This is the talk page for the article "Jedi Order/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.


Jedi Order/Legends is within the scope of WookieeProject Tales of the Jedi.

WookieeProject Tales of the Jedi is an attempt to build comprehensive and detailed articles with topics originating in the Tales of the Jedi saga.

If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

Article milestones
Date Process Result
6 June 2007 Featured article candidate Failure
17 June 2007 Failed featured article candidate
18 June 2007 Good article nomination Failure
25 July 2007 Failed good article nominee
13 August 2007 Good article nomination Failure
11 November 2007 Failed good article nominee
Current status: Failed good article nominee

Luke SkywalkerEdit

Luke Skywalker is the last member of the Old Jedi Order?...MTFBWUA. Starkiller1996Adidas F50+79jawas 11 Febraury, 2007; 23:32 (UTC)

"Not the last of the old Jedi, Luke. The first of the new."
Obi-Wan Kenobi to Luke Skywalker[src]

Jasca Ducato Sith Council Sith Campaign 21:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

User: Mak Manto Yes, he would be. Yoda and Obi-Wan were members of the Old Order, and so, he was too. When he created the New Order, he wasn't anymore.


What's up with the Appearances section? I know there was a whole lot more places this is talked about. -- Cato Neimoidia 22:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Notable membersEdit

To settle the problem with certain individuals deleted members of the New Jedi Order from the "Notable Members" area, we'll put it to a vote.

Include NJO in Notable Members

  1. See comments. - JMAS 20:48, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  2. i agree with JMAS. AdmirableAckbar 20:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  3. JMAS is correct. Greyman(Paratus) 21:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  4. I agree. --Jedimca0 (Do or Do Not, There is No Try) 21:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  5. Do. I nominated it, so that's final. Jediknight19bby 23:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  6. Unit 8311 11:37, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Do not include NJO in Notable Members

  1. No. Let this article focus on the old Jedi Order. -Fnlayson 21:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  2. They're part of a totally seperate order. {{SUBST:User:Jasca Ducato/Sig}} 09:17, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
  3. This is specific to the pre 19 BBY order. There is a generic page at Jedi and a New Jedi Order specific one. QuentinGeorge 11:22, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


The Jedi Order is a not just referring to one set era of time. This article encompasses the Jedi Order as a whole. Nomi Sunrider, Voso-Siosk Baas both come from the OLD Jedi Order, one that allowed marriage and love. Yoda, Mace Windu, Aayla Secura all came from an era of the Jedi Order that forbid these things. Luke Skywalker founded the NEW Jedi Order that once again allowed them. They are ALL part of the Jedi Order as a whole. - JMAS 20:48, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Does this mean the history of the New Jedi Order (which I removed) needs to be put back in? --Jedimca0 (Do or Do Not, There is No Try) 21:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
    • The NJO can be sumarrized here if that's the way it will be done. And if so, the lead should not say "later known as the Old Jedi Order". -Fnlayson 21:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
      • I agree. Since the NJO has it's own article, it should only be summarized here. - JMAS 21:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
        • So if its being summarised, we don't need a list of its members. {{SUBST:User:Jasca Ducato/Sig}} 09:17, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
          • We could list some of the most notable members, perhaps in the history section. And we're trying to make this a good article, so please, don't start an edit war. --Jedimca0 (Do or Do Not, There is No Try) 10:41, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
  • This is the article for the Old Jedi Order. We have a separate New Jedi Order article and a separate Jedi article. Please don't confuse them. QuentinGeorge 11:22, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
    • You're right, it is a bit confusing. Perhaps the article needs to be renamed "Old Jedi Order" to prevent confusion. --Jedimca0 (Do or Do Not, There is No Try) 13:57, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
      • I was just going to say the same thing...if it's not going to cover the history of the whole Jedi Order, then maybe a page move a new name is needed? Just a thought. Greyman(Paratus) 14:06, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
  • If the article gets renamed to "Old Jedi Order", then fine. But the "Jedi Order" should stand for the entire history of the Order from its inception to end (whenever that might be). - JMAS 14:58, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Exactly. Greyman(Paratus) 15:02, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
      • I Do feel that there should be some sort of clear distinction between the NJO and the old jedi order; and seeing as there is an article for the NJO we should only briefly talk about the NJO in this article and primarily focus on the old jedi order. I believe that they should remain separate articles and this should be renamed the Old Jedi Order. You LoseTalk to me! 21:09, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Maybe we should remove the whole silly "Notable members" section altogether. --Imperialles 21:16, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Don't remove it. So many users worked hard on it, if you deleted it, I'd undo your edit. I'd keep doing that as many times as it takes so that you can see these users want to keep it, NJO section or not. Jediknight19bby 14:52, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
    • i think it should be significantly shortened, to include only very notable members. Aayla Secura is not a notable jedi simply because she's featured in many comics/movies. She didn't even make it past knighthood. The notable members section should only include Grand Masters(e.g. Yoda) and extremely well known and powerful jedi (e.g. mace windu). The list shouldn't include jedi like Agen Kolar & Adi Gallia, as they weren't really that notable. AdmirableAckbar 15:27, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Nobody has removed anything and don't make treats. What you suggest could break the 3 revert rule. -Fnlayson 15:36, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
      • It is very difficult to determine notability, I think Aayla Secura is notable enough, others think she isn't. The New Jedi Order article has an even longer list of members, in that article it's called "Roster of the New Jedi Order". I think we should ad a similar section to this article this way we would not have to determine notability, and if we remove the list of members from this article we should remove it from the New Jedi Order article as well. I also think this article needs to be renamed to Old Jedi Order to prevent confusion because this discussion started with the removal of the New Jedi Order members from the list. --Jedimca0 (Do or Do Not, There is No Try) 16:13, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
        • that would be a good idea, but it would have to be divided into appropriate sections. Grand Masters (e.g Yoda) Council Memebers (e.g. Mace Windu) Jedi Masters (e.g. Qui Gon) Notable Jedi Knight (e.g. Aayla Secura). But no further. If we list every Jedi knight and padawan in the jedi order, it will be way too long. AdmirableAckbar 16:40, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
          • Agreed, listing every mentioned Jedi would make it too long. The New Jedi Order Article has those sections too, so we should use them here as well. --Jedimca0 (Do or Do Not, There is No Try) 16:55, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
            • It's done. Grand Masters, Council Members, and Masters in alphabetical order. Jediknight19bby 17:46, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
              • Yes I can see that, but where are the Knights? and I thought this wasn't going to be a "Notable members" section but something more like this. --Jedimca0 (Do or Do Not, There is No Try) 17:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
                • I don't think there should be that many. Jediknight19bby 18:01, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
                  • If You're referring to the New Jedi Order list, than I agree, that would be too long, but that does not mean you should remove Jedi from this list. What I meant was that I thought that the sub section should be named like that of like AdmirableAckbar said, Grand Masters (e.g Yoda) Council Memebers (e.g. Mace Windu) Jedi Masters (e.g. Qui Gon) Notable Jedi Knight (e.g. Aayla Secura). There were several Jedi Knights that were notable enough to be mentioned, we should not shorten this list, I think it was good the way it was, perhaps it could even be expanded a bit, not too much though, just a little bit. It just needed to be divided into sections. --Jedimca0 (Do or Do Not, There is No Try) 18:11, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
  • i added a couple of Jedi Masters to the list. I'm still not sure whether we should list them all, but certainly the most recognised. I also think the section would gain by having Pre-Ruusan and Post-Ruusan jedi masters, councilors etc... AdmirableAckbar 18:17, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
    • That's a good idea. I also think that the Jedi that were on the list should remain on the list, some were removed for an unexplained reason when the new sections were added. --Jedimca0 (Do or Do Not, There is No Try) 18:32, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
      • so, anyone object to having all grand masters, councilors, masters in their respective timelines (post/pre-ruusan) and only notable jedi knights (like Secura or Offee)? AdmirableAckbar 18:43, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
        • I sure don't object. Go right ahead. I'm the one who created the notable members section and nominated this for a good article, so I think that, if there aren't any objections, one vote from me has the right to get it through. Jediknight19bby 18:52, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
          • okay, could everyone please refrain from editing the article for a few minutes AdmirableAckbar 18:56, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
          • I don't object, <but I think we shouldn't divide the grand masters using more separate sections, there are only two grand masters in the list, simply noting it (Like this) should be enough. As for the other sections, I suggest splitting them up using bolded text and not more sub sections. Unsigned comment by Jedimca0 (talk • contribs).
  • i rearranged them into appropriate sections. I'm not an expert on pre-ruusan jedi so that area may be lacking. sorry to the above user, i hadn't seen your objection when i started editing. your idea makes sense so i'll change it if no-one else does. AdmirableAckbar 19:12, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Forget about what I said earlier, your version is better, altough the separate Grand Master sections should be changed. --Jedimca0 (Do or Do Not, There is No Try) 19:14, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
      • oops, i already changed it. you're welcome to revert it if you wish AdmirableAckbar 19:18, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
        • no, sorry i didn't. I thought you'd crossed the whole thing. It now looks fairly complete to me. Maybe some notable knights pre-ruusan. AdmirableAckbar 19:23, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
          • You're right, it does look good, my compliments. Unfortunately pre-ruusan isn't my area of expertise, I'll continue working on the history section tomorrow and perhaps I'll find a few, but I'm not sure. --Jedimca0 (Do or Do Not, There is No Try) 19:27, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Old Jedi OrderEdit

If this article is supposed to cover the Jedi Order as a whole, I call a vote for the creation of an Old Jedi Order page to accompany the NJO page. After 6 votes for yes or 4 votes for no, the case will be closed to whichever desicion the majority has made. Jediknight19bby 19:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Create an OJO page

Move this arcticle to Old Jedi Order

  • Creating yet another Jedi Order article will make things even more confusing, and since this article only covers the Old Jedi Order anyway it may be better to simply move this page to a better title and make a disambiguation page under the current title (Jedi Order) this way we would make things less confusing in stead of more confusing. --Jedimca0 (Do or Do Not, There is No Try) 19:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  1. theres no point having an article which just repeats what is on other articles. page called OJO contains what is on this article current. NJO page contains NJO info. JO page can be a disambiguation page, directing user to OJO or NJO. AdmirableAckbar 19:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  2. Jediknight19bby 20:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  3. Move page to "Jedi Order (pre-purge)" or something similar since "Old Jedi Order" was not its title. -Fnlayson 21:12, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
    • That's a good idea, but perhaps something like "Jedi Order (Pre-Galactic Empire)" would be better, since there was more than one purge. --Jedimca0 (Do or Do Not, There is No Try) 21:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Leave it as it is

  1. It was never known IU as the Old Jedi Order, as far as I know. {{SUBST:User:Jasca Ducato/Sig}} 20:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  2. Unit 8311 20:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  3. Just because you have an article on New Coke doesn't mean you need to move Coca-Cola to "Old Coke." jSarek 09:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
  4. Per jSarek. Green Tentacle (Talk) 09:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
  5. Per them all. It was only called the Jedi Order, and adding something in parentheses would make it more awkward and confusing, not less. - Lord Hydronium 09:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
  6. Yup. Greyman(Paratus) 11:05, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I would have to agree, a move may not be necessary, but we have to make this less confusing, a lot of people think this is an article about the entire Jedi Order "old" and New, but it isn't, this article focuses on the "old" Jedi order. Perhaps just a disambig page or something else that will direct people to the New Jedi Order article is a better idea, I'm open to any suggestions. --Jedimca0 (Do or Do Not, There is No Try) 10:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
      • What about a simple "youmay" tag at the top of the page? jSarek 10:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
  7. Per Jasca and jsarek. Gonk (Gonk!) 11:28, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
  8. I agree, a move was not such a good idea, a simple youmay tag will achieve much more than a move will. --Jedimca0 (Do or Do Not, There is No Try) 13:29, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
  9. this is a far better idea than moving it. AdmirableAckbar 14:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


  • If an Old Jedi Order page is created, this one (Jedi Order, whole thing), will need to be more of an overview article with links to the OJO, NJO, etc pages. The Notable Jedi list(s) would then be a better fit on the OJO and NJO page, not here, imo. -Fnlayson 19:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I think we should either have one article that covers both the Old and the New Jedi Order, or we should have two articles, one for each Jedi Order. Having three articles will make things more confusing than it already is. And this article already focuses on the Old Jedi Order, so why not simply move it to a more appropriate title. --Jedimca0 (Do or Do Not, There is No Try) 19:57, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
      • what should happen(IMHO): OJO & NJO have a page each. Jedi Order can be a disambig page. AdmirableAckbar 20:01, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
        • Agreed, forgot to mention that in my earlier comment. With Jedi Order as a disambig page we would make things less confusing and the two articles (OJO and NJO) would be easier to find. --Jedimca0 (Do or Do Not, There is No Try) 20:07, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
          • After Greyman and JMAS cast their votes, we can end this- nobody really except the 5 of us have anything to do with the Jedi Order page. Jediknight19bby 20:17, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
            • Then again, I wanted it the 6-yes and 4-no way because if it was 6-3 in favor of having OJO and NJO, the 6 would be twice as much as the 3. Since there are only 5 whose votes can really be collected, I'll end it now. Jediknight19bby 20:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
              • everyone's votes still count. Wait until their is a majority vote in one direction AdmirableAckbar 20:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  • If no one objects (and if the vote still favors a move) I'll be moving this page to "Jedi Order (Pre-Galactic Empire)" later today or tomorrow, if anyone knows a better of more appropriate name, feel free to let me know. --Jedimca0 (Do or Do Not, There is No Try) 08:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I've heard some good arguments and I think a simple Youmay tag will be much better than a move. --Jedimca0 (Do or Do Not, There is No Try) 13:29, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


I've an idea. I'm not even sure if i want to do this mhyself, but i just thought I'd put it out there. In the list of notable jedi, we could include each jedi's death. like so:

Count Dooku (fallen jedi, killed by Anakin Skywalker aboard the Invisible Hand)

Qui-Gon Jinn (Killed by Darth Maul on Naboo)

as i already said, I don't really care, but I thought i'd share my idea. I'll happily do it if other users are happy for me to. AdmirableAckbar 20:27, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

  • actually, giving it further thought I think this is a good idea. We could include a little bit of detail about each Jedi. e.g.

Kit Fisto (Nautolan Jedi Master, killed by Darth Sidious on Coruscant, 19 BBY)

what does everyone think? AdmirableAckbar 20:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Not a bad idea. Do it. Jediknight19bby 21:01, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
    • i did all the Post-Ruusan Jedi Councilors. i'll do the rest tomorrow if i get a chance. AdmirableAckbar 21:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
      • I added some. Jediknight19bby 21:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
        • it is nearly complete. I left a few i wasn't sure about blank, so if someone else could fill them in, i'd be grateful. AdmirableAckbar 21:55, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
          • If you're not sure, you could also just check the articles about those Jedi, the information you're looking can most likely be found there. --Jedimca0 (Do or Do Not, There is No Try) 22:01, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Sourcing Edit

I think the roster section with the whole thing about species and deaths is a great way to source more. Ackbar, JMAS, see if you have time to source Tuesday or Wednesday, because I'll be sourcing, too. Jediknight19bby 03:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

  • I think the roster section needs too be referenced, and I also think all the extra information needs to be checked (just check the articles about the Jedi in question and see if our info is correct) because I found a small mistake yesterday and it appears someone else found one too earlier today. So before you source something, please check if the information is correct, just incase we made a mistake.
    I'll be working on the History sections, just expanding them a bit more and, if the vote favors it, I'll be moving this article to a more appropriate name later today or tomorrow. So don't be surprised to find a disambig page at the current location. Just thought I'd inform you guys about what I'll be doing. This article is really improving and perhaps we might even get GA approval for it, good job everyone, and keep up the good work. --Jedimca0 (Do or Do Not, There is No Try) 08:51, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
    • should we source both species and death, or just one? AdmirableAckbar 13:45, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
      • I think it we can assume that the species and death are in the same source, so instead of mentioning the first source that identified their species and mentioning the source for their death, just mention the one for their death. If someone objects to this we can always source the species later. if you're not sure just source both of them (does that make sense? If it doesn’t simply ignore my comment) --Jedimca0 (Do or Do Not, There is No Try) 14:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
        • Just things like about their deaths, being a grand master, something that's either from the EU or a sourcebook. Jediknight19bby 15:15, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
                  • ok. i'll be able to do some today, but i'm going away tomorrow and my only access to internet is through internet cafe, so someone else may have to finish them.AdmirableAckbar 15:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
  • is there any real point referencing these? They're likely already referenced on their pages, so it seems a waste of time and effort to me. Also, Jediknight19bby, when you see this tag:

{{inuse}} please refrain from removing it 'till the person who put it there is done. I was about to go and reference every post-ruusan jedi master/council member, and then I saw in recent changes you'd gone ahead and removed it.AdmirableAckbar 17:20, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Things To Do Edit

Okay, guys. I've run out of things to do. Well-written, lengthy enough, non-POV, and the pictures and the article are completely sourced. I'm now open to suggestions. Nothing crazy like re-writing it, though. Jediknight19bby 14:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

  • I think we're about ready, the article has really improved. I've asked Greyman if could check his objection and I'm waiting for a reply. I'm hopping he's pleased with the result of our combined efforts and that this article can soon become a GA. --Jedimca0 (Do or Do Not, There is No Try) 15:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

My Own Little User Subpage Edit

It's called User: Jediknight19bby/Jedi Order. It tells our story, our struggle, encouraging fellow users to contribute, do whatever they can to help this article, and this wiki as a whole. Maybe you guys should go over there, because I don't know if the story's quite right, and it needs to be expanded. Jediknight19bby 18:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Announcement Edit

We are trying to get this article to good status, right? There are many users trying to, and they are reverting, deleting, and a lot of other things. I announce that the rank of officer be bestowed upon three of these users. An 'officer' is a user on this page who, in case of a major edit being made, must agree with the other two officers so that there would be a clear, unanimous desicion on the matter at hand. I am the one officer, and my two fellow users who support the Jedi Order's nomination are also appointed to that rank. Jediknight19bby 20:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

    • You're joking, right?--Goodwood 20:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
      • You do know that this won't stand. Don't you? Jasca Ducato Sith Council 22:20, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
        • No, I'm not joking. Jediknight19bby 00:02, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
          • you can't just give titles to the people who have voted on the nom page. It's like just making yourself an admin, you can't just decide that you're more important than someone else, just because you're contributing more to the article than them. AdmirableAckbar 22:11, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Wookieevacation Edit

I'm going away now, guys. Please refrain from any major edits other than sourcing. If you wish to add pics or sections, I'd like to be back. I should be back by Monday. Jediknight19bby (Jedi High Council Chambers!) 15:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

  • (rubs hands) Heheh. Time to make some major edits...:-)Unit 8311 15:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Hmmm, I think i'll start by totally rearranging everything in this article. Jasca Ducato Sith Council 20:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Merge with ranks... Edit

I think we should merge this with Jedi Initiate, Youngling, Padawan, Jedi Knight, and Jedi Master... any thoughts? Piequals3 13:03, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Maybe. Certainly a mention of different Jedi ranks should be put here, with a link to the main page or something like that. Really, this page could be far longer. Most of it is just the notable members list. Different ranks (e.g.padawan, knight, master) should be added to it, as well as Jedi Sentinel, Consular and Guardian. I'm not sure about a merge, per se, but I think adding info about said ranks should be done. AckbarSig TheOne&OnlyAdmirableAckbar (It's A Trap!) 13:12, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Yeah, that's just the one thing that stuck out for me that was missing. Piequals3 13:13, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I think merging is not a good idea because this is an article about the "old Jedi Order" this means the Jedi order that existed before the great Jedi purge and the rule of the Empire. Those ranks existed in both the old and the New Jedi Order, the articles you want to merge here also contain a lists of notable people, merging these articles would mean splitting them up, and adding information to both this article and the New Jedi Order article, after that just redirecting here is not enough. I think this merge would be to complicated and make things confusing, I think that keeping these articles separate is better. Just mentioning ranks is a better idea. --Jedimca0 (Do or Do Not, There is No Try) 13:17, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
    • I see where you're coming from, and I agree. Merge/redir is probably not a good idea. We should at least have a section on the Jedi Order page that references the ranks, though. Piequals3 13:20, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Agreed, those sections are a good idea, a very good idea. --Jedimca0 (Do or Do Not, There is No Try) 13:25, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
        • done. It's pretty much the same as the section on the Jedi page, but with slightly less detail. Does it look okay? AckbarSig TheOne&OnlyAdmirableAckbar (It's A Trap!) 13:29, 7 July 2007 (UTC) p.s. i hope JK19bby doesn't bite my head off for doing this without him
          • looks good... and if he does bite your head off, it's just a matter of drag/delete. Piequals3 13:30, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
            • should we add Jedi Consular, Sentinel, Guardian, Healer, Ace etc... to the article? Also, should we add general, high general etc...? AckbarSig TheOne&OnlyAdmirableAckbar (It's A Trap!) 13:35, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
              • I don't think so, as far as Consular, Sentinal, Guardian, etc, only because those are game mechanics, not actual ranks or divisions in the order. General, high general, etc, would probably go in Grand Army of the Republic, if it's not there already. Hrm... are the non-Knight Jedi organizations in here? You know, like AgriCorps... that kinda stuff? that would go nicely. Piequals3 13:38, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
  • The Pre-Ruusan Council members and Masters sections look a bit confusing now, but I didn't want to change it because of the inuse tag, can someone please make that a bit less confusing? --Jedimca0 (Do or Do Not, There is No Try) 15:03, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


Finally Edit

We did it, guys! Jediknight19bby (Jedi High Council Chambers!) 16:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Roster SectionEdit

  • Jedimca0, and I have been discussing what to do with the Roster of the Jedi Order section on the IRC. We feel the section is unnecessary, for several reasons.
  1. It would simply be unfeasible to include every single member of the Jedi Order in the list, so if it is to exist, we will have to only include notable Jedi.
  2. What defines notability? Some users may feel that someone is not notable enough, while other believe they are.
  3. If a Jedi is notable, they will have been mentioned in the history section, so having a list at the bottom is unnecessary.
  4. Having the list will cause endless edit wars between users wanting their favorite jedi on the list and the like, which diminishes any chance the article has of becoming FA.


Hey, you should probably include that Vandar is a Possible Grand Master. Darthan the destroyer 21:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

  • No. While logical, there's no source which ever states that Vandar was a Grand master, so we can't add it to the article. AckbarSig TheOne&OnlyAdmirableAckbar (It's A Trap!) 21:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Always Two there are Edit

why Do people revert my revert to say (paraphrase) After Darth Maul was killed the jedi Knew that there was at least one other. when during this time there was Banes rule of two so there would have only been one left after one was killed Dark Lord Xander (Embrace The Dark Side!)Neo-Crusader emblem 07:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

  • I'm not sure why it was reverted but I think it could be because the Jedi were not sure if the surviving member had already found a new apprentice, they knew there were always two, they did not know if there was just one left. --Jedimca0(Do or Do Not, There is No Try) 12:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

New Image Edit

I don't really like this new image with the symbol being black and borderless. The Jedi Order symbols I come across a lot are usually bordered. Also, the red one seemed to give the article, a better view, you know, it just has some better look to it. This new symbol, while still cool, seems to make it seem dull. They're both canon images right? Because I think that the red bordered one was shown more often and it seems to also fit the article better because of its brightness compared to the black one. 01:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Permission to revert? 01:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Appearances Edit

The appearances section of this article is really a mess. It should be replaced with "All stories in which Jedi prior to Great Jedi Purge appear", with the later stories going as usual (if Jedi Order is mentioned or appears in a flashback). As it currently is, it fails to provide readers any useful information altogether. Mauser 11:34, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

  • How's that any more informative? So, for Luke Skywalker's article, should we put down "All stories in which Luke Skywalker appears"? Even if it will never be complete, we should try to make the appearances list complete. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 11:51, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be... Edit

Shouldn't there be a complete list of all known members??? ( yes, a massive one!) User:Jangofett.avenger

More New Sith/Brotherhood of Darkness confusion. Edit

Change this paragraph, please. We know now that the Brotherhood were not founded until about a thousand years after Darth Ruin.

"Like Exar Kun and Darth Revan before him, Phanius was seduced by the Dark Side. He took up the long vacant title of Dark Lord of the Sith as well as a new name and identity: Darth Ruin. In the ensuing years, Ruin gathered together a large number of dark side followers and founded the New Sith Empire. With this army Ruin planned to bring the Republic, and the Jedi who served it, to their knees. The Brotherhood attacked the Republic, and conquered vast swathes of the galaxy. But when total victory was in their grasp, like so many of their Sith predecessors, the members of the Brotherhood turned against one another. The Brotherhood splintered, and various high-ranking Sith Lords claimed the mantle of Dark Lord of the Sith and began to execute vast and cruel campaigns against each other, giving the beleaguered Republic and its Jedi protectors time to recover."

"Brotherhood" and "Brotherhood of Darkness" should just be replaced by "Sith." Unsigned comment by (talk • contribs).

Wiped out? Edit

I read somewhere that the Jedi were nearly destroyed in 127 ABY in a massacre on Ossue. The Star Wars Encyclopedia also said in 1000 ABY that a sith spirit of a sith who perished at the end of the New Sith Wars and Jerec's spirit continue to linger on in the Valley of the Jedi. Does this mean that they were oncce wiped out, and the Sith killed in the end of the New Sith Wars all that was left of the Jedi of Sith? Tinminer 14:11, February 9, 2010 (UTC)Tinminer

Jedi knowledge of the Rule of Two Edit

Considering that, prior to Naboo, the last time the Jedi had fought the Sith, the latter had been organized under the Brotherhood of Darkness, how do the Jedi know about the Rule of Two?

  • I believe there was a retcon where Yoda overheard a cultist yelling something about there always being two. —Milo Fett[Comlink] 15:39, April 28, 2010 (UTC)

SW:TOR? Edit

So, the article goes straight from KotorII to New Sith Wars? What about SW:TOR? Bjj8383 00:05, October 27, 2010 (UTC)

  • It has been on my to do list, but I haven't had time. If you want go ahead and write a section, just keep it within canon. Coruscantfan 03:06, October 27, 2010 (UTC)

Notable members Edit

Anyone else feel the notable members section of the infobox is just not really practical for this big of an organization? I think it just become overwhelmed with fanboy favorites. Galen Marek isnt even really part of the Order, Aayla Secura isn't even all that significant in the grand scheme of things, nor are any of the other members. Sure the Counil members are important, Skywalkers and some other offhand names but really, people like Revan and Luminara Unduli arent really worhty of mention out of all the other Jedi. I think it should be removed. Anyone else agree? Purpilia 00:32, December 22, 2010 (UTC)

Unsigned comment by Coruscantfan (talk • contribs).
    • I'm going to go ahead with that since there seems to be no other opinion. Coruscantfan 13:05, December 25, 2010 (UTC)

Jedi order on Tython Vs Infinite empire - Timing issue. Edit

So, Infinite empire was founded at 35 000 BBY, had it's prime at 30 000 BBY and it disappeared at 25 200 BBY.

Group of researchers discovered Force at 36 453 BBY, than starts Force wars at 25 793 BBY, which ends by founding of Jedi order at 25 783 BBY.

But there are a few issues about this:

1)How the people (or who were they back then) could have been peacefully researching a Force and building the Order under the foot of the Infinite Empire, which was still present? Even Siths, who were also researching the Force on Korriban, had to fight the Rakatans, so why was Tython spared? Tython, as a core world, was accessible by a hyperspace route for the Rakatans back than, so why it (especially as the lush, populated, and even force-sensitive world!) wasn't the part of their empire?

2)Force was discovered at 36 453 BBY and the dark side followers rose at 25 793 BBY. It means, that there were 10 660 (!) years of Force using and researching, when the dark side didn't exist yet/wasn't discovered yet in the Force researching community. So how can it be possible for the Force researches to know only the light side for so long, especially if there simultaneously was the whole empire based on the dark side controlling most of the galaxy?

I know that in scifi anything is possible but in common sense, these facts are a bit weird and inconsistent, aren't they? 03:09, December 7, 2011 (UTC)

First/Second/Third Jedi Order Edit

Food for thought, that I've kind of been pondering on for a while now...

Our current nomenclature for the Jedi Order is simply divided into Old and New--as divided by Palpatine's Great Jedi Purge. The facts of this particular Purge are plain to us, as shown by the films: the Sith managed the removal of the Jedi from galactic affairs by orchestrating the extermination of their Order. We identify the re-founding of the Order as the New Jedi Order.

But the existence of the EU, upon which this entire encyclopedia depends for existence, makes that stark black and white interpretation far more grey and complex. We know that Obi-Wan and Yoda were not the only Jedi to survive the Order 66 and the Purge. Among others--we know of the survival of A'Sharad Hett, Rahm Kota, Jerec, Arligan Zey, and quite a few others. We know that the extermination of the Order isn't complete and never was.

So why do we choose to regard Palpatine's Purge as the only demarcation line between incarnations of the Order?

Between the Jedi Civil War and the Dark Wars, most of the Jedi Order was exterminated in the First Jedi Purge and had to be re-founded by the Exile's companions--untrained Force sensitives who hadn't been a part of the old order. After the Great Purge exterminated most of the Jedi Order, it had to be re-founded by Force sensitives who had never been a part of the old order.

What is it about Palpatine's Purge--besides being the only one we saw in movies--that makes it so unique that it's worthy of a line in the sand? Why are we not considering the Jedi organizations as the First/Second/Third/etc Jedi Order?

Again, I'm not looking to drive some colossal change in how we write articles or understand the EU at large. But I think it's something worthy of a bit of thought. DigiFluid 22:28, January 3, 2012 (UTC)

revan jedi master? Edit

since when has revan been a jedi master and malak his apprentice weren't they both jedi knights that rebelled against the council's wishes to fight in the mando wars and back then malak was going by alek. they were never master and apprentice till they became sith lords, at least that's the way i remember it in kotor 1. in the history of the order videos for sw:tor the jedi master in the video called revan a jedi master, but he wasn't, he was retrained as a padawan during the final year of the jedi civil war or was that all just some crazy fanon

Jedi Knight Jayzen Shan (talk) 01:29, September 18, 2012 (UTC)

Crimes of the JediEdit

I noticed many of the evil characters take their roots in malevolent acts of the Jedi. Examples: - After the battles Dooku was involved in, they sold a surviving Maldorian to slavery and killed the other one. - In the Huk wars, the Jedi sided with the Huk against the Huk's former slaves. Why didn't they instead stop the conflict? This episode caused Grievous to appear.

I think a chapter on misguided Jedi decisions and their consequences should be made. 07:09, March 10, 2013 (UTC)


"the folloers of"

Can't edit.

Restoration? Edit

Since a few members of the Old Order joined the New Jedi Order, should there be a date of restoration in the infobox?

Good point. I'll see if it's accepted. Unsigned comment by Godzillavkk (talk • contribs)., August 11, 2013 8:32 PM

Clarification on source of statement in the "Ruusan Reformation" section Edit

"Along with Master Coven's quest to set the Order on a firm footing, Caretaker of First Knowledge Restelly Quist and the other members of the Council of First Knowledge were determined to completely eradicate all memory of the Sith to ensure they never returned. Dispatching Shadows to find and locate all Sith artifacts, relics, and even history books detailing past Jedi-Sith conflicts; the Order essentially erased all memory of the Sith in under five decades.[1]"

The cited text is listed as "The Jedi Path". However, I can find nothing in "The Jedi Path" to support any part of the above claim.

To be clear, in "The Jedi Path", I cannot find evidence that:

-Fae Coven and the Council of First Knowledge attempted to remove the Sith from the annals of history

-Fae Coven and the Council of First Knowledge sent Shadows to locate and destroy Sithly items

-The virtual erasure of Sith history took place under five decades. This is an oddly specific time frame, which leads me to believe it must be drawing on a text source.

Can someone provide clarification and/or textual evidence for this?

DummyThicc (talk) 21:48, June 2, 2019 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.

Build A Star Wars Movie Collection