assertions? What is freely asserted is freely negated, have you heard about that before?75.21.159.227 (talk) 17:35, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

---

Whoops, my IP has fluctuated again...no matter, since I cannot change that if I wanted to do so.

Anyway, I am content with the content and wording of the article as it stands today. My apologies for any anger that cut through the issue: I was getting a bit tired of following YOUR rules and having everything reverted just the same.

As to the featured problem, the mention of the fictitious "Way of Shao-lin", as long as a source can be cited that Jediists believe in this, or some other source can be cited giving a definition of what this "Way" is, I'll be content.

If not, Shao-lin ought to be kept out of the issue. I've seen the 3 or 4 various Jedi groups and it is their standard line that they follow the Way of the Samurai, the Chivalric Code and the Way of Shao-lin. A standard motto line is not a reliable source in this instance unless you qualify it as such.

Also, from what I have learned, quite a few Jediists would be offended at being described as "nontheists". Quite a few of them are monotheistic.

In any case, R.A. and Chzz, I am calm, cooperating and open to whatever. Just practice what you preach, that is all I have ever asked.75.21.155.253 (talk) 15:04, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

External links redux/proposal

The EL section persists in being a magnet for spam, essentially turning into a directory of various Jediism churches and groups. Although guideliness encourage linking to a separate directory, the list itself should not itself be a directory.

EL makes provisions to provide a link to a group/organization mentioned in an article; the sole link I've left -- to the UK Church of Jediism -- is to an organization that is, and whose members are, mentioned in a few spots in the article, so it seems appropriate to retain that link.

I propose

• a third-party directory of Jediism groups/churchs be sought and linked [deliberate use of passive voice; I'm not sure if I'll go digging beyond a cursory Google search].
• if other organizations receive third-party coverage appropriate for inclusion in this article, that organization's web site can be included in the EL section.
• links to Jediism organizations not mentioned in the article be erased.

Feedback? I've WP:BOLDly taken the initiative to put the EL section into a state that reflects the above. --EEMIV (talk) 18:53, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

The overly-strict and non-consensual nature might actually fall into excessive rules lawyering which is an attempt to circumvent the spirit of the policy (to make a usable source of information) with the letter of the policy. Adding a few links to established sites (out of the literally hundreds which I might be able to add) would not be in violation of external links policy nor would it be "a directory" of all the Jedi sites on the planet. It's simply a means by which to give just a little more information so that someone might be able to make Wikipedia useful. --Red Heron (talk) 17:56, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

-- There are more than JUST the church of jediism, that have loyal followers, that believe in the philosophy and spirituality of the Force. Jediism ISN'T just the church of Jediism, there are many who are becoming legal religions in many areas. It is foolish, to think the the church of jediism, is all there is, without recognizing those that wholeheartedly believe in the Force, and the Energies of the universe. Other groups, and Non-Profit organizations should have their place in the External links section. So that those who wish to learn about Jediism, have an opportunity to get the full, complete scope of the subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cypress24 (talk • contribs) 17:28, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

As I explained to Cypress24 on my talkpage, essentially WP:EL is in line with EEMIV's proposal above. It isn't up to Wikipedia to provide links to the different organizations that comprise the breadth of people who believe in the Force. Google is probably better suited with something like 'force jediisim organization'. That is my opinion. Syrthiss (talk) 17:40, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

-- among Force Realists, and those that practice Jediism on a daily basis, a lot believe that the Church of Jediism and its "leader" is a joke, and a poor representation of the Jedi Community. The page is titled "Jediism". Therefore it should have references to the places, and groups that practice Jediism. If this was the "Church of Jediism" page, that would be a different story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cypress24 (talk • contribs) 18:05, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Please respond to the actual proposal above regarding External links on this page, or substantiate your beliefs about what "should" be on the article page with appropriate references to e.g. WP:EL. --EEMIV (talk) 18:10, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

-- I can see that there have been a few before me, that have wanted information on this page, that better describes Jediism. Though it seems, that those have all been deleted, or not taken seriously. To me, it seems that this is all about The church of Jediism, and not actually about Jediism in General. It seems as though this page is only for the farce of a group, and not what is really believed among Force Realists, and Jediism Practitioners. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cypress24 (talk • contribs) 18:44, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

We can only report on what is verifiable from reliable sources. If there are reliable sources that connect your organization with Jediism, and that is used to expand the article, then your link would fall under EEMIV's proposal above. I don't want you to think we are being dismissive, but as EEMIV said above...at one point we had a TON of external links, well beyond the guidelines would allow. That will not be permitted to happen again. Syrthiss (talk) 18:54, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

- I'd like to know who these reliable sources are that you refer to as. Cause all it would have taken prior is clicking on the said link of those other sites that at one time were listed to see if they were reputable or not. Clarify this for me please. I find this very disturbing as to why the one link on the article is considered a "reputable source" and the other links are not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xan09 (talk • contribs) 21:48, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

You're skipping a few steps. The one External link is to an organization associated with the article's subject that has itself received significant third-party coverage. The organization itself is not notable [otherwise, it would have its own article]. Read WP:EL, WP:RS, WP:GNG. And while you're at it, please stop creating sockpuppet accounts -- the Cypress24 one is quite enough, thank you. --EEMIV (talk) 21:51, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

-- First I have to say, that the "Sock Puppet accounts" are actual people stating their own beliefs... Second, Coelescere Covenant is a Jedi Church legally registered in the State of NE USA. How much more "objective" do You need. I am not sure the Church of Jediism is even legally a non-profit religious organization.

https://www.nebraska.gov/sos/corp/corps ... =&search=1

Secretary of State Account Number: 10134224 --Cypress24 (talk) 22:25, 23 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cypress24 (talk • contribs) 22:18, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Please familiarize yourself with the aforementioned Wikipedia policies and guidelines. --EEMIV (talk) 22:37, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me but I am the registered agent of Coelescere Covenant and a former minister of the United Methodist Church. I added information about the beliefs of jediism as they pertain to Coelescere Covenant which is a legally formed church in the State of Nebraska and which uses the registered trademark of "The Jedi Way." This information was deleted despite the fact that I provided references to outside sources (i.e. the Secretary of State of the State of Nebraska's website and an article in Force Realist magazine.). Why was this information removed? And, I have been registered with Wiki much longer than Cypress. Further I know Xan as well. They are different people. Why is Wiki so partisan in behalf of the Church of Jediism in England? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rivan Elan (talk • contribs) 23:42, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Your credentials -- or, at least, your user name and the byline atop one of the references -- points out a clear conflict of interest in your additions. WP:COI is yet another guiding Wikipedia document to examine. There is no "partisanship" on behalf of any of these various religions, pseduo-religions, or self-deluded fan groups -- there is a "partisanship" on behalf of following Wikipedia's guidelines and policies for content inclusion. --EEMIV (talk) 23:51, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I think you are in error. There is not only partisanship but outright hostility toward Jediism here. How convenient that the only sources you allow are those that put Jediism in an unfavorable light. So, there must be some legal recourse my organization can use. Perhaps you can provide me with the link to that policy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rivan Elan (talk • contribs) 23:59, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

-Hmmm. It says in the COI policy that COI is strongly discouraged, which I can agree to in part. However this article provides only one aspect of information to the public and frankly the ones that would have a different option are in COI. But your policy does not state that COI posting of information and or links is a violation of TOS. All that has been expressed here is a want to expand the article in a balanced way. And to also provide searchers more then one link to express that this is not just based on one viewpoint. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xan09 (talk • contribs) 00:49, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

• Rivan, if you are even considering suing Wikipedia or taking any other legal action you are going to need to stop editing Wikipedia until it is resolved. See Wikipedia:No legal threats. If you would instead prefer to handle this here, on Wikipedia, we have numerous forms of dispute resolution available. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:43, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for Wikipedia to explain why COI additions are automatically removed when no member of Wikipedia staff does any reference on the COI edits. Nor is there any explanation if COI edits are in violation of Wikipedia TOS. Perhaps Wikipedia staff should answer these questions first?Xan09 (talk) 17:36, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand what you are asking, but this may end up answering your question anyhow: the only material that belongs in this or any other wikipedia article is that which is verifiably referenced to a reliable source. For example, you yourself could not add your opinions on The Force, but if a reliable news organization reported on your opinions on the Force we could then add that to the article. The second burden is WP:UNDUE, which is to say that even with reliably sourced statements we couldn't have a significant part of the article just talking about your opinions on The Force to the exclusion of other aspects of Jediism. Does that help? Syrthiss (talk) 17:45, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

An alternative proposal

I'd also be entirely happy removing all External Links to these churches, and limiting it only to sites that coverage, commentary, etc. I'd assume those would instead make for References or Other reading links, but, *shrug*. --EEMIV (talk) 14:35, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Most of the sites in question fall into those categories already, offering a virtual trove of information (which can't be included directly because it would be considered OR). However, leaving them there as sources of information gives us a means of countering the wild claims that seem to be popping up throughout the article. Each of those organisations listed are independent viewpoints, and they give a good cross-section of the points of view which permeate the Jediism NRM. In fact, there are other resources which these links will generate, since the owners of these sites specifically look for who's giving them traffic... and this alone would create input for people to be able to add reference materials to WP and thus improve the article. Therefore, continuing to leave the links intact is wise and upholds the spirit of being an encyclopaedic reference. --Red Heron (talk) 20:25, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism?

The fact section (the first section on the page) reads like it may be vandalism, or an attempt to promote a product. I don't know enough to say for sure, and won't change anything, but I thought I would mention it. "Jediism is one of the top 5 religions in the UK. Jediism uses the S3 Spyder III Arctic Laser as its official lightsaber." If this is true, citations should be provided. 99.231.34.79 (talk) 17:12, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. --EEMIV (talk) 18:23, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

It's clear that this is not an article about Jediism but about the Holyhead Church of Jediism and Daniel Morgan Jones. Two of the references are total junk. For instance, in the Asylum article it says "Jediism also known as Temple of the Jedi order" (sic) and that the Jones' founded Jediism. Both of those statements are blatantly false and a quick Google search and a visit to the Internet Archives / Wayback shows this. Yet the Jones' founded Jediism part stays in the reference while mention of Jediism also known as Temple Of The Jedi Order does not and attempts to add it are immediately reversed. This is clear bias and someone with an agenda is running the show here. Either change the article title to Holyhead Church of Jediism or delete it altogether. It is now legally Church of Jediism Limited, incorporated as a company limited by shares in June 2010. Go to http://www.companieshouse.gov.uk/ and use the WebCheck service http://www.companieshouse.gov.uk/info to search for Church of Jediism and the proof and verification is right there on the official UK government site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.242.103.230 (talk) 22:30, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Unsigned poster: as stated earlier in this discussion, this is not an area for general discussion about Jediism. Please use this discussion page to relate to the article as opposed to the Jediism community. Although personally, I don't see what's wrong with registering the Church of Jediism as a company? Surely it allows them to become a charity? I suggest you read in to the law, mister (or miss!). Kai Tatsu (talk) 22:54, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I did read the law. They are organized as a for profit company not as a company limited by guarantee which is what non profits do. I even paid my one pound to get a copy of the charter and there is only one share of stock and one stockholder (Daniel Morgan Jones) and no allowance for other members nor is there any of the required charitable purposes statements required to be a charity. I have a law degree and you are clearly on a biased agenda to promote Jones and his organization. Once again: Why is it OK to repeat the Jones founded Jediism part of the Asylum article but not the part above it that says Jediism Also Known As Temple of the Jedi Order? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.242.103.230 (talk) 23:32, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I was under the impression they have now registered as a charity. Regardless, they have done nothing but good in this community. I don't think it should be about business though. This is not a place for discussion about Jediism but the Wikipedia article.. It does not and has not said on this Wikipedia article that Daniel Jones founded Jediism.. there was nothing wrong with the way it was and so the edit has been reverted. The link is a valid secondary source - feel free to use this elsewhere in the article also, however remember that this article is to be unbiased in order to comply with Wikipedia's rules. Kai Tatsu (talk) 19:55, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

External Links

In recent days, an external link to the Temple of the Jedi Order has been added and removed by a number of Wiki users. Could you please provide a valid reason as to why this link should stay in the External Links section of this article? The organisation is not mentioned in the article a great deal. Thanks. Kai Tatsu (talk) 17:51, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

The organization is mentioned in the body (such as it is) of the article. The proposal above suggested that the threshold for inclusion of an item in EL is that it be to a group mentioned in the article. This was presented to prevent the EL section from once again becoming an arbitrary directory of semi-religious, semi-fan, barely-useful links. --EEMIV (talk) 18:08, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Egyptian underpinnings

This link has some interesting content article on the Djedi

A few places say Lucas chose the name Jedi not randomly but with the ancient order of the Djedi in mind. These Djedi couldn't not have been involved in the "Raising of the Djed" ritual, involving the transmission of serpent ("Dj") energy up the Djed, meaning "the force" is the same thing Hindus call Kundalini. So...how much of this ties in with what today's serious Jedis are tuning in to? Find out, NOW!! Soup up the article with your discoveries, feed our minds!! GO!!! 2.99.217.102 (talk) 20:45, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

sources

hello,

can anyone tell what are the source of this page?

martijn (dutch) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.58.144.30 (talk) 19:36, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Sources are listed at Jediism#References. --McGeddon (talk) 10:34, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

About.com

I have to say that I have some concerns about using About.com as a source, especially multiple times. In this case, the "guide" (which is nothing more than a freelance writer) doesn't really appear to be an authority and makes a vague assertion of Star Wars materials being the source, but not specifying them. Isn't there a better source? Niteshift36 (talk) 20:24, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I generally agree that About.com is a dubious source. In this case, though, because it substantiates some relatively straightforward factual assertions (i.e. isn't interpretive or analytic), I feel comfortable leaving it as-is. Let's keep an eye open for other sources that offer similar assertions, though. --EEMIV (talk) 12:17, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• I wish she was more specific about the sources and her conclusions. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:33, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

What happened?!

What the heck happened to this page? I swear there used to be like, 30 references and a huuge discussion page? What idiot has removed all this, and nominated the page for deletion? Kai Tatsu (talk) 13:49, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I am the idiot who nominated the page, as there seemed to be lack of references. It needs massive clean up. Weaponbb7 (talk) 14:22, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

There is only a lack of references as someone removed them all: check the history of the page Kai Tatsu (talk) 20:30, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I was very disappointed to see this page after it was modified to discredit the Jedi religion by calling it a UFO religion and removing all the useful info and links. I was seriously looking for a non-biased source of info and learning more about the religion, the history, developments, etc and it was like that until someone recently edited it to be just some useless garbage page that makes fun of the religion. Whytehorse14 (talk) 09:23, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for removing the deletion tag :) Kai Tatsu (talk) 17:34, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Added external link to TempleOfTheJediOrder.org, and Hopefully we can add more sites dedicated to Jediism —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.156.106.66 (talk) 15:55, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Unlikely. Syrthiss (talk) 15:56, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

can you tell me please why templeofthejediorder was removed?, thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jejano (talk • contribs) 16:11, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Sure. It violates our policy on external links. Wikipedia is not a clearinghouse for links, and that organization is not mentioned in the article and supported by reliable sources. Hope this helps. Syrthiss (talk) 16:15, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

After reading the policy, I can't see where there the external links policy would be violated by adding links to several organizations so that they can offer more informational support. This is supposed to be encyclopaedic, and is pointless as a reference without something in the way of reference materials. Temple of the Jedi Order is also listed in the news articles as a primary reference, as is the Church of Jediism and the Jedi Church. The other links may be added for further reference, since (looking at them) they appear to all be completely separate organizations. Red Heron (talk) 18:13, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks- Can we add relevant info in to the article itself? since Templeofthejediorder.org is one of the first jediism churchs, and is active, we like to have part in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jejano (talk • contribs) 17:00, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source to back that information up? Syrthiss (talk) 17:05, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Sure yes, we have. You are managing the wole article, or just monitoring ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jejano (talk • contribs) 18:07, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I am monitoring the article because there has been a lot of self promotion here recently. Syrthiss (talk) 13:07, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Look who's talking. I traced the issues with the external links back to you Syrthiss, what happened with the rest of the article, I don't know, but if there is one thing WP:EL stipulates, it's that you should not give too much weight to one side of the story, and removing every external link except the UK church does just that. Congrats on ruining this article some more, as if the usual UK Church vandals weren't enough. 86.20.145.83 (talk) 02:50, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I'm the one who most recently removed most of the external links. Rather than gripe, please engage in the conversion initiated at the bottom of this page to discuss general inclusion criteria -- which explains why all but one EL were removed. Dishing about ruined articles and vandalism is not in any way consructive. --EEMIV (talk) 03:27, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

upcoming edits

I'm going to start editing this article again and will use primary sources according to WP:PRIMARY. I'll quickly reiterate what this means here in case people can't read wikipedia policy but wish to add primary references to the article: NO INTERPRETATION of the primary source, unless there is a secondary source to back it up. Preferably back primary sources with secondary sources, or other, clearly unrelated primary sources.86.20.150.77 (talk) 13:50, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

You need to actually read WP:PRIMARY.--Charles (talk) 10:24, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Insulting Description

Whoever wrote the definition of Jediism as a "UFO religion" made a very insulting generalization and cited an obscure sociologist article in an obscure publication as their source. As a neutral editor and person interested in learning about Jediism, I did the research myself and found it is NOT a UFO religion and find that type of description would be very insulting, almost hate-speech, toward it's followers. Peace, Whytehorse14 (talk) 10:12, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I'll take a closer look at the source, too. However, your first-person account about the religion is insufficient grounds either to add or remove content (see WP:OR). Also, content is not added or restored out of concern it might offend someone (WP:CENSOR). --EEMIV (talk) 12:39, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Regardless of offense or intent, the definition of UFO religion on Wikipedia's own article states "A UFO religion is any religion in which the existence of extraterrestrial (ET) entities operating unidentified flying objects (UFOs) are an element of belief." This is not true of Jediism, which as a belief system does not depend on the adherent believing in the non-fictional existence of the characters or settings in the Star Wars films. --Jay (Histrion) (talk • contribs) 18:14, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

• Jay is completely correct. I've removed it. Do we have anything more than a single source calling it a "UFO religion"?

This is not a first person account. If you bothered to read the citation it comes directly from a published book "The Jedi Way" from the temple of the jedi order. Since the book was written by self-professed members of jediism and is consistent with the definition posted by most of the jedi churches, it's probably the single most credible piece of information in this article. I can see from the tone of the editors that the purpose of this article is to ridicule jediism and abuse the editing rules of wikipedia to prevent anyone from contributing who has factual information. This article is nothing more than an editorial opinion piece, a persuasive essay designed to convince the reader that jediism is a UFO religion and anyone who says otherwise will be wiki-bullied until they give up. It would appear that certain editors have biases and should excuse themselves, and judging by the long list of complaints on the talk page, it appears to have been going on for a very long time and perhaps it's time to ban a few of them. I, personally, have been turned off from wikipedia by this article and the unprofessional writing. I'm flagging this article for vandalism, sockpuppetry, and whatever else I can find that is going on. Peace, Whytehorse14 (talk) 05:51, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

You seem to have missed the part where the phrase "UFO religion" was removed. It's a shame you're so disenfranchised with Wikipedia. If you have meaningful third-party sources that can improve this article, they're welcome here. One of the problems with the Jediism article is that the subject is so niche that there isn't a whole lot of third-party scholarly work on it. If you do decide to contribute to Wikipedia, personal insults (e.g. the "dill hole" bit you posted below) are inappropriate and could lead to barriers to you contributing. --EEMIV (talk) 12:09, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

• Whytehorse, aside from the fact that I removed that yesterday, before your tirade........I have to ask if you have read WP:RS and WP:SPS before? Also, what socking do you see in this article? Niteshift36 (talk) 12:41, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I am a Third Opinion Wikipedian. I'm here to note that I've removed a request for a Third Opinion on this article because the only specific dispute, about the UFO religion matter, appears to be resolved. The balance of the request was more a complaint about general article quality/point of view and user conduct, rather than a dispute between two specific editors. As such the remainder of the request is not within the scope of the Third Opinion project. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:19, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Force Realism Missing

I tried to add it.

===Force Realism===

Central to Jediism is a belief in a force that is real and can be defined. Laypersons would identify it as the magnetic field but in reality it is the relativistic effect of the electric force. Depicted on the right is the "magnetic field" of a human heart imaged using electromyocardiograms; this is one of many examples illustrating a real force as defined under force realism. Other examples include brain-wave activity, the Earth's magnetic field and bird migration, mind-body connections between the brain and heart such as panic disorder, arrhythmia, etc. Recent advancements in magnetometers utilizing superconducting quantum interference devices have demonstrated measurments down to a few electron-spins and are able to detect specific fields associated with different emotions.

Or maybe something like this... According to most physicists, there's a Higgs field that is everywhere. The elusive Higgs particle would be the carrier of that field, interacting with all the other particles, "sort of the way a Jedi knight in Star Wars is the carrier of the "force", as National Geographic eloquently put it when the Large Hadron Collider was being built. Or like Obi Wan said, "the Force surrounds us and penetrates us. It binds the galaxy together." −

Magnetic Field of Human Heart

Whytehorse14 (talk) 06:09, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

• Interesting as it sounds, we still need a reliable, third party source to say all that. Us cobbling a theory together won't fly. I also suspect the NatGeo illustration was not meant to be taken literally. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:39, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Remove disputed banner

I do not see any need to tag the whole article on the sayso of one single purpose account. If there are any genuine concerns in the article they should be discussed here and dealt with individually.--Charles (talk) 10:05, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

The correct singular & plural

The correct singular and plural for Jedi is Jedi & Sith is Sith. ~EgyptKEW9~ <Star Wars> — Preceding unsigned comment added by EgyptKEW9 (talk • contribs) 18:24, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps, but you were correcting a direct quote from a supermarket manager who wasn't aware of this. If it's a direct quote, we should leave it unaltered. --McGeddon (talk) 18:44, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Source

How have we never used these sources: [1] and [2] Time magazine is about as "reliable source" as we're going to get. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:07, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Does it really exist?

Does it? Just seems like a bastardised form of Taoism, with some Buddhism and Shinto thrown in for good measure.--MacRùsgail (talk) 16:18, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "exist", there. Some people profess to claim it as their religion, even if this is meant as a gag or as a spin-off of Taoism, and that belief has garnered enough press coverage to merit a Wikipedia article. --McGeddon (talk) 16:30, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

From what I hear, a group of students, and the student-minded (for want of a better term) put this down on the census, but is there any evidence of this really existing as a religion? I could put this down on the census, but it doesn't mean I am a member of such a religion. For all we know it was probably viral marketing by Lucas' friends.--MacRùsgail (talk) 14:43, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I hope it exists seeing as I am an Ordained Deacon and Minister of the Jedi faith by my Jedi Church. You are talking about the census which was a load of rubbish. There is a real movement, with real people, real beliefs and some who consider it very much as their religion. - AkkarinHanlar (talk) 23:20, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Okay, that's a bit more interesting... but do you have a congregation, or is it one of these "pay us some money and we'll send you a certificate" jobs? --MacRùsgail (talk) 19:42, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

"Jedi" has been a legal religion in several countries for years. I remember hearing about the census Jedi movement, and payed no attention. It was a funny joke. Around 2006-2008, I remember the news mentioning that Jedi had become a legal religion, and facepalmed. From what I remember of discussing it at Gamefaqs, at the time, you needed a petition with many signitures of other "members" supporters or witnesses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.166.9.146 (talk) 11:47, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

The idea that a social group becomes a "legal religion" if enough people write it in a census form appears to be a myth. --McGeddon (talk) 08:54, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

about.com source

It relates to Star Wars Jedi, not to Jediism... 82.16.58.234 (talk) 01:36, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Far better source from about.com: http://altreligion.about.com/od/beliefsandcreeds/a/jedi_teachings.htm 82.16.58.234 (talk) 01:44, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Merge with "Jedi census phenomenon"

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Closed, with no support. McGeddon (talk) 09:28, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

---

The "Jediism" article boils down to a lot of context-setting (that it's mostly a census joke but some people take it a bit more seriously), a few lines about what the religion consists of, and some religious discrimination claimed by a couple of followers. "Jedi census phenomenon" has a lot more of the first and some more of the third (including stuff about the Incitement to Religious Hatred Bill and "UN Interstellar Day of Tolerance" which isn't mentioned in the Jediism article).

It seems clearer to present all this as a single "Jediism" article, describing the census campaign, the apparently very small minority who profess to take the religion seriously, and the legal fallout of that minority claiming religious persecution using the census results to bolster their argument. (From the sources given, the "Jediism" religion does not predate the census campaign.) --McGeddon (talk) 08:53, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

• These are two different topics, or at should be. They are plenty of obscure religions and religious sects on Wikipedia and Jediism is just another. If its legitimacy is in doubt perhaps that question should be raised in the Jediism article. If there are truly no credible sources than maybe Jediism doesn't meet notability.Circuitboardsushi (talk) 00:15, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
• I agree. Two different topics. There is enough to pass GNG. Wikipedia has never been shy about obscure religions, no reason this should be the exception. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:20, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Dismissing the "seven years after the census joke, a guy in Wales decided to become the 'founder' of the religion, and got thrown out of a supermarket" story and looking at the sources more closely, it does look like Star Wars fans have been claiming adherence to various Jedi-related religions back into the 1990s and earlier. If we think the census phenomenon is sufficiently different, we should probably compress it into a single section with a {{seemain}} link, rather than using it to explain the history and popularity of the entire religion. --McGeddon (talk) 09:07, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

• Jediism and census phenomenon have little in common. The only link between the two (besides the word "Jedi") are not discussed in either article. 82.16.58.234 (talk) 04:52, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Removal of NZ-oriented content

An IP editor has twice removed content hooking the Jediism notions into events/coverage in New Zealand. I have reverted the removal, since there's nothing about this subject that ties it solely to e.g. the UK (where most of the coverage/hooplah seems to focus). Per WP:BRD, I've reverted the excising editor's edits and am putting a nudge here to offer better explanation for removing the content beyond the limitations of what an edit summary provides. --EEMIV (talk) 05:51, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

This is why the article needs to draw a clearer line between genuine religious adherents and the census joke - it's fair comment for a New Zealand polling company to group Jediism with "The Church of Elvis" in the context of the census, but misleading (and potentially offensive) to suggest that they're commenting on the religion itself. Hopefully my rearrangement of this article to give the census its own clear section resolves some of this. --McGeddon (talk) 09:35, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I am the IP editor. My first revision, 566381824, removed "as a result of a tongue-in-cheek email campaign", because in 2012, in the UK, there was no tongue in cheek email campaign. There was a tongue in cheek email campaign in new zealand in 2001, which we can assume spread to the UK (although I'm not sure this is exactly true, and if it were to be said, with supporting references, it should be said in the census phenomenon article). My second revision, 566383438, removed some irrelevant text about the census phenomenon and the way the australian and new zealand statistics authorities handled it. (it is the "history" section of the "Jediism" article after all. clearly irrelevant). It is true however that Jediism became known after the census phenomenon, as some people(writers, journalists) have since looked at it from a genuine religion perspective. I left this in however it MAY be OR/unrelated. I also removed Possamai, while it is true he did (quickly it seems) research Jediism, I fail to see what this fact has to do with Jediism's history. If possamai shaped Jediism's history in anyway, that's what should be put down (with refs). I removed the UK church of Jediism line, because while it seems true, the UK church is: not the first jedi church (there are at least to I can think of that precede them), and to their own admission, they "cashed in" on the census phenomenon. No information I can find about this church indicates that they have any clergy or conduct "regular church business". As such I feel they are irrelevant to Jediism history, and should probably be mentioned in the census phenomenon article instead. Also, the way it is written, it seems that Daniel and Barney Jones founded the church of Jediism in 2008 because they believed Jediism was an official religion, a claim that is not substantiated by the reference provided (and therefore is OR and may not even be good enough for the census phenomenon article). My third revision, 566384092, removed "although the majority of respondents are assumed to have claimed the faith as a joke." because the reference provided makes this claim about the new zealand 2001 census, not the England and Wales 2012 census, as the reference itself was created in 2002....82.16.58.234 (talk) 04:56, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Teachings and Maxims?

Should these not be included on the page? http://www.templeofthejediorder.org/doctrine-of-the-order

Other relgious articles have their basic tenets listed. 62.255.122.23 (talk) 20:03, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

There are a bunch of "Jedi" religions, each with variations on tenets and whatnot. The basic underlying beliefs are already in the article, but there's no utility in enumerating each of the individual beliefs/ideas across the different churchs, clans, etc. --EEMIV (talk) 20:39, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Picture

Why are we using the picture of a Star Wars sticker laying on the ground? What does that have to do with Jediism and how does it enhance this article? If we continue the premise that Jediism is not just a fictional on-screen order, then how is a sticker saying that a puppet loves you helping? Niteshift36 (talk) 14:03, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

The one in Texas isn't the same

The difference is that the one you compared to in the UK has actually received some coverage by reliable third party sources. The one in Texas is being sourced that it exists by a govt. record of filing for tax exempt status and a mention on a single page of a book. It merely proves they exist, which isn't in dispute. That they are notable enough to be mentioned is in dispute. Is there any other coverage of this temple besides the mere mention in a book? Have they done anything besides exist and publish a pamphlet? Niteshift36 (talk) 12:31, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Here is a list of articles that Temple of the Jedi Order has been mentioned in: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-21844467 http://www.politics.co.uk/news/2013/03/25/marry-you-i-will-jedi-strike-back-against-church-on-weddings http://www.lejournalinternational.fr/Jediism-in-the-name-of-the-Father-and-of-the-Son-and-of-the-Holy-Light-Saber_a799.html http://columbianewsservice.com/2013/05/jedis-not-so-far-far-away-after-all/ http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2465445/Jediism-THOUSANDS-believe-religion-based-Star-Wars-franchise.html http://www.details.com/culture-trends/critical-eye/201311/star-wars-religion-church-of-jedi http://www.tryangle.fr/jai-rencontre-un-vrai-jedi-francais-et-on-a-parle-de-la-force There are a further four articles that mention the Temple of the Jedi Order in passing which I did not link here. Why are these not listed? Because as you probably well know this page has had a lot of editing, sometimes maliciously so, and having more than one line is trying not to encourage people to vandalise it.(Bdk84 (talk) 14:31, 11 June 2014 (UTC))

• Then why aren't you doing it right? Using govt. records like that is actually not the preferred method for Wikipedia and a mere mention in a book does nothing to help. If it merits inclusion, show that it does.....in the article. Your first source, a mere mention, is talking about a UK org, not the one in Texas. The second source, another mere mention, is again about the one in the UK and not in Texas. Third one, not bad. Fourth source is a college blog, so I'm not so sure that's really what we're looking for. And now I'm bored..... This article previously listed every website or group that called themselves a Jedi temple and linked to their website. In other words, it was mostly promotional spam. I don't want to see it go back to that. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:26, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Church of Jedism

Please would you add the reference to Church of Jedism http://www.churchofjediism.org.uk/
Thanx
And new article on BBC website could be popped in about Jedism and world-wide numbers http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-29753530

Thanx for helping:) Veryscarymary (talk) 19:12, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

->

List of maxims and teachings Suggestion

Is it worth listing the 21 maxims and 16 teachings? I can't find any sources except for the Temple of the Jedi Order though. Thanks, cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ 12:53, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I think the Temple of the Jedi Order is a different beast altogether. Jediism more-or-less began as a joke for the 2001 census. Including the teachings created by this one website, which appears to be serious in nature, seems not to be in the spirit of the movement that made Jediism notable in the first place, which was satirical. For the record, there are several of these "Jedi teachings" on other websites of various quality. None of them have been covered by objective news sources as far as I know, so I don't think they'd fit the scope of this article. Windu2 (talk) 23:04, 14 December 2015 (UTC)