Talk:Midi-chlorian

Requested move

This is a lingering issue for these endosymbionts in the Star Wars universe. An initial spelling, and few other mentions, indicate the former; most others – including the majority of canon and fanon literature in print and online – indicates the latter. The article was recently moved back to the former by a proponent, but a Wp consensus supports the latter.

Voting

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~

• Support as per Spelling discussion below. Olessi 17:38, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support due to overwhelming canonical evidence Masterzora 19:20, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support as per "Spelling" discussion below and evidence presented therein. E Pluribus Anthony 19:32, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments

• As above and below, the move is a fait accompli; thank you everyone! E Pluribus Anthony 21:08, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Spelling

Are you sure 'Midi-clorian' is spelt correctly. Please do check. A google search of midiclorian will redirect you to midichlorian. In addition,this was(the latter) how it was spelt in other articles in wikipedia.

I have the book Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace, and in it, it is spelled "midi-clorian". → JarlaxleArtemis 03:14, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be a mention of the controversy surrounding the introduction of midi-clorians in the Star Wars mythos? I mean, midi-clorians and Jar Jar are two of the main reasons many fans were disappointed with The Phantom Menace. I bet they are *the* two top reasons.

no no, i think it was just Jar Jar. --- Iorek Brynson

I think one should double check the spelling of 'midi-clorian'. The official Star Wars site also has it listed as midi-chlorian. If nobody can clarify it soon, I'll make the change.

I've already said, "I have the book Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace, and in it, it is spelled 'midi-clorian'." → JarlaxleArtemis 02:34, May 24, 2005(UTC)

I just watched Episode III with subtitles this weekend, and the subtitles all refrence "midi-chlorians". Which is taken to be more canonical? --Masterzora 02:14, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Conclusive Research on the True Spelling

The film subtitles and the official Star Wars web site all spell the name midi-chlorian with the h. No matter what your copy of the book may have, a search within the book on Amazon clearly shows that the word is spelled midi-chlorian in the 2000 paperback edition of the novelization published by Del Rey.

I'd say you have a defective edition and this needs to go back to midi-chlorian. Rcharman 04:27, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't have a defective edition. It's probably just an earlier spelling. Anyway, notice how the first line of this article states "(also spelled "midi-chlorians")"? ⇒ JarlaxleArtemis 01:05, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

"Midi-clorians" is an earlier spelling that has since been updated by Lucas to "Midi-chlorians"; the original spelling is no longer officially canon. WP's article on the subject should thus be at the updated spelling. Because the original version of the novelization is the only official mentioning of "midi-clorians" (and has since been updated), I do not even see the need to list the outdated spelling. The article should be at Midi-chlorians with a redirect from Midi-clorians. Olessi 21:08, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

To do due diligence, here are Google stats (excluding Wikipedia):

"midiclorian" -site:wikipedia.org 1,510

"midi-clorian" -site:wikipedia.org 815

"midichlorian" -site:wikipedia.org 91,200

"midi-chlorian" -site:wikipedia.org 895

"midiclorians" -site:wikipedia.org 1,520

"midi-clorians" -site:wikipedia.org 228

"midichlorians" -site:wikipedia.org 29,500

"midi-chlorians" -site:wikipedia.org 23,400

So regardless of canon, midichlorian(s) [with h, without hyphen] is overwhelmingly the most common spelling. Rcharman 20:24, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

The correct spelling, acording to Lucasfilm canon policy, would be whatever is found the novel of The Phantom Menace. This is because, since no one ever specifically spells it out for the viewer in any of the films (pun intended), the next lowest canon level, which is the novelization, does in fact spell it out, therefore it is the correct way. And by the way, it is irrelevant that the DVD subtitles spell it, because, since they are not part of the original film, but instead added by the DVD manufacturer, they are not canon. The Wookieepedian 21:58, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Judging from all the evidence here, I'd say it's pretty clearly spelled with the H. — Phil Welch Katefan's ridiculous poll 22:03, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello! The above information/counts overwhelmingly support midi-chlorian as being correct: the article for Anakin Skywalker, et al. at the official website consistently includes the h. Just because the spelling in one early book (albeit official) has been cited, that doesn't invalidate other substantial (and official) evidence later to the contrary. Moreover, if there's any truth that the etymology of the word – that it is a portmanteau derived partially from mitochondrion and chloroplast, fundamental microscopic structures in animal and plant cells (somewhat respectively) – harks of the unity in the Force and between all living things, this would be additional support for midi-chlorian. E Pluribus Anthony 02:39, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

However, that book is the only actual canon spelling of the word, unless another star wars book spells it differently. The Wookieepedian 14:10, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Are the books canon? What other instances are canon? These should be balanced. Hmmm! If so (and this is supposition), I think the spelling in that book flies in the face of other (canonical or not) spellings, e.g., online. I'd also be willing to guess that the without-h spelling was written early on before the concept was wholly fleshed out. If this is contentious, I'm easy either way.  :) E Pluribus Anthony 14:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but later editions of the book itself spell it "midi-chlorian". — Phil Welch Katefan's ridiculous poll 17:08, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

...-chloir... (i between o and r)? E Pluribus Anthony 17:16, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Is there resolution? If the above statement by PW is true, in combo with other info, I think there's sufficient reason that midi-chlorian be the authoritative one in Wp, with midi-clorian and others being redirects. Thoughts? If there are no objections ... E Pluribus Anthony 21:23, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Anakin as the Chosen One

Is Anakin the chosen one? I thought the prophesy was misread and his son, Luke was the one "to bring balance to the force" - Arpeggio

Anakin was not the chosen one. He was thought to be the chosen one. Luke may or may not be the chosen one, as there was no mention of a "chosen one" in the original three movies. → JarlaxleArtemis 02:34, May 24, 2005

(UTC)

One can argue that Anikan is the chosen one, because the sith had almost the same prophesy, but more then likly Luke is THE chosen one to bring blance to the force as he is the first and only Netural Jedi. Although technicly many (myself included) choose to call him a Dark Jedi, as he is a Jedi who embrases his emotions, wich is the basics of a Dark Jedi. Iorek 19:04, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

He embraces his emotions, but he isn't a "Dark" Jedi. Luke uses his powers to do good. → JarlaxleArtemis 23:07, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

A Dark Jedi doesnt mean he's evil and does bad things, it just means he's a jedi who does not follow the Strict jedi code. He's not sith, but not jedi, hence Dark Jedi. Trust me on this one

Anakin was indeed the chosen one. He destroyed the last Sith lord himself at the end of Episode VI, not Luke. You could also say he "brought balance" to the Force in that he reduced the number of Jedi to equal to the number of Sith - a master (Yoda vs. Sidious) and an apprentice (Obi-Wan then Luke vs. Vader) on either side. That said, a lot of this article about Anakin doesn't really seem relevent to midi-clorians.

Anakin kills the Emperor and dies in the process, leaving one Jedi (Luke), who is neither light nor dark... balance has been restored to the Force. QED, Anakin is the Chosen One. Unseelie 18:19, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Blah, other arguement for Anakin being the chosen one is that he effectively killed the old, emotionless Jedi Order, but lead to the birth of the new refreshed one started under Luke. 24.76.141.128 03:10, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Luke didn't start a new order. The movie ended with him being the last Jedi, and the last scene was focused on the smiling spirits of Anakin, Obi-Wan, and Yoda. However, another argument about Anakin being the "chosen one" is that he killed the evil Darth Sidious and ended the order of the Sith. → JarlaxleArtemis 03:54, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

Okay, created under Luke in the EU. How about just "killed the emotionless jedi order...". Elipses solve all issues. 24.76.141.128 05:43, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You know whats weird, that poped in my head last night too....weird. Regardless, JarlaxleArtemis, in the novels that are set after the ROTJ (and are considered cannon) Luke goes on to start the New Jedi Order.Iorek 15:03, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Those novels are canon? Weird. So that means Chewbacca really did die. (In a sense, at least. It's all fiction, anyway.) → JarlaxleArtemis 00:45, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

thats only in the new jedi order series, wish is generlly regarded by the fans as a load of crap

• People, see Star Wars canon-LtNOWIS 00:07, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• • Anakin was indeed the Chosen One, and he, not Luke, brought balance to the Force by exterminating followers of the Dark Side. - Sikon 14:21, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Exactly. But about the New Jedi Order, how canonical is it? How popular is it with the fans? Scorpionman 15:23, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Bad crap

What bunch of crazies wanted connection to the Force to be mystical instead of genetic? Movies like these shouldn't be mystical! It's about the happenings in a fictional galaxy, not some weird spiritual garbage! The only time it should be spiritual is if it were referencing Christianity, and referencing it correctly at that! Scorpionman 01:48, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I, for one, am an atheist and don't believe in all that spiritual crap myself. However, I think that mysticism in stories makes them much, well… better. It also enhances the theme. → JarlaxleArtemis 02:24, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

How does it do that? Scorpionman 15:26, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Scorpionman, what makes you think that a movie should only be spiritual if it references Christianity and not another religion? — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:34, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I suppose that depends on your point of view. I'm not relativistic, but when it comes to things like science fiction, there's no need for spiritual stuff. Scorpionman 15:26, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In fact, I was disappointed when I learned that the Jedi use some mystical substance that can't be measured scientifically. It would make more sense for me if they were just highly-trained concentrated people. - Sikon 14:21, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Jedi don't really use the midi-clorians. The midi-clorians just connect them to the Force, and the Force is what the Jedi use. → JarlaxleArtemis 23:04, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

By "some mystical substance that can't be measured scientifically" I mean the Force. I'm quite disappointed by its very existence in Star Wars. - Sikon 06:46, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't really think it needs to reference ANY religion. Science fiction is science fiction! If you think it needs to reference Islam, that's your opinion. 4.158.60.82 03:30, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't think he ever mentioned Islam. → JarlaxleArtemis 00:14, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

I am not sure to whom the anonymous editor was referring (I don't see any reference to Islam either), and I suppose this discussion isn't really relevant here anyway. But for the record, I have no problem with spirituality without reference to a specific or already-existing religion, especially in something like Star Wars where the connection of the "humans" to us is obscure (since it takes place during ancient times in a distant galaxy). I was responding to Scorpionman's odd (in my opinion) comment that movies should only be spiritual if they reference Christianity instead of other religions. I personally think it's better to stay away from specific religions. — Knowledge Seeker দ 02:00, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I really would rather have it not reference spirituality, but my "weird comment" stating that it should only reference Christianity is my point of view. I know not everybody agrees, but I really would rather it all be purely technological and scientific. Scorpionman 01:55, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Force is a power that can not easily be conceived, my young padawan. We must learn to harness its energies, let it flow through us. Only then can we become one with the Force. ‡ Jarlaxle 02:13, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

Nothing in Star Wars is remotely scientific. Bombot 14:30, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Is Yoda really an atheist? Scorpionman 15:18, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes. He worships the Force. ‡ Jarlaxle 23:36, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

Oh. Scorpionman 7 July 2005 11:34 (UTC)

All living things?

"They are microscopic life-forms that reside within the cells of all living things and communicate with the Force. Midi-clorians comprise collective consciousness and intelligence, forming the link between everything living and the Force. They are symbionts with all other living things; that is, without them, life could not exist." Excuse me if I'm wrong, but I thought I once heard of a race in the EU that was completely disconnected from the Force, no midi-clorians. They couldn't use the Force and the Force couldn't be used agains them because of this. Unfortunately, there name escapes me, and Google isn't helping much. masterzora

I think the race that you're speaking of is the Yuuzhan Vong. They were completely cut off from the Force, as you mentioned. I'm not sure how they managed to survive, but you should read the article on this race. Scorpionman 20:01, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

So, does that mean that they do not have midi-chlorians? If that is the case, this should be refelcted in the article. (I'd do it myself now, but I'm not sure if it is true.) Masterzora 19:28, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Another species worth consideration is the ysalimari (also from the EU). They actually have the ability to prevent the force from having any noticable effect (even passive, like precognition) within ~30 feet of them. Of course, the precise relationship between this ability and midichlorians isn't described anywhere in the books (that I know of.) 66.32.61.201 02:50, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no consensus. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Proposed move (again)

Should be Midi-chlorian. WP:NAME prefers the singular. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 23:23, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

And how would that be a better title? ⇒ JarlaxleArtemis 03:32, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

This is still on the WP:RM page, and wanted to know what the concesus was. I am inclined to leave it as is, but would like to know two things first. 1) Was the requested move above to move it to its current location? 2) Is the term ever used in the singular? Thanks. --liquidGhoul 01:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The proposal was to move the page to the singualar. I think it should stay in the plural, like the article Bacteria is. The only instance I've seen of the singualar usage is when mentioning a "midi-chlorian count." ⇒ JarlaxleArtemis 01:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Hmm, I've never seen an archival of a section on a talk page that isn't archived yet before. ⇒ JarlaxleArtemis 00:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Judge Anakin by his Size do you?

Ah, I need to point something out. Yoda is only 3 feet tall. Anakin Skywalker was 6'2 before the armor. Even with his arms and legs cut off, and his lungs burned, and the blood loss, Anakin still has far more body mass than Yoda because Yoda was not just short, but under that robe he was very very skinny.

Despite the fact that Yoda was only 3 feet tall, he was still the most powerful Jedi. Okay, Yoda then, is proof that "size matter not" right? Given this, I think it is foolish to say that Darth Vader lost power when he lost his limbs, because he still has just enough living tissue to have a strong connection to the force. Even with synthetic blood and prosthetic limbs, and an cybernetic lung, he still had more living tissue (and midiclorians) than Yoda. Since, with the force "size matters not" therefore, it really makes no sense at all to say that Darth Vader lost power when he lost his limbs because it contradicts Yoda's "size matters not" statement. If anything, Vader's cybernetic enhancements made him the most dangerous Sith ever. (Truncated for brevity) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 206.63.78.71 (talk) 23:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC).

I'm glad you feel so passionate about Mister Skywalker's robotic limbs. Probably a good suggestion would be to go ahead and change the article's "foolish" implication about size mattering, rather than pounding a pulpit over it for a while; that's one of the things I like about Wikipedia: if you don't like it, you can change it! V-Man737 00:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Yo! V-Man! I choose not to change or alter the article out of respect for the author! And what can I say, I write a lot, and passive voice is a weakness of mine when I write. Besides, that is what discussion pages are for; pounding the pulpit. And, my God, did I sound passionate? Dude, it just doesn't make sense to say Anakin lost power when he lost his limbs because, come on, Yoda himself said "size matters not." To say that he lost power because he became more robotic is the same as saying that Yoda isn't powerful because he's small. You'd think Star Wars geeks would know better..... Whatever the case... later.:

Yo! I am impressed that you are deciding to act out of respect; not a lot of people do. At any rate, there really isn't one author; rather, the article is the way it is today because of bold editors like yourself who decided to contribute. The purpose of a talk page is usually to establish a consensus if there is a controversy over recent edits. If you read all this and still feel that you should hold back, I understand. The power is yours! V-Man737 09:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)