Talk:Obi-Wan Kenobi/Archive 1

message: add something on his role in Attack of the Clones — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.49.193.178 (talk) 20:52, 14 July 2002 (UTC)
thread_title: First message

message: Who does Obi-Wan train with after hiding Luke on Tatooine? Missing from that part.  
Qui-Gon Jinn or Yoda may have trained him...or, Obi-Wan may have not needed training, or had been rusty and hadn't got training since his days on the Jedi Council. He failed to destroy Darth Vader, and Yoda was the one to teach Luke the Force, perhaps Obi-Wan didn't train inbetween Revenge of the Sith & A New Hope, which is why he and his lightsaber were more rusty in Episode IV then in Episode III? Something to think about.
:I am not sure if the book is canon, but in the book it says: 
::"When Kenobi moved to follow, Yoda's gimer stick barred his way. 'A moment, Master Kenobi. In your solitude on Tatooine, training I have for you. I and my new master.'
::Obi-Wan blinked. 'Your new Master?'
::'Yes.' Yoda smiled up at him. 'And your old one...'"
:So if this scene is to be accepted as canon, it was Qui-Gon Jinn who Kenobi trained with.Billvoltage 00:27, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Master 

message: Regarding the duel on Mustafar-- while it's true that Obi-Wan did cut off Anakin's legs and remaining original arm, that wasn't really what forced him to don the Darth Vader suit.  His near-immolation, and all the smoke inhalation on top of that, was the icing on that particular cake.  Anyone have an idea how to restructure that particular sentence, if you agree it needs restructuring?  --ekedolphin 02:25, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
I'm not entirly sure which sentence you're referring to, but I'm going to assume it's the following:
Vader, though he sustained near-fatal third-degree burns and severe lung damage, survived and was later saved by Palpatine via extensive medical prosthetics and a fearsome breath-mask.
I personally don't know that too much restructuring would be required, but if it is altered, a little emphasis on the lung support systems wouldn't hurt.  Perhaps something along the lines of:
...was later saved by Palpatine via extensive medical prosthetics and suit life support systems to aide his terribly damaged respiratory system, complimented by a fearsome breath-mask. - Angel Blue 451 03:14, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rework sentence on duel with Anakin 

message: :Little is known of his birth family, though Obi-Wan does remember a brother named Owen. (No relation to Owen Lars)
Where did you get this information? The official Star Wars website says he has a brother, but doesn't name him. Are you sure this is canon?
::It says that he has a brother named Owen in one of the Jedi Apprentice books, A Hidden Past. Yes, there is no relationship to Owen Lars, I believe. -- KFan II
:::The original version of Episode IV mentioned Owen as Obi-Wan's brother, I think, or at least implied it. The reference was removed for the special edition. --M412k 01:16, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It was in the radio adaptation of E4, and was later used in numerous books. The "no relation to Owen Lars" thing is a retcon meant to explain all the mentions of Owen in the Expanded Universe. --Ausir 11:08, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In the expanded universe it states that he does have a brother Owen, but it isn't Owen Lars for multiple resons. First of all, Owen's father Cliegg Lars, only had one child. Also, Anakin is Owen's stepbrother and the two are at a similar age. Obi-Wan is older than Anakin and of no relation to him, so this would make no sense. --07holsombd 17:17, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Siblings 

message: Just a note of observation.  Ewen acts as a young Alec Guiness as the young Kenobi including voice.  I rather liked that.  Dainamo 01:15, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Acting 

message: Where did this information come from about Obi-Wan coming from a planet called Pilegias? Should it stay? I was tempted to delete it immediately. --M412k 02:12, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I read about this "Pilegias" in the article about SuperShadow....it's just another lie....obi-wan's homeworld has never been revealed, as far as I know.
So, yes. Feel free to delete it... --PlatinumTracks 10:51, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Homeworld 

message: Should Obi-Wan's obvious explorations into the dark side be listed in this article. He draws on the dark side during his duel with Darth Maul as you can tell by his body language. He also acts with some dark side tendencies at other times. (Ep. IV Cantina scene) Maybe he should be listed as a Grey Jedi such as Qui-Gon Jinn?
:Uh...what he did in the cantina wasn't a darkside thing.  Cutting off an attacker's limb is considered a Jedi tactic.  It disarms (no pun intended) an opponent, but leaves him alive. --Kross 03:42, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
Uh...excuse me? Obi-Wan just lost his only father figure. Of course he lost control of his feelings. He is human. But of course, he got over it, and trained Anakin. This isn't dabbling in the dark side. That's totally ridiculous. 63.245.172.82 06:08, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Dark Side]]/[[Grey Jedi]] 

message: At Chancellor Palpatine's urging, Skywalker was accepted by the Jedi Council—but denied the rank of Jedi Master. The Council then unintentionally made things worse by asking Skywalker, already angered by the perceived snub, to spy on Palpatine, whom he considered a friend and mentor. Already alienated from his teacher, Skywalker became more and more influenced by Palpatine, who told him the dark side of the Force held great power that the Jedi envied. He also manipulated Skywalker into believing that the dark side of the Force was the only way he could save Padmé (now his wife and pregnant) from dying in childbirth. Skywalker discovered the Chancellor was in fact the Sith Lord Darth Sidious, and alerted Windu to arrest him. During a heated lightsaber duel between Windu and Palpatine, however, Skywalker panicked at the thought that his only hope of saving his wife and child would die with Palpatine, and cut Windu's hand off, allowing Palpatine to kill him with Force lightning. Skywalker then betrayed the Jedi and became Palpatine's apprentice: Darth Vader.
This pragraph does not mention Obi-Wan once, so i remove it from the article. Plough talk to me 02:46, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but it sets the situation as to what was going on around Obi-Wan. The Wookieepedian 07:43, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's really not important enough to Obi-Wan's character to mention here. This article is long enough as it is, and we ought to be concentrating on making it more concise, not filling it with fluff. The paragraph would be fine in, say, the Anakin Skywalker article, but it has NOTHING to do with Obi-Wan at all.--chris.lawson 17:44, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paragraph: is it needed? 

message: I remember that in Episodes III and IV, but in one part it says that it was also from Episode I. I was about to add TPM when I realized that I don't remember the scene. Did he use that line two or three times? Mithridates 19:41, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't remember it from Ep I but I don't have it so I can't check. I'm fairly sure it's just in III and IV. --Tim 22:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Assuming my memory's not failing me, in Eppy I he says "hello" to Anakin when they meet for the first time, just after Qui-Gon fights Maul on Tatooine.  Whoever added the Ep I mention might be confusing that for a "hello there".  As stated, it's definitely in III and IV.  Cheers --DarthBinky 21:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Hello, there!" 

message: Doesn't writing "postmorteum" in Episodes V and VI spoil the fact that Kneboi dies in Episode IV? Hbdragon88 05:25, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh, looks like we have a spoiler warning right up there near the ToC. (I'm about to move it under the ToC; it shouldn't be above it.) Is that insufficient?--chris.lawson 06:35, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spoiler? 

message: Why was this section removed? No reason has been given. Snide Paul 09:29, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: When one reads "is a fictional character in the Star Wars universe," I would assume that that person has the ability to understand after that point, that all information regaring the person's life is not real, because they are a fictional character. A very short summary of the character's life belongs in the opening in order to introduce the reader to this person, besides giving the fictional works they are in, cultural significance, etc. The Wookieepedian 19:47, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

text: It's not that people are in danger of believing that he is real, it's that the most important information is the part he plays in the fiction. Birth dates and death dates are pretty much irrelevant to fictional characters like this; do you know Scrooge's birth date? Or Captain Ahab's? I have no problem with including them, but they shouldn't be given prominence. DJ Clayworth 19:50, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's generally how Star Wars character articles are written. It is essential that we introduce the reader to the character. This not only includes the information you specified, but exactly what role the person played in whatever story they are involved in. Most Star Wars characters birth years are well established, so they are allowed for inclusion into the character articles. I will thus revert. The Wookieepedian 19:53, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

text: On the contrary, putting this information in makes us look like fanboys. 99% of people reading this article will not care what Kenobi's birth date is, and won't know when that is in the Star Wars timeline anyway. It's like I'm writing an article about you and I spend the first paragraph describing your blood group down to the last detail. If all articles start like this, maybe we should fix them. There are plenty of wikis that like this sort of information. DJ Clayworth 19:58, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No. Let's not "fix" them. People coming to an article about a fictional character will be interested in the character's life, just as they would a real person's life. Let's take the George W. Bush article. People coming to it want to know right off when he was born, basic details about his life, and what his position is. With fictional characters, we attempt to mimic this style. Since the Star Wars universe has its own date system of when events "occured," we are able to give such details as dates. The introduction should always be a basic summary of the contents of any article. The Wookieepedian 20:04, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

text: You've hit on exactly the point. George Bush is a real person. Hence his real life is interesting, because it informs what he is now. Obi-Wan Kenobi is a fictional person. His only existence is in the fiction he inhabits, and his only significance is the part that he plays in that fiction. Even if someone has invented a birthdate for him (an invention which almost certainly ocurred after the character first appeared), the details of that (expressed in a time system which 99% of people cannot understand) is of minor importance. Again, it can be included in the article as trivia, but it should not be given prominence. DJ Clayworth 20:19, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: On the other hand, I may be someone not interested in Bush's birthdate. I may only be interested in his life as president. His personal life may seem a minor detail to me. Therefore his birthdate and all minor details of his life outside of the White House are not important. Therefore it should be considered trivia. That's how your reasoning sounds to me. And I really doubt that 99% of people wouldn't understand what "57 BBY" means. Around half wouldn't. The Wookieepedian 20:24, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Sure there are people not interested in Bush's early life. But playing the percentages, far more are going to be interested in Bush's early life because it is real. Obi-Wan's is fake, and was invented only because fans want trivia. Because it was invented later it can obviously have no impact on his significance in the movies. As for the 99%, I think you would be surprised. 90% of people just aren't interested in Star Wars at all. As for 90% of the rest not being interested in a bizarre dating system which isn't even mentioned in the movies, that's easy to believe. I don't know what it means, and I've seen all the movies. If you don't believe me, ask some random Wikipedians - not the ones who edit the Star Wars stuff regularly. Once again, I'm not saying "don't put it in the article" I'm saying "don't put it in the one paragraph summary". Think of all the things that are much more important than what we do write. DJ Clayworth 20:45, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, you've made your point. My point is that, regardles of how much people may be interested in something, it still deserves inclusions. Let's say people weren't interested in certain details of Bush's life. That doesn't mean we would simply excluse them and say "Oh, they're not important or interesting regarding him anyway." Regardless of the fact that one is either real or fictional, someone's life is made up of these details. The dating system in Star Wars is based out of the Expanded Universe, which is basically a huge amount of material that elaborates on the Star Wars saga. That dating system is part of that. It doesn't matter if uit was included in the films. Lucasfilm considers such things part opf the overall story, therefore we should too. Now, if this were Star Trek, we would have less of a reason to, because Paramount Pictures doesn't consider the Star Trek Expanded Universe canon. Like I said before, this article is an attempt to mimic the format of that of real people. There's nothing wrong with that. So what id people come here and aren't interested in some of what they read. All they have to do is skip over it and read what they want, or, skip the article altogether. The Wookieepedian 20:55, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Some important points here. First, we are here to write about things that are important. That's why everyone's fourth grade teacher doesn't get an article, and why every website visited by three people a year doesn't get an article. Our job is to write the information people want to read. If most of the George Bush article was about what he had for breakfast every day we would be failing our readers. Second important point: the article does read like it attempts to make Obi-Wan Kenobi sound like a real person; and there is something wrong with that. It's wrong because he isn't a real person. If we make George Bush sound like he was a fictional person that would be wrong, and if we make Obi-Wan sound real it's just as wrong. It also gives people the impression that we are in some kind of dream world, which means they won't trust the rest of the articles in Wikipedia. DJ Clayworth 21:13, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: We have absolutely no reason to attempt to make Bush sound like a fictional person. On the other hand, we try to word the articles of fictional characters like a typical real biography, so that it be read in the same format. Most people coiming to wikipedia aren't stupid. They know it isn't real. They can typically make that distinction on their own. People come to the article of a fictional character wanting to know details of that character. If they didn't, they wouldn't come to that article. If they want to know about Obi-Wan, they usually want to know all of the details, so that they can understand who he is. They don't want to come here just to know "He was a fictional character in Star Wars. He was prominent in all of the films." Typically, someone wants to know more. And you complain that they won't be fami.oar with certain aspects. Well, then what does an encyclopedia do? It informs. It is only natural that we would write it in the form of a readable biography. I really don't see what the big deal is. The Wookieepedian 21:40, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Exactly. A readable biography. Irrelevant information makes a biography less readable. And agreed, giving people information they might want is good. However there are two reasons why what we have here is not good. One is that a birthdate is less relevant to a fictional character, but the most important is that the date we give is not meaningful to 99% of readers. When is 55BBY? Is it ten years before episode I? Or is it 1000 years before? The vast majority of people won't know. It's like giving George Bush's birth date as "the year the high school was built in Mudslide, Alabama". If we have to give dates, give them in a way people can understand. Unless we want this article to be read only by people who are already Star Wars experts. Again, remember I am only arguing that this information is taken out of the intro, not that it is taken out of the article. DJ Clayworth 22:05, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Part of the problem you are having, DJ Clayworth, is that you don't seem to understand that Lucas did not just write and direct six movies-- he created a fictional universe which has its own history, geology, timeline, etc. etc.  Its extremely intricate, and it is absolutely a part of his vision.  The timeline is "canon", not speculation. This is a particular kind of storytelling, and it is a huge part of its draw-- its a SAGA. Its comparable to Lord of the Rings, in that the writer not only engages in a phenomenal degree of backwriting (in Tolkien's case, he even created two fictional languages complete with grammar and vocabulary), but has also decided at a certain point to put the backwriting out there for the reader. Voila-- the backwriting is now a part of the story, and the narrative is no longer linear, but web-shaped, radiating out in different directions at once, showing multiple points of view. Thanks to the invention of computer games, the story is even participatory (and was INTENDED to be). This is what makes Star Wars so fascinating, and you don't have to be a fanboy to value those dates.  They are crucial to keeping all of the events straight. 38.2.108.125 20:46, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Alternate Reading

message: How old was Obi-Wan in "The Phantom Menace"? Thanks in advance. Deskana (talk) 00:02, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: IIRC, the novelization of TPM places him at 25 at that time. The Wookieepedian 00:05, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How old? 

message: It should be noted that, since there is no such thing as a "Year 0" on any timeline, whether in science fiction or in realty, it is inaccurate to list the year of Obi Wan's death as "0 BBY".  It is true that he did not die one year before the Battle of Yavin, but he did die during the year: 1 BBY.
:Please sign your comments to talk pages using four tildes (~~~~)
:Would that be original research?. Because simply searching for "0 BBY" on Google leads numerous results. There are clear references to 0 BBY. Do you have a source that says this rule applies in the Star Wars universe? Even other people are reverting your changes to the article, as they share my viewpoint. Do you have a source? Deskana (talk) 00:39, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Star Wars science fiction does consider 0 BBY an actual year. Every SW source you will find will define the year of A New Hope as 0 BBY. By WP:FICT, we must take official word on fiction, over anything else. The Wookieepedian 01:44, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can accept that.  Please do not consider me a "vandal". Dmcg 01:58, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't, as vandals would do this kind of thing with the sole intent to cause trouble. And vandals usually don't back things up like you have. The Wookieepedian 02:01, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Year of Obi Wan's death 

message: Please put your name under the image you thinks looks better.
:Image:Obi-WanANH.jpg
#The Wookieepedian 07:17, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Image:Obiwankenobi.jpg
#Mithridates 10:04, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Which Image is better?

message: I was looking at the discussion and it was concuded that Obi-Wan was not a gray Jedi, but he is mentioned on the Gray Jedi page. Which one should be chaged?Billvoltage 00:35, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Due to Yoda'a statment "Qui-gon's defiance I sense in you" it might make sense to list him as a grey jedi. 70.106.189.85 16:58, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But Qui-gon never used dark powers in a neutral way. He only used the light side. Jedi6-(need help?) 04:43, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Besides, what you said is original research. We can't include original research on Wikipedia. --His Imposingness, the Grand Moff Deskana (talk) 09:59, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I must agree with is Imposingness, the Grand Moff Deskana, as that would constitute orignial research, and that is something that wikipedia does not support. I believe that we should vote on it, and sense the general consensus, for this talk page, was that he was not a Gray Jedi, I vote Delete his mention on the Gray Jedi page.Billvoltage 21:48, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In addition, the concept of Grey Jedi is more of a fanon thing than an actual canonical concept. And according to WP:FICT, that's not allowed either. The Wookieepedian 23:43, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't think there should be a vote. You can't vote to ignore WP:NPOV and state "concensus". In the same fashion we can't vote to ignore WP:NOR and state "concensus". Unless there's a source, it has to go. Grey Jedi do get a mention in Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic II as there is a Grey Jedi robe... that does make it a canonical subject. Doesn't mean most of the stuff in the article Grey Jedi isn't fanon though... --His Imposingness, the Grand Moff Deskana (talk) 10:53, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Gray Jedi]] again... 

message: "A few years later Ben Kenobi returned to the Lars farm carrying Anakin's lightsaber....". Which work is this paragraph sourced from? I have no memory of it being mentioned in any of the movies, so presumably it's the Expanded Universe. Does anyone know where? DJ Clayworth 18:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like the non-canon story, "Old Wounds". 'Leastways, that's the only EU material I can think of in which Kenobi visited the Lars homestead with a lightsaber. --maru   (talk)  contribs 20:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Both the film and novelization for Revenge of the Sith say pretty clearly that if Obi-Wan had faced Sidious, Obi-Wan would have lost- the novelization even goes so far as to say that his death would have been "painful".  So that's pretty much the end of that discussion.  :) --DarthBinky 02:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Where is this from?

message: Note: This article has a small number of in-line citations for an article of its size and subject content. Currently it would not pass criteria 2b.
Members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles are in the process of doing a re-review of current Good Article listings to ensure compliance with the standards of the Good Article Criteria. (Discussion of the changes and re-review can be found here). A significant change to the GA criteria is the mandatory use of some sort of in-line citation (In accordance to WP:CITE) to be used in order for an article to pass the verification and reference criteria. It is recommended that the article's editors take a look at the inclusion of in-line citations as well as how the article stacks up against the rest of the Good Article criteria. GA reviewers will give you at least a week's time from the date of this notice to work on the in-line citations before doing a full re-review and deciding if the article still merits being considered a Good Article or would need to be de-listed. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us on the Good Article project talk page or you may contact me personally. On behalf of the Good Articles Project, I want to thank you for all the time and effort that you have put into working on this article and improving the overall quality of the Wikipedia project. Agne 04:51, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I put a few inline citations in but I don't know where some of the other references would go into the article. I don't think this is necessary personally it's hard to find out which book where some of the article came from when a lot of the references were put into the atrical a while ago. --Team6and7 21:50, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA Re-Review and In-line citations 

message: I have requested citation for it, seeing as the photo really isn't enough to prove anything. It's interesting if it's true, and I think it should be included. Goyston (talk) (contribs) 17:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  His street 

message: I know everybody and his dog already knows that Anakin (Darth) is Luke's father, but it is a twist of the story's plot, so should it be included in the introductory section of the article, i.e., before the spoiler warning? Applejuicefool 15:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spoiler? 

message: There was a mention of a Polish street named after Obi-Wan - well and good, but it was in the "Personality" section. I created a new section at the end of the article named "Obi Wan's Cultural Influence" (Will edit to Obi-Wan's Cultural Influence after I save this) and stuck the street reference and picture there.  I imagine there are other cultural references to Obi-Wan that could go in this section.  Applejuicefool 15:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Obi Wan's Cultural Influence 

message: Just mentioning I made a small edit, changing a line that said something about him being promoted to Jedi Master before the Clone Wars to make it say he was promoted DURING the Clone Wars. As far as I understand, he wasn't made a Jedi Master until at least half way through the war or so; after the battle of Muunilist, I think it was. - Indy Gold 20:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Small edit 

message: This article is currently under Good Article Review. LuciferMorgan 23:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:GA/R|Good Article Review]] 

message: === Obi-Wan Kenobi ===
:result:Delist 3-0
Hardly any sources. Chaldean 03:00, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Result of the GAR 

message: :result:Delist 3-0
Hardly any sources. Chaldean 03:00, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Obi-Wan Kenobi]] 

message: :Image:ObiwanESB.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair use rationale for Image:ObiwanESB.JPG 

message: :Image:Obi-WanKenobi.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Obi-WanKenobi.jpg

message: Same picture is used twice? The main pic should be Sir Alec Guinness. - superβεεcat  22:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be :Image:Obi-WanKenobi.jpg, which was deleted because it didn't have a Fair Use rationale. I'd be happy to restore the image if someone were to write one. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pictures 

message: :Image:Spirits.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 05:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair use rationale for Image:Spirits.jpg 

message: What is Kenobi's reasons for wearing the armour in the Clone Wars? He seems to be the only Jedi who wore the uniform. And who gave him the uniform? Was it a personal choice , or a council mandate?--Redblossom (talk) 14:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is the story behind Kenobi wearing the Clone uniform in the Clone Wars? 

message: Can someone put an IPA template for it? Thanks. 83.67.217.254 (talk) 07:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation please 

message: :Image:Obiwan.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 14:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair use rationale for Image:Obiwan.jpg 

message: :Image:Obiwan1.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 14:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair use rationale for Image:Obiwan1.jpg 

message: This article still has a touch of the 'in-universe' syndrome. I've switch the movies so they are in release order, which will help fix that. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:30, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  In Universe 

message: The article claims that Luke remembers Obi Wan's "Use the force" when attacking the death star. I always thought that this was Obi Wan speaking to Luke through the force (having become one with the force earlier in the movie). I have found nothing to back up either point of view - I was wondering if anyone could confirm this either way...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Young Ones (talk • contribs) 14:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Memory 

message: Does it make sense to have the description of Obi-Wan in the original trilogy before the description of him in the prequel trilogy? Since he is a character, as opposed to a movie, I think it would make more sense to put it in chronological order rather than release order. What do you think? Jaimeastorga2000 (talk) 04:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original/Prequel Triology Order? 

message: In the section regarding The Phantom Menace, it refers to Darth Maul as a Sith LORD.  He was only an apprentice...which to me would make that statement incorrect.  Someone want to confirm?
What does that have to do with Obi-Wan?--suit-n-tie 21:20, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Darth Maul 

message: I made some edits to the section on "The Phantom Menace": 
Firstly, I changed where it said that Obi-Wan and Qui-Gon met Jar-Jar on their way to Naboo (or at least, that was implied), as they in reality met him after arriving there. Yes, they were on their way to see Queen Amidala but their original mission was to meet with the Trade Federation. Meeting Jar-Jar took place after that.
Secondly, I removed some of the narratives from the film that were not of particular relevance to Obi-Wan himself.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.132.20.76 (talk) 02:42, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Phantom Menace 

message: Why is his main picture of the younger version? It should be the older version from the original films because it is how most people know him.--Ubatuba (talk) 08:19, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I AGREE.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.8.134.180 (talk) 01:04, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, me too. As it is now there are three pictures of the younger Kenobi and only a spirit picture of the older. A little odd, I think. -- Nidator T / C 19:28, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Main picture 

message: I think the picture should be when he was younger instead of this one with him as an older man besides he was titled Ben Kenobi then. Parker1297 (talk) 13:45, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current picture 

message: The tags clutter this up.   And appear to mostly not apply now, if they ever did.
Here's the reasons for removing them.
1.  Third party references for a fictional character?   What is there other than the fiction and what the creators say about the fiction.   It seems there are enough references here to let any reader know what it is they're reading.
2.  In universe?  "Obi-Wan Kenobi is a fictional character in the Star Wars universe." seems to be pretty clear that the article goes over the fiction about the fictional character.  It seems there are enough references here to let any reader know what it is they're reading.
3.  Verification.   Is there not a (for example) Mad magazine story called Star Roars (it's in issue #196 -- quite clear in the links to the humor magazine) and an episode of Family Guy called Blue Harvest.(sixth season episode one -- quite clear in the links to the tv show).     It seems there are enough references here to let any reader know what it is they're reading.   If it's all about in-line comments, it seems to serve no purpose to put them in, and no need to have anything other than the links to the works in question.   Although that brings up:
4.  Meaning of trivia?  These are not examples of popular culture, they are pop culture.  Simply listing appearances and trivia references proves this.     However, if trivia doesn't belong, as examples of the impact upon pop culture, or not, remove the 12 items.  Simple.  
Perhaps just removing all the tags isn't the best solution.   But at the least, this all needs to be rethought if it's still an issue.  Since most of the talk is 3 or 4 years old.  
Sln3412 (talk) 21:09, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tag removal 

message: It's a small point, but I am considering making a change to the opening of the article.  Currently, it states that Obi-Wan is first seen in the original trilogy, then goes on to talk about the prequels.
I'd like to suggest that I change this to something along the lines of "chronological order of the Star Wars films" such is at the  Luke Skywalker page. It just seems to me to be a little more "clean" to speak of the appearances in a "In Universe" chronological order.  Thoughts? Dphilp75 (talk) 04:25, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening of the article 

message: I just reverted a change which changed Sir Alec Guinness to simply Alec Guinness with the explanation that he was not credited that way.
I am of the opinion that not being credited that way hardly removes the fact that he did have a Knighthood, and I think its safe to say that he is largely recognized as "Sir".
Thoughts? Dphilp75 (talk) 21:13, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: He's not credited as such in the film, and it's a standard convention to list people's acting credits as they appear in the actual film. Christopher Lee is not listed as "Sir Christopher Lee" on every page that mentions his name, nor is Alec Guiness - see Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope, Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back, Star Wars Episode VI: Return of the Jedi, , The Man in the White Suit, The Lavender Hill Mob, The Bridge on the River Kwai, Doctor Zhivago, and A Passage to India, for starters... 21:25, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, we on opposite ends of this one! ;)  I submit that we leave the article as is until more people weigh in.  That ok with you? (BTW; Any idea why this and the above conversation seem to be 29.1 and 29.2 of the Tag Removal conversation? I can't find what the problem is in the "code"! Dphilp75 (talk) 22:35, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to change it back, as that seems to be the style convention around here. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 22:49, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not going to Edit War over this, but you really should leave the Status Quo alone when there is a question on an edit.  You gave NO time to allow for others to voice their opinions.  I understand that this may be the convention on other pages, but this does not mean it would be the agreement on THIS page. Dphilp75 (talk) 23:38, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alec Vs Sir Alec 

message: Should I remove the trivia? I'm going to soon nominate it for FA.--Team6and7 00:46, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is noooo way this is going to make an FA status....there is not a single in-line reference in this entier article.  I doubt that it will even make GA status without any in-line refs.  But yes, removing the trivia section or splitting it up into other sections would be a good step to making this more GA/FA worthy. Hbdragon88 03:49, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks --Team6and7 00:15, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Sorry sirbizzy we don't need trivia in this article. I moved the old trivia into different sections because it ruines the article chances for Featured Article status and makes the article unprofessional.Also please place your comments at the bottom of the edit box. It made seem like I thanked you for the trivia I thanked Hbdragon88 also try to use better spelling.--Team6and7 21:55, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia 

message: The use of "protagonists"/"protagonist" in the opening sentence- can this be justified? If it's being used as a synonym for "important character" or "major character" then it's just wrong. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 11:29, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protagonists ? 

message: His homeworld is Stewjon. George Lucas announced it during Star Wars Celebration 2010 and it's made official. Stop changing it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.101.72.96 (talk) 19:33, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I beg to differ. As the subject of this bio, I won't violate COI rules by edit-warring here, but I must endeavor to inform you that I was not born on Stewjon, my parents moved there was I was 3 years old. Lucas is just making sh*t up, again. My real homeland is Kggyrztithulic, and because of my Kggyrztithulician background I never felt at home on Stewjon. The gravity is different, there isn't a triple-sun system, and the night-winds of Stewjon bring ear-screamers which don't bother natives but they certainly bothered me. I can provide my birth certificate, signed by the Kggyrztithulician consulate, if that is needed to satisfy editors here.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:33, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Homeworld 

message: I made some major changes to the grammar and information of the sections relating to the original trilogy.  Feel free to correct whre I may have erred.Dyscard (talk) 00:43, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes 

message: Why no images of Sir Alec Guinness in character? Conrad T. Pino (talk) 18:36, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: To be fair, from a real world perspective, McGreggor was much more visible as Obi-Wan than Guinness was; the later was only in the forefront of the first film and very rarely seen in the second and third films, whereas McGreggor was much more prominent in the new trilogy. The bias towards the young Obi-Wan makes sense. EVula // talk // ☯ // 13:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images of the other Obi-Wan 

message: The name Obi-Wan would seem to me to be an allusion to OB1, perhaps Old Ben 1. Is there any thruth to this? Debresser (talk) 12:30, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure, but I don't think so. I took the name Ben later in life, but Obi-wan was my birth name.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 05:05, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name 

message: I added to the Intro paragraph that Ewan McGregor played Obi Wan, and I added Obi Wan's appearences in the novels Dark Lord: The Rise of Darth Vader and Star Wars: Kenobi.  I said it was a "Minor" edit because I figured no one would dispute it.  Hopefully not, anyway (I read both books).  Foreignshore (talk) 00:26, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor additions