This is the talk page for the article "Human/Legends."

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.

This talk page has archives.


Human 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 July 2006 Good article nomination Success
21 July 2006 Good article
25 March 2007 Featured article nomination Failure
28 May 2007 Failed Featured article nominee
October 4, 2008 Good article review Removed
November 4, 2008 Former Good article
Current status: Former Good article

Average lifespan Edit

I suppose I take issue with the fact the label is "average lifespan" as opposed to just "lifespan." I see no indication that 100 is the average lifespan of a human so much as it is perhaps considered around an upper limit. In Dark Force Rising, Luke expresses shock at the possibility of a human - C'Baoth - being over 100. If the average lifespan for a human was 100, an above average lifespan would not be such a shock. Unsigned comment by (talk • contribs).

  • I don't remember 100% and I don't the book so I can't check it right now, but I think in the Millennium Falcon novel when they discover Tobb Jadak's there is something about humans being able to live well over 100 years. --Mattjorgdbb (talk) 15:53, December 13, 2012 (UTC)
    • This topic doesn't have a timestamp, but it was posted in 2011, so it shouldn't be discussed further without creating a new thread. The lifespan of humans is properly sourced in the article as it sits. NaruHina Talk Anakinsolo 21:04, December 13, 2012 (UTC)

Homeworld Edit

Wasn't one of the datacrons in the Old Republic game mentioned that humans did indeed originate from Coruscant? --Senjuto 17:29, January 18, 2012 (UTC)

Who was the force sencitive human that passed the 800 year of life ? --Madman361 10:55, March 18, 2012 (UTC) I don't know, but Revan, through use of Sith Alchemy was able to be alive 300 years after birth. The Sith Emperor himself, while originally a sith species, later used human host body and lived more than 1500 years, it is likely that many sith lord would be able to live for hundreds if not thousands of years using rituals of new host bodies, and a large portion of sith lords are human. human sith lords such as Darth Zash and Darth Sidious had performed such ritual.Unsigned comment by (talk • contribs).

I'm SorryEdit

I am sorry but I have to point this out in Behind the scences Though Humans have been portrayed in film mostly by actors of European descent If you do not understand read it out loud, that is possible one of the most lizard-brained wording I have ever read on a wiki. Alertfiend (talk) 04:49, May 2, 2013 (UTC)


According to the article, the average lifespan of a human being is a hundred years and Force-adepts have been known to live up to as many as 800 years. The latter information is given in Tales of the Jedi: Dark Lords of the Sith 3: Descent to the Dark Side according to the notes and references. However, according to The New Essential Guide to Alien Species humans have an average lifespan of 120 years and Force-adepts, up to 200. The exact quote being: "Humans can typically live up to a hundred twenty standard years, though there have been isolated reports of human Jedi living as many as two hundred" (80,¶2). There is thus a contradiction. Sol Pacificus (talk) 09:37, September 23, 2013 (UTC)

  • I do not have Tales of the Jedi: Dark Lords of the Sith 3: Descent to the Dark Side so I would be unable to confirm whether it provides the information that the article claims it does. Thus, if there are no objections, sometime next week I will take the initiative to change the average lifespan to 120 years (for Force-adepts, 200) citing the The New Essential Guide to Alien Species, which in any case is a much newer source than Tales of the Jedi. Sol Pacificus (talk) 02:26, September 29, 2013 (UTC)
    • I just noticed that the source for the "usually live up to 100 standard years" is actually the Star Wars Roleplaying Game Saga Edition Core Rulebook, and not Tales of the Jedi (which is cited as the source for the information that Force-adepts may live up to 800 years). I do, in fact, have the Roleplaying Game: Saga Edition Core Rulebook, so I was able to check whether it agrees with that information from the article: that humans "usually live up to 100 standard years." It does not. The exact quote being: "Humans achieve maturity about the age of 15 and rarely live beyond 100"(23). By "rarely live beyond 100" I interpret that it did not mean that the average lifespan is 100 years, especially "usually 100 years." It would more likely mean that 100 is the upper limit. Therefore, the information provided in the article of the average lifespan is incorrect, or at least, it does not match the source that it says it originated from, another reason to use the information given by The New Essential Guide instead.
Nevertheless, the Saga Edition Core Rulebook, though mis-cited in this article, does provide a small piece of canonical information on humans' average lifespan: that it rarely exceeds 100 years. This raises another issue, as it contradicts The New Essential Guide to Alien Species which state that humans live on average (or typically) up to 120 years. If no one objects, I will prefer The New Essential Guide as the more authoritative source (as its very purpose is to inform on species while the Saga Edition Core Rulebook is a game manual) and change the information in the article accordingly next week. Sol Pacificus (talk) 02:40, September 29, 2013 (UTC)
Nice digging! Generally in these situations, we privilege whichever source was published more recently and then note the discrepancy in the "Behind the scenes" section of the article. That would be my vote. ~SavageBOB sig 13:05, September 29, 2013 (UTC)
I have made the change to the article accordingly, however, as I do not have Tales of the Jedi: Dark Lord of the Sith 3, I am unable to verify in what context was the information that "up to as many as 800 years" was derived. Since it's a comic book, it could be that there was a single Force-sensitive character that happened to have lived up to that many years or claimed to be that old rather than an actual Jedi explaining the lifespan of Force-adepts. Since I don't know how that information was obtained, I'm unsure of how to explain the discrepancy in the Behind the Scenes section. Also, I confess that I don't feel confident enough to explain the discrepancy between the Roleplaying Game: Saga Edition Core Rulebook and The New Essential Guide without messing up. Sol Pacificus (talk) 03:41, October 9, 2013 (UTC)
Just say something like, "Sources disagree as to the average lifespan of a Human. According to source X, they lived Y years; however, according to source A, they lived B years. Because source A was published more recently, this article follows its figures." ~SavageBOB sig 13:52, October 9, 2013 (UTC)
Sorry for the late reply. Originally, in choosing between Tales of the Jedi: Dark Lords of the Sith 3, The New Essential Guide to Alien Species, and the Roleplaying Game: Saga Edition Core Rulebook, I opted for the latter two based on your advice that we generally prefer the more recent source. However, between The New Essential Guide and the Roleplaying Game rulebook, I went with the former because I assumed it was the more reliable source since it dealt specifically with species whereas the Roleplaying Game rulebook was a game manual, even though the rulebook is in fact the more recent one. My preference may not have been the correct one. But since the information given by these two sources on human lifespan differ only by 20 years, I have taken the initiative to include them both (as "100 or 120 standard years"), if no one objects--I'm not too familiar with the preferences of the Wookieepedian community. In doing so, I am not sure whether it is still necessary to describe the discrepancy between The New Essential Guide and the Roleplaying Game. It would probably still be helpful to mention the contradiction provided by the older source originally cited, Tales of the Jedi, but as I said, since I do not have that particular issue, I cannot verify the information the article once claimed it has and consequently would not feel comfortable being the one to mention it.
On a side note, I should note that in a recent major expansion of the article, the information on the lifespan was removed, but no reason was provided for why that is. ~ Sol Pacificus (talk) 05:44, October 11, 2013 (UTC)
The information on the lifespan is still there, although in a much expanded way, under "life cycle." --LelalMekha (talk) 08:17, October 11, 2013 (UTC)

Yellow-Skin. Objective or Subjective? Edit

Correct me if I'm wrong, but being an East Asian myself, I always thought that "yellow-skin" was a pejorative term. Though now that I think of it, I suppose it should be no more derogatory than calling one "white" or "black," (and yet then again I actually personally dislike calling people white and black...). I suppose one can say that objectively-speaking, the "yellow-skinned" woman in the image (i.e. Bana Breemu), is "yellow," and yet when I consider that thought again, it took me quite a while to be able to distinguish her skin color as yellow and not a certain shade of tan. Anyways, I simply could not help but mention my mild discomfort, possibly stemming from the fact that I, like almost all the East Asians I know, disagree on the notion that we're yellow-skinned (in the same way that a "black" person is actually dark-brown not actually black). I don't necessarily feel like it has to be changed (as I do feel that the image with the meaning of the corresponding caption is greatly beneficial to the article), but as a suggestion, if there were somehow a better way of describing it, it would be nice. In other words, because a vast majority of the East Asians I know personally including myself have expressed puzzlement at being labeled as "yellow," I'm confused as to whether the perception of us being "yellow-skin" is actually objective or whether it's just a subjective perspective of those that are not East Asians. Sol Pacificus (talk) 00:10, November 21, 2013 (UTC)

  • To be perfectly frank, I'm the one responsible for the major update that includes a description of the skin variants. Let me assure you I did not intend anything derogatory when I mentioned "yellow skin." Fact is that all Humans have different shades of brown, which may appear "whiter" (although it's more pinkish), "blacker" (although it's more dark brown) or "yellow" (although it's more light brown). There are indeed more "scientific" terms (leucoderm, melanoderm and xanthoderm), but they also refer basically to the idea that Humans are "white" (leuco-), "black" (melano-) or "yellow" (xantho-). If you wish to reword it, rest assured I wouldn't mind, but I just don't know how. --LelalMekha (talk) 12:18, November 21, 2013 (UTC)
  • If that feels appropriate enough to you, I may try and rework this part on the basis of the Fitzpatrick scale. --LelalMekha (talk) 12:25, November 21, 2013 (UTC)
    • I think it's alright, and it's not really necessary to modify it. ^^ Sol Pacificus (talk) 11:25, November 22, 2013 (UTC)

Capitalization? Edit

Sorry, I'm new here. Why is "human" capitalized in almost all instances on Wookieepedia?
EDIT: Never mind, just noticed the last sentence on the behind the scenes section. GMC(talk) 17:43, December 4, 2013 (UTC)


While I agree that there are a large number of Force-sensitive Humans, is the tag really appropriate? As per the Force-sensitive category page: "Races, species, or sub-species that are predominantly Force-sensitive." Humans are absolutely NOT predominantly Force-sensitive.

Drathe (talk) 16:04, February 24, 2014 (UTC)

Controversial captionEdit

Maybe don't call the Asian lady a "hairless yellow skinned human" on the picture... Unsigned comment by (talk • contribs).

  • "White-skinned" is acceptable, but "yellow-skinned" isn't? White people aren't actually white (i.e. the color of milk). This is only a practical manner of speaking. If you do have a better one, be my guest. And the caption doesn't say that the lady is hairless, it says that her face is hairless, i.e. she doesn't have a beard or a mustache. --LelalMekha (talk) 08:31, May 31, 2015 (UTC)
    • The difference being that "White person", despite not being technically accurate, is frequently used as a non-pejorative description for European-descended people. "Yellow", not so much. I suggest leaving out "yellow" and "white" where skin colour is discussed in the main part of this article, and more specific geographically-based ethnic terminology if necessary in the BTS portion (e.g. "Chinese" for Bai Ling/Bana Breemu, "African-American" for Samuel L. Jackson/Mace Windu, etc.) In the absence of IU differentiation between human subgroups based on skin tone, and the possibility of giving offense when using racial terminology incorrectly, I think this is the best choice. —Silly Dan (talk) 18:55, May 31, 2015 (UTC)
      • Have it your way, dear. --LelalMekha (talk) 19:00, May 31, 2015 (UTC)
        • Dan and the original poster are correct. "Yellow" is offensive terminology, much like it would be offensive to refer to a Native American as "red." Good catch, guys, and thanks for changing it Dan. - Brandon Rhea(talk) 19:35, May 31, 2015 (UTC)
          • This is a bit ridiculous, but there's no fighting that, obviously. I had no idea I would find myself subtly accused of being a racist for using descriptive terms. Never mind that. --LelalMekha (talk) 19:44, May 31, 2015 (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+