Talk: Order 66

A New Hope indirect reference

Since it's been removed a few times, I figured I'd start a section here so it can be discussed. Originally, I added A New Hope to the Appearances list with {{imo}} next to it. My reasoning was two-fold:

1. In A New Hope, Obi-Wan refers to the destruction of the Jedi ("helped the Empire hunt down and destroy" etc), which in official canon is shown through Order 66. Promotional material for Star Wars Rebels also continues to refer to Order 66 as being the event that destroyed the Jedi Order, even if there were survivors that required an Inquisitor to mop them up.
2. In official canon, there is no known Great Jedi Purge at this point in time, so all we have to go on for the destruction of the Jedi is Order 66.

JangFett originally removed A New Hope from the list, but I discussed it with him on his talk page and we both agreed to add it back for now. It was then removed again, so I want to see what peoples' thoughts are and if we can have a consensus about this. - Brandon Rhea^(talk) 19:47, May 23, 2014 (UTC)

• I think it should be listed as an indirect mention. The fact of Obi-Wan saying "Help the Empire hunt down and destroy the Jedi Knights", in my mind is enough to list it as an indirect mention. Matt Seay (talk) 19:51, May 23, 2014 (UTC)
  • Yeah, after thinking about it more, it should be re-added to the article. CC7567 ^(talk) 19:54, May 23, 2014 (UTC)
• Makes sense, it was the first time in canon this was ever alluded to. Matt Seay (talk) 19:56, May 23, 2014 (UTC)
  • I'll go ahead and re-add it. Thanks. - Brandon Rhea^(talk) 00:00, May 24, 2014 (UTC)

Luminara Unduli

She is seen in an Advert for Rebels. In some future episode they have to rescue her. Matt Seay (talk) 16:43, October 7, 2014 (UTC)

• Trailers can be deceiving. I can't say more without spoiling anything. - Brandon Rhea^(talk) 16:50, October 7, 2014 (UTC)
  • Shouldn't Luminara still be listed as a survivor of Order 66 even though she was captured? Or is that overly technical? Spica-tea (talk) 01:55, December 17, 2014 (UTC)

Ok then, seen the episode have you? Oh well, guess I will see when the episode airs. Matt Seay (talk) 17:02, October 7, 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, I saw the episode a little over a month ago. - Brandon Rhea^(talk) 17:07, October 7, 2014 (UTC)

Well, It would seem piracy is all the rage, lol. Oh well. I don't mind spoilers. But this site does I guess. Matt Seay (talk) 17:14, October 7, 2014 (UTC)

• It wasn't piracy. It was a press event at the Disney Channel HQ in Burbank. - Brandon Rhea^(talk) 17:18, October 7, 2014 (UTC)

It was a joke lol....that's cool you got to see it early. Anywho, well. Looks like I have to wait my turn. Matt Seay (talk) 17:45, October 7, 2014 (UTC)

Shaak Ti

In Star Wars 9: Showdown on the Smugglers' Moon, Part II it can be seen a holocron with an hologram of Shaak Ti urging to continue the legacy of the Force, and to not let the Purge be the end of the Jedi. Does this mean that she survived Order 66 (at least initially)? --Wolffecommander (talk) 10:07, September 23, 2015 (UTC)

Order 66 - Friendly Fire?

It's something that I've seen someone notice while talking about Order 66. As far as the number goes, F is the 6th letter of alphabet. Taking this into consideration FF could stand for Friendly Fire - which is essentially what clones did.

Should there be a note about it, perhaps? - 62.21.48.173 02:52, January 13, 2017 (UTC)

• unless you have a source that states that's the reason Order 66 is called that, it's speculation and can't be added to the article. <-Omicron^{(Leave a message at the BEEP!)} 02:58, January 13, 2017 (UTC)

Rur Of The Ordu Aspectu

Shouldn't Rur of the Ordu Aspectu technically be considered a survivor of Order 66 given he was unaware of what was happening to the Jedi Order at the time? Rac Ward

Survivors

So here's a list of survivors from the Darth Vader comic. I don't know how to take a screenshot on a laptop, so here's the link. I'm adding the names to the list now.

https://twitter.com/HeatherAntos/status/938509781828079621

--Metalworker14 (talk) 15:07, December 7, 2017 (UTC)

• Those are easter eggs and not actual characters --Lewisr (talk) 15:10, December 7, 2017 (UTC)
  • Yeah I just saw that.--Vitus Infinitus (talk) 15:28, December 7, 2017 (UTC)
    • Well does that mean we can't make a wiki for them? Even though they're easter eggs, they're still characters in the Canon of Star Wars. --Metalworker14 (talk) 01:13, December 8, 2017 (UTC)
      • No they're not canon. In the tweet Matt states that it's not real, and he mentioned not to create Wookieepedia articles. I have noted the easter eggs in the Behind the Scenes section of Darth Vader: Dark Lord of the Sith 7.--Vitus Infinitus (talk) 01:16, December 8, 2017 (UTC)
        • Everything in fiction is "made up" as the tweet states; these names appear in canon material and are thus canon, even if nothing else has been decided about the characters. While they don't deserve their own articles due to the lack of information besides a name, they should at least be mentioned here as known survivors. Pihlkachu (talk) 00:42, March 10, 2018 (UTC)
          • Lets not have this discussion again, it was already resolved here --Lewisr (talk) 00:46, March 10, 2018 (UTC)
            • They don't exist in star wars canon and are already mentioned in the BTS of the comic. We can't really go further than that--Vitus Infinitus^Talk 00:46, March 10, 2018 (UTC)

The Shaak Ti Delusion.

Shaak Ti is not a known order 66 casualty at this time. The Galactic Atlas source is not an official sourcebook and is years out of date. the updated source is in the OFFICIAL character encyclopedia, 2017, where it states that she is PRESUMED killed. However, her holochron recording further crystalises that she survived and went into hiding, as Jocasta Nu did when she recorded her last words- why would Shaak ti make a holochron recording in the jedi temple for risk of it being found and destroyed by the inseargants? answer? it was offworld, which is how it was discovered by Luke. And if your next defence is that it was seen in Yoda's vision on dagobah in "lost missions", well there were other inaccuracies, shall we say, in that vision. Namely the all-white armoured clones with red blasterfire being mowed down by a group of well known jedi (in the place of droids on a geonosis-like battle), the blue blade that Saesee Tiin had in his death scene instead of green, Eeth Koth instead of Agen Kolar being killed by sidious. The scene of Ti being stabbed, being taken as anything other than homage to George Lucas's abandoned concepts, is not a clear and objective path forward here. So i suggest people get their act together here, smarten up, look at this clearly, use their initiative and examine all sources- not just youtube channels and popular opinions.—Unsigned comment by Colin1993 (talk • contribs)

• First of all be civil, you've been warned about this, so stop that attitude. Second Galactic Atlas is a valid source, is an official book published by Lucasfilm-Disney publishing, if there's a conflict of sources, instead of just removing information found in a valid book, go to the talk page of that character and share what you've found. Now can you point out in which specific part is the information that says "Presumed"?--DarthRuiz30 (talk) 06:40, August 24, 2018 (UTC)

I've been nothing but civil here. If you're going to be offended at my really soft, cool headed, un-personal advice, feel free to ignore or just not respond. It's called contributing and talking for a reason, surely you can handle me doing just that. Listen to what i am saying, not the way in which i say it. But i'm sorry if my tone is too condescending and harsh. Ok, NEXT.. https://i0.wp.com/www.coffeewithkenobi.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/JediCouncil.jpg?ssl=1 in the picture, taken from the visual encyclopedia from 2017, look at the episode 3 shaak tt profile, it says she's presumed killed. you'll notice that coleman kcaj in that section also says it, and we now know from the newest additions of the vader comic series that he did survive. Galactic atlas is a dubious source as it cites some inaccurate information about luminara unduli, right next to the shaak ti profile (saying she's a jedi council member when she never was). It's not on the approved list of official canon source material. On your advice about me sharing my findings on the actual character page, i have. in the talk section. and moderators there delete them, because they are biased.

• Having incorrect information about Luminara, doesn't make the source wrong or not official as you said before. Atlas is a canon source and can be used for it. As for which one is correct, it would be difficult to get an answer of wheter she died or survived, as far we can go can be a conflict source template on Shaak Ti's article--DarthRuiz30 (talk) 18:14, August 24, 2018 (UTC)

Clones' allegiance

Just curious about one thing here. When the clone troopers executed Order 66, can we say those clones were associated with the Galactic Empire since that moment? I mean the actual formation of the Empire, the declaration, was after the Order 66 situation was all resolved. I'd say assuming those clones to be a part of the Galactic Empire is too far-fetched. I'm not sure if this was ever discussed but I'm bringing this up because this guy probably died before the declaration and is yet branded Imperial. Or in the case of Battle of Zeffo (it may have ended after the declaration so claiming it as "Imperial" victory might be valid), we can't say that since Order 66, the Republic has become the Empire can we? Jaewade (talk) 08:07, November 23, 2019 (UTC)

• They would be affiliated with the Republic since as you say Order 66 happens before the Empire's formation. In that case I'd remove all references to the Empire and leave it simply as the Republic --Lewisr (talk) 14:20, November 23, 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks for clarifying! Wanted to make sure before I make any changes. Jaewade (talk) 09:40, November 24, 2019 (UTC)
    • No worries, I completely understand! --Lewisr (talk) 13:22, November 24, 2019 (UTC)

Event versus protocol

Is it correct for us to have this article as an event? I'm not aware of a source that describes Order 66 as an event, rather all I've seen so far is that Order 66 was executed and etc. Clone Protocol 66 is an order, while the execution of Order 66 is an event. I think there's a basis here for us to separate the two subjects. This article can be changed to the Execution of Order 66 or something of that nature, while the actual Clone Protocol 66 has an article created for it.--Vitus Infinitus^Talk 14:03, December 10, 2019 (UTC)

• I don't see a need to separate them, no such thing was done for Legends. There's already a description of what the protocol is and then a history section of the order and when it was activated. Making a separate page for its execution seems redundant, since it was only executed once and was only intended to be executed once, and all the information is best served on one page. If anything it would be best to just make changes to this current page --Lewisr (talk) 14:31, December 10, 2019 (UTC)
  • Good points, but how would we proceed then if changes are made to this article to reflect it as a protocol rather than event? I'm guessing we'd have to change all the pages that link to this article and that refer it as an event, and for battle infoboxes and really other such instances we'd have to remove Order 66 from previous, concurrent, or next sections of the first initial onslaught of the Jedi Purge, which is the execution of Order 66. I believe will leave a gap in those relating pages.--Vitus Infinitus^Talk 14:41, December 10, 2019 (UTC)
    • What exactly needs to be changed? I don't see what is so wrong with the page --Lewisr (talk) 15:06, December 10, 2019 (UTC)

Event or tactic?

I noticed the page has been changed so it's no longer an event. The problem with this, in my opinion, is that Order 66 is both of those things, so taking it off of the "events" stuff doesn't sit right with me. But I don't want to just unilaterally make that change, so I'm not sure what the right solution is. Making a separate page for the execution of Order 66 doesn't feel right either... SilverSunbird (talk) 02:34, April 30, 2020 (UTC)

• Order 66 is just an order/tactic, whereas the event is the Jedi Purge. The execution of Order 66 wouldn't need a page since it belongs in the history sections of this page as well as the Jedi Purge page --Lewisr (talk) 02:43, April 30, 2020 (UTC)
• I agree with Lewisr, Order 66 is a clone protocol not an event. Unless a source comes out and specifically names the execution of the protocol as an event we shouldn't make the article since that can easily be located in the Jedi Purge article, and even then it may just be redirected to the Jedi Purge article, similar to how the Battle of Lessu redirects to the Battle of Ryloth.--Vitus Infinitus^Talk 04:28, April 30, 2020 (UTC)
  • Okay, that is a good point. I suppose we can leave it for now. SilverSunbird (talk) 04:39, April 30, 2020 (UTC)

"Sharing the Same Face"

It's possible that the short story "Sharing the Same Face" contains an indirect reference of Order 66. I want to know if anyone else feels the same way before making a decision about including that as an appearance or not. The moment I'm talking about is during Yoda's visions at the end of the story, for anyone who wants to check. SilverSunbird (talk) 20:10, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

• It seems possible, Jason Fry hinted as much on Twitter here --Lewisr (talk) 01:50, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
  • It does seem like he's referring to Order 66: Yoda senses Jek's emotions shifting from disbelief and regret to a need to obey. Order 66 is the only thing I can think of that would cause that sort of emotional reaction, especially given the effect of the control chips. SilverSunbird (talk) 02:02, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
    • Guess it could be added, didn't really think of it initially when I read the story, but have been forgetting to do so since --Lewisr (talk) 02:11, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
      • OK then. I'll add it. SilverSunbird (talk) 02:12, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Disobedient Clones

As Clones who refused to follow Order 66 are also targeted by the Order should those Clones be added to the list of known victims and survivors? -Mr Rinn (talk) 19:37, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

• I don't think they are targeted by Order 66, they are just targeted for treason for not following the order so I would say no to including them Lewisr (talk) 19:40, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Non-Jedi Targets

"was targeted by Order 66, as was the former Sith Lord Maul"

I don't think it's entirely accurate to include Maul as an victim/target of Order-66. Maul already a target long before the order was given, and the fact Maul is a prisoner. Of course he would be a target, he's an enemy they captured, not due Order-66. (Captain Flowers (talk) 02:33, 5 July 2023 (UTC))