The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a good article nomination that was unsuccessful. Please do not modify it.

Gray JediEdit

• Nominated by: —fodigg ^(talk) | 20:00, March 17, 2010 (UTC)
• Nomination comments: After incrementally improving it for some time, I undertook a major re-write of this article in response to concerns voiced by Akujenkins over the release of newer sources that provided a conflicting definition of the term. I believe that I have followed the correct formatting rules and style, but this is my first article nom.
  • I believe I'm done with the major formatting and content edits. The article has changed dramatically from when it was first nominated. Thank you again to those who pointed me toward guides and good examples. —fodigg ^(talk) | 15:30, March 18, 2010 (UTC)
    • Did I make the article too long for a GA with this most recent rewrite? Is the length of the article turning away reviewers? —fodigg ^(talk) | 21:48, April 13, 2010 (UTC)

(0 ACs/0 Users/0 Total)Edit

Support

Object

1. A quick glance shows major sourcing errors. Did you read the requirements before you nominated this? Grand Moff Tranner ^(Comlink) 20:04, March 17, 2010 (UTC)
   • Yes, but I probably missed something. I will re-read the Wookieepedia:Sourcing guide. —fodigg ^(talk) | 20:12, March 17, 2010 (UTC)
   • I see what you mean. The article currently has single instance refs using multiple ref format, should be using the long ref list format (although this might change upon fixing other problems), it has numerous references in the introductory paragraphs, it has references placed within punctuation (and mid-sentence), and I erred on the side of inclusion—violating the "ref articles as sparingly as possible". I will try to fix these issues. Have I missed anything else on this front? —fodigg ^(talk) | 20:20, March 17, 2010 (UTC)
   • I have made an initial attempt to bring the REF problems under control. Doubtless these will need more work as I address formatting errors. —fodigg ^(talk) | 21:04, March 17, 2010 (UTC)
2. Toprawa:
   • For starters, I would suggest reading through WP:MOS and WP:LG before anything else. This article is a mess as it is right now and needs a heavy formatting makeover. With all due respect, I can guarantee this nomination will not proceed any further until this is resolved satisfactorily. Toprawa and Ralltiir 20:15, March 17, 2010 (UTC)
     • I will do so, thank you. —fodigg ^(talk) | 20:20, March 17, 2010 (UTC)
       • I would also suggest looking at and reading through any of our current Featured and Good articles, specifically organization articles and the like similar to this one, which will serve as excellent models. Toprawa and Ralltiir 20:24, March 17, 2010 (UTC)
         • I am looking at Disciples of Twilight and Shapers of Kro Var. The disparity is, frankly, embarrassing. I apologize for nomming this article. I will do what I can. —fodigg ^(talk) | 21:07, March 17, 2010 (UTC)
           • No problem. This is how we learn. I'm encouraged by your willingness to improve the article and quick recognition of trouble areas, which is a lot more than can be said for most new nominators. Feel free to take your time addressing anything problems. Toprawa and Ralltiir 21:11, March 17, 2010 (UTC)
             • Thank you for the encouragement. When I nommed the article it didn't even have an infobox. That's pretty ridiculous. :( —fodigg ^(talk) | 21:40, March 17, 2010 (UTC)
   • The quote under the "The Jensaarai" subsection should use the "Quote" template, rather than "Dialogue." Toprawa and Ralltiir 19:26, March 27, 2010 (UTC)
     • Hmm. I switched it over, as per the WP:MOS#Quotations, but I'm not sure that I did it correctly. It looks ok though. —fodigg ^(talk) | 04:42, March 28, 2010 (UTC)
     • jonjedi... has supplied the quote with the correct formatting. —fodigg ^(talk) | 19:18, March 28, 2010 (UTC)
3. Please see WP:ATT and check the article against it, as there is a rather excessive amount of speculation in the article. (That extends particularly to the "Possible Gray Jedi" section.") Additionally, please try to avoid using bullet lists where possible, as it's better to simply section off the information and expand upon it (such as Wraith Squadron's Member section) instead of plainly and blatantly listing it. Also, the article should be written completely in past tense per the Manual of Style. CC7567 ^(talk) 21:24, March 17, 2010 (UTC)
   • Thank you for the example, I was just looking for one so I could kill the bulleted list entirely. I have just cut the examples down to known members but have yet to comb through the paragraph content for speculative statements. I thought I had covered tense but I am not surprised to hear I have missed some instances considering the larger state of the article. —fodigg ^(talk) | 21:40, March 17, 2010 (UTC)
   • Okay, the Known Gray Jedi section has been improved. Now that some of the major formatting issues have been resolved, I'm going to walk away from the article for now. I will come back to it tonight or tomorrow to start wrangling the text into line. Thanks again all for the suggestions. —fodigg ^(talk) | 22:08, March 17, 2010 (UTC)
   • Alright, the article has been circumcised of all assumption, supposition, interpretation, specious reasoning, redundancy, and assumption. I have also evaluated for tense, and found that yes, I am, a little. Hopefully the article is at least less offensive now than it was when first nommed. —fodigg ^(talk) | 02:30, March 18, 2010 (UTC)
4. The Grand Master's First Look
   • Linking—articles should be linked once in the intro and once in the article's main body. Also, no linking in quotes.
   • Watch for tense shifting; remember that everything needs to stay in past tense. For example, the following phrase: "While the term originally applied to individual Jedi who experimented with the dark side, its use would expand. It would later be used to describe entire Force traditions and would commonly be misused to describe those who clashed with the High Council…" should be changed to something like: "While the term originally applied to individual Jedi who experimented with the dark side, its use expanded over time. It was later used to describe entire Force traditions and was also commonly misused to describe those who clashed with the High Council…" Also: "The term is similar to that of "Dark Jedi"…" and "While the term points to Force users who walk the line between light and dark…" should read "…was similar to that…" and "While the term pointed to Force users who…" respectively. Please check for similar instances of tense shifting throughout the article.
     • Much better, but I'm still seeing a couple instances of tense shifting. For example, the first one I mentioned above still remains. Jonjedigrandmaster ^{(We seed the stars)} 15:14, March 27, 2010 (UTC)
       • Ok, I think I have the tense issues under control. Reading aloud helped. —fodigg ^(talk) | 23:30, March 27, 2010 (UTC)
   • Please don't punctuate image captions unless the caption is a full sentence.
   • Be careful with your sourcing; Currently, the following phrase—"Both Koon and Katarn held strong allegiance to the light side of the Force, despite their abilities. Penin fell to the dark side but was later redeemed, and Korr stayed true to the light, though he was plagued with doubt over his abilities."—is sourced to Crosscurrent. However, Penin's fall to the dark side and redemption are not mentioned in the novel. Please adjust the sourcing here and check for similar discrepancies throughout the article. If you need help with sourcing, let me know :).
     • This one remains. Jonjedigrandmaster ^{(We seed the stars)} 15:14, March 27, 2010 (UTC)
       • Doh! I thought I had fixed it, but the revised version was no better. I moved a problematic sentence to the end and lined up the sources to not alternate. The information in the paragraph is now ordered by source and actually reads better this way. —fodigg ^(talk) | 23:30, March 27, 2010 (UTC)
         • Careful; now the last sentence of the paragraph: "Both Koon and Katarn held strong allegiance to the light side of the Force, despite their abilities." is unsourced. Jonjedigrandmaster ^{(We seed the stars)} 06:26, March 28, 2010 (UTC)
           • Struck and integrated into previous sentences where the separate sources lie. —fodigg ^(talk) | 19:12, March 28, 2010 (UTC)
   • Remember to avoid OOU (out-of-universe) perspective wording in articles such as the following: "Previous to his exile on Kashyyyk, Jolee had married a fellow Jedi, Nayama, against the Order's Code (see "Pulling a Bindo")." If you want to link "Pulling a Bindo" in the sentence, I suggest adding onto the sentence something along the lines of: "Previous to his exile on Kashyyyk, Jolee had married a fellow Jedi, Nayama, against the Order's Code, leading to the creation of the phrase, "Pulling a Bindo.""
   • Also remember to refer to characters by their last names as opposed to their first names after their first mention in the article body. i.e. after Jolee Bindo's introduction in the article body, refer to him by either his full name or simply as "Bindo".
   • I'm encouraged by your willingness so far to work on this article and see it through the nominations process; keep up the good work. If you need any help with these objections, or if you have any further questions, let me know :). Jonjedigrandmaster ^{(We seed the stars)} 22:50, March 26, 2010 (UTC)
     • Thanks for the review! All of your comments make sense to me. I will implement these changes some time tonight or tomorrow. —fodigg ^(talk) | 02:43, March 27, 2010 (UTC)
     • Ok, I think I got everything on your checklist! I did have some questions about the last note, however. I assumed that, even though "Jolee Bindo" had been used previously, the section title, quotes, and image descriptions should say "Jolee Bindo" and not just "Bindo". Was that correct? —fodigg ^(talk) | 14:51, March 27, 2010 (UTC)
       • Yes, that is fine; usually quotes, image descriptions, and sention titles can use either the last name or full name, it doesn't really matter. Jonjedigrandmaster ^{(We seed the stars)} 15:14, March 27, 2010 (UTC)
         • Ok, and I saw that you fixed some of the instances for Bindo. Thanks! One thing I'm curious about is your decision to switch the Jensaarai image to the left side. I understand that alternating is the usual method, but the source I had taken the example from did not alternate. Is it a problem if the section title text for The Imperial Knights wraps around the left-aligned image in some resolutions? —fodigg ^(talk) | 23:30, March 27, 2010 (UTC)
           • No problem. And the image alternating is more of a preference than an actual policy, although, as you said, it is the usual method, because it gives the article a less tedious look. But I have no qualms if you'd prefer to change it back :). Jonjedigrandmaster ^{(We seed the stars)} 06:26, March 28, 2010 (UTC)
             • I have no preference, and have decided to leave it. But I did reorder Bindo and ImpKnight entries to have a standard order between the three of "Main Article", "Image", "Quote" for spacing purposes. —fodigg ^(talk) | 19:17, March 28, 2010 (UTC)
5. The Grand Master II
   • "The term was similar to that of "Dark Jedi", which also referred to Jedi and non-Jedi alike, and denoted those who were committed to the dark side, such as Dark Side Adepts." How was it similar to Dark Jedi; you just said that Gray Jedi didn't succomb to the dark, and now you're saying that they're similar to Dark Jedi? How so?
     • Poorly worded. It is similar in that it refers to alignment and not to relationship with the council. I will fix or remove that line. —fodigg ^(talk) | 14:29, April 2, 2010 (UTC)
     • Fixed. —fodigg ^(talk) | 03:22, April 5, 2010 (UTC)
   • Please clarify in the intro that Qui-Gon Jinn was not actually a Gray Jedi. Right now you just say that he was called one, without saying whether or not this was accurate.
     • Good call, will do. —fodigg ^(talk) | 14:29, April 2, 2010 (UTC)
     • Done. —fodigg ^(talk) | 03:22, April 5, 2010 (UTC)
   • Please also mention Bindo in the intro.
     • Good call, will do. —fodigg ^(talk) | 14:29, April 2, 2010 (UTC)
     • Done. —fodigg ^(talk) | 03:22, April 5, 2010 (UTC)
       • Please avoid using phrases like "most-notable," (unless, of course, the source actually says that) as it is POV. Jonjedigrandmaster ^{(We seed the stars)} 22:46, April 5, 2010 (UTC)
         • Struck and replaced with with more neutral language ("one example"). —fodigg ^(talk) | 02:33, April 6, 2010 (UTC)
   • First sentence of the "History" section: why did the Jedi leadership wish to re-evaluate the Code?
     • You know...I don't know. I don't even have a source for that. That's legacy text. I will try to find a source for it and remove it if I cannot. —fodigg ^(talk) | 14:29, April 2, 2010 (UTC)
     • It was actually taken from the KotORCG book. I put some of that stuff back in, phrased differently. —fodigg ^(talk) | 03:22, April 5, 2010 (UTC)
   • The History section needs to be expanded. It should have detail on the history and impact on the galaxy of confirmed Gray Jedi, such as Bindo, the Imperial Knights, and the Jensaarai; also a mention of how the term came to be commonly misused would be appropriate. In general, focus more on the history of Gray Jedi in the galaxy.
     • As opposed to the history of the term, right. Okay I can do that. —fodigg ^(talk) | 14:29, April 2, 2010 (UTC)
     • History section expanded from KotorCG content and from the actions of the listed gray jedi. Represents a very large introduction of new text to the article. —fodigg ^(talk) | 03:22, April 5, 2010 (UTC)
   • The Philosophy and traits section should be split into a "Philosophy" section and a "Common abilities," or at least re-titled "Philosophy and techniques" or something similar. Also, I suggest adding a sub-section for the common misuse and misconception of the phrase.
     • I like "Philosophy and techniques" with a sub-heading of "common misuse". —fodigg ^(talk) | 14:29, April 2, 2010 (UTC)
     • There are now two sections: "Traits and techniques" and "Relationship with the Council". —fodigg ^(talk) | 03:22, April 5, 2010 (UTC)
   • "In fact, individual Gray Jedi might have opposed those who did embrace the dark side, such as how Bindo opposed the Sith." Why the speculation? "Might have?" Sounds to me like one did. Please rephrase.
     • Okay, I can fix that. —fodigg ^(talk) | 14:29, April 2, 2010 (UTC)
     • Done.
   • "Still, the Jedi claimed that Gray Jedi underwent a slow tranformation—" A transformation into what?
     • I'll check JATM. I assume dark siders. —fodigg ^(talk) | 14:29, April 2, 2010 (UTC)
     • Edited to better mirror the language in JATM. —fodigg ^(talk) | 03:22, April 5, 2010 (UTC)
   • "Korr was later plagued with doubt over use of dark Force powers." From reading Crosscurrent, he was plagued about one particular action he took during the Second Galactic Civil War, not really the use of dark side powers—in fact, the novel doesn't indicate any use of any dark side powers by Korr at all. I'd suggest just removing this sentence and letting the paragraph end after saying Korr stayed true to the light.
     • On this I actually disagree. I remember text where he actually says "i can use light and dark side powers, what does that make me? a jedi or a sith?" (paraphrase) in Xcurrent. I will confirm that and try to get you a page number. —fodigg ^(talk) | 14:29, April 2, 2010 (UTC)
     • Yet to find text I'm looking for. Altered text for the meantime to talk instead about his doubts re: Katarn's description of Force powers. —fodigg ^(talk) | 03:22, April 5, 2010 (UTC)
       • I'll go ahead and strike for now; if you do find the passage, either leave it here or on my talk page. :) Jonjedigrandmaster ^{(We seed the stars)} 22:46, April 5, 2010 (UTC)
   • The chronology of Jolee Bindo's section is confusing; please reorder so that everything runs in chronological order.
     • Good call. Will do. —fodigg ^(talk) | 14:29, April 2, 2010 (UTC)
     • Done. —fodigg ^(talk) | 03:22, April 5, 2010 (UTC)
   • "They were fully trained in the ways of the Force and rejected the dark side of the Force, unlike previous Imperial Force-based organizations." Like what previous Imperial organizations? And were these of the Fel Empire? Or the Previous Galactic Empire, from which the Fel Empire stemmed?
     • Previous Galactic. Will clarify and include some examples. —fodigg ^(talk) | 14:29, April 2, 2010 (UTC)
     • Clarified. —fodigg ^(talk) | 03:22, April 5, 2010 (UTC)
   • Major tense-shifting issues in the BTS.
     • Okay. I'll try to clean that up. —fodigg ^(talk) | 14:29, April 2, 2010 (UTC)
     • BTS section completely rewritten. Much smaller and to the point. —fodigg ^(talk) | 03:22, April 5, 2010 (UTC)
   • Several issues with the last paragraph of the BTS: 1. Lots of speculation—too much "may" or "might be." Either they were sometimes thought to be Gray Jedi or they weren't; 2. Why is this in the BTS? It seems like it would be more in place in the above-suggested misconseption section; 3. Make sure that the ones that are thought to be Gray Jedi are thought to be so by characters IU, and not just by fans—make sure it really is sourceable to an IU statement, and is not just speculation.
     • I will clean up that section, either clarifying, relocating, or removing as appropriate. —fodigg ^(talk) | 14:29, April 2, 2010 (UTC)
     • BTS section completely rewritten. Much smaller and to the point. —fodigg ^(talk) | 03:22, April 5, 2010 (UTC)
   • Keep up the good work. Jonjedigrandmaster ^{(We seed the stars)} 01:54, April 2, 2010 (UTC)
     • Thanks again for the review! Please allow me the weekend to get these issues taken care of. I will post here when I think I have these issues are under control. —fodigg ^(talk) | 14:29, April 2, 2010 (UTC)
       • No problem; take your time. And as a note, I have to add that I agree with Hydro's reasoning below. Please adjust the article accordingly. Jonjedigrandmaster ^{(We seed the stars)} 00:13, April 3, 2010 (UTC)
         • Yeup. I have made the above changes to the sandbox article, but will not post them until I've resolved Hydro's concern. I'm still looking for the crosscurrent quote, although I did find text that he struggled with Katarns "just a tool" view of the Force. —fodigg ^(talk) | 15:41, April 3, 2010 (UTC)
         • Done.
           • Just one outstanding objection left; then I'll give the article another look-over. Jonjedigrandmaster ^{(We seed the stars)} 22:46, April 5, 2010 (UTC)
             • Cool! Thanks again! —fodigg ^(talk) | 02:35, April 6, 2010 (UTC)
6. The entire article is built around the premise that the "light and dark" definition is the main one, and the "maverick Jedi" definition is a misuse. The problem is, the only source that uses the "main" one is Jedi Academy Training Manual. KOTOR CG states they're lightside maverick Jedi. Legacy 0 says they're lightsiders. KOTOR II says they're maverick Jedi. Stark Hyperspace War implies no other definition but maverick Jedi. The article is heaped with original research claiming that this more common usage is a misuse. The entire thing needs to be rewritten with the uses of the term treated as they are in canon, not the arbitrary advancement of the usage in one source as the "true definition". JATM's definition needs to be treated as it is, the minority usage, whether that's in a note as an alternate usage in the main section, or in the BTS as a contradiction. - Lord Hydronium 03:58, April 2, 2010 (UTC)
   • I must disagree. Legacy 0 uses the term "gray" to describe the "alignment" of the Imperial Knights, and JATM is the newest, c-canon source for the term. I don't feel comfortable ignoring it because of perceived poor editing. Furthermore, Jolee Bindo, the iconic Gray Jedi, fits the JATM definition perfectly while we have no evidence that Qui-Gon Jinn was a Gray Jedi at all. The KotOR II "gray jedi robe" definition is the only instance of the alternate definition and it does not contradict the JATM definition. I will clarify the Bts section to make this less confusing. Thanks for the review. —fodigg ^(talk) | 14:29, April 2, 2010 (UTC)
     • • I will address these individually and put final thoughts below. —fodigg ^(talk) | 01:41, April 3, 2010 (UTC)
     • Legacy 0 certainly does not use it as a term of alignment: "Within the Jedi order, Imperial Jedi are considered to be Gray Jedi. While they are not dark side, it is thought that they do not truly follow the way of the Force." There's nothing "half dark/half light" about that definition. They're explicitly not dark. They don't follow the Force the way the Jedi do, is all.
       • Hmm. The text I have for this source reads: "The Jedi view the Imperial Knights as "gray"--though the Imperials do not seek to draw on the dark side of the Force, neither do they strictly follow the light side." Do Legacy 0 and Legacy O.5 contain different text? —fodigg ^(talk) | 01:41, April 3, 2010 (UTC)
         • Yes, they do have different text. Note that Legacy 0.5 doesn't even use the term "Gray Jedi" in reference to the light/dark, though, it simply speaks of them as being "gray".
     • KOTOR CG: "Falling between the cracks are those Jedi who do not necessarily agree with reinterpreting 20,000 years of proper Jedi etiquette. Like others, these "Gray Jedi" grope for a new paradigm of right and wrong, but consider themselves beholden only to the Force and to their own consciences when determining their path. These mavericks are regularly at odds with the Jedi Council." Defined as mavericks, nothing about being "half dark".
       • The text "a new paradigm of right and wrong" and later text "Gray Jedi recognize that theirs is a precarious position, but they believe moral certainty demands tempting the dark side." seem to be talking about alignment concerns to me. "Moral certainty" being a strong light-side alignment. —fodigg ^(talk) | 01:41, April 3, 2010 (UTC)
         • "Moral certainty" has nothing do with lightness. You can be morally certain and fall anywhere in an alignment spectrum. That sentence is the only thing in the section that even brings up alignment, and it's saying that they strive for a certain moral position that brings with it the risk of dark side temptation. Not that they use the dark side half the time. The entire rest of it is talking about their position in regards to Jedi orthodoxy and moral systems, not light and dark sides. That's the only criterion needed to define them, according to KOTOR CG.
     • Stark Hyperspace War: "Jinn always does things his own way, always sure he is right, always incredulous if we do not see it his way. Some think he is a gray Jedi." Not an explicit definition, but nothing about alignment, and everything about being maverick.
       • My concern here is that it does not give the definition of Gray Jedi or confirm that Jinn is a Gray Jedi. The term "bantha head" could have been substituted for Gray Jedi in that sentence. I don't feel that this example confirms or denies either definition. —fodigg ^(talk) | 01:41, April 3, 2010 (UTC)
         • But the two sentences don't simply sit independently of each other. It starts off by saying that he's unorthodox and does his own thing. This immediately segues into a statement that he's seen as a Gray Jedi. Like I said, it's not explicit, but the connection is clear. And alignment doesn't even enter into the evaluation at all. I mean, if he were to finish with "Some think he is a Dark Jedi," this dialogue would make little sense, because nothing he said beforehand has anything to do with the second part. He's not speaking of Qui-Gon being dark, or Force-neutral, just unorthodox.
     • KOTOR II: "Gray Jedi are those who, though having completed the teachings of the Jedi, operate independently and outside of the Jedi Council." Explicitly maverick, not alignment.
       • The rest of the text is "They are typically seen as misguided, though they have not necessarily succumbed to the dark side." "Seen as misguided" is put in opposition to "not dark side". It is talking about alignment. Also, the Jolee's Robe item in KotOR 2 requires that the wearer be neutral alignment in order to gain the bonus. At the very least, I feel this source is ambiguous. —fodigg ^(talk) | 01:41, April 3, 2010 (UTC)
         • "Misguided" isn't a question of alignment, it's one of orthodoxy. It's contrasted to "dark side" because they're not dark. The "Gray Jedi" issue is disconnected from that of the "dark" issue. In other words, it's not a declaration of their alignment. As to the robes, that's a game mechanic.
     • Jedi Academy Training Manual's definition does not consign all of these as "misuses", and to claim them as such is entirely original research. There's no "newest source automatically overrides everything else" rule; new sources can and have been mistaken, and JATM is filled with prime examples of that. In this case, the presence of one alternate definition does not take priority. If you want to include both in the main article, then they need to be treated as the canon treats them. Right now every statement in the article calling the common definition a "mistake" or "misuse" is completely sourceless. - Lord Hydronium 23:44, April 2, 2010 (UTC)
       • The JATM provides a very clear definition of the term: "Force-using Jedi who meddle with the dark side without totally surrendering to it are sometimes referred to as Gray Jedi. A Gray Jedi taps into the light side and the dark side equally." Even though the newest source does not take priority, I see no reason why this source, for this topic, should be ignored, especially given the examples of other sources, such as Jolee Bindo from KotOR who was of neutral alignment and said "Well, I assure you, I see more grey than dark or light." I admit this does not confirm an alignment-based definition, but I do feel that it sets Bindo up as one of, if not the, iconic Gray Jedi, and his neutral alignment is a major feature. —fodigg ^(talk) | 01:41, April 3, 2010 (UTC)
         • First things first, I know you acknowledge this, but Jolee is Jolee, not an archetype for the whole notion of Gray Jedi. Hyperbolic example here, but we wouldn't say Gray Jedi are bald black men, or had to kill their wives. Jolee can be a Gray Jedi because he runs outside the normal Jedi spectrum of orthodoxy, and picks his own moral course. Whatever other features he has are not inherent in the definition. As to the larger issue of JATM, I'm not (necessarily) saying to ignore it. Personally, I think there's enough to say that JATM's is contradictory, file it with "Mon Mothma was possessed by Exar Kun" and "the Sorcerers of Tund are all Crokes", and note it in the BTS. But that's tricky territory itself, and maybe you don't think it's so cut and dry. But if it is in the IU section of the article, (and again, you acknowledge this below, so I'm just saying it here for posterity) it needs to be included in a way fitting with the canon sources. Not just "this one's right, all these are wrong" without a source for that.
       • Thank you again for your feedback on this. Please know that my arguments are not an attempt to brush you off or force through my pet fanon. I am taking your concerns seriously and I intend to fix the article even if it means that I am wrong and major edits will be required. You have already convinced me that I need to look closer at the KotOR CG, especially for the historical context for the History section I am writing up. I am also reconsidering my terminology for "misuse" and "misappropriation" in favor of "secondary use", "alternate use", "other use", or even "primary use" depending on what is decided re: the sources. If you wish to view the relevant source text from one location, side-by-side, I have transcribed the larger sections on my sandbox article talk page. Thanks again. —fodigg ^(talk) | 01:41, April 3, 2010 (UTC)
         • I understand, and thank you for going over these arguments and providing support for your own. - Lord Hydronium 02:16, April 3, 2010 (UTC)
           • Frustrating. There seems to be paired and opposing sources: kotor vs kotor2, Leg0 cs Leg0.5, kotorCG vs JATM. I don't feel comfortable debating the merits of one set over the other, as I feel the argument itself proves the ambiguity. So, both should be represented in the article, neither above the other. However, JATM does offer some text on "true Gray Jedi", who seem to be those who meet both qualifications:
             

"There are those in the galaxy who are not affilitated with any tradition that delve into both the light side and the dark side that are true Gray Jedi."

This would explain why the term is not used for a wider spectrum of unorthodoxy (e.g., Altisian Jedi, rim Jedi like Jon Antilles, married Jedi like Nejaa Halcyon, mixed-power Jedi like Jaden Korr). Therefore, I intend to rewrite the article to give both definitions, but without adding more confirmed gray Jedi and with the understanding that "true Gray Jedi" all meet both qualifications, which the three confirmed GJ all do (although it will be noted that Jensaarai and Imp Knights are traditions, of course). Jinn will still be listed as not a Gray Jedi, but will be a major example in a new (well, old actually) "Relationship with the Council" section and all "misuse" language will be dropped. Had I realized Leg0 and Leg0.5, as closely related as two sources can be, differed so starkly, I would have gone this route to begin with.

The new intro will read something like:

"The term Gray Jedi, or just Gray, was used to describe Jedi who walked the line between the light and dark sides of the Force, to describe Jedi who distanced themselves from the Jedi High Council and operated outside the strictures of the Jedi Code, or both. Those who were considered true Gray Jedi met both qualifications."

The article will have to be be modified obviously. And I want to get more text from the kotorCG into the "History" section. I'll try to get these done this weekend around all the Easter family stuff, but this might drag into next week. I will post here again when the article is under control.

—fodigg ^(talk) | 15:41, April 3, 2010 (UTC)

• Changes made. Article now presents both definitions equally, but still limits the "gray jedi" section to confirmed members and highlights the "true Gray Jedi" definition given in JATM. —fodigg ^(talk) | 03:22, April 5, 2010 (UTC)

Comments

1. • FYI, I did a bit of cleanup. Some handy things to know: "#" shouldn't be used when referring to an issue of a comic series, sources should be listed by release date, and appearances should be listed chronologically. I also removed KOTOR II from "Sources" as it's an appearance rather than a source, I added the New Republic era at the top on account of the Jensaarai, and I added a reference to the Imperial Knights section --- the bit about them using the Force as a tool comes from the Legacy Era Campaign Guide, not Legacy 0. I also added a link and removed a couple of redundant ones to Jedi High Council: in an article's body, you only have to link to something once. I think you'll have to include each issue of Legacy that the IK's are in in the "Appearances" section, rather than just listing Star Wars: Legacy. But you're definitely to be applauded for tackling an article on a subject that's historically been controversial and hotly-debated. Bravo! Menkooroo 16:07, March 18, 2010 (UTC)
     • Thank you for the assistance, I will crack open my copies of the Legacy issues and break up the appearances that way. I assume that, as that would mean increased appearances, I'd be adding a scroll box? —fodigg ^(talk) | 17:28, March 18, 2010 (UTC)
     • Done. I looked it up and couldn't find anything telling me to put it in a scroll box, so I didn't. Also, I did not include advertised appearances that have yet to be released, as I wasn't sure they qualified. —fodigg ^(talk) | 18:48, March 18, 2010 (UTC)
       • Sorry that you looked through every Legacy issue --- I was hoping that you'd copy and paste from the Appearances section of Imperial Knight. But yeah, no need for a scrollbox; the appearances list is still a pretty short one. Menkooroo 04:05, March 19, 2010 (UTC)
         • No worries, I don't need much of an excuse to read comics. I learned some tricks about how to organize appearances lists and confirmed that the Imp Knights did not appear in Broken, part 4, improving both articles. —fodigg ^(talk) | 13:51, March 19, 2010 (UTC)
   • Hmmm. I'm sure I'm not the only one here who is more than a little impressed by your politeness and willingness to learn, especially considering the difficulty of the topic and the fact that this is a first nom for you. This is evidenced by your attitude to reviewers, responses to objections, and the notes you just made on that sandbox page. I'll give it a review once the current reviewers have finished up theirs. Keep up the good work, and don't worry; the first one is always the hardest! SoresuMakashi^{(Everything I tell you is a lie)} 00:50, April 3, 2010 (UTC)
     • Thanks! And I would never turn away a review but yeah, until we confirm the definition of the term...it might be better to hold off until that objection is addressed. :) —fodigg ^(talk) | 01:41, April 3, 2010 (UTC)
     • The major rewrite has been completed and is hopefully satisfactory for the above objections. —fodigg ^(talk) | 03:22, April 5, 2010 (UTC)

• In response to your question above: the article is currently a bit over 2,500 words, which means it still qualifies for GA length (which can't be over 3,000 words), although it is completely up to you if you would like to transfer this over to the FAN now, because at 2,500 words it is well over the minimum word-count of 1,000, and is thus eligable for featured article status. Jonjedigrandmaster ^{(We seed the stars)} 21:58, April 13, 2010 (UTC)

• Nomination removed per nominator's request, so that it could be nominated for FAN. Jonjedigrandmaster ^{(We seed the stars)} 01:51, April 14, 2010 (UTC)