Talk:Jar Jar Binks

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 15 January 2019 and 28 February 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Hopejanice22.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:07, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Darth Jar Jar

Jar Jar or commonly known as JS in certain circles I just removed some websites about that. I then googled it and saw lots of media coverage. Should it get a mention here or at the sith article? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:25, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

As WP:FRINGE, I vote "no". --IJBall (contribs • talk) 07:26, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

The Darth Jar-Jar theory is at least somewhat notable to the Sith article, though. Maybe a simple mention in the "In popular culture" section might work? Nothing major, but a passing mention of the theory would be appropriate coverage; after all, the theory explicitly states that Jar-Jar, if the theory is correct, would be a Sith Lord (or at least Force-sensitive). So some coverage would be appropriate on the Sith article, an entire section would not be. Raptormimus456 (talk) 14:21, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I removed the Darth Jar Jar information from the intro paragraph. It's essentially fan fiction, certainly not worth going in the intro.

Firstly, you should sign your posts. Secondly, there's a difference between covering random fan fiction and covering fan fiction that has recieved notable amounts of coverage. We have an entire damn article about the fanfiction trope of the Mary Sue, so I don't see how fan fiction, especially one that has become widely adknowledged by a number of sources like this should be left out of the intro to the article it's related to. And thirdly, this isn't "fan-fiction", either; it's a fan theory. Fanfiction and fan theories are two distinct forms of fan media.

Besides that, vandals are going to keep adding it to this article's intro regardless if you think it's not notable for the intro paragraph (which it is, considering people like J.J Abrams himself have made mention of it). May as well do it ourselves and save us from the constant reverting hassle. Raptormimus456 (talk) 14:03, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

It seems like a violation of WP:FRINGE. It getting coverage pop media coverage doesn't make it not fringe. JJ Abrams mentioning it doesn't make it not fringe either. Maybe you can put it somewhere, but putting it in the lead seems like giving a fringe theory undo attention. According to WP:LEAD, material in the lead should reflect its underlying importance to the topic. A trivial piece of fan fiction is not of any comparable importance to the other material in the introduction (where he appears, and the associated controversy behind him). By noting the fan fiction in the lead you are implicitly saying it is one of the most important things about Jar Jar Binks.

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make by bringing up the Mary Sue article. I'm not suggetsing that topics like fanfiction itself, or its tropes, are not notable enough for Wikipedia. Just that this particular theory about Jar Jar Binks, and the flash-in-the-pan media coverage it had, is not notable enough for the lead. Theodds (talk) 23:41, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

To be considered "flash-in-the-pan" means that the theory would have just been a small fad that wouldn't gain all that much attention in the long run, which obviously has not happened. And yes, it is one of the most important aspects of Jar Jar Binks, because it's one of the most prominent uses of the character since the CG Clone Wars show used him. It's not fringe if it's considered notable. And WP:FRINGE even states this (emphasis mine):

"The neutral point of view policy requires that all majority and significant-minority positions be included in an article. However, it also requires that they not be givenundue weight. A conjecture that has not received critical review from the scientific community or that has been rejected may be included in an article about a scientific subject only if other high-quality reliable sources discuss it as an alternative position. Ideas supported only by a tiny minority may be explained in articles devoted to those ideas if they are notable."

WP:LEAD says this:

"The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources. Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article. As a general rule of thumb, a lead section should contain no more than four well-composed paragraphs and be carefully sourced as appropriate."

Mentioning the Reddit theory, something that has recently gained a lot of steam and is generally quite notable, into the last portion of the lead in a completely neutral stance with a small paragraph (just reporting that it exists, essentially) is not violating WP:LEAD or WP:FRINGE, and in fact is in line with those very policies. Raptormimus456 (talk) 15:13, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

It is violating WP:Lead; the lead is meant to summarize the article. Like you noted, WP:Lead states, "Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article." The topic and amount of text in question makes it significant in detail. And if it's a "quite notable" theory, it is significant detail. I first reverted you because you'd added a Reddit thread as a source, which is a WP:Reliable sources violation. Leontes later reverted you, seemingly because the addition is a lead violation. I reverted you the second time because it's not lead material. It's also a WP:Due weight violation by being placed in the lead. As seen here, I moved the material to the Conception section because it fits there best. It does not need its own section, which would be a WP:Due weight violation. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:25, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

"Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight mean that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views. For example, the article on the Earth does not directly mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, the view of a distinct minority; to do so would give undue weight to it." - Straight from the WP:NPOV page.

Note this line; "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources."

To be considered a violation of WP:NPOV, the information would need to be considered a tiny minority; something that the theory no longer is, considering how much it's blown up over the internet. It's like removing the EU stuff of Boba Fett escaping the Sarlacc Pit from his article just because it's a tiny minority of the Star Wars mythos that isn't canon anymore. I'd say having some coverage of the Sith Jar-Jar theory in the lead is fine enough as it is. Raptormimus456 (talk) 18:44, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Raptormimus456, I really don't know what more to state to you on this, except that I am right. WP:Newbies or otherwise inexperienced Wikipedia editors often think they know better than the more experienced Wikipedia editors, but, in cases like these, they are wrong. The WP:Neutrality policy you quoted concerns any minority viewpoint, not just tiny minorities. When it comes to this Darth Jar Jar theory, it is a minority viewpoint that does not need much weight in the article. The vast majority of literature on Jar Jar Binks does not concern this theory. If you really want to test if you are correct on your views, start a WP:RfC on the matter. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:37, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm slightly late here, but I also strongly agree that the theory has been given too much weight and should not be in the lead. However, I do believe the article should mention the theory due to how much coverage it received.

I think the justification provided above for the lead containing the theory is flawed:

• The 'Mary Sue' article is not a useful comparison. The term 'Mary Sue' has entered the public lexicon, and I would guess that most people who use the term 'Mary Sue' don't realize it's origin. Importantly, Mary Sue does not mention the fan fiction at all in it's lead, the article is about the concept in all media - not the fan theory. Calling it a 'article about the fan-fiction trope of the Mary Sue' is not a fair representation.
• Vandalism is not a justification for adding content to Wikipedia. The solution to vandals adding content is to lock the article, not add the content.
• I believe a fan theory does not count as a 'prominent use' of the character, as it is a reinterpretation of an existing use of the character

Reading the discussion above, it seems like a good idea to start a RfC, i may do that soon if no one else has.Cdpas (talk) 13:01, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

The lead mentions that the theory is 'backed by the character's actor' - this is a misleading statement and should be removed. Ahmed Best (actor behind the character of Jar Jar) has talked about how he used 'drunken-style shaolin kung-fu' inspired by Jackie Chan, which is mentioned in the theory as evidence of Jar Jar being a sith lord. As far as I know, this is the extent of his public validation of the theory, other than ambiguous tweets. In reference to Jar Jar being a sith lord, Best states "I can't say yes or no. ... you gotta ask George". You can see this for yourself here. Cdpas (talk) 13:01, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 November 2022

At the very end of the article, please expand the quote from "as to why it's obviously true" to "as to why it's obviously true why he's [evil]". This is the complete quotation as given by citation #44, which is already there. Because the current quotation lacks its conclusion, it sounds like Abrams considers the essay's length a reason for believing the essay's argumentation, but if you include the end of the quotation, you'll see that he's simply describing the argumentation. 175.39.61.121 (talk) 19:10, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

accepted - Matches source. The current version hardly makes sense to someone unfamiliar with the topic, thanks for your edit. Actualcpscm (talk) 14:13, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Robot Chicken Edits

I want to lead off with the fact that I want to act like an adult and follow Wikipedia guidelines. I understand that my edits may lack notability, as they describe content that isn't listed in the summary for the Robot Chicken: Star Wars Episode III article, and are mainly based off of this wiki article, this other wiki article, and this YouTube video, none of which are reliable. My edits are also not cited with verifiable sources, as I could find no reliable sources talking about Robot Chicken Episode III's Darth Jar Jar segment, although IGN did review it. I will be the first to admit that I do not own a copy of RCSWEIII, and therefore cannot confirm or deny, in the realm of original research at least, really any of the information that I put in the article. However, I do have a couple things on my side! First of all, all editors must assume that what I am doing is in good faith, which protects me somewhat from editors from reverting my edits. Second of all, I am partially covered by WP:JUSTDOIT and WP:IGNORE. That brings me to my motivations for making these edits. They are a combination of compulsion (I was reading the Jar Jar Binks article and was alarmed by the ommission of the Darth Jar Jar sketch), core mission (I want people to not be mislead that the Reddit user was the first person to come up with Darth Jar Jar), and responsibility/altruism (because I want to do my part). I hope that my edits can be respected and kept on the page. However, if they aren't notable or verifiable enough, someone can revert the page back to its previous version. I think that this is an interesting implmentation of the policy "Verifiablity Not Truth". It is the truth that Robot Chicken published a sketch in 2010 that included Darth Jar Jar, and was even voiced by Ahmed Best, so this is as close of an official publication of the Darth Jar Jar theory as you could get and this was five years before the Reddit thread. The Reddit guy no way broke the news on Darth Jar Jar, it had been used by Robot Chicken literally five years earlier. HOWEVER, it is not VERIFIABLE that this happened because no reliable source tells us what happened in the DVD and it would be original research to watch the DVD and claim that Darth Jar Jar did appear in it. Therefore, the article must, under the strictest interpretation of the policy, misleadingly only include the part about the Reddit thread (which makes people think that he broke the story in 2015, he was the first guy to come up with it) because that is the only verifiable information available.

TheSkyIsGreen (talk) 02:50, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 March 2024

JarJar sings odd songs 2001:56A:F837:5700:670F:32A9:D134:D43E (talk) 18:53, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. DrowssapSMM 19:38, 29 March 2024 (UTC)