Talk: Akujenkins

Welcome, Akujenkins!

Hello and welcome to Wookieepedia. I hope you like the place and choose to join our work. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

General help

Site policies

Contribution help

Wookiees-Transparent

Wookieepedia aspires to be a reliable source for all Star Wars fans to read and draw information from, and as such, fan-created continuity and fan fiction are not allowed within our articles. All in-universe material must be attributable to a reliable, published source.

Please do not remove talk page and forum comments, as they are part of the public record. Remember that you should always sign your comments on talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wookieepedian! If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the Senate Hall, visit our official IRC channel, or ask one of our administrators. May the Force be with you!

vergere

You are incorrect. I have another source for Vergere as a Sith: WotC confirmed her as Lumiya's Sith Master:

Although the Rule of Two prevented Vader from taking on a true apprentice, he did pass his teachings to pupils, notably the Dark Lady of the Sith, Lumiya. She trained several apprentices during this era, but they are not truly Sith because Lumiya herself does not become full-fledged Sith until her training by Vergere in the Legacy era.

In The New Jedi Order era, the Sith are all but extinct. It is only through the training of Vergere that Lumiya becomes a true Dark Lady of the Sith. Dark Jedi characters would be more appropriate. [1]

I understand your confusion on the matter, because the various authors seemed to have done everything in their power to make it confusing, but she was ultimately settled as a Sith. However, I will use this source when I re-add her to the list, as it is a bit more clear. —fodigg (talk) | 19:58, March 12, 2010 (UTC)

  • Actually, I see you've made numerous changes to Vergere's article adding "possibly"s and whatnot. Now that I've provided you a confirming source, could you please change those back? Thanks. —fodigg (talk) | 20:21, March 12, 2010 (UTC)

That guide is wrong for two obvious reasons. First, it says "Legacy era." Thats nonsense. Second, it says Lumiya became a true Dark Lady of the Sith. That is also wrong. She herself acknowledged she was never a true Dark Lady of the Sith in Legacy. Prof Walsh at SWTOR(this is Niarcmorn btw) threw out the Gray Jedi description from a source because it made errors. I am doing the same because it has obvious errors within the article. --Akujenkins 01:24, March 13, 2010 (UTC)

  • Please stop engaging in an edit war over the subject of the Gray Jedi article. If you have a dispute concerning the canonicity of content, please discuss the issue on the article's talk page rather than reverting edits back and forth. Wookieepedia articles are not battlegrounds to see who is right. You are dangerously close to violating the site's Three-revert rule, which will result in you being blocked from editing by an administrator. Toprawa and Ralltiir 01:32, March 13, 2010 (UTC)

Got it. Huh, I had forgotten that rule. Guess I will be reviewing those. --Akujenkins 01:40, March 13, 2010 (UTC)

  • Hey Niarc, good to see you on here. The source that I gave you is C-canon, and this site cannot simply "throw out" a canon source. It operates from the most recent, definitive source, of which this currently is. —fodigg (talk) | 03:56, March 14, 2010 (UTC)
    • Please take a look at the edits I made on the Vergere page. I returned it to the "confirmed Sith" perspective (as per the source I gave you here), but I also made a big cleanup in the BtS section that clarifies the controversy over the character and points out the conflict between her official status as a Sith and her final words, where she proudly proclaims herself as a Jedi. I also left the text that points out that the only in-universe source was Lumiya, who is potentially untrustworthy. I hope you find the improved BtS section sufficient to explain the conflicting sources regarding the character. Peace, —fodigg (talk) | 19:36, March 16, 2010 (UTC)

Ok, so I will feel free to revise the Gray Jedi section to include the latest out of universe source(JATM) which states that a Gray Jedi is someone who taps light and dark equally? Or do you want to do that instead? --Akujenkins 20:13, March 16, 2010 (UTC)

  • I thought I had.

Although the term gray is often thought to refer to Force users believed to skirt the line between the light side and dark side, Gray Jedi were not exclusively followers of such a creed.

—however I could certainly make it more prominent. It's an alternate definition (there are three). —fodigg (talk) | 20:17, March 16, 2010 (UTC) I'm pretty sure if we follow the strict rules of out of universe canon sources, new definitions that don't leave open the possibility for other interpretations overrule older definitions. --Akujenkins 20:26, March 16, 2010 (UTC)

  • Yes, when they invalidate older ones. I don't believe this one does, just as the 130 ABY definition does not invalidate the older one. —fodigg (talk) | 20:36, March 16, 2010 (UTC)

Gray Jedi definitions

Could you send me the source readily on-hand? My understanding was that in included both.

I added further clarification to the intro paragraph:

Gray Jedi was a term, sometimes used pejoratively, that described Jedi who were thought to operate independently and often outside the strictures of the High Council. Like other Jedi, Gray Jedi opposed the dark side and followed the will of the Force. Used pejoratively, the term described Jedi who were thought to skirt the line between the light side and the dark side. Occasionally both of these definitions could apply to an individual Jedi.

Regardless, we'll need the source to validate the changes we make. —fodigg (talk) | 20:31, March 16, 2010 (UTC)

    • Found it:
"Force using Jedi who meddle with the dark side without totally surrendering to it are sometimes referred to as Gray Jedi. A Gray Jedi taps into the light side and the dark side equally. Members of the Jensaarai outwardy deny such claims that they are Gray, but the Jedi and Sith do not hesitate to say that the Jensaarai refuse to admit the truth to themselves."

-pg. 45, The Jedi Academy Training Manual."

It clearly says "sometimes" so we are talking about a secondary definition. I think my recent edit covers it. Thoughts? —fodigg (talk) | 20:41, March 16, 2010 (UTC)

I disagree completely. Read the precise wording. It says that "people who do this are sometimes called Gray Jedi." NOT "Gray Jedi are sometimes people who do this." Completely and fundamentally different meanings. It then goes on to explain what a Gray Jedi is in no uncertain terms. Because it is clarifying why the term is appropriate in context. If it meant what you are saying, that would be totally unecessary since the previous sentence would be telling us a definition rather than setting up a situation where a particular defintion applies. It is notable that the manual doesn't say anything about other definitions. --Akujenkins 20:50, March 16, 2010 (UTC)

    • I don't have the manual with me, but I recall that it did mention the other definitions. —fodigg (talk) | 20:57, March 16, 2010 (UTC)

The quote you provided is the only mention of Gray Jedi in the manual. Why would it not include other definitions in the very place where it defines what a Gray Jedi is? Since apparently Wookiepedia must accept the latest OOU source no matter what, this is the only definition of a Gray Jedi that matters. "A Gray Jedi taps into the light side and the dark side equally." That is not an open or ambiguous statement. --Akujenkins 21:03, March 16, 2010 (UTC)

  • I'll have to take your word that it's the only mention of gray jedi. This wouldn't nullify the political definition but it would put a stipulation on it that would affect who it applies to. It should be noted that it does not go against the definition provided by KotOR II at all. I'll have to check it tonight. What interests me is the Jensaarai example. Is it possible that we're looking at a shift in definition for the NJO era similar to the one in the Legacy era? —fodigg (talk) | 21:10, March 16, 2010 (UTC)

Apparently, although the whole thing just stomps all over the canon of Jensaarai(who get blended into Luke's Order and by this time were supposed to be just regular light siders) and Gray Jedi. But since apparently second guessing sources based on their accuracy or logic in other areas they talk about isn't allowed here, we have to go with that. Frankly, its kind of pointless to discuss implications of a source here since intelligent discourse and attempts to come to superior interpretations isn't what Wookieepedia is for. You could bring that up on SWTOR I suppose. --Akujenkins 21:22, March 16, 2010 (UTC)

  • Alright, I guess I'll have to give up on taking you as discussing this in good faith. You've got some sort of agenda against how Wookieepedia handles canon sources. Assuming this is the only mention of "Gray Jedi" in that source, the definition is altered by it. If you wish to assist in improving the article, feel free to bang around on my sandbox version, which I've already started to edit to bring it in line. If you have concerns over how Wookieepedia is run, I suggest you direct that to an admin. I don't have a say on that. —fodigg (talk) | 21:28, March 16, 2010 (UTC)

I may take you up on that. And no I don't have an agenda(I have opinions, thats different). I find your accusation offensive and I insist you retract it immediately. --Akujenkins 21:41, March 16, 2010 (UTC)

  • Fine, retracted. I must have misread your tone and apologize. Do you remember what the Kel Dor guy's name was who could use force lightning? He should be on the new list I'm adding to cover ability-based gray jedi. —fodigg (talk) | 21:42, March 16, 2010 (UTC)

Plo Koon. Although wouldn't that count more towards a misconception of what a Gray Jedi is since he used Electric Judgement and didn't tap the dark side at all? --Akujenkins 21:45, March 16, 2010 (UTC)

  • I'm not sure. I mentioned both in the sandbox article. One thing we kind of need to determine is if we're going to exclude those labeled as Jedi for political reasons, even if they did not display dark side abilities. I don't think we should exclude them, but the article should be reworded in such a way as to make it clear that it's an ambiguous use of the term (I would even say a "pejorative" use, such as the Jensaarai example). It's possible that, as the original KotOR II definition does not necessarily negate the new definition, both restrictions apply, and Gray Jedi must both work outside of the council AND display dark side abilities (but not be Sith or Dark Jedi). That's a rather complex definition. I would err toward explaining it as best we can and then making it clear that it's ambiguous when we list people. I've already changed the list heading from "known" to "possible". —fodigg (talk) | 22:15, March 16, 2010 (UTC)

Well think about it. Those who work with both light and dark are going to HAVE to work outside the Council. Its just not the done thing. --Akujenkins 22:23, March 16, 2010 (UTC)

  • Wow. I'm home now and I'm looking at the book and it's listed under the heading "Variations on the Dark Side". How did I miss this before? I don't play Saga enough I guess. This will require a significant rewrite, the definition being: Uses dark and light side, but not a dark jedi (applies to ALL force users, not just after 130 ABY). We would then probably want to add a section on "use of the term" where we explain the common political use of the term, such as when it was used to slander Qui-Gon Jinn. I probably won't get to it tonight, but man. —fodigg (talk) | 23:24, March 16, 2010 (UTC)

Well isn't the only source for Qui-Gon's "grayness" Tyyvoka saying "some think he is a gray Jedi". Thats hardly damning evidence of him being a Gray Jedi.--Akujenkins 00:43, March 17, 2010 (UTC)

  • Ok, so it's actually coming along pretty well. The new definition has apparently been in effect since Legacy #0 came out! It's actually winning me over, as it's more like the definition of Dark Jedi now. But where I really need help is in finding examples that fit the actual definition. We have loads of examples for the political misappropriation of the term (the original definition), we have two explicit examples for alternate force traditions, but we only have one example (Jolee Bindo) of the official definition! —fodigg (talk) | 14:47, March 17, 2010 (UTC)
    • Well, it's done. The article has been updated, and I think it's pretty snappy. It's in-line with the new definition, but still includes its common misuse for political dissidents, and provides the many definitions in the BtS section. Any changes you wish to make can now be made directly to the article. Thank you for brining the need for the update to my attention in the first place. :) —fodigg (talk) | 19:19, March 17, 2010 (UTC)
    • I have discovered the fastest way to "un-done" an article and realize how ridiculously broken it is: nominate it as a "good article". /sigh —fodigg (talk) | 21:44, March 17, 2010 (UTC)

Ah, good work. --Akujenkins 22:50, March 17, 2010 (UTC)

Anti-Sith Bill

The information regarding the Galactic Constitution is in the Revenge of the Sith novel. Please do not make edits to a page that is in use, unless you have contacted the user who placed the in use tag. Thank you. Darth Trayus(Trayus Academy) 21:21, June 4, 2010 (UTC)

Its irrelevant. The information comes from Palpatine's mouth. And furthermore, its N-Canon as the text of that scene contradicts the G-canon in the movie. --Akujenkins 21:23, June 4, 2010 (UTC)

  • The fact that Palpatine states it does not automatically make it false. Also, the text in the book is not non-canon, it was all approved by Lucas himself before being published. If you revert the page again, you are disregarding Wookieepedia's three-revert rule and the Inuse tag, and an administrator will be contacted. Darth Trayus(Trayus Academy) 21:26, June 4, 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't planning on it. The fact that Palpatine said it does not make it true either. Hence, unverified. And yes, any text in a novelization of the movie that contradicts what we see/hear in the movie is non canon by definition. We hear an entirely different conversation in the movie, which means Palpatine never said any such thing. G canon overrules and de-canonizes contradictory C canon.--Akujenkins 21:33, June 4, 2010 (UTC)

  • I'm not going to continue this conversation with you here, because it's largely pointless if you're going to leave the article alone, but I'll suggest that you look through some other articles on the site to see that we do not discount all of the novel just because certain points within it contradict the film. Darth Trayus(Trayus Academy) 21:36, June 4, 2010 (UTC)

Not everything, no. The novel as a whole is C canon, including elements not in the movie. But any element that contradict the movie itself in what we see or hear are N canon because G canon overrides C canon. --Akujenkins 21:41, June 4, 2010 (UTC)

  • This was not seen in the movie, however, the movie did not show everything. Just because it didn't happen in the movie does not mean that it did not happen.--Jedi Kasra (comlink) 00:28, June 9, 2010 (UTC)

Your argument is disengenuous and specious. This dialogue wasn't just not shown in the movie, it explicitly contradicts shown dialogue. G canon always overrides contradicting C canon. Furthermore, the Jedi claimed that being a Sith Lord was a crime. Therefore, there are two contradicting sources within the novel. Do not make absolute assumptions when the canonicity is dubious. --Akujenkins 00:31, June 9, 2010 (UTC)