Talk:The Force/Archive 1

message: Are more midichlorians the cause of stronger Force powers, or just a measurable side-effect? (My recollection is that it's never been clearly stated one way or the other, in which case the article ought not to state so strongly that the former is the case.)
--Paul A 05:26 Feb 19, 2003 (UTC)
:Damn, midichlorians are merely the "alias" for mitochondria - the small organisms within EVERY cell of living things. These organisms convert oxygen and glucose into energy. 
:The "light side" is they allow all living things to "live", move and exist including making decisions and interacting with other living creatures.
:The "dark side" is that this process of energy creation creates heat and toxins which slowly age and then kill the host cell.
:Hence the obsession lately with anti-oxidants - which retard the mitchondria and the conversion of energy when not required, thus slowing the aging process.
:Now stop wasting mitochondrial time and go out and live or the dark side will slowly devour you   LOL.  --Anon.
:: Midi-chlorians are inspired by mitochondria, but they're not merely an alias for the same thing.  Mitochondria don't give you Force Powers. :? Irrevenant 23:11, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Midiclorians and cause and effect 

message: Why isn't it located at The Force? it is always referred to as "The Force", and everyone will know what you're talking about, and as far as I know there is no other The Force to disambig with. --Supersaiyanplough|(talk) 9 July 2005 05:54 (UTC)
:"The Force", seems better to me. It's how it's referred to in the stories after all. "Force" by itself could refer to any kind of force, from gravity to magnetism to force of will. 
:Perhaps a compromise of "The Force (Star Wars)" would be in order.--JC
:: I agree with JC.  It's always referred to as THE Force, and the Star Wars disambiguation is appropriate. Irrevenant 23:20, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Force (naming again) 

message: I have a whole lot to say on this topic, and I plan on doing a major revision to this article in the coming days - complete with references and everything. I am looking for somebody that is in favor of minimizing this article to keep my edit in check (through discussion and perhaps debate) so that a proper article may be formed.
Message me if you're interested. --jonasaurus 15:51, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need Help With Major Edit 

message: I'm new here, so apologies if this has come up already, but am I the only one interested in seeing all the Expanded Universe information moved to its own page? Possibly with a title such as "Force (Star Wars EU)?" The EU information is plastered all over these articles and presented as fact, and I know a lot of people who don't like that sort of thing. I don't want to get into a debate on whether or not the EU is acceptable, I just think the two should have their own separate pages. There are little disclaimer clauses in a lot instances (ie: "in the Expanded Universe..."), but there are so many EU occurrences on this page that it looks a little ridiculous. I think it definitely deserves its own page. Thoughts?
:The EU is valid. Moving it would damage the article and stigmatize EU subject matter. --Maru  (talk) Contribs 00:20, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's your opinion.  The EU should definitely be kept separate. 17:40, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's your opinion. The EU should definitely be kept in. --maru  (talk) contribs 18:03, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sayin it should be cut out altogether, it should be kept of course, only in its own proper place! 18:15, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's in its proper place. Jon Hart 02:19, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Keeping the EU separate... 

message: Jerzy notes that the  tag was placed due to the Balance of the Force section. Since there is almost no real content for this section, I'm going to trim it out (for now) and remove the copyvio note. If someone would like to expand this section (so as not to be a copyright violation), please, by all means, do so. – Mipadi 15:34, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright violation 

message: I've been pondering whether to add the Emperor's Hands to the list of Force traditions.  They do deserve a mention, as they were an organized group of Force-sensitives, but I feel adding them is a bit of a stretch- they graduated to Dark Jedi or Sith status, and rarely met one another, so their quasi-Grey Jedi methods could not have evolved.  What do you guys think? --Maru (talk) 01:17, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Force traditions 

message: I don't have my copy of the ROTJ handy; can anyone tell me whether the Bao'marr monks make an appearance, even if only cameo? This is relevant to what organized Force traditions appear in the original movies. --Maru  (talk) Contribs 21:01, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Baomarr monks 

message: I'm not sure if I need to mention this here but since G. Lucas said that the sabers were supposed to feel as if they were heavy I deleted the line in the article that said they felt weightless. It was something about a kind of gyroscope effect from the rotating energy fields or suchlike. He said that was why Luke held and moved the saber the way he did in ANH when he was first experiencing it.
:George Lucas said they were meant to be heavy originally but then changed that concept- notice how in ANH Darth Vader and Obi-Wan wield their lightsabers with both hands? George Lucas said the lightsabers were supposed to be difficult weapons to handle. He doesn't consider them to be heavy weapons anymore, I don't think. -- His Imposingness, the Grand Moff Deskana (talk) 21:43, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lightsaber weights 

message: "The only known beings without the Living Force are the Yuuzhan Vong,".  What about the Ysalamiri? Irrevenant 23:26, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They not a-Force so to speak; rather they are anti-Force (that actually isn't a good way to phrase it; anti-Force makes more sense to describe Waru. They are living creatures within and of the Force, which repel the Force.) --maru  (talk) contribs 01:16, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Forceless beings 

message: Is there a better image that demonstrates the usage of the force? Because the current one shows Obi-Wan Kenobi waving his hand. I think I'll dig up an image of Palpatine and Yoda dueling with the senate seats in EpIII. _-M o P-_ 21:20, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image 

message: * improve lead
* merge:
** "May the Force be with you" into the lead or any other section (too small to merit its own section).
** "The Living Force" with "The Unifying Force" and rename section.
* delete "Organized Force traditions" section since I think it violates a bit Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information policy. This would also reduce the size of the article.
* "Force ghosts" list can also not comply with Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. I think for force ghosts we need to merge into the respective section (maybe even the lead), and just name the main ghosts such as Yoda, Obi-Wan, Qui-Gon Jinn and Anakin.
* improve quotes section
Other than that I think this article is pretty good, and a minor clean up, a few more references, maybe a notes section and this article could become featured. – Tutmøsis (Talk) 14:28, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree with your deletions. The NOT section does not support what you want to do- lists are not deletable just because, as the continued existence of many lists prove. In addition, those lists can be useful (I'm thinking of the organized tradition one here) because they back up some assertions, provide some cross-references, and is interesting in its own right. --maru   (talk)  contribs 19:08, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for replying, I still maintain my original arguement but if you wish to keep it, I certainly won't delete it. – Tutmøsis (Talk) 23:21, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. --maru   (talk)  contribs 00:22, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that May the Force Be With You should be merged here. Maestlin 22:42, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  To-do list in my opinion 

message: I see that this page used to be at The Force but was moved, which I agree with; sticking (Star Wars) clearly differentiates it.  That said, the number of entries on the The Force disambig page (which I recently changed; there were inexplicably two separate pages for The force and The Force...) is fairly small and the other entries are mostly obscure.  I think that The Force should be a redirect to Force (Star Wars), and then this article should have the usual hatnote with "This is about the Force in the Star Wars universe.  For other uses, see The Force (disambiguation)";  then move the current The Force page to The Force (disambiguation).  I imagine that's what most people mean, at least.  Thoughts? SnowFire 18:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Force: Disambig or redirect? 

message: I thought Star Wars fans were better at writing than what we have here! Surely we can do better than a one sentence lead section? - Ta bu shi da yu 13:03, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead section - one sentence?! 

message: I think the title should be "May the Force be with You", as per title naming convention.  Any objections? -Slash- 04:04, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Capitalization of title

message: I've just removed some vandalism that someone did to the Jedi Code. It seems to me that it'd be a good idea to protect this article, since it's the sort of thing that would see constant vandalism. --Muna 17:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: does the force seem alot like m theory to anyone? It says that everything in the universe, including the universe, is connected by a infinitely expanding yet infinitely thin membrane. It has its roots in string theory, and is thought to be the much sought after "theory of everything" in the physics world. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.162.241.244 (talk) 03:07, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  m theory 

message: I'm responding to this: "As for longevity, this comes from the lines of Grand Moff Tarkin in A New Hope who thought that Obi-Wan had died of old age. Vader reminded him not to underestimate the Force. "
No, what Tarkin meant was a Order 66 should have killed him by now.  Your interpretation would be the most logical one if it werent for the prequels.  Come on people!  Its supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a forum. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by RevSavitar (talk • contribs) 06:01, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  you misunderstood what Tarkin siad 

message: "Some think of the Force as a sentient entity that may be...while others simply consider it something that can be manipulated and used as though it were a tool... A common compromise is that it is an "energy tool" but.." U must be kidding? weasel, POV, OR and unsourced. This has to go. 
"An analogy is a sword with no handle—it can only be used by gripping the blade and therefore any attempt to strike someone would result in similar harm to the hand of the striker—the sword itself has no sentience or morality, but nevertheless exacts a price on those who use it unethically."  Well, this is a bit farfetched and should be explained more. How can u use it ethically then for example? --Echosmoke 01:20, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  OR like none 

message: This article needs citation, and badly. I would hate to have to begin removing unreferenced statements, as I think it would leave the article an essentially empty page. Therefore, we should wait about a week, to see if some citation work (remember, reliable, verifiable, non-OR references, please) begins making its way into the article. If the article doesn't get more citable, we will have to start removing uncited statements. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 16:06, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just an update. on the 16th of this month, I will be removing any uncited material remaining in this article. If you have citations to add to this article, now is the time to be adding them. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 04:32, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As noted on the 14th, the article has now been trimmed to remove inadequately or non-sourced statements, OR by synthesis and probably a lot of utter cruft. If anyone wishes to add material back into the article, please make sure to provide a solid, reliable, verifiable source. If adding a point from a novel, please cite the book within the statement and provide a reference for it. Thanks. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 22:34, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cruft, anyone?

message: After I went through with a scythe, clearing out al the cruft and doing some copy-editing, it was the exceptionally solid, thoughtful efforts of EEMeltonIV who ties all the ends together nicely. Exceptionally well-done, EE. :) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 23:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Many thanks; I probably wouldn't have tried to straighten things out if you hadn't trimmed a lot of the plot summary. It was pretty daunting. --EEMeltonIV 02:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: EEMeltonIV rocks!

message: I've just recently archived a lot of the previous conversations and I must say that I was very impressed with the level of intellgience I was seeing from the posts. Unfortunately, nobody was citing their material, and it turned into this Jabba-like blob of cruft. It has since been trimmed down, and its important that new info added be cited. Let me repeat that: don't add uncited information. If you cannot cite it, you cannot add it. The citationshave to be verifiable, reliable and noteworthy. Otherwise, you will have utterly wasted your time, as I or someone else will remove it as contrary to WP policy and guidelines. Please help to improve the article. It would be awesome to have some of those folks come back here and add cited material to expand the article. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 10:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: No more cruft

message: I think, that due to the recent announcement of that toy that measures brainwaves to move a ball up and down that is centered around The Force from Star Wars, that it should get a mention in this article.
See:
*http://www.usatoday.com/life/lifestyle/2009-01-06-force-trainer-toy_N.htm
*http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/around_town/the_scene/Star-Wars-Fans-Can-Now-Use-The-Force-at-Home.html
*http://www.upi.com/Odd_News/2009/01/07/Star_Wars_The_Force_toy_uses_brain_waves/UPI-61271231365060/
219.90.192.25 (talk) 12:41, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: As the Force is a fictional concept/quasi-religious belief, I think a toy that works on the same basic principle of an EEG machine is probably not the same thing. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 14:43, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Force toy 

message: Since Star Wars is composed of multiple media (films, novels, video games, newspaper comics, comic books), it might be helpful to distinguish the contributions of each of these media to the understanding, development and evolution of the Force. I am aware that canonicity is going to color these views, and we should probably note that outside of the films, nothing is canon (which certainly affects its notability). thoughts?
:Lucas has never proclaimed that the Force arises from micro-organisms, and this article refers to novelizations as canon -- and Lucas rarely (if ever) uses novelizations nor comic books as basis for his films nor filmed materials.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.159.251.136 (talk) 17:58, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, apologies.  I just read about it.  Must have missed that part of the film.  Grar.  I hate that.  Sorry guys!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.159.251.136 (talk) 18:01, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Expanded Universe

message: WHYYYYYYYY do we have a quotes section when we already have May the Force be with you? Is this place turning into TVTropes? And why does capitalizing every word in that title redirect you to The Force (Star Wars)?
Actually, forget that last one.Raekuul, bringer of Tropes (He does it without notability) 00:04, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quotes 

message: The following sentence is in the Force Abilities paragraph, and has rather poor grammar:
Within the film series, a number of other force powers are demonstrated, those include but are not limited to telekinesis, telepathy, enhanced empathy and precognition.
I recommend changing it into two sentences, or replacing "those include" with "including" and removing the "are". I'd do it myself, but I guess the page is protected so that only administrators can edit or something, because I can't see an edit link.
Spock of Vulcan (talk) 21:57, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me know what you think. -Quickmythril (talk) 05:38, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestion for Correction of Grammar

message: The proposed text I have restored (1) accurately refers to the Light Side as an inference, as it is not mentioned in the films, and (2) accurately refers to "knowledge and defense" as the purposes for which the Jedi use the force, directly quoting Yoda in "The Empire Strikes Back". 
Like it or not, the "Light Side" is never mentioned in the films and this fact is relevant to the article. Its existence has been inferred, and it has come to be associated with the "good side" that was described by Luke in "Return of the Jedi", and with the restrained usage of the Force allowed by the Jedi code.
I have never heard of the Jedi "swearing fealty to the light side". I'd be curious to see your source on that. Nizamarain 21:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You need to cite anything you add, sir. You apply how the force is used without reference. Crazy stuff includes the stuff not specifically cited. That cannot remain. However, I am willing to wait and allow you to explain your edits more specifically. If you cite it, we might be able to include it. Uncited stuff will be swept away with all the chaff. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 06:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Arcayne, please see my comment on my talk page, and let me know if the top part of the "depiction" section currently looks good to you. I can then move on to the rest of the article to try to improve it along the same lines. Also, I think some consideration should be given to combining the Dark side of the force with this. Nizamarain 04:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The "light side" is not referred to in the films, but is in the PC and Xbox video game Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic.  I could obtain a screenshot as proof. Blumin (talk) 11:02, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Light side and Dark side 

message: Shatterpoint is another force power.[9] It is used to shatter many materials, often metal, Jacen Solo, while using his Sith name Darth Caedus, shattered a plate of Beskar Armor[10], which is nearly impossible to penetrate with a Lightsaber.
This paragraph feels entirely out of place.  Of all the ways the force is used in the Expanded Universe, to highlight this one so specifically giving it such undue attention, just leaves it feeling out of place.  Especially with its placement after a fairly concise, well-concluded paragraph.  It doesn't matter that it's sourced, it's just miscellany.  Perhaps if it was a commonly referenced or witnessed power it'd be worth a mention (albeit a much more seamlessly integrated one), but as far as I know this is an obscure example, especially in comparison to the others mentioned above.  129.171.233.73 (talk) 04:03, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Please wait for consensus from other editors. --Morenooso (talk) 04:19, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shatterpoint, really? 

message: Please see this and general MOS conventions re. the inclusion of articles (e.g. an, a, the) at the beginning of article names. --EEMIV (talk) 10:46, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  [The] Force, redux 

message: The first and most memorable and perhaps notable mind trick was "These aren't the droids you're looking for". It has also become emblematic. Why isn't it mentioned? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 16:16, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Because you haven't added it yet! –xenotalk 16:17, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "These aren't the droids you're looking for" 

message: Midichlorians forwards to this page, but is not mentioned on the page.
80.238.181.8 (talk) 15:15, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Midichlorians 

message: This article has so much "uncited" material in it that I've decided to comment out a whole paragraph. If my English was any good I would have rewritten the whole page! Facts only dear ladies and gentlemen. If you write something that wasn't explicitly shown in any of the six episodes then citate. As far as I am concerned this whole article should be deleted.  212.182.163.201 (talk) 23:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Too Much Fantasy

message: Shouldn't the Force be categorized as Vitalism ?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.72.115.89 (talk) 23:33, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Not without some discrete, sourced mention in the article. Otherwise it's original research to make the comparison. oknazevad (talk) 01:27, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vitalism 

message: Okay, this article has long had issues with too much in-universe material, excessive detail and plot regurgitation, and has been tagged as having such for years. Why the heck has it gotten worse? Why does one anon make such an effort to put in every detail he can think of? That the Force is a major plot element of one of the most significant pop-culture franchises ever is no doubt true, and that an article about it is completely appropriate, but for Pete's sake this is getting ridiculous! It's one of the worst articles I have even seen! Every attempt to revert the addition of fanboy cruft has been reverted, so I see no reason not just to roll back a months worth of edits outright. oknazevad (talk) 22:59, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: You're welcome for this. LOL. — TAnthonyTalk 16:05, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  In universe material explosion 

message: Many years ago, in the 80s, Barbara Walters interviewed Harrison Ford. In that interview Mr. Ford commented that he was constantly asked by fans if he believed in The Force. It got to the point, that out of frustration, he would always give this answer: "The Force is within you... Force Yourself!"
I am unsure where this information might be added to this topic. I'm sure there must be a transcript of that interview somewhere. I've always found it very interesting and has become a part of my own philosophy. Crgrove (talk) 17:04, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ancillary believes about The Force by Star Wars actors 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on The Force (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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.myfoxchattanooga.com/dpps/entertainment/star-wars-day-may-the-4th-be-with-you-dpgoha-20100504-fc_7371587
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
 — TAnthonyTalk 17:59, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I excised a significant portion of the dark side section since it delved into uncited trivia and sweeping in-universe generalizations. In restoring the content, NadirAli's edit summary read, "it tells more about the subject- which technically is in-universe in itself." For one thing, articles at Wikipedia are expected to treat elements of fiction from a predominantly out-of-universe perspective (NB WP:WAF); being "in-universe in itself" doesn't warrant an in-universe treatment of the topic (for that enterprise, venture to Wookieepedia). Also, "it tells more" isn't a compelling reason to add or retain content. Conversely, there is an affirmative onus for editors adding or restoring content to provide references to third-party sources to substantiate any claims. I'm grateful to TAnthony for again removing the material and am happy to discuss it further with you (or anyone else) NadirAli. --EEMIV (talk) 21:12, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The Dark Side can easily be discussed from an out-of-universe perspective as well. You may not know, but the Dark Side had it's own article before I merged it here, since I don't feel it needs an article of it's own.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 21:22, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

text: Since you brought it up, the entire article then is technically in-universe to some degree save for Lucas's interview. I try to keep a balance of both to better understand an in-universe subject like this.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 21:28, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure how this justifies the content EEMIV removed, which as he says, is uncited.— TAnthonyTalk 22:24, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

text: Two things: 1) The whole topic save for the section on origins and perhaps philosophy is technically in-universe, so the whole article might as well be blanked out. Technically the topic itself is in-universe. 2) A section citing few or no sources doesn't meant they don't exist. The dark and light side issue explains the concept and context of the subject. It gives people an idea of the subjects relevance to the story and not just an in-universe --NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 02:25, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

text: OK let me provide a random example. Why does Star Wars: The Force Awakens have a plot section? Isn't that in-universe? Shouldn't it go away? No, according to you. Why? Because it tells more about the subject. Well same logic applies here. Readers looking here will want to know about Star Wars and it's relevance to the saga. It's no more "in-universe" than putting a plot section in a fictional film. The purpose of the dark side section is to describe the subject and it's relevance to the subject (the force). What we need is more out-of-universe discussions and citations, like the concept inspiring the dark side etc.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 02:39, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't disagree that elements of fiction benefit from a brief, succinct and not-trying-to-be-exhaustive coverage of their role in a story, or the story itself. In fact, many of the articles I've made significant contributions to (James T. Kirk, Star Destroyer, TIE fighter and Boba Fett come to mind) include some pretty beefy chunks that've stood the test of time for a few years now. And I do agree that content about fictional topics must include an out-of-universe perspective about the subject's development, critical response etc. That all is why once or twice I've linked to WP:WAF, after all. All that said: the content I've removed from dark side reads far too inside baseball for a general knowledge encyclopedia. The tone, too, is simply far too sweeping in the absence of third-party references. --EEMIV (talk) 02:50, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Dark Side 

message: Since I wasn't allowed to use it as a reference. I'll let you guys decide on that one. If your concerned about it being in-universe let people read the Wookiepedia entry instead.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 22:08, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is about the Force, so that is the only Wookiepedia article that applies (and Midichlorians and May The Force Be With You, I suppose, though I don't know why those would be separate). Anyway, I just read the Magic article, and it is purely some editor's opinion and observations of relatively trivial matters, I don't know why you would want to guide anyone there.— TAnthonyTalk 22:24, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can I just put the Wookiepedia entry on magic in the external links?  

message: The comparison to Zoroastrianism is not really a critical response. It can go in another section. The fan response on midichlrorians doesn't belong here. It's not a movie. It can go in a section about the movie.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 03:17, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: A journalist is reporting in Time magazine that he and other fans don't like this new aspect of the Force, it's a notable critical response.— TAnthonyTalk 14:16, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

text: Well then you're saying it does not belong in this article? I disagree. It is a critical reaction to how Lucas changed/updated his concept of the Force, and that belongs in the article about the Force.— TAnthonyTalk 18:42, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

text: You're welcome to add that tidbit to the Phantom Menace article, but I'm not getting your strong opposition to a critical reaction section. Most pop culture articles have one. When notable people say that a film, book or fictional concept is cool/smart/stupid, we include it.— TAnthonyTalk 19:41, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

text: No, it shouldn't. As the section labels pretty clearly imply, one is for how folks actually in control of the fictional topic conceived it and brought it about. The latter is for how third parties responded. Hence separate sections. Hence appropriateness of how it's laid out now. --EEMIV (talk) 02:49, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Critical response section needs to be cancelled out  

message: The large blockquote in the Concept & Development section: I restored it at NadirAli's request. However, the one or two details that are germane to the concept(ion) of the Force are aptly paraphrased in the first paragraph; the rest (and vast majority) of the quote have nothing to do with the Force, instead just reflecting Lucas's personal beliefs. In fact, the lead-in to the quote doesn't even phrase it in terms of the Force, but rather there's a god in Star Wars. (Maybe this quote merely belongs elsewhere.)
MOS:QUOTE discourages blockquoes in preference for tighter, smaller quotes and paraphrasing. Can anyone articulate a compelling rationale to retain the blockquote? --EEMIV (talk) 21:03, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I've brought up the blockquote on the talk page twice now (here and in a few sections up) with no response here as to why it's appropriate to keep in its entirety. i'm going to double-check the Force-related stuff is appropriately integrated into the article and then remove the rest of it. --EEMIV (talk) 13:40, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unnecessary blockquote 

message: Regarding the final paragraph about the Ewok films: seems the premise of that paragraph is that these films depict something other than the Force. Is it appropriate, then, to keep it here? It's interesting commentary, but it seems like kind of a digression from this article's subject. What would be interesting is if someone can find anyone on the production side of things discussing e.g. why they made things more magical and less Force-ical -- was it to appeal to kids? Did they need something more robust than the Force?  Anyway, there's a necessary connection missing. --EEMIV (talk) 15:39, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I see a bit more clearly after staring at the article all day that it's more apt than I thought earlier. "The way it is", though, is kind of a dismissive response that isn't very useful. Lots of writing, style, and content changes went into creating a kid's TV movie, and I wonder whether/what discussion there was around how to approach the mystical element. If you're fine with "just the way it is," I suppose that's just the way it is. But I'll keep looking around for whether the writers or production team offer(ed) any insight into that decision. --EEMIV (talk) 02:30, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

text: The same sources do say they were made for kids. Do you want to add it to the article? Why they made it "less Forci-cal" is the same as asking why did the storm troopers not wear green camouflage in ROTJ. They just did. What exactly are you trying to inquire here?--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 04:06, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Magic section 

message: Some "loose scribblings" on some questions/thoughts for continued expansion:
*Concept and development
** Adjustments to how the Force was conceived of for ESB, ROTJ, AOTC, ROTS? No mention of midichlorians in the second and third prequel films -- deliberate response to criticism?
** More from JJ about conceptualizing the Forcce to TFORCEA?
** The Force's depiction in Clone Wars and rebels -- freed from live-action limitations, any adjustments? Deliberate choices to amp it up, as in The Force Unleashed?
** Any guidance to RPG or other EU writers about the do's and do-nots of the Force? Ooh, I've got the 20th anniversary version of Heir to the Empire -- I'll go look to see if there are good footnotes from Timothy Zahn. - Nothing good in the Zahn footnotes
* Depiction
** Beyond the sound effect, how are Force powers manifested "behind the scenes," e.g. wirework for Luke's acrobatics in ROTJ, CGI for Obi-Wan and Qui-Gon running away from droidekas in TPM.
** John Williams' score and the sound mix -- somewhere in the Star Wars Oxygen podcast, the hosts quote a John Williams interview in which he refers to "the Force theme," which in liner notes and track lists until then had been Obi-Wan's theme from ANH (or was it Yoda's in ESB?). What decisions does he make to articulate the Force, and how does that play with the overall sound mix?
* Analysis
** Without it becoming an exhaustive laundry list of "the Force is like X", what other comparisons to religion?
* Impact
** Initial section is a big of a hodge-podge, and I'm not really sure the best way to give it more coherence. 
** Connection between the Force and how it's perceived in a real-world context by adherents to Jediism
** Additional production and product reviews, perhaps even of e.g. The Force Unleashed which I'm pretty sure specifically talk about the feel of wielding the Force
** I have a gut feeling that "these aren't the X you're looking for" might be on the cusp of being worth mentioning, esp. in conjunction with the idea of the Jedi mind trick entering the parlance
* Images
** I used the TFU image because off the top of my head I had trouble thinking of still images that depict the frequent motion of using the Force. Even McQuarrie's concept art (and Chiang's et al. for the prequels and TFA) are pretty static in their Force scenes. A behind-the-scenes shot of e.g. the lighting rig on set for Palpatine's Force lightning would be cool.
My two cents. --EEMIV (talk) 17:28, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Areas/thoughts for expansion 

message: Hiya. I removed this section header. The latter half of the preceding paragraph also refers to characters using the Force, while 1/3 or 1/2 of the content after the break refer to e.g. sound effects associated with the Force, the Force's role in advancing the plot, etc. -- more than just characters' Force-sensitivity. --EEMIV (talk) 17:11, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Force-sensitive characters" section break