This is the talk page for the article "Hapan."

This space is used for discussion relating to changes to the article, not for a discussion about the topic in question. For general questions about the article's topic, please visit the Knowledge Bank. Please remember to stay civil and sign all of your comments with four tildes (~~~~). Click here to start a new topic.


Hapan is a former Good article. Please see this article's entry on the AgriCorps page for the reasons it was removed.

Article milestones
Date Process Result
18 December 2006 Good article nomination Success
22 February 2007 Good article
October 4, 2008 Good article review Removed
November 4, 2008 Former Good article
Current status: Former Good article


It seems to me that calling Hapans "near-human" exaggerates the differences between them and your average humans. Poor night vision is just an artifact of them growing up a world where it doesn't get very dark at night. A human who grows up on a high-gravity world like, say, Carida would likely end up with greater strength than most humans, but that wouldn't make human populations on such worlds into new "near-human" races. Also, the Essential Guide to Characters lists Ta'a Chume and Isolder as humans. In the case of Isolder, that's also true of both his Databank entry and his Wookieepedia entry. Also, our entry on the Witches of Dathomir, who are more divergent from the human norm than are Hapans (seeing as Force-senstivity, an extremely rare trait generally, is very common among them) lists them as simply being human.
IMO, Hapans should just be considered humans who come from Hapes and its colony worlds, not a near-human race. Red XIV 18:26, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

i think they are Human...they have about as much difference in them as an Asian man has from a Black man User: KalAstar September something

I do seem to recall that they're listed as a separate race in the roleplaying systems. They are a distinct genetic variant, but perhaps calling them "near-human" is a bit of a stretch. They're really more culturally than biologically distinct. --GenkiNeko 14:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

So does everyone agree that we should just call them Human? Even if it turns out that more sources say that they are Near-Human, Lucasfilm is THE FINAL source, and the DATABANK says Isolder, a Hapan, is Human. The community NEEDS to form a consensus about this! (Asking writers in this case will not fix it because of the differing sources involved.) On the Elliah Fel page, her species has been bouncing back and forth between Human and Hapan! It is currently listed as Human. So why is Marasiah Fel listed as a Near-Human/Hapan, when her father is definitely Human and her mother currently is?WIERDGREENMAN 04:23, February 1, 2011 (UTC)

Near-human? Edit

OK... So if these people are consistently "beautiful" and have night blindness, then wouldn't it stand to reason that we could call people "near-human" who are, for example, consistently unattractive and have poor hearing?

I don't have access to all the sources listed in this article. Which of those official sources states that they are "near-human"?

--Lance E Sloan 13:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. From what I understand Hapans are humans who have selectively bred to be a generally attractive species, and their night-blindness is the result of environmental factors. We could conceivably create a "race" of Hapans in the real world. Also, Hapans have been consistently called humans in virtually every novel for the last 10+ years, if not in the text then in the dramatis personae at the beginning. I thing there's more than enough evidence to say that they are human rather than near-human. McJediProbie (talk) 15:01, January 23, 2014 (UTC)

At risk concerns Edit

Hapan has been tagged with the Gacleanup template for the following reason(s):

  • No notes and references section.

The community is invited and encouraged to help improve this article to meet current GA standards. --School of Thrawn 101 05:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

  • N&Rs section added. Unfortunately, my knowledge on the Hapans is poor, which is why I have not added much sourcing. Unit 8311 15:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

vision Edit

when is it stated that the hapans don't have night-vision? what book? -- Rom Ulan 16:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


She is not confirmed as a Hapan, she should be removed from the legacy section. 02:53, March 1, 2012 (UTC)

  • Done. For future reference, you're more than welcome to edit pages yourself. Wookieepedia is a community, and everyone is encouraged to help out, whether they have an account or not. :) Menkooroo 02:56, March 1, 2012 (UTC)

Star HomeEdit

There appears to be a discrepancy between the information provided here about the Star Home and information on the Star Home page, itself. This page states the following: "Around 3,100 BBY, a Queen Mother sealed the borders to the newly created Hapes Consortium from the rest of the Galaxy, ordered the starship Star Home to be constructed, and quickly captured many more planets for the Hapans to colonize."

The Star Home page, however, puts the date of construction sometime between 4000 BBY and 3960 BBY ("after the end of the Mandalorian Wars--the information on the page, itself, is somewhat in conflict). It also has it being constructed by the First Queen Mother rather than the Isolationist Queen Mother ("The Star Home was constructed by the first Queen Mother just after 4000 BBY").

Now, personally, the information on the Hapan page makes a lot more sense to me, as it seems unreasonable to think the Hapes Consortium could have expanded to 63 planets a mere 50 to 100 years after the Battle of Lorell. But as neither page cites a source for this information, I really can't say for sure. I'm hoping somebody will read this someday and clear it up. --Thewatcheruatu 23:54, June 18, 2012 (UTC)

I figured out the source of the 4000 BBY construction date. It's from Hapes: Ladies First. "Construction of the massive, ancient vessel Star Home was ordered by the very first Queen Mother, not long after the ancient Mandalorian Wars four thousand years before the rise of Palpatine." I still think the continuity seems screwy, however, and I'd like to know the source of the other information placing construction around 3100 BBY. --Thewatcheruatu 17:18, June 20, 2012 (UTC)

Hapans are Humans!!!!!!!Edit

Alright, so there's a sketchy rpg guidebook that says that Hapans are near-human rather than human. But literally EVERY in-universe source has stated that Hapans are human. Think about it, when was the last time you ever read anything in which Tenel Ka was referred to as anything other than human? And all the articles for Hapan characters list Human under species in the infoboxes. I think its about time we call shenanigans on the rpg book: clearly its wrong. 15:10, January 24, 2014 (UTC)

  • Firstly, Wookieepedia is not a source, so we cannot go by what the other infoboxes say. Secondly, we cannot "call shenanigans" on the rpg book, because we don't decide what is and isn't canon. Please do not continue to change the article without providing definite proof. Saying everything lists them as human really doesn't help, because you need to show us which sources say so. Thank you. Supreme Emperor (talk) 15:19, January 24, 2014 (UTC)
  • Secondly, since all Near-Human races are, by definition, subspecies of the Human genus, there is no problem here. It's equally true and appropriate to call the Hapans both "Humans" and "Near-Humans." All squares are rectangles, you know. Moreover, Hapans are physically different from baseline Humans in two major ways: their almost universal physical beauty, and a form of genetic night blindness. Those traits are enough to qualify them as Near-Humans. And please don't use that many exclamation marks—it "looks" aggressive and is not considered proper punctuation. Thank you. --LelalMekha (talk) 15:24, January 24, 2014 (UTC)
    • Are you freaking kidding? Near-humans cannot be humans. That's the point of calling them near-human: they're not 100% human. A square can't be called a rectangle if its missing even 1% of the characteristics required of a rectangle. Humans and near-humans are two mutually exclusive categories. And the Hapans' beauty and night-blindness (the latter of which has never been shown in any in-universe source, I might add) are the result of selective breeding and their environment, not a species thing. We could make our own "Hapans" in real life if we lock a bunch of Victoria Secret models and Chip'n'Dale dancers in a bright room for a couple hundred years. And as for sources: Star by Star, Dark Journey, the Dark Nest Trilogy, the Legacy of the Force series, the Fate of the Jedi series, and probably a dozen other books all list and describe Hapan characters as human. And when Wookieepedia is contradicting itself in different articles, clearly something is wrong. I know Wookieepedia prefers to let Lucasfilm decide canon issues, but when something is obviously wrong, its perfectly ok for Wookieepedia to take a stand and say so. So grow a pair; is it really the end of the world if Wookieepedia comes out and admits to something that every rational person can already see anyway? 15:50, January 24, 2014 (UTC)
      • Firstly, please calm down. Telling us to "Grow a pair" isn't helping the situation. When it comes to canon, we cannot simply pick and choose. If I have some time later, i'll check some of those books to see what I can dig up. Supreme Emperor (talk) 15:57, January 24, 2014 (UTC)
      • I'm not kidding at all. Have you ever heard of hypernymy? All squares are indeed rectangles, since the definition of a rectangle is "a four-sided shape that is made up of two pairs of parallel lines and that has four right angle." A square is a special kind of rectangle, one where all the sides have the same length—it doesn't miss any of characteristics required of a rectangle, it just has more characteristics. More to the point, since Near-Humans are subspecies of the Human genus, they all are a special type of Human. "Hapan" is a hyponym of "Human" just as "daisy" and "rose" are hyponyms of "flower." --LelalMekha (talk) 16:00, January 24, 2014 (UTC)
        • Looks like you missed the point. Yes, a square is a rectangle. But if a shape has four sides of two pairs of parallel lines, but those sides don't form four right angles, then it's not a square OR a rectangle. That's what I'm saying. A near-human is a non-rectangular parallelogram: they're missing an essential element required for being called human. Just think about it: a near-human is something that's nearly human, but not quite al the way there. So how can they be human? A parallelogram with no right angles is nearly rectangular, but to say that it actually is rectangular is just straight up wrong. And where is the evidence that they fall under the same genus as humans? Is there anything that tells us the scientific name for near-human species in good old binomial nomenclature? The only thing that I agree with you on is that Hapan is a hyponym of human, because Hapans ARE human. 19:18, January 24, 2014 (UTC)
        • And telling you to "grow a pair" actually did help: it's getting you to do something. That's what I intended when I said it. It wasn't to offend anyone, it was to motivate you to take action. 19:20, January 24, 2014 (UTC)
          • When you're saying "a near-human is something that's nearly human," you are mistaken. Althoug the word "near" does mean "close to" in common English, we're talking Star Wars here. In the galaxy far, far away, a Near-Human is one who belongs to a species that descend from baseline Humans. You can't just work with your own definitions. --LelalMekha (talk) 19:46, January 24, 2014 (UTC)
            • The stories of the galaxy far, far away are written in common English. They are told in common English on screen. When Jabba speaks Huttese, it is translated in subtitiles in common English. Try as they might, George Lucas and all of the other storytellers in the franchise have been unable to entirely dispense with the necessity of using common English. Indeed, it is impossible to remove common English from Star Wars, as without it, what medium is left for the story to be told in? As long as we, the lowly, uninspired audience, are forced to rely on common English, or even language in general, we must evaluate and discuss the galaxy far, far away in the terms of that base and mundane mode of communication. (Do you really want to keep doing this? You're making it way too easy.) 19:57, January 24, 2014 (UTC)
              • You don't seem to understand, or perhaps you pretend not to. Let me give you a real-life example: is a prairie dog a dog who lives in a prairie? Of course not. And yet, we all know what "dog" and "prairie" mean, right? Sometimes, words and expressions shouldn't be taken that literally, you know. Believe it or not, it's the same thing here: Near-Human doesn't mean "nearly human, but not quite al the way there." However, you're right about one thing: I will leave it here and let someone else argue with you. There is way too much work on this wikia to keep losing my time like this. --LelalMekha (talk) 20:11, January 24, 2014 (UTC)
                • Wow, that's you're weakest argument yet. Of course no one would literally translate "prairie dog" as a dog who lives on the prairie. They would apply reason and logic to come to the conclusion that it means something else. That doesn't mean that they would reach the same conclusion for every compound noun. They might look at "near-human" in the context of a space opera in which several species of aliens and other creatures are regular features conclude something along these lines: "Near-human, hmmmm, in a fictional world where aliens are quite prevalent, that must mean an alien that shares many qualities with humans but isn't actually human." This is the definition of near-human that I believe most, if not all, rational people will come to after considering the term AND the context in which it's used. So yes, I understand the issue. I daresay I understand it better than you seem to: either "near-humans" are not human, or if they are then the term "near-human" is a misnomer. I'm inclined to say the former. 20:23, January 24, 2014 (UTC)
                  • My friend, this is not "my" interpretation versus "your" interpretation. You're not just interpreting it against me, but against canon itself. From the Star Wars Roleplaying Game Revised Core Rulebook, page 322: "near-human species (...) have typically arisen through genetic engineering (...) or by living in an unusual environment for hundreds of generations. While some near-humans might have special abilities, for the most part they differ only from baseline humans in minor ways (such as appearance, altered lifespans, enhanced manual dexterity, and so on)." If you won't take my word for it, the picture of that book page is here. Now please, stop being stubborn and insulting. --LelalMekha (talk) 20:34, January 24, 2014 (UTC)
                      • I know exactly what this debate is about. Yes, I'm challenging the canon. I'm saying it's wrong. And I'm trying rouse Wookieepedia out of the misguided policy that it must slavishly follow canon even when that canon is wrong. When canon is wrong and there is a clear consensus of what the right answer is, Wookieepedia should follow the consensus. And I noticed that nowhere on that page does it say that near-humans ARE human. In fact the implication it seems to draw is that even the most-humanlike near-humans are still different enough that they don't qualify as human. And I'm not insulting anyone: I'm attacking your argument, not you personally. I think your argument is idiotic, but I'm sure you're a wonderful human (not near-human) being :) 20:45, January 24, 2014 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.

Fandom may earn an affiliate commission on sales made from links on this page.

Stream the best stories.

Fandom may earn an affiliate commission on sales made from links on this page.

Get Disney+