Talk:Hutt (Star Wars)

message: Are there sources for stating that the Hutts are both "hermaphrodites, bearing male and female reproductive organs" and they "reproduce asexually"? It sounds like someone may have misunderstood something along the way. It is difficult to comprehend an evolutionary tract where asexually-reproducing creatures would need male organs.
Also...does Star Wars simply have no sense of canon in the way that Star Trek does? This reproductive information obviously doesn't come from the movies. Is it from books, comics, what? --70.20.145.231 00:31, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Said statements are backed up by statements in books that I have, although fictions can hardly be considered 'sources'. --The Hooded Man 00:33, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Their reproduction data comes from the Han Solo Trilogy, and the various Essential Guide to... &etc. --Maru  (talk) Contribs 00:37, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Physiology 

message: According to The Hutt Gambit Hutts don't mate with other Hutts. They are completely self contained {for a lack of a better term) sexual creatures. Jabba the Hutt basically says that Jilac (now his aunt) simply decided to become pregnant. This means that Hutts do mate with each other. 
:In The Clone Wars, Ziro is referred to as Jabba's uncle.  There are also references that families are important to Hutts, and their crime syndicates are based on family.  I would've thought it's impossible to have any concept of family without sexual reproduction.  In evolutionary terms, a species that reproduces asexually would soon diverge into subspecies.  There must be some kind of Hutt mating.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.128.74.89 (talk) 15:58, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay just a question. How does this statment: "Jabba the Hutt basically says that Jilac (now his aunt) simply decided to become pregnant," mean this one: "This means that Hutts do mate with each other." From the first statement it seems logical to assume that Hutt's do not mate with each other, otherwise how would Jilac "simply decide to become pregnant"? I'm curious how you rationalize that. Rogue Editor: I don't just edit, I re-edit. 21:38, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hutt Physiology... 

message: Well, I haven't got a clue, but there is some sloppiness going on here. There seems to be some confusion between the words gender and sex. These terms may be used interchangeably in common parlance, but biologically they have nothing to do with each other. Gender is a behavioural issue - switching from a "male" to a "female" role is a behavioural change only. To change sex however means actually changing psysiology - a pretty important distinction.
Just to confuse things a bit further, you also have to be careful with the words hermaphrodite and asexual. Asexual reproduction is reproduction by mitosis, with no meiosis involved. Hermaphrodites may be self-fertilising, but they have male and female organs, which means that they have gametes produced by meiosis. Self-fertilising is therefore a better term to use than asexual.
What is most confusing is that Hutts are described as both hermaphrodite and asexual. Clearly, this is false - they have to be one or the other. Someone familiar with the universe should clarify which one they are. GM Pink Elephant (talk) 14:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yet More Hutt Physiology 

message: "...except in two of the original films." In which case it makes more sense to name the one film they did appear in, instead of listing the two they did not appear in, for goodness' sake. Richard75 18:13, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, Hutts didn't appear in one of the original trilogy if you don't mind counting deleted scenes, or Special Edition version of A New Hope; Jabba was deleted in the theatrical release of ANH, but was restored and updated in the Special edition. So it might make more sense to say that Jabba is mentioned but not seen in Empire Strikes Back? --maru   (talk)  contribs 01:55, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "They have appeared throughout the original trilogy..." 

message: Noticed a discrepancy which may or may not be editing related.  From the books featuring Zorba The Hutt we learn that Hutts are indigestible.  So how does Gardulla end up krayt dragon fodder?  Is this an error on our (Wikipedia's) part, or is this just a case of two authors having two different ideas? -WarthogDemon 02:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just noticed that, too. Any Star Wars experts out there who can answer that?--H-ko 01:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I even tried checking the Star Wars wiki but I'm still confused. I think the answer is that they're not digestible but there's some discrepency(sp?) on whether or not Gardulla died at the jaws of the dragon. -WarthogDemon 16:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All living things are eaten by something when they die, by bacteria or something larger. If they arnt eaten by anything you would have corpses of Hutts all over the planet, and thats one big pile of fat arses.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.164.153.230 (talk) 04:13, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

text: The mouth of Sarlacc spat Zorba out. Yet the Krayt dragon, I don't believe did any vomiting... -WarthogDemon 05:19, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  So Do They Taste Like Chicken Or Not? 

message: Uhhhh...Jabba is resistant to Jedi Mind Tricks for the simple reason that he is not weak-minded. The "explanation" in this article is silly. 24.7.97.65 (talk) 07:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jedi Mind Trick 

message: Wasn't the Hutt in the Clone Wars movie that got his son stolen from him Jabba?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.172.142.95 (talk) 15:11, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  clone wars Jabba? 

message: Can Pizza the Hutt be considered Star Wars canon?
:Yes I belive it can.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.94.54.14 (talk) 04:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I would consider Pizza the Hutt to be worth noting despite not appearing in any Star Wars films. --Thomasdelbert (talk) 22:17, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

text: Pizza the Hutt is definitely part of the Hutt family and to leave it out of this article would be extremely insulting.Mundilfari (talk) 04:30, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

text: I noticed pizza the hutt was removed so I added him again. As long as there is an article about hutts there should be a section about pizza the hutt. This is after all not a fan forum and is an encyclopedia. 'Pizza' is a spoof character but he should be included as his popularity exceeds all the other hutts except for Jabba.TurtleMelody (talk) 05:21, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Pizza the Hutt

message: We need tons more refs for this page. Lots42 (talk) 11:54, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Referencess 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Hutt (Star Wars). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110721104912/http://huttese.freeweb.hu/index.html to http://huttese.freeweb.hu/index.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:10, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I don't understand why Wikipedia deletes almost all articles about fantasy/sci-fiction characters or events (outside of book/film main article) while blaming it to not have any "Notability". I assume, because it's about fictional characters or events and not about real world... So why this article is not deleted than? I don't understand this hypocrisy of Wikipedia! ScienceDiscoverer (talk) 14:30, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusion about "Notability"