Talk:Jedi census phenomenon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

		Star Wars Portal This article is part of WikiProject Star Wars, which aims to build an encyclopedic guide to the Star Wars saga on Wikipedia. To participate, you can improve this article or visit the project page for more information.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. Please rate the article and leave a message on the talk page to explain the ratings and to identify possible improvements to the article.

	On 24 August 2007, Jedi census phenomenon was linked from reddit, a high-traffic website. All prior and subsequent edits to the article are noted in its revision history.

Contents 1 A question 2 Moved from "Jedi Census Movement" to "Jedi census phenomenon" 3 Discussion 4 Problems With Loaded Language, and Incorrect Facts RESOLVED! 5 New Zealand 6 amended 7 amendments 8 Statistics 9 hardcore 10 No official religion? 11 "To poke borax at" 12 editing 13 its not a joke 14 Repeated wording 15 Picture 16 Origin 17 Sith and death 18 Jediism is not fictitious 19 USA? Canada? Non-English-speaking countries? 20 Related social phenomena section 21 Happy Luke Skywalker Day!!! 22 Ridiculous number of sources 23 Jedi vs Jediism

[edit] A question

Has anyone tried declaring themselves a dark lord of the Sith on an offical census yet? You can just imagine, the religious violence between those two groups would be worse than the crusades.

I don't recall seeing one. I worked on the UK census back in 2001. The Jedi thing was a phenom. I think the ONI kept 'upping the bar', I don't know where the pressure came from, probably the government. The original level of being recognised as an 'official' religion was 10,000 followers. The 'Jedi Phenom' smashed that early on, so it was raised to 50,000, and that got smashed. I think the tally at the end was 240,000 Jedi's, though I am not sure, and it is probably documented somewhere. It wasn't just Jedi's though, does anyone remember the T.O.G.s?(Halbared 08:34, 28 May 2006 (UTC)) Wow, 390,000 Jedi Knights, didn't know there was that many. http://www.statistics.gov.uk/CCI/nugget.asp?ID=297&Pos=&ColRank=2&Rank=1000(Halbared 08:37, 28 May 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Moved from "Jedi Census Movement" to "Jedi census phenomenon"

So far, everyone here seems to have asked for it. So, it's moved. Nathyn 10:14, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

How can you actually tell what are people's motivations to declare themselves Jedi? How can you tell what are actually people's motivations to declare themselves adherents of any religion? How can you tell that a person who declares oneself a member of any religion does that with serious intent? Is believing in fantastic things derived from movies more odd than believing in fantastic things derived from books? This part should be rewritten.--Daddysmutantkid 16:14, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I believe that is why there is a combination of serious and not so serious reasons on this list. It would be disingenuous to claim that everyone who declared Jedi on their census form actually was a practicing Jedi (whatever that means). Also, the difference between a "genuine" religion, say Christianity, and Jedi is that a large portion of people actually believe that the Bible has a factual basis whereas Star Wars is an admitted fiction. Regardless of our own personal views regarding the veracity of the Bible, it still gives Christianity weight than Jedi. --CVaneg 19:33, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have no idea why somone moved this page without any discussion. To move it from an information page about a quirk in the 2001 census to become something suggesting an organised "movement" gives it a power and position far in excess of what actually took place and is, effectively, a massive POV on behalf of the person who has moved it. I shall repair this damage tomorrow unless I read sensible arguments to the contrary before then. --Vamp:Willow 09:39, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree "movement" makes it sound more organized than it was, but "Jedi (census)" wasn't exactly the best title either. Perhaps "Jedi census phenomenon" or something of the sort? Philwelch 20:16, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

By the way, the phenomenon was roughly organized, even if it wasn't centrally organized. Still, it's not much of a "movement" if it didn't have any actual purpose. And finally, I would like to thank you for raising the level of calm and rational discourse on Wikipedia. I mean that sarcastically, if you didn't notice. Philwelch 20:18, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

From the sources:

UK national statistics (first link on the page): "A campaign on the internet claimed - wrongly - that Jedi, the belief system at the heart of the Star Wars films, would receive official government recognition as a religion if enough people quoted it on their Census forms. An email in support of the campaign, quoted by BBC News, invited people to 'do it because you love Star Wars... or just to annoy people.'" Perhaps "Jedi census campaign" would be a good title?

Snopes, quoting a circulating email:

As some of you may know there is a census coming around on August the 7th. For those who don’t know, a census is where the government collates general information about it’s residents (number of people living in your house, religion, etc) If there are enough people in Australia, who put down a religion that isn’t mentioned on the census form it becomes a fully recognised and legal religion. It usually takes about 10,000 people to nominate the same religion.

It is for this reason that it has been suggested that anyone who does not have a dominant religion to put "Jedi" as their religion.

Send this on to all your friends and tell them to put down "Jedi" on their census form.

And remember . . . If you are a member of the Jedi religion then you are by default a 'Jedi Knight'.

So If this has been your dream since you were 4 years old . . . Do it cos you love Star Wars, If not . . . then just do it to annoy people.

"May the Force be with you!""

These sources indicate at the very least, an organized campaign, albeit not a centrally organized one. Then again, not all "movements" are centrally organized either.

Philwelch 20:23, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The term "movement" also appeared in the article long before I ever edited it. The original introduction read:

The Jedi religion, based on a belief system from the Star Wars films, has shown up in the results of several censuses, due to a grassroots movement which urged people to declare their religious affiliation as Jedi.

Philwelch 20:30, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Anyway, here's some proposed titles: "Jedi census prank", "Jedi census hoax", "Jedi census campaign", "Jedi census phenomenon". Philwelch 20:38, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia, it's understandable that you do not need to give "equal validity" to minority views. [1]

However, claiming "there is little to no evidence", therefore, something is true or false is a fallacy of arguing from ignorance.

The article, prior to your additions, did no such thing. It merely made a statement of fact--there *is* little to no evidence--and simply examines the factual information possible from there. Speculating without evidence constitutes original research, which is not allowed at Wikipedia. — Phil Welch 05:09, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

So, instead, it would be far more objective to say there is speculation, although mainstream sources agree that it was simply a prank. This is not to advocate a minority view, but if there's little or no evidence, then logically, the truth is unknown. Finally, a great deal of opinion and loaded terms were put into this article (and edited out), advocating majority views, while outright ignoring the minority.

On the census from Jedi outranks major groups such as the Sikhs, Jews, Buddhists, and Jehova's Witnesses, and they outrank all of the other minority groups combined.

That is true and widely verified. — Phil Welch 05:09, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

In addition, there were many "Jedi" groups, internationally, some even trying to build formal facilities.

Please provide evidence for this claim. — Phil Welch 05:09, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

So, while it's certain that "there is no evidence" it's a religious movement, I think it's rather presumptuous to claim that this was just a "hoax" or a "fluke."

The evidence suggests that it was a loosely organized practical joke. — Phil Welch 05:09, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

While their numbers were certainly seriously contributed to by pranksters and the email was clearly meant to incite this as a joke, it's unfathomable to even consider that almost 400,000 people would put down a false religion on the census.

That's only 0.7% of the UK population, and the rates were higher around universities, suggesting a disproportionate number of these were students. In fact, the UK Census Office speculated that the high number of reported Jedi, being disproportionately young adults, ensured that more young adults even answered the census than would otherwise be predicted, which they cited as a benefit to the census. — Phil Welch 05:09, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

So, while it shouldn't be asserted as a "movement", it would be inappropriate to call it a hoax as well (because though that may have been its intension, that's not necessarily its full cause). So, Jedi Census "Phenomenon" or "Campaign" would be most appropriate. Nathyn 18:26, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Please substantiate your claims. Wikipedia articles are based upon evidence and supported academic interpretations thereof, not the blind speculation of Wikipedia editors. See: Wikipedia:No original research. I have seen no evidence that there is any significant new religious movement based upon Star Wars that is a cause of the census results, so unless you can present it I have to revert many of your edits. We've had problems recently with people pushing agendas and trying to snow Wikipedia with hoaxes like this, so forgive me if I'm a little sensitive. — Phil Welch 05:09, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

The way you mentioned it, it is from a biased perspective. If you're putting forth evidence on the site, then do that. But don't go beyond that, by summarizing the evidence, in a way that implies a certain answer.

There's no implication about "There's no evidence this is related to any new religious movement" other than...there is no evidence. — Phil Welch 23:02, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Furthermore.

http://www.thejedi.org/website/history/ As of now, there are eight Jedi websites in existance which are considered to be a vital part of the Jedi Community. From a list of older to more recent: the Jedi Knights of Canada (JKC or JKoC) founded in 1998, the Force Academy (FA) founded in 1999, the Jedi Temple (JT) founded in 2000, JEDI (JEDI or JO) founded in 2001, the Jedi Consortium (JC) founded in 2001, the Jedi Religion (JR) founded in 2002, the Jedi Mythos (JM) founded in 2003, and the United Jedi Order (UJO) founded in 2003. There have been many other websites which were part of the Jedi Community, yet the JKC, FA, JT, JEDI, JR, JC, JM, and UJO websites are the ones currently active. Out of these, JEDI, UJO and FA are now considered the most active.

I used to speak with these people, quite a while ago, and know several of them very well, personally. Jedi as a religion, as you can see, started out before 2001. That's not independence research. It's fact. These sincere, religious groups existed before the Census, and not just in Britain. So, saying there is "little to no evidence", when there were religious groups before the Census was taken, and in several countries, is incorrect. You're also arguing from ignorance and implying a certain answer.

There's no evidence that those sincere religious groups are responsible for the fact that 0.7% of British citizens reported their religion as "Jedi", especially because there was a loosely organized practical joke. You're talking about a different subject entirely. Mention it in the Star Wars article or the Jedi article, it's not applicable here.

For example, you say that they signed it based on a "fictitious religion." While it's true that the movie is fictitious, it is unknown as to whether or not this is, in fact, a legitimate religion. That's a fallacy of Equivocation (ambiguous grammar).

I didn't write this article. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. The Jedi religion, as practiced in the fictitious movies by fictitious persons such as Obi-Wan Kenobi and Luke Skywalker, is a fictitious religion. The existence or nonexistence of any *real* religion based upon that fictitious religion is a separate topic. — Phil Welch 23:02, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

To substantiate my claim about groups of Jedi existing, and trying to build formal facilities, I can bring the heads of several Jedi groups here. I think they'd be rather amused to find someone tell them that their beliefs are "a joke."

They would, if someone did that. They're not. What is asserted in the article (and what is entirely true) is that the census results for "Jedi" were the result of a very large practical joke. That's a fact supported by evidence. — Phil Welch 23:02, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

I am not actually a 'Jedi', but as I said, I've known several, and been fairly close, for quite some time. And not all of them are British, either. Having intimate contact with their community (rather than just snickering about it, after watching the BBC or reading the Guardian), I've been privy to several conversations, where people have discussed, within a serious context, financing several Jedi temples or schools. I'd heard, quite a while ago, that only one looked like it was actually going to be built, but not in Britain. I'll find more information (hopefully, with news articles on it).

Bring it to another article. It isn't applicable here. — Phil Welch 23:02, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

You also didn't examine the factual information. Because the various sincere religious groups, currently in existence, and also in existence before the Census, makes it so that the repeated references to "Jedi" being totally a joke, should be removed.

Separate topic. The census results were the result of a practical joke. — Phil Welch 23:02, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

You say "the evidence suggests that it was a loosely organized practical joke", but then what evidence is there?

Circulating emails, reports from the census bureaus, widespread news coverage to that effect... Have you even tried reading the external links? — Phil Welch 23:02, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Okay. People claimed to be Jedi [i]before[/i] the Jedi was taken, someone passed around a prank email, and a great deal of people wrote that on the Census. While it's clear that the email started it, there's no evidence that all (or even a majority) of the people who signed the Census were not being sincere. So, implying it one way or the other, with loaded terms, is fallacious.

There's no evidence that they were being sincere. — Phil Welch 23:02, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

I believe this user said it best: How can you actually tell what are people's motivations to declare themselves Jedi? How can you tell what are actually people's motivations to declare themselves adherents of any religion? How can you tell that a person who declares oneself a member of any religion does that with serious intent? Is believing in fantastic things derived from movies more odd than believing in fantastic things derived from books? This part should be rewritten.

You can't. The rates may have been higher among universities, but younger people, according to a psychology paper I'd written, while tending to also be significantly less religious (possibly reflected in the Census), also tend to be far more Liberal. You'll find a great deal more people identifying with any New-Age religion, if they're much younger. In fact, I'm curious to know what the demographics are in Britain or America, for people identifying themselves as "Wiccans."

What I'm proposing is not original research, either, because I'm not asserting anything. But saying it is unknown whether it a legitimate religious movement has the same denotation as "there is little or no evidence", without implying an answer (which would be arguing from ignorance). If "there is speculation" seems too loaded in the opposite direction (that was in the original), I'll change it to a more neutral "it is undetermined", to keep it more balanced.

And furthermore, if you do believe it's a hoax, I'm going to contact several old friends who are Jedi. One of them is even British, and could perhaps even call you, and you can debate over whether or not his religious beliefs are a "joke" over the phone! :D

I don't care. Unless he can show me 400,000 followers who all signed "Jedi" on the census, it's a separate topic. You need to get that through your head. I don't consider his religious beliefs to be a joke. I consider a few hundred thousand students putting their religion down as "Jedi" as a practical joke to be a practical joke, but if someone actually believes he's a Jedi, I don't consider it a joke. — Phil Welch 23:02, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Philwelch, you don't know that 400,000 put down "Jedi" as a joke. The facts are:

1. 1. 400,000 put down "Jedi."
2. 2. Someone circulated emails, before that, telling people to do it as a joke.

You don't have any evidence to support that "all" of them did it as a joke, or even most.

I'm not trying to push an agenda, in that I agree the article should assert that the media coverage it's gotten so far, most have labeled it a joke. However, while it's clear that this event was incited by a prank, it is absolutely unknown whether there are "legitimate" Jedi.

Whether there are or are not represents a separate topic. Take it to a separate article. — Phil Welch 23:02, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

According the evidence so far, that prank could've simply been the spark to a powder keg. I wouldn't word it like that in the article, but the article should explain things from a more uncertain position, rather than asserting extremist positions, whether they be that the Jedi are the next major religious movement, or that they are totally a hoax. For now, I've returned some of the edits, as I don't feel an outright reversal was particularly necessary.Nathyn 18:20, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Oh, also, once again.. In case it wasn't clear, someone does need to edit the word "movement" part, and rename it to either campaign, or phenomenon. Because neither campaign or phenomenon suggest that it's a movement, nor do they suggest that it's entirely a joke. So, it's a far more neutral and objective thing to say. Nathyn 18:25, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

(Please, Philwelch, make your edits in a separate area, either before or after this. It's very difficult to read, with you edit over text, and comment in between it. Thanks.)

I'll do no such thing. All my interjections are signed, they aren't hard to attribute. I need to respond point-by-point and this is the most efficient way. Also, bottom-posting is standard on Wikipedia. — Phil Welch 08:01, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Problems With Loaded Language, and Incorrect Facts RESOLVED!

SUPPORT EDIT: Nathyn

The evidence is that about 400,000 people signed "Jedi" on the Census, the same time that emails were spread, asking people to sign "Jedi Knight" on the Census, in both Australia and England.

• Claiming that one event caused another, because it happened right after it is a Post hoc fallacy, when there is no strong enough evidence fully attributing that it is the cause.

Post hoc involves attributing causation for no reason other than one event happened after another. Asserting a causal connection between circulating emails encouraging people to perform an act and large numbers of people performing that act, is not a post hoc fallacy, it's just common sense. — Phil Welch 08:01, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

No, because you're partially doing it without evidence. Saying "people put out emails", therefore it's "completely" caused by the emails, just because it follows it, is fallacious. But yeah, I think the article is objective enough, for now. Don't get me wrong, it's not a "movement", and a majority probably were for doing it as a prank. But that needs to be proven, not just speculated. Nathyn 18:56, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

• While it's clear that "some", probably even "most" people signed the Census as a joke, this article implies that "all" signed it as a joke. Its conclusion oversteps the bounds of its premises. Instead of saying, "there is little or no evidence", say that it is unknown, which is neutral language and true. Simply because the BBC and the Guardian Appeal to ridicule does not make it less fallacious.

• According to [http://www.thejedi.org/website/history/], Jedi was a "religion", before the Censuses were taken, as they had formed religious groups on it, prior to 2001.

• It is doubtful that a "loosely organized" series of emails could get over half a million people, in three separate continents, to all sign different Censuses, proclaiming 'joke' religions.

Blind speculation isn't a fallacy? — Phil Welch 08:01, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

• The article is contradictory. It's called the Jedi census "movement", but then in the article, it's called "phenomenon." It's certainly not necessarily a movement, but it isn't necessarily a hoax, either. It should be changed to "phenomenon", the same as the article.

• The article states, "The phenomenon is universally considered an elaborate practical joke, with little to no evidence to the contrary." It originally said almost universally. This needs to be changed to almost, because it is not "universally" accepted, and suggesting there is little or evidence evidence to the contrary is not objective language. There's little evidence supporting that it's a religious movement, but that should not be mentioned, either, because both advocate a certain point-of-view.

• No one can ever have any basis on whether or not someone's religion is a "joke", which is why the U.K. has laws, preventing the government from proclaiming religions false. There are numerous websites, related to "the Jedi religion", and the groups which claims to sincerely believe in it. Nathyn 06:52, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

The article doesn't state that the Jedi religion is a joke. No one is claiming that. All that's being claimed is that there was a practical joke to record one's religion as "Jedi" on the census, which is true. — Phil Welch 08:03, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Check my last edit. If you have any complaints left, make them. — Phil Welch 08:01, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] New Zealand

The article states "it would be recognized as an official religion by the government. This is in fact the case in New Zealand...". Does anyone have a shred of evidence for this "fact"? The snopes article lumps NZ along with the UK and US. Surely this is part of the myth, and should be deleted. Shantavira 08:37, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

I can't find evidence that New Zealand did or would recognize Jedi as an official religion; in fact I found evidence that they wouldn't. See [2], [3], [4]. --Metropolitan90 01:54, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

The text was ambiguous. It is a fact that if enough people had put Jedi or anything else as their religion in the Census in New Zealand, it would be recognised as an official religion for statistical purposes, and reported on as such. (It is beyond the power of New Zealand statisticians to make it an official religion for any other purpose.) However, the number of claimed Jedi in the last New Zealand census was insufficient to give them recognition. RachelBrown 13:26, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Why is the number of Canadian Jedi's recorded under the heading of New Zealand?

[edit] amended

if you click the gonemad link, you will see that more information that is included in the article

There's a couple problems with your additions. Let me outline them for you:

"The concept originated in New Zealand by Anthony Bremner of Auckland." Really? I've never seen him credited anywhere for this by an independent source. If he claims to be the originator, whatever. "Actually, the Buddists are the bottom of the list, but no one wants to beat the Buddihists, as they don't knock on your door on Saturday morning" is nowhere NEAR written in an encyclopedic style. "Jedi believe that there exists the Force. It is this belief that makes Jedi a faith", is misleading: while this is true of any actual self-proclaimed Jedi that may exist, this is not necessarily the motivation of those who put "Jedi" on the census forms--in fact, the gonemad link has evidence supporting the "practical joke" explanation that was reported in the media (and that you continue to remove). Furthermore, all of this is already available in the external link. But we can't accept the self-proclaimed claims of one unofficial website as encyclopedic fact. For that we go to more impartial sources.

As for the long passages from the circulating emails, that's primary source material, and doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Quoting short passages is one thing, but reproducing all of it is different. The information you're adding is also completely redundant. — Phil Welch 02:17, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

the gone mad site atributes to jedi census to anthony bremner. are you saying this is not true? proof?

I'm saying it's not proven. You may believe everything you read on random websites, but that doesn't make it fact as far as Wikipedia is concerned. — Phil Welch 02:21, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Dude, i am anthony Bremner, and I started it in 1995. Just put it up there would you, and stop being an so pedanatic.

Yeah, right. Show me one impartial source that proves that you started it in 1995 and I'll consider it. And you're not supposed to write about yourself or things that you've done on Wikipedia. — Phil Welch 02:26, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

who made you the judge? whatever. how is one supposed to prove that they started this? exactly? you could check the nz census in 1991 and see tht i put jedi in that i suppose. any other thoughts?

No one made me the judge, I just happen to know Wikipedia policy and care enough about them to enforce them. Anyway, have you been interviewed or reported on in any news stories? That would count as evidence. Proclaiming yourself to be "the person who started it"—ANYONE can do that, which is why we don't take it very seriously when you do. — Phil Welch 02:32, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough. But has anyone else? you acknowledge that it started in New Zealand? Why would someone claim this if they had not? You think this is what I am doing? How about a disclaimer that it has been thought to be started by Anthony Bremner? of New Zealand.

I never acknowledge that it was started in New Zealand, although that's certainly possible. As to why someone would claim they started it if they had not? Trust me, we have a BUNCH of people who try to use Wikipedia for self-promotion. I'm not saying you're one of them, but we really have no objective way of knowing. If you could give me one news story or interview that says Anthony Bremner was the originator of this I could incorporate the claim in. I'm sure if there was one person who started the whole thing he would have given at least one interview to the press, eh? — Phil Welch 02:38, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Why would I give an interview to the press? Haha! Ok, why would New Zeland have such a high rate of Jedi, unless it started there? My friends can vouch for me, but they don't count right? Has anyone else claimed they started it? It took a while to work out who started the email but I found out. Why not put it up as a 'possible' exaplantion, that is unsourced? that is a solution?

No. We can't just add unsubstantiated, made-up shit to articles to appease you. — Phil Welch 03:06, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Although i still don't like the way the article is written as if the jedi faith is a joke. there are many many people who belive in the force, and this attitude is insulting.

you are the enemy of truth. a curse be upon your head for your wrong doing.

You're putting a curse on me? Isn't that considered using the dark side? — Phil Welch 03:12, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

you are a force for the dark side. i claim to have started it. how is that untrue?

How do I know you're not making that up? And I'm sorry if it offends you that people put their religion down as "jedi" on the census as a practical joke, but as far as we're able to determine that's what happened, your bizarre revisionism to the contrary notwithstanding. I mean, that link you keep telling me to go to says "if 8000 people throughout new zealand do this then JEDI will become an officially recognized religion which would be a laugh", so if you want to be an idiot that's fine, but please do it somewhere else. — Phil Welch 04:23, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

also, gon mad says it started in nz. do you have proof it did not? also, you say it is a joke. not its not, some people belive. please change to include true believers.

i know the truth. i tell the world. this is what happens.

[edit] amendments

It is not jedi kight that has the code, it is jedi.

the assumption of practical joke is removed, as well as the joke is on the createros. keep the fact about increase in census

Phil, use this forum please. i have some issues with what youhave put. First, it does not say what jedi believe in (the force)

second it says it is a joke. what about those that actually believe in the force? are you saying their religion is a joke? this is an assumption and offensive

The article uses a reasonably reputable source (the NZ Herald) which quotes yet another source (who is also stated in the article) as saying that while some of the respondents sincerely have religious beliefs they describe as "jedi", the majority were doing so as a practical joke. Given the overwhelming evidence that a large number of people put "jedi" on the census as a practical joke, including the gonmad site that you keep telling me to look at, removing it is tantamount to vandalism. It's not an assumption, it's the best knowledge we have, and if it offends you, then take it up with the gonmad site. — Phil Welch 04:31, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

so you are using a web site as a reference now? hypocrite.

Please, no personal attacks. I'm using the New Zealand Herald as a reference, which is perfectly legitimate. — Phil Welch 04:38, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

you make it out that everyone did it as a practical joke. this is incorrect. pls fix

No, I don't. Adhere to your own advice Welch. no personal attacks. — Phil Welch 04:38, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

also include belief in the force. what is wrong with that?

What makes you think that everyone who put down "Jedi" on the census believes in the Force? Of the fringe movement of those who sincerely call themselves Jedi, some of them don't literally believe in the Force. — Phil Welch 04:38, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Also, it started in NZ. why do you not allow this fact to be presented? Look at the weight of evidence

What evidence? — Phil Welch 04:38, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

And jedi knight has not been given a code, jedi has. pls fix

no personal attacks please.

my mistake. it does appear to be jedi kight has the code.

the original email (do you know about this?) the 8000 number, the gon mad claim. the higher jedi in nz (meaning it had more time to circulate)

How do I know that was the original email? The fact there are, per capita, more Jedi in NZ, does not prove that it started there. There are, per capita, more vending machines in Japan, but they were not invented there. — Phil Welch 04:48, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

where do you thik it started? west coast america?

I don't know where it started, and the article makes no statement about where it started either. As soon as we get a source (and not some anonymous IP making things up) we'll mention something in the article. — Phil Welch 04:48, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

but why not put in the belief in the faith bit. I understand your disbelief, but I am not making shit up.

Because not all people who seriously call themselves "Jedi" necessarily believe in the Force. As for your claim about "true Jedi" (or "serious Jedi practitioners), it's against our neutral point of view policy to say which religious interpretations are "true" and which practitioners are serious. — Phil Welch 05:01, 22 August 2005 (UTC), 05:49, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

can you fix it so that it conforms please?

It's not broken, as I've explained. — Phil Welch 05:13, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

ok, understand the serious/true part. can you think of a way to include it?

Just leave it out. It's not even relevant. — Phil Welch 05:58, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

but the joke part is assumption, so fixed it so it is just a fact.

It's not an assumption. For the most part this entire exercise *was* a practical joke according to all the information available to us. — Phil Welch 05:58, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

But it implies that the reason I started it was not to increase census particpation, which is incorrect. Hence why is the joke on me? It is an added benefit, or a positve outcome.

The joke was on the people who did it as a practical joke, which were the majority of people circulating emails, etc. — Phil Welch 06:07, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

the jokes on them is not very encyclopedia like language. Use postive outcome, which is better and relates the point.

Fair enough, I changed it. — Phil Welch 06:20, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Statistics

This article seems to misunderstand how the census is done. It's been ages since they tried to actually survey everyone. Now they just use statistical analysis to generalize their sample to the population as a whole.

That means that if the census bureau says that X thousand people are "Jedi", that probably doesn't mean that that many people actually marked their census forms that way. It means that, given the number of people who marked their forms that way, you would predict that X thousand are Jedi based on percentage of total population.

Further, I don't think that the census would become more accurate if there were people filling out census forms just to have the opportunity to say that they're Jedi. On the contrary, that would bias the results, because the census would overrepresent the types of people who would find that funny. Isomorphic 06:22, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

While that's true, someone at the UK National Statistics Office has said something to the contrary (if you read the first external link). It's now more specifically attributed, although some crazy vandal keeps trying to remove it. — Phil Welch 06:24, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

The newspaper article you're referencing is badly worded. "Just over 390,000 of the 52,000,000 people in England and Wales wrote in 'Jedi' on their census form" doesn't make sense: 52,000,000 is the population of England and Wales, not the number who filled out surveys. Isomorphic 06:31, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, I was surprised to find that they don't send a census form to everyone. That is the definition of a "census", after all. I'm gonna read up on UK Census. — Phil Welch 06:33, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Wow. No, I'm the one surprised. If UK Census is correct, they really do try to get everyone to answer, and they fine people who don't. The US Census Bureau gave up on that approach years ago; a friend of mine is a statistician there. Since they really are going for "comprehensive", I think it would be fair to say that people filling out the survey just for the opportunity to write "Jedi" would make the survey more comprehensive. I don't think it would make it more accurate necessarilly, since the statistical bias issue is still there. Hopefully, UK statisticians do try to correct for people who don't answer, and I would think that something like this would make the correction more difficult. Isomorphic 06:46, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I certainly only filled out the census form so I could put "jedi", haha. Captain Crush (talk) 11:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

'Whatever its motive, the Jedi campaign may have worked in favour of the Census exercise. Census agencies worldwide report difficulties encouraging those in their late teens and twenties to complete their forms.

'We suspect that the Jedi response was most common in precisely this age group. The campaign may well have encouraged people to complete their forms and help us get the best possible overall response.' where does it say the joke? it doesn't

And now neither does the article. — Phil Welch 06:28, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

you are making shit up and calling me a vandal.

No, you are the one who keeps deleting content from the article. You are a vandal, and you will be banned if you do not stop. — Phil Welch 06:28, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

your a single guy aren't you?

Again, no personal attacks. — Phil Welch 06:28, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

That took 10 goes to get changed. you kept changing it back, for no reason. fianlly it is changed.

It was changed several edits ago, vandal. You are the one who kept changing it back. — Phil Welch 06:36, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Lies! You are lying! You had it as joke! You just called me a vandal! Shocker! I think I should report you and get you banned.

No, I changed THAT part...let's see...9 edits ago. If you check the page history, and check the "last" links, the one I summarized as "undo vandalism" removed any mention of a "joke". You continued to commit vandalism after that (by removing information and adding in non-sequiturs) in your...let's see...FIVE edits after that. Now please, find something better to do. — Phil Welch 06:49, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

yes, because i asked you to discuss, but you ignored, so had to keep doing what i was doing.

I didn't ignore you, I removed the "joke" reference as you requested. — Phil Welch 06:59, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

you are the vandal

You are the one who resorted to vandalism, not I. — Phil Welch 07:02, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. i won't bother to try to get NZ, let alone myself acknowledged for it.

[edit] hardcore

there needs to be a reference to the force. i thought this works well "n Australia more than 70,000 people declared themselves members of the Jedi in the 2001 census, while 53,000 listed themselves as Jedi in New Zealand and 20,000 listed themselves as Jedi in Canada. New Zealand has the highest per capita population of purported Jedi in the world, with 1.3% marking "Jedi" as their religion on the census."

There's no evidence that they literally believe in the Force. I added the quote from Brennan in the beginning. — Phil Welch 06:58, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

have you not read the discussion on this page? what does it say? that there are people onthis planet that believe inthe force.

That may be true. However, not everyone who claims to be a Jedi believes in the force, and not everyone who *sincerely* claims to be a Jedi literally believes in the Force. And there is no reason to mention in the article anything to the contrary.

no personal attacks Welch. Adhere to your own advice. — Phil Welch 07:04, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Once again, there is absolutely no evidence that 5,000 Australians literally believe in the Force. I've added the quote to the opening, where it seems to fit better. — Phil Welch 07:07, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

you are removing this, vandal. For the purpose of showing what it is about (the force), por a joke. Both make it complete. Also, you are suggesting 100% are jokers.Incorrect.

No, I'm not. — Phil Welch 07:04, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

You don't understand as you are not a jedi. Example. Not all catholics believe jesus rose form the dead. but those that do belive that jesus rose form the dead. so what do Jedis belive? they believe inthe Force. It is not silly! How dare you say that!?! It is a question of faith. And those that belive know that the force is all around us, and a powerful ally it is.

so as a reference, include the force, so people go, 'oh i see'

i will not be moved on this issue understand? you are messing with my beliefs

You are messing with Wikipedia. — Phil Welch 07:12, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

NO YOU ARE! I am telling it like it is, and you have your eyes shut. Wake up! You are messing with my religion. Include the force! discuss things here before removing please.

If you actually do believe in the Force, and aren't wasting our time trolling, then I have to tell you something: not everyone who calls themselves a "Jedi" believes as you do. I've seen stuff suggesting that some people do call themselves Jedi, but you're the first one I've met who literally believes in the Force. Suggesting to the otherwise is...inaccurate. — Phil Welch 07:20, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

No, you are wrong. The Aussie guy says there are 5000 who are hard core. They exist. What do they believe in? The force. include it. I am not backing down. It shows that 65000 did it as a joke, 5000 did not. so what do they belive? Are you saying I am the only one? WRONG!!!!!

He says there are 5000 Australians that sincerely believe that they are Jedi. That does NOT necessarily mean they believe in the Force. And I'm looking for references at the moment so give me a minute. — Phil Welch 07:24, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

check what i changed it to now

Look, the quote from Chris Brennan is already in the first paragraph. It's completely redundant to put it somewhere else. There is also no particular reason we would expect them to believe in the Force.

no personal attacks Adhere to your own advice Welch. — Phil Welch 07:28, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

ok here's the point. Let us say there is a true jedi. what do they belive in? the force. I AM NOT MAKING SHIT UP! vandal! if it is a faith, wht do they belive? the force.

You have evidence for this? — Phil Welch 07:38, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

check it out. that wording ok? evidence of faith! haha!

Here's what we'll do. The first sentence links to Jedi, and that article mentions the Force in the opening. Since it's pretty much part of the definition of Jedi, we'll just let it stay implied--if anyone doesn't know that a Jedi uses the Force, they'll click over to "Jedi" and find out. — Phil Welch 07:45, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

all right! we are almost there. But if jedi is a true faith (to me it is,) it require a belief. I think this needs to be explicitly stated. But have a go! Choice

I don't think we have enough evidence to elaborate on what those beliefs are—if you were to add them based on your own beliefs, it would be original research, which we don't allow. — Phil Welch 07:50, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

have you seen star wars? do you think the force is irrelavant? it is not. If one belives to be a true Jedi, then belief in the force is a requirement. But I am prepared to hear your compromise. But bloody typical.

Of course I've seen star wars. My "compromise" is what I've already told you--since "Jedi" implies a connection to the Force, we don't need to explicitly state it. — Phil Welch 07:58, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

The fact that as a religion, it involves belief, is already implied by the use of the term "religion". The first sentence links to religion, which mentions belief in its opening. Anyway, you've already managed to get the article reworded in a couple places. You've accomplished some improvements in the article so far, I think it's wise to let it sit now. — Phil Welch 07:54, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate that, and I would like to rest, but I can not when you have done such things to the Jedi. A faith requires a belief. It is not stated what in in this article. It is required. It is the force. Please state.

I can't. Your word isn't sufficient evidence to include that as fact. That's why I'm asking for evidence, which you refuse to provide. — Phil Welch 08:02, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Also, may I put next to gon mad that it contains possible origins? no harm in that?

I haven't seen any indication that it does, in fact, the front page says it's a "continuation" of something that started in 2001. — Phil Welch 07:50, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

http://www.gonmad.co.uk/jedicensus/howitstarted.php

"A plausible enough story. But the problem is proving it." Okay, an unproven but plausible story is there. We don't need to mention that fact. — Phil Welch 07:59, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

This is hearsay. The gonmad website is just repeating claims it received by email from someone else. Isomorphic 08:10, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

But that is why 'a possible origin ' is needed for completeness. otherwise you assume the link is pushed, the site searched, which is not true.

That doesn't even make sense. — Phil Welch 08:02, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

ok 2 points we are almost there. in the first section go (after the fictitious religious order the Jedi from the Star Wars films, who belive in the force that's that sorted

I rephrased it, but it's done. — Phil Welch 08:12, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

next to the gon mad, put 'provides possible origins'

Done. — Phil Welch 08:12, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

then it is complete. no lies, or mis truths. i'm happy, you're happy. sweet ok? agreed? c'mon!

It's done. — Phil Welch 08:12, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

You are wise and honourable. But for the first part, how about the phrase '(after the fictitious religious order the Jedi from the Star Wars films, who belive in the Force' That way there is the belief element as part of it, showing why it is a religion explicitly? please please?

The problem is, the Jedi in the movies aren't distinguished by believing in the Force, but by using it. Even the non-Jedi (like the Rebel leaders) seem to believe in the Force or, at least, say "may the Force be with you". — Phil Welch 08:23, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Good point. But don't you think that it is needed that belief in the force is what makes being a jedi a religion? do you think it is covered inthe first paragraph?

I think so. We don't want to talk down to the reader. So are we cool? — Phil Welch 08:32, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I would prefer something that states jedi is a religion because they belive in the force, but i can let it go. Thank you making my day interesting! wEll done! Good luck/skills in your life, and may the force be with you! haha!

As far as I can tell, this article is about a phenomenon (sp?) ocurring where people write Jedi on the census, not about the actual Jedi religion. Belief in the force should be covered in a page about the Jedi religion. The census thing may or may not have anything to do with the "real" Jedi religion. Kuroune 00:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Although notice that typing in "Jedi religion" will redirect to this page. I tried it and got taken back here. Mithridates 22:21, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Wanted to mention something. While this issue appears to have been solver amicibly, the Jedi guy/gal who didn't sign seems to have missed something from his/her own suggestion. Jedi stated that Catholics believe Jesus rose from the dead but it is part of the Catholic belief. This is true. But does this mean we should say in this article or any article that if there are e.g. 400k Catholics who truly think of themselves as Catholics that they all believe Jesus rose from the dead? Of course not, not all people who consider themselves Catholics believe that. Nil Einne 19:49, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No official religion?

The article states that there is no kind of official religion in the UK. What about the Church of England, or does that not apply to the whole on the United Kingdom?

Indeed. The Church of England is established in England, the Church of Scotland is sort of official there (but not anglican), in Wales and Northern Ireland there are no state churches. Morwen - Talk 17:30, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "To poke borax at"

I'd never heard of this expression, and was baffled by the apparent reference to borax, an old-fashioned laundry additive. A little research showed this to be an Australianism deriving from an Aboriginal word borrack meaning nonsense. I'm not sure how to clarify this in the article, though, but it will certainly continue to baffle non-Aussies if left as is. --FOo 03:18, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I *am* an Aussie, and it baffled me anyway - never heard of it. --Angry mob mulls options 03:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

It's an exact quote, so we don't have much flexibility. The best we can do is insert a definition—which I can do, hang on. — Phil Welch Katefan's ridiculous poll 03:26, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] editing

This talk page is a bit hard to follow... I don't know if I'm allowed to remove things from the talk page so I'll leave it be but if someone wants to remove the stubs where someone wrote half of something in a new heading then made a second new heading which begins with the exact same thing... Kuroune 00:46, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Done. :) Optichan 14:49, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] its not a joke

Its not some pratical joke

JEDI

The Jedi Archives

[edit] Repeated wording

The Australia section seems to repeat itself ("following a large number of media enquiries"/"In response to media interest on the subject" and "The ABS stated that the code for 'not defined'"/"the religion question were to be classified as 'not defined'"). I'm not very good at rewriting articles I'm not familiar with so if someone else could do that it'd be great.

[edit] Picture

I added Image:JediKnights.jpg because if there's one thing this article needs, it's a nice picture. Tyrhinis 20:59, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't it make more sense to have a picture of a fan dressed as a Jedi? --maru (talk) contribs 04:13, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Almost certainly, but I couldn't be bothered to find one. Any takers? Tyrhinis 22:12, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry. I removed the image. It's not fair use here. It can only be used for critical commentary on the object in question, i.e. the films. A free image of a fan would be preferable for both copyright and germaneness issues. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 23:14, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm skeptical whether we should have a picture. This is supposed to be about the phenomenon and there is no evidence it has anything to do with any real connection to Jedis. A lot of people answering as Jedis probably wouldn't be caught dead in a Jedi costume Nil Einne 19:52, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I tend to agree. A better illustration would be something like a copy of the religious affiliation question on the UK or Australian census. The exact form would probably be Crown Copyright, but a mockup with 'Jedi' written in the Other section would be OK. -- Solipsist 20:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

From the 2006 Australian Census if it's of any use --Angry mob mulls options 07:54, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Origin

This article seems sure of it starting in NZ: link

I think this info should be added to the page. Thoughts? Kansaikiwi 10:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

The idea originated with Anthony Bremner as stated earlier in the discussion, while he was a student at Auckland University. He had entered Jedi and encouraged others to do so since the 1990 NZ census. He made up the number needed to become an "official" religion to help provoke others into following through with stating their religion as Jedi. He preached his message far and wide. He was not the originator of the email, however the wording and the number required to be "official" match exactly what he had been preaching. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.173.181.170 (talk) 11:24, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

This is amusing. I would like to meet Anthony Bremner and talk about this over a beer or two since I did something rather similar with "Druid" at the University of Arizona in 1961. Keith Henson (talk) 18:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sith and death

I originally only removed the deaths bit but decided to remove the whole thing as it was added by an anon a day ago and is probably vandalism. The death bit is almost definitely bullshit and even the sith bit is a bit dubious (see above). If you are planning to re-add such claims, please find a citation. Also, please rememebr that although this whole thing might be a bit of a joke, wikipedia is not and we need to write a serious encyclopedia even of joke topics Nil Einne 19:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

See here for what I'm talking about [5] Nil Einne 19:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Looking at the users talk and contribs, this is not even worth discussing :-P Nil Einne 19:30, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jediism is not fictitious

I've read through the discussions here, and still can not understand why Jediism is not being properly represented on Wikipedia. Some have stated that Jediism can not be considered an "actual" religion because of the fact that at one point in time, the term Jedi and it's implications through the Star Wars films was used as a census hoax. This is no longer the case. The religion and beliefs have a strong following in many countries and have an established set of beliefs and a code which practitioners must abide by.

Another reason that the beliefs of the Jedi can not be considered "official", for lack of a better word, is because not all Jedi believe in the Force. This is not true. To each Jedi, the Force is what they make it. Whether the Force to them is the Christian God, Allah, or even Shang Ti. That choice is a privledge to the Jedi and what makes the Jedi what they are.

The definition of a religion is, and I quote, "the service and worship of God or the supernatural", "commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance", and "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith". The definition is from the online Merriam Webster dictionary, and can be found here.

For the Jedi religion and belief system to be included as, essentially, sidenotes in an article about a phenomenum that involved the name of the followers of the Jedi is insulting to the followers of the said religion.

I humbly request that a seperate article be permitted for creation to educate others about the orgin, history, and beliefs of the Jedi.
Nojika 04:20, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I Brandon Thompson declare myself a jedi.

I Kiersten declare that Brandon is a dork...but I guess I'll be a jedi too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.200.14 (talk) 18:37, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

This is not Wikipedia:Requested articles, please start any new article you like. Take a look at Help:Starting a new page for some tips. GOOD luck.--ZayZayEM 01:43, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

There's some discussion in the book Star Wars On Trial with some arguments back and forth (John C. Wright on one side) regarding whether the Jedi way as presented in the films constitutes a religion. I'm not sure whether it'd be relevant to an article or not, though. --DocumentN (talk) 07:38, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe the problem is the fact that Jediism redirects here when it clearly shouldn't be, this was fixed before then quickly undon and redirected back to this article, Jediism was around long before the census hoax, there are numerous Jedi groups both online and who meet in person, the Jedi resource Center is there for that specific purpose. I'd create the article myself if it weren't for the fact that it would likely be deleted with no explanation and redirected back here again. EdenSan (talk) 14:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

According to this article there is a another group just formed in England--the Church of the Jedi. While I don't claim to be a Jedi myself, I thought this might be relevant.--Pariah (talk) 22:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] USA? Canada? Non-English-speaking countries?

I was reading this article and was wondering about the absence of a US sub-section.

Is there no census in the USA? (I honestly don´t know) Or if so is it prohibited to answer jedi?

I would have thought that given the amount of Star-wars-mania in the US (well at least according to the telly) everytime one of the films come out, that it would be the main centre for er... let´s say self-declared jediism.

What about Canada? I saw on this page that there is a website for canadian jedi knights, so is there no census in Canada either?

Also, I was wondering about non-English-speaking countries. Most countries in Europe, as far as I´m aware, have a census which includes asking for the people´s religion. The Star-Wars mania is not solely limited to the English-speaking world as it was translated in more languages than I dare to count, let alone speak, and it has numerous fans all over the globe...surely some people in France, Germany, or Japan must have picked up the joke?

just a few musings 144.82.240.142 (talk) 16:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• We do have a census in the USA, every 10 years in the year ending in 0 (1790, 1800, 1810 ... all the way to 2000). But the U.S. Census Bureau does not ask questions about people's religious beliefs or affiliations. [6] As to Canada, the article already mentions the Jedi response in the last census there. I haven't heard anything about Jedis in censuses outside the English-speaking world, but if we find anything it should be added to the article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:37, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

The last big survey I know about was the "Self Described Religious Identification of U.S. Adult Population 2001" http://holysmoke.org/cos/aris.pdf On page 13 there is a list of that includes

Wiccan 134,000

Druid 33,000

Pagan 140,000

I rather imagine if one was run today you would get both Jedi and Pastafarians. Keith Henson (talk) 17:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Related social phenomena section

http://books.google.com/books?id=Ckx6jVBXKcYC&pg=PA188&lpg=PA188&dq=%22Keith+Henson%22+druid+regis&source=web&ots=Wm6xpdWIDi&sig=QgnaBld0L8XEu4FkaYaU5FO2fFM&hl=en

I don't want to edit the article, but if someone else wants to, see "druid days" in the Keith Henson article. Keith Henson (talk) 17:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Happy Luke Skywalker Day!!!

Happy Luke Skywalker day everybody... May the fourth be with you! --Pariah (talk) 22:48, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ridiculous number of sources

This sentence... In 2007, two cousins Barney Jones and Michael Jones, set up a Jedi church in Holyhead, Anglesey that had thirty members. It was based on improving life using the Jedi princples. ...has 19 sources, per the editing of user William Ortiz. So, William, would you mind explaining why the hell so many sources are necessary? According to Wikipedia's policy on sources, sources need to be reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. At no point does it say that so much redundancy is required (or in any way desirable). -Juansmith (talk) 19:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

They all meet WP:SOURCE. As explained in the edit summary, the writing on the article is a mix from all these sources, sometimes pulling a single fact unique to each one. Please stop trolling. William Ortiz (talk) 19:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you need to reread WP:SOURCE, as well as WP:AGF. When I removed the sources, it was for what most people would consider to be a genuine reason, whether they agree with it or not. You replied by undoing my edit and placing a vandalism warning in my profile, which was completely inappropriate. Your disagreement with my edit does not make it vandalism, and my disagreement with your subsequent reversions does not constitute trolling by any definition of the word.

I maintain that 20 sources for a single sentence is excessive. Even if every source has some place in this article, they should fall after the individual facts to which they refer, not in a big aggregate mess at the end. If you are unwilling to discuss the matter reasonably and are content to engage in a petty back-and-forth of reversions, I will have to report this to the admins and request that the page be protected from editing.

From here, I'll leave it to you to rearrange the sources as you deem appropriate. If the page is still like this in a couple days, I'll make my own edits at that time.

-Juansmith (talk) 22:26, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I concurr. It seems unneccessary to use quite so many sources. 92.8.195.74 (talk) 20:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jedi vs Jediism

The folks in the census put Jedi not Jediism as their religion. Jedi is the fictional religion in movies and the movies give no name to the religion of the Jedi. Jediism is based on the teachings of Joseph Campbell and Alan Watts http://JediSanctuary.org . It's a mistake to redirect Jediism to this article because Jediism has nothing to do with any census. I am new to working with Wikipedia and am studying all the rules but redirecting Jediism to an article about a fictional religion implies that there is no real religion called Jediism. That's not true. If an experienced Wikipedia editor could give some advice I'd be most thankful. http://TempleOfTheJediForce.org http://TempleOfTheJediOrder.org Br.John.Henry.Phelan (talk) 15:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)