Earlier this year, a decision was made to state that Ahsoka Tano had died prior to the Battle of Exegol. This decision was made due to the inclusion of her voice among the Jedi who speak to Rey in the climax of The Rise of Skywalker, a collection of individuals that 
Emperor Palpatine/Darth Sidious in the Databank (backup link) refers to as "the spirits of the departed Jedi." At the time, I supported this; now, however, it seems it was a mistake.
As it stands, the DB entry does not explicitly refer to Ahsoka, nor does it explicitly state that the Jedi individuals had died. Moreover, the last time we saw Ahsoka she herself claims to not be a Jedi. In the film's novelization, Rey acknowledges that some of the spirits were "still anchored to the living in a strange way." The fact of the matter is that neither the film nor the Databank entry are conclusive evidence and should never have been taken as such.
For this reason, I believe that we should remove the info from Ahsoka's article and any related pages. It's irresponsible for us to take a vague, poorly worded statement as fact when there's significant doubt to it's validity. RattsT (talk) 02:27, August 1, 2020 (UTC)
Discussion
- I stand with Ratts. He makes a logical argument. SilverSunbird (talk) 02:28, August 1, 2020 (UTC)
- As it stands, the databank entry groups every voice heard in The Rise of Skywalker to have been departed (which, in the context, means they were no longer living). The credits featured with The Rise of Skywalker also refer to Ahsoka Tano as having been one of the departed Jedi. The line from the novelization saying that they are "still anchored to the living in a strange way" could also refer to Force ghosts and, as we know, Force ghosts are those who have previously died. I hope that I gathered everything that was mentioned on Discord. Mr Star Wars AminoRepublic (talk) 04:30, August 1, 2020 (UTC)
- I don't think there's enough to say that she ain't dead. The databank is written in a way to imply that all Jedi were dead "spirits", but at the same time written in a way to retcon it easily. Ahsoka may not be a Jedi (who knows if she ever got that title back), but the movie credits refer to her as a Jedi, also the phrase "anchored to the living" doesn't mean alive. I don't think there's anything strong enough to make me consider removing that bit of informtion. I gave more thoughts in the Discord. If anyone wants to read more about the small discussion we had head to #canon channel in the Discord.--DarthRuiz30 (talk) 04:32, August 1, 2020 (UTC)
- My thoughts can also be found on Discord, but to summarize here: the "anchored to the living" statement doesn't prove she's alive, but it also creates a doubt that the voices she's hearing are completely tied to the realm of the dead. I argue that the Databank entry (which continues to display incorrect information) is not a concrete statement of her death, either. My opinion is that we don't have enough information to say whether she is alive or dead by the time of TROS. RattsT (talk) 04:52, August 1, 2020 (UTC)
- There's enough information to add that she's dead. Saying that "creates doubt" isn't a fact, that's something that you're interpreting as that. "Spirits of departed Jedi" is clear to say that they're dead. The source is not vague or non-specific.--DarthRuiz30 (talk) 04:05, August 2, 2020 (UTC)
- The Databank does not say that every voice Rey heard belonged to a departed Jedi. Also, I don't see how an interpretation of the text is an invalid argument. Seeing as both myself and multiple others have read the "anchored to the living" statement and come away from that with feelings of doubt, I'd say that's something we should reconcile. And yes, the film's credits do list Ahsoka under the "Voices of Jedi Past" heading, but again, that doesn't refer to her specifically as being deceased. I realize we're arguing over semantics here, but given that we're trying to decide whether or not to list a major character as dead, I think this is a warranted discussion. RattsT (talk) 08:24, August 4, 2020 (UTC)
- If a source says something vague and non-specific, then we should follow it and simply write down the information without interpreting it for the audience. Many of the truths we cling to depend on our point of view; if there's a source is written in a way that leaves things open to interpretation, then we should only present what the source says for our readers to determine the information for themselves. I have thus reworked the article following this logic, although I'm not sure what to do about the infobox death date. "Spirit" does not necessarily mean dead, so I would ommit the infobox death since we don't know anything for definite. Thoughts? - - -
OOM 224 ༼༽{talk}༼༽ 07:57, August 1, 2020 (UTC)
- There's enough information to add that she's dead. Saying that "creates doubt" isn't a fact, that's something that you're interpreting as that. "Spirits of departed Jedi" is clear to say that they're dead. The source is not vague or non-specific.--DarthRuiz30 (talk) 04:05, August 2, 2020 (UTC)
- My thoughts can also be found on Discord, but to summarize here: the "anchored to the living" statement doesn't prove she's alive, but it also creates a doubt that the voices she's hearing are completely tied to the realm of the dead. I argue that the Databank entry (which continues to display incorrect information) is not a concrete statement of her death, either. My opinion is that we don't have enough information to say whether she is alive or dead by the time of TROS. RattsT (talk) 04:52, August 1, 2020 (UTC)
- Do to the ambiguity of the situation, I have to agree with RattsT's stance on this. - JMAS
Hey, it's me! 18:23, August 1, 2020 (UTC) - I also have to agree with RattsT.VergenceScatter (talk) 19:07, August 1, 2020 (UTC)
- Yeah, I agree with Ratts. OOM put it very well here: we should "simply write down the information without interpreting it for the audience." Fan26 (Talk) 15:26, August 4, 2020 (UTC)
- Yes! I wholeheartedly agreed with this. I was very surprised and hesitant to accept the change made earlier given the vagueness and ambiguity, so I believe this is the right move. Wok142 (talk) 16:19, August 4, 2020 (UTC)
