Talk:Lightsaber combat/Archive 1

message: What are the sources for these styles of combat? It sounds like fan-generated bantha-poodu to me. Drhaggis 04:53, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Query

message: Would it be possible to add a more detailed Spoiler Warning?  The generic spoiler remark is useless given the fact that this article isn't linked to a particular movie or computer game, but rather a whole universe across a massive timeframe.  The article then goes on to spoil Episode III amongst other things.  I can imagine that other people like myself, might not be a happy bunny after reading some of the lines contained in the article.
Indeed, should these spoilers really be included in a discussion about lightsabre styles?  Individual character deaths and battles might not always be appropriate, as characters will have different mastery of a given style and extenuating factors might come into play.  General tactical weaknesses and advantages might be useful.  The idea that style Y is worse than style X solely because A lost to B at C is a bit silly.
*I think it brings out each one's weakness and exposes it. It's also seemed to be big enough of a reason for Obi-wan to switch from Ataru to Soresu.
** I don't think people understand what a "Spolier" is, because it's all over everything. These concepts, well very wonderful, do not come into direct reference in the movies, and hardly spoil any great secrets in the books or anything else. Most laughable of all (though still valid... barely) is having a "Spoiler Warning" on Star Wars (Ep IV) itself - as if most people have not seen it!
*** Agreed. There also has to be a 'statue of limitations' on spoilers. If certain people haven't seen the movie/read the book/played the video game within a reasonable time period (often a very generous time period, by the way some site spoiler policies are worded), sorry -- the rest of the world is moving on.
**** I dont think there is a limitation on spoilers, nor should there. The point of the warning is there to let people know that if they haven't seen it then information they are about to read could ruin the experience. Does it matter if the media is 100 years old? Does that change the fact that a person may not want to have it ruined for them and "accidentally" stumbles onto it becuase nobody posted a warning to that effect? Whenever specific plots, interactions, relationships or situations are being given a warning should be included. Simple as that. Enigmatical 22:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spoiler Warning 

message: This article seems to be incomplete) I assume that this is in fact the action of stabbing backwards between the arm and torso. I moved this material here but forgot to sign. Rx StrangeLove 02:56, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Kai-kan-Moved from article page

message: It's obvious that British spellings of words and American spellings are duking it out on this article.  I think the American spelling would be more appropriate.  Examples are: 'manoeuvres' should be 'maneuvers'; 'favour' should be 'favor'; etc.
English is English, don't be hatin'!
:Altough I agree that the american spelling should be employed here, I find amusing that you mentioned "english is english" as to say: "english is american english". English comes from England, and it is the basis of the language. Quase 03:38, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  British versus American spelling 

message: This is apparently an ancient form of combat using two swords that is in X-Wing Alliance, and has been further referenced in The New Essential Guide to Characters in Darth Maul's entry as a form of combat he uses, and in a Wizards of the Coast Star Wars D20 online supplement. Here's the URL:
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=starwars/article/sw20050526a
It is about the Dark Forces game, the entry in question about Dark Forces 2: Jedi Knight. The character Boc uses two lightsabers in tandem to fight, and the entry states he uses Jar'Kai. So should this be added to this page? Naked Snake 20:33, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jar'Kai 

message: "In the time near the Clone Wars, the Jedi Order seldom practices this technique. There is, if at all, so little lightsaber-to-lightsaber combat involved in a Jedi's life that Jedi Masters have found it impractical. However, Makashi was very common during the older years, before the advent of blasters, when melee weapons were abundant." - from the article
I've always thought the blaster was invented before the lightsaber. Your sources or references?
Also, even if lightsabers came before the blasters, there were always bullets. So that statement above doesn't seem to make much sense. Of course, this is assuming that bullets actually got invented in the Star Wars universe. But it wouldnt' make sense to evolve from metal melee weapons, then to lightsabers, and finally to blasters.
Maybe it should be discussed in this article why storm troopers just don't bring back bullet-rifles; that way, Jedi cannot dodge or deflect beams of laser; they will be forced to outrun bullets (which is improbable). Maybe the combat style of Jedi are good enough to battle bullets as well? This odd scenario could be discussed. Or maybe it's better to not mention it at all.
Jedi can use the force to stop bullets in much the same way as seen in the matrix.
*Bullets would be disintergrated in the lightsaber's blade, if you think logically about it. About the blasters "before" the lightsaber, Ben Kenobi stated that the lightsabers were remienscent of an older, more civilized age. ~Grand Master Ravion of the CJO
Also, I've noticed that the lightsaber styles shown in the films (kendo & iaido) are developed around the katana sword. Lightsabers are NOTHING like katanas; they have little to no weight in the blade section, the are not one-edged, and katanas require much force and power to cut a torsil in half. With a lightsaber, that requires little to no effort. So I guess my question is, which of the lightsaber styles best reflects the lightsaber, and not the katana or any other metal sword for that matter? One explanation for using the Japanese sword styles may be because jedis often fight against other peoples wielding lightsabers; so strikes require more strength in those cases.
Are these combat styles considered canonical (or at least, originating from the Expanded Universe)?
:please read the very first part of the article: They are never mentioned directly in the released Star Wars films, but the details of the saber styles are explored in novelizations as well as expanded universe sources such as the novels, magazines, comic books, the Star Wars Role-playing Game and "Visual Dictionaries." As for the blaster VS saber problem, I will quote the passage from Star Wars Insider, Issue 62 (One of the very first source detailing the seven forms) : Today Form II is an archaism studied by almost no one in the Jedi Order, because it is not relevant to current tactical situations, in which Jedi enemies rarely fight with lightsabers. Even with the resurgence of the Sith, confrontation of an enemy with a lightsaber is an exceedingly rare prospect for a Jedi, so they continue to focus on more practical Forms. Sith expecting to battle lightsaber-wielding Jedi, however, find Form II a powerful technique. AND The third great lightsaber discipline was first developed in response to the advancement of blaster technology in the galaxy. As these weapons spread widely into the hands of evil-doers, Jedi had to develop unique means of defending themselves. Darth Kevinmhk 15:56, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accuracy 

message: According to User:JuJuJuJu, the material he is removing is directly copied from a book called "Power of the Jedi", published by Wizard of the Coast.  I'm in no position to verify that assertion, so before reverting, please take this into consideration. --Spangineeres (háblame) 16:58, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I assume he's referring to this book, but it's not showing up on google print. The text he is removing has not changed significantly over the past month (see ), so I we should take this at face value and do a rewrite of the material he has removed.  -Spangineeres (háblame) 17:16, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll do a rewrite, based on available content. If he removes again, I'll revert to my re-write. I hope he notices the talk page. AKismet 17:30, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

text: We're not trying to be arrogant, we're trying to write a good article. Please, unless you wish to help us re-write it, legal threats are pointless... AKismet 17:43, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've temporarily restored content with the copyright notice up. If you wish to remove the content again, feel free, but leave the copyright notice intact so we can resolve this quickly. AKismet 17:46, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I'll ignore your direct threats against my person, and the fact that you have ignored the 'no legal threats' policy of wikipedia yourself: I did not write the content you find questionable. However, I was attempting to help you by removing the copyrighted content and re-writing to a form that is acceptable and non-copyright infringing. I claimed I would revert to my re-write if you attempted to delete it wholesale once more, without speaking to us. Since you've been polite enough to communicate your wishes, I won't do that. Please try to be helpful, instead of issuing threats. Is there any temporary compromise we can come to that allows us to retain the information about Lightsaber combat, without citing your copyrighted material wholesale? AKismet 17:57, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree the content of the article is not important - after all, it's just lightsaber combat and not the symptoms of a heart attack. I've left the copyright notice up, the content is removed. I have ceased any attempts at re-writing said content, and you claim there is no possible alternative without continued legal threats. If you wish to address this further, you'll have to speak to the community at large instead of myself. In the mean time, is there any way you can prove your claim directly? You have yet to indicate yourself where the copyrighted content has been taken from, and your ownership of/relation to the copyright. AKismet 18:32, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Just a comment: Searching through the text "Power of the Jedi Sourcebook" on Amazon.com reveals nothing of the disputed context. Looking through the index, it doesn't seem to discuss "The seven forms of lightsaber combat" at all. Rasmus (talk) 22:32, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  copyright 

message: Can anyone confirm the source of Ki and Stass? If so let's add the source into the article to make it looks more reliable, if not please delete their names from Shii-Cho. Darth Kevinmhk
:Because from what i could gather, only Kit Fisto was a confirmed Form I master thanks to The Cestus Deception and ROTS Visual Dictionary. Darth Kevinmhk 03:44, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ki-Adi-Mundi & Stass Allie 

message: actually, what is the source of Form Zero, Form IIX, Form IX and Form X? -Darth Kevinmhk 03:30, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source of Zero, IIX to X? 

message: "As well, it has been stated that Darth Maul was a practitioner of Juyo (as well as kind of Vaapad technique). So it is only logical that Sidious himself would be proficient in the Juyo form as he instructed Darth Maul." 
Sidious didn't train Tyranus or Vader, as they were both fallen Jedi, so what reason is there to assume he trained Maul? Maybe this should be removed?
--W0lfkin 08:52, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speculatory 

message: I just completed a fairly decent number of edits on the 7 forms section. Some statements are no longer in the current version (esp. in the Form VII section) as these appeared to border on copyvio, so I erred on the side of caution. Some redundant statements were also removed. Please let me know if anyone objects. --BinaryTed 19:55, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Completed some revisions on 7 forms section 

message: I say we delete the chart. No forms of combat in any world are that simple and it looks like an expanded form of rock, paper scissors. Mithridates 15:27, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Keep. IMHO that is more about tactics than about rock, paper, scissors: first you must understand, which form your opponent is using and then adjust to it accordingly. --Koveras  20:17, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: !? Which chart are you guys talking about? Darth Kevinmhk 03:31, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

text: This chart is one of the most meaningless thing i have ever seen in the history of Wikipedia and Star Wars. It should never appear in the article. Darth Kevinmhk 13:26, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not 100% reliable and depend on many things (the degree of mastery mostly), but I think it's quite correct ; actually I kinda like it.
Delete.  Definitely not worth including.  Fighting styles don't really "counter" each other; that's a very naive view of things, IMO.  --GenkiNeko 05:48, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Silly chart 

message: *Honestly, suggest we infuse elements from Wookieepedia into this article.. recently the lightsaber combats and the seven forms in Wookieepedia are greatly expanded with all the canonical proof from trustworthy sources. (recently, i contributed on Wooki's lightsaber combat section much) Maybe later I would select the gd parts from Wookiee and put them here. Darth Kevinmhk 03:34, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  reference from Wookieepedia 

message: *Darth Kevinmhk 03:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not following your proof. That article, as far as I could make out from the scans never even mentioned Exar Kun. --maru   (talk)  contribs 06:49, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe my last post was confusing, let me explain: There was a site (2nd URL in the last comment) who claimed "Exar is a Form II Master", and the site claimed that (at the bottom of their page) the info came from Insider #62, in the article "Fightsaber: Jedi Lightsaber Combat". So, i attached another site (1st URL), with the scan of #62, to prove that Insider62 said nothing about "Exar Kun = Form II Master". Thz for yr kind attention. Darth Kevinmhk 14:05, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, exposing your logic backwards can be confusing sometimes... Quase 03:41, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Exar Kun is NOT a Makashi user 

message: "Emotional control is key, as is letting one's emotions fly free. This is not a contradiction, as displayed by Yoda's firm control despite his screams and grunts."
This sounds suspiciously like the 4 day time cube type of writing.  I think this is silly, but no it is not silly.  This is not a contradiction because you have to understand that what is and what is not is at the same time is.  --Ignignot 20:14, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It still could be stated better, like, "Emotional control is key. Without knowing when and, more importantly, how, to let out one's emotions, one could easily be killed in battle with another." Billvoltage 02:57, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He used a form? 0.o --maru   (talk)  contribs 06:06, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Even if he does use a form, I believe that it should be with-held from the article, as that has nothing to do with cannonical Lightsaber forms. Also, who is with my revision? ("Emotional control is key. Without knowing when and, more importantly, how to let out one's emotions, one could easily be killed in battle with another.") Billvoltage 18:45, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gibberish 

message: In the section on the Ataru form it mentions the following:
This weakness was demonstrated in The Phantom Menace, when Qui-Gon Jinn was killed by Darth Maul in a confined space
Maybe my recollection of the film was a little fuzzy but wasn't he killed out in the open? I distinctly remember Qui-Gon fighting Darth Maul near an open pit, Maul out-maneauvered him and while Qui-Gon raised his lightsaber above his head to strike a downward blow, maul came up and under to pierce him through the chest. The space was not confined and in fact was wide open. Enigmatical 04:13, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was pretty narrow, IMO. The sides wasn't more than 8 or so feet wide, and around a big gaping hole (so one would need to keep one's distance). The fight around the hole and the fight amidst the openair reactor looked quite different to me- much less moving around and jumping. --maru   (talk)  contribs 05:57, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ataru and death of Qui-Gon Jinn 

message: If you watch the animatic (like a moving storyboard) for Yoda's first on screen battle you will see a simplified digital Yoda bouncing around Dooku only whenever he pulls a move he becomes a diminutive Michelle Yeoh as cut directly from "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon".
Whether Yeoh recieved credit or payment for her contribution I don't know, but I do know that Yoda knows Gung Fu, I am absolutely sure that it didn't start and end there. When I see a picture of any Jedi in one of the classic stances I see Gung Fu, and that is the art form I tell my students they used to make the Jedis' sword fights look so good.
The origin of true martial arts, the source: Gung Fu. --Mark Somerville 03:40, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have any references for this, or is this just your impression? --maru   (talk)  contribs 05:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

text: There's really no real account of the origin of true Martial Arts.  The Greeks developed Pankration on their own, and the Egyptians had Martial Arts separate from Gung Fu.  This is true for Weapon Arts, although there is a claim made on another webpage about the giants that can be considered a speculation of the beginnings of martial arts in the Cacasus.  Here, at Mysterious World: the Wars of Gog and Magog section.  The article tells of the divide between East and West.  -- Elton Robb 08:39, 1 Jan 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  And the Gung Fu (Kung Fu) that was actually used to create Yoda's moves? 

message: Folks, given the the deletion discussion is likely to result in keep/no consensus, I've tagged this article as  and . There are no references at all in this long article and it reads as Fancruft from a Star wars Fanzine. We need reliable sources referenced in the text, preferably with <ref> tags, else this article'll be up for deletion again in the near future- Peripitus (Talk) 09:14, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  References and [[WP:OR|Original research]] 

message: *Just did a clean up: Plo Koon, Agen Kolar, Shaak Ti, Stass Allie and Even Piell were NEVER confirmed of knowing any form; while Insider 87 confirmed Cin Drallig knowing Forms I to VI and teaching them to thousands of students. Darth Kevinmhk 14:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  clean up 

message: Is it just me, or is 'however' used too much? It seems that it is used too often, even in sentences where it does not belong. --Soetermans 21:57, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  However,! 

message: This page is so long I'm having trouble navigating it.  Can we start putting a summary of each style on this page, combined with a link to a page devoted that style?  I think Makashi, Ataru, etc. are plenty big for their own pages.  I'm not sure what should be done with Cho mak, Cho sun, etc. I guess leave them unlinked until they become multiple paragraphs.  I would also like to see carefully chosen screenshots demonstrating the most important move for each style discussed in the text. --  Peregrinefisher 06:58, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that splitting this article into multiple pages is a good idea (But not I, said the duck). However, pictures for each style subsection might be too much for some viewers to download; I think the information itself is fine. --The Edit0r 01:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: This Page is Getting Unwieldy

message: Alright, so stabbing, decapacitating, and slicing someone's torso from their legs are all dishonorable ways of killing one's opponent. What would be an honorable way? The only thing left is maybe a diagonal chop from an opponent's shoulder or collar bone down into their vital organs? I think something about this should be added to the page.
Inferno 04:17, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Honorable Marks of Combat?

message: The article reads, "The stage combat used in the films are a combination of Kendo, Iaido, and occidental sword work such as fencing, and the names resemble Japanese to reflect this." How does it follow that the names resemble Japanese if the stage combat includes "occidental sword work"? --S Roper 19:19, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening Section 

message: An anon (151.xxx apparently) is repeatedly inserting "Arret Tiv" in Star Wars related articles here and on it.wiki. The anon claims this character was a padawan who was trained by Cin Drallig. I'd like to know whether this is fanon or not, since i found nothing about this on Wookieepedia and on the SW Databank. Google only returns a few hits. --Canderous Ordo 19:50, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Arret Tiv