Talk:Obi-Wan Kenobi/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Master

Who does Obi-Wan train with after hiding Luke on Tatooine? Missing from that part.

Qui-Gon Jinn or Yoda may have trained him...or, Obi-Wan may have not needed training, or had been rusty and hadn't got training since his days on the Jedi Council. He failed to destroy Darth Vader, and Yoda was the one to teach Luke the Force, perhaps Obi-Wan didn't train inbetween Revenge of the Sith & A New Hope, which is why he and his lightsaber were more rusty in Episode IV then in Episode III? Something to think about.

I am not sure if the book is canon, but in the book it says:
"When Kenobi moved to follow, Yoda's gimer stick barred his way. 'A moment, Master Kenobi. In your solitude on Tatooine, training I have for you. I and my new master.'
Obi-Wan blinked. 'Your new Master?'
'Yes.' Yoda smiled up at him. 'And your old one...'"
So if this scene is to be accepted as canon, it was Qui-Gon Jinn who Kenobi trained with.Billvoltage 00:27, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Rework sentence on duel with Anakin

Regarding the duel on Mustafar-- while it's true that Obi-Wan did cut off Anakin's legs and remaining original arm, that wasn't really what forced him to don the Darth Vader suit. His near-immolation, and all the smoke inhalation on top of that, was the icing on that particular cake. Anyone have an idea how to restructure that particular sentence, if you agree it needs restructuring? --ekedolphin 02:25, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not entirly sure which sentence you're referring to, but I'm going to assume it's the following:

Vader, though he sustained near-fatal third-degree burns and severe lung damage, survived and was later saved by Palpatine via extensive medical prosthetics and a fearsome breath-mask.

I personally don't know that too much restructuring would be required, but if it is altered, a little emphasis on the lung support systems wouldn't hurt. Perhaps something along the lines of:

...was later saved by Palpatine via extensive medical prosthetics and suit life support systems to aide his terribly damaged respiratory system, complimented by a fearsome breath-mask. - Angel Blue 451 03:14, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Age and relation of Anakin & Obi-Wan

Before the release of the Phantom Menace it seemed to me that Kenobi and Anakin were much closer in age, and that the inital impression I got was that the two were classmates. The way Kenobi spoke in A New Hope of Anakin seems to support that. It was only after the release of the new films that Kenobi became more of a father figure to Anakin. --JesseG 05:19, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I have to say that, based on how Obi-Wan spoke about Anakin in Return of the Jedi, Lucas always intended for Obi-Wan to be Anakin's mentor. Of course, Obi-Wan didn't mention it was Qui-Gon's idea originally, so that makes me think that Qui-Gon was added into the storyline later on.Bold textActually, in Ep. 1, the original storyline had Obi Wan discover Anakin. For purposes of the story, George Lucas decided to divide the origonal concept for Obi Wan into two characters...Qui Gon and Obi Wan.
People- sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~) M412k 01:16, 22 May 2005 (UTC)


Siblings

Little is known of his birth family, though Obi-Wan does remember a brother named Owen. (No relation to Owen Lars)

Where did you get this information? The official Star Wars website says he has a brother, but doesn't name him. Are you sure this is canon?

It says that he has a brother named Owen in one of the Jedi Apprentice books, A Hidden Past. Yes, there is no relationship to Owen Lars, I believe. -- KFan II
The original version of Episode IV mentioned Owen as Obi-Wan's brother, I think, or at least implied it. The reference was removed for the special edition. --M412k 01:16, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
It was in the radio adaptation of E4, and was later used in numerous books. The "no relation to Owen Lars" thing is a retcon meant to explain all the mentions of Owen in the Expanded Universe. --Ausir 11:08, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
In the expanded universe it states that he does have a brother Owen, but it isn't Owen Lars for multiple resons. First of all, Owen's father Cliegg Lars, only had one child. Also, Anakin is Owen's stepbrother and the two are at a similar age. Obi-Wan is older than Anakin and of no relation to him, so this would make no sense. --07holsombd 17:17, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Acting

Just a note of observation. Ewen acts as a young Alec Guiness as the young Kenobi including voice. I rather liked that. Dainamo 01:15, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)


Ewan did a superb job of acting in the prequals, even with slightly dull material at times. I also think the actors he was allowed to work with, such as Natalie Portman, weren't quite his caliber. Or maybe it was just bad writing. Not to say I'm ungrateful to George Lucus. He's a great filmmaker, but some of the scenes in the prequals had some awkward writing. But overall, I loved the movies, and have no serious complaints. Thanks to George, Ewan, and all the great people who make these movies. 63.245.172.82 06:12, 23 April 2006 (UTC)storyshark2005

Age

57 is not really an advanced age. Neither is 62 in which Guinness actually was during ANH filming.

Homeworld

Where did this information come from about Obi-Wan coming from a planet called Pilegias? Should it stay? I was tempted to delete it immediately. --M412k 02:12, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

I read about this "Pilegias" in the article about SuperShadow....it's just another lie....obi-wan's homeworld has never been revealed, as far as I know.

So, yes. Feel free to delete it... --PlatinumTracks 10:51, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Wouldn't Obi-Wan Kenobi's homeworld be Tatooine? He finds Anakin on Tatooine. He watches over Luke on Tatooine. The Tuskan Raiders are afraid of him on Tatooine. Obi-Wan has a hut on Tatooine. The majoridy of Star Wars show Obi-Wan on Tatooine, therefore my conclusion is his homeworld is Tatooine. With those theories, but no actual quote that Obi-Wan was born there, I can back up that Obi-Wan's homeworld is most likely Tatooine.

The fact that he lived there in his later life doesn't nessesarily mean that that was his homeplanet. - Angel Blue 451 03:17, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

In the Jedi Apprentice series, in about book 3 I think, his homeworld is described as grassy. It could be Dantooine, Naboo, Corellia, Alderaan, or any planet it a billion really. But probably not Tatooine. He is shown there alot, obviously, b/c he is watching over Luke. Luke is there b/c his only living relatives are there. (Owen and Beru Lars). Of course, this all depends on whether or not you choose to include Jedi Apprentice in the official fandom.63.245.172.82 06:05, 23 April 2006 (UTC)storyshark2005

Actually, Qui-Gon found Anakin, not Kenobi. Kenobi stayed with the ship if you remember right. His home planet has never been revealed and Lucas has confirmed it. So delete the Pilegias subject quickly before too many people get confused by it.--07holsombd 17:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Dark Side/Grey Jedi

Should Obi-Wan's obvious explorations into the dark side be listed in this article. He draws on the dark side during his duel with Darth Maul as you can tell by his body language. He also acts with some dark side tendencies at other times. (Ep. IV Cantina scene) Maybe he should be listed as a Grey Jedi such as Qui-Gon Jinn?

Uh...what he did in the cantina wasn't a darkside thing. Cutting off an attacker's limb is considered a Jedi tactic. It disarms (no pun intended) an opponent, but leaves him alive. --Kross 03:42, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Uh...excuse me? Obi-Wan just lost his only father figure. Of course he lost control of his feelings. He is human. But of course, he got over it, and trained Anakin. This isn't dabbling in the dark side. That's totally ridiculous. 63.245.172.82 06:08, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Obi-Wan does not ignite lightsaber first

"Interestingly, Kenobi advised Luke in the original trilogy that a Jedi never uses the force for attack, but only for knowledge and defense, yet in both his lightsaber duels with Darth Vader, he ignites his blade first."

This is simply not true. In Episode IV, when he sees Vader, Vader already has his lightsaber ignited. I suggest that this paragraph is either re-worded or removed.

Kenobi in IV does not ignire his lightsaber first. In Revenge of the Sith he does so in defense. After Anakin says, "Don't make me kill you!," I think that's a pretty good hint that Skywalker wants to kill him. Obi-Wan obviously after that quote has learned that saying "Only a Sith deals in absolutes, I will do what I must," meaning he must get rid of this new Sith Padawan in order to defend the peace of the Jedi, this being a defensive quote, therefore he has the right to ignite his lightsaber first, and knows that their conflict will lead to a duel.

May the force be with your wardrobe, Obi-Wan!

Kenobi's original brown robe found. It is on show at the Harrods in London. See: http://www.mg.co.za/articlePage.aspx?articleid=250161&area=/breaking_news/other_news/

Paragraph: is it needed?

At Chancellor Palpatine's urging, Skywalker was accepted by the Jedi Council—but denied the rank of Jedi Master. The Council then unintentionally made things worse by asking Skywalker, already angered by the perceived snub, to spy on Palpatine, whom he considered a friend and mentor. Already alienated from his teacher, Skywalker became more and more influenced by Palpatine, who told him the dark side of the Force held great power that the Jedi envied. He also manipulated Skywalker into believing that the dark side of the Force was the only way he could save Padmé (now his wife and pregnant) from dying in childbirth. Skywalker discovered the Chancellor was in fact the Sith Lord Darth Sidious, and alerted Windu to arrest him. During a heated lightsaber duel between Windu and Palpatine, however, Skywalker panicked at the thought that his only hope of saving his wife and child would die with Palpatine, and cut Windu's hand off, allowing Palpatine to kill him with Force lightning. Skywalker then betrayed the Jedi and became Palpatine's apprentice: Darth Vader.

This pragraph does not mention Obi-Wan once, so i remove it from the article. Plough talk to me 02:46, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but it sets the situation as to what was going on around Obi-Wan. The Wookieepedian 07:43, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
It's really not important enough to Obi-Wan's character to mention here. This article is long enough as it is, and we ought to be concentrating on making it more concise, not filling it with fluff. The paragraph would be fine in, say, the Anakin Skywalker article, but it has NOTHING to do with Obi-Wan at all.--chris.lawson 17:44, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

"Hello, there!"

I remember that in Episodes III and IV, but in one part it says that it was also from Episode I. I was about to add TPM when I realized that I don't remember the scene. Did he use that line two or three times? Mithridates 19:41, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

No, he just uses the running gag phrase "I have a bad feeling about this." Kenobifan 02:27, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

He only used it once when he rescued Luke and noticed R2 hiding.--07holsombd 17:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't remember it from Ep I but I don't have it so I can't check. I'm fairly sure it's just in III and IV. --Tim 22:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Assuming my memory's not failing me, in Eppy I he says "hello" to Anakin when they meet for the first time, just after Qui-Gon fights Maul on Tatooine. Whoever added the Ep I mention might be confusing that for a "hello there". As stated, it's definitely in III and IV. Cheers --DarthBinky 21:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Spoiler?

Doesn't writing "postmorteum" in Episodes V and VI spoil the fact that Kneboi dies in Episode IV? Hbdragon88 05:25, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Uh, looks like we have a spoiler warning right up there near the ToC. (I'm about to move it under the ToC; it shouldn't be above it.) Is that insufficient?--chris.lawson 06:35, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Alternate Reading

Why was this section removed? No reason has been given. Snide Paul 09:29, 23 November 2005 (UTC)


It is important to remember when writing article like this that we treat the subject as a fictional character. Main information should be about the part the character plays in the movies (and secondarily any other fiction he appears in) and substantially less about any 'biographical' information which has no bearing on the character. DJ Clayworth 19:43, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

When one reads "is a fictional character in the Star Wars universe," I would assume that that person has the ability to understand after that point, that all information regaring the person's life is not real, because they are a fictional character. A very short summary of the character's life belongs in the opening in order to introduce the reader to this person, besides giving the fictional works they are in, cultural significance, etc. The Wookieepedian 19:47, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
It's not that people are in danger of believing that he is real, it's that the most important information is the part he plays in the fiction. Birth dates and death dates are pretty much irrelevant to fictional characters like this; do you know Scrooge's birth date? Or Captain Ahab's? I have no problem with including them, but they shouldn't be given prominence. DJ Clayworth 19:50, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
That's generally how Star Wars character articles are written. It is essential that we introduce the reader to the character. This not only includes the information you specified, but exactly what role the person played in whatever story they are involved in. Most Star Wars characters birth years are well established, so they are allowed for inclusion into the character articles. I will thus revert. The Wookieepedian 19:53, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
On the contrary, putting this information in makes us look like fanboys. 99% of people reading this article will not care what Kenobi's birth date is, and won't know when that is in the Star Wars timeline anyway. It's like I'm writing an article about you and I spend the first paragraph describing your blood group down to the last detail. If all articles start like this, maybe we should fix them. There are plenty of wikis that like this sort of information. DJ Clayworth 19:58, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
No. Let's not "fix" them. People coming to an article about a fictional character will be interested in the character's life, just as they would a real person's life. Let's take the George W. Bush article. People coming to it want to know right off when he was born, basic details about his life, and what his position is. With fictional characters, we attempt to mimic this style. Since the Star Wars universe has its own date system of when events "occured," we are able to give such details as dates. The introduction should always be a basic summary of the contents of any article. The Wookieepedian 20:04, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
You've hit on exactly the point. George Bush is a real person. Hence his real life is interesting, because it informs what he is now. Obi-Wan Kenobi is a fictional person. His only existence is in the fiction he inhabits, and his only significance is the part that he plays in that fiction. Even if someone has invented a birthdate for him (an invention which almost certainly ocurred after the character first appeared), the details of that (expressed in a time system which 99% of people cannot understand) is of minor importance. Again, it can be included in the article as trivia, but it should not be given prominence. DJ Clayworth 20:19, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
On the other hand, I may be someone not interested in Bush's birthdate. I may only be interested in his life as president. His personal life may seem a minor detail to me. Therefore his birthdate and all minor details of his life outside of the White House are not important. Therefore it should be considered trivia. That's how your reasoning sounds to me. And I really doubt that 99% of people wouldn't understand what "57 BBY" means. Around half wouldn't. The Wookieepedian 20:24, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Sure there are people not interested in Bush's early life. But playing the percentages, far more are going to be interested in Bush's early life because it is real. Obi-Wan's is fake, and was invented only because fans want trivia. Because it was invented later it can obviously have no impact on his significance in the movies. As for the 99%, I think you would be surprised. 90% of people just aren't interested in Star Wars at all. As for 90% of the rest not being interested in a bizarre dating system which isn't even mentioned in the movies, that's easy to believe. I don't know what it means, and I've seen all the movies. If you don't believe me, ask some random Wikipedians - not the ones who edit the Star Wars stuff regularly. Once again, I'm not saying "don't put it in the article" I'm saying "don't put it in the one paragraph summary". Think of all the things that are much more important than what we do write. DJ Clayworth 20:45, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
OK, you've made your point. My point is that, regardles of how much people may be interested in something, it still deserves inclusions. Let's say people weren't interested in certain details of Bush's life. That doesn't mean we would simply excluse them and say "Oh, they're not important or interesting regarding him anyway." Regardless of the fact that one is either real or fictional, someone's life is made up of these details. The dating system in Star Wars is based out of the Expanded Universe, which is basically a huge amount of material that elaborates on the Star Wars saga. That dating system is part of that. It doesn't matter if uit was included in the films. Lucasfilm considers such things part opf the overall story, therefore we should too. Now, if this were Star Trek, we would have less of a reason to, because Paramount Pictures doesn't consider the Star Trek Expanded Universe canon. Like I said before, this article is an attempt to mimic the format of that of real people. There's nothing wrong with that. So what id people come here and aren't interested in some of what they read. All they have to do is skip over it and read what they want, or, skip the article altogether. The Wookieepedian 20:55, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Some important points here. First, we are here to write about things that are important. That's why everyone's fourth grade teacher doesn't get an article, and why every website visited by three people a year doesn't get an article. Our job is to write the information people want to read. If most of the George Bush article was about what he had for breakfast every day we would be failing our readers. Second important point: the article does read like it attempts to make Obi-Wan Kenobi sound like a real person; and there is something wrong with that. It's wrong because he isn't a real person. If we make George Bush sound like he was a fictional person that would be wrong, and if we make Obi-Wan sound real it's just as wrong. It also gives people the impression that we are in some kind of dream world, which means they won't trust the rest of the articles in Wikipedia. DJ Clayworth 21:13, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
We have absolutely no reason to attempt to make Bush sound like a fictional person. On the other hand, we try to word the articles of fictional characters like a typical real biography, so that it be read in the same format. Most people coiming to wikipedia aren't stupid. They know it isn't real. They can typically make that distinction on their own. People come to the article of a fictional character wanting to know details of that character. If they didn't, they wouldn't come to that article. If they want to know about Obi-Wan, they usually want to know all of the details, so that they can understand who he is. They don't want to come here just to know "He was a fictional character in Star Wars. He was prominent in all of the films." Typically, someone wants to know more. And you complain that they won't be fami.oar with certain aspects. Well, then what does an encyclopedia do? It informs. It is only natural that we would write it in the form of a readable biography. I really don't see what the big deal is. The Wookieepedian 21:40, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Exactly. A readable biography. Irrelevant information makes a biography less readable. And agreed, giving people information they might want is good. However there are two reasons why what we have here is not good. One is that a birthdate is less relevant to a fictional character, but the most important is that the date we give is not meaningful to 99% of readers. When is 55BBY? Is it ten years before episode I? Or is it 1000 years before? The vast majority of people won't know. It's like giving George Bush's birth date as "the year the high school was built in Mudslide, Alabama". If we have to give dates, give them in a way people can understand. Unless we want this article to be read only by people who are already Star Wars experts. Again, remember I am only arguing that this information is taken out of the intro, not that it is taken out of the article. DJ Clayworth 22:05, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Part of the problem you are having, DJ Clayworth, is that you don't seem to understand that Lucas did not just write and direct six movies-- he created a fictional universe which has its own history, geology, timeline, etc. etc. Its extremely intricate, and it is absolutely a part of his vision. The timeline is "canon", not speculation. This is a particular kind of storytelling, and it is a huge part of its draw-- its a SAGA. Its comparable to Lord of the Rings, in that the writer not only engages in a phenomenal degree of backwriting (in Tolkien's case, he even created two fictional languages complete with grammar and vocabulary), but has also decided at a certain point to put the backwriting out there for the reader. Voila-- the backwriting is now a part of the story, and the narrative is no longer linear, but web-shaped, radiating out in different directions at once, showing multiple points of view. Thanks to the invention of computer games, the story is even participatory (and was INTENDED to be). This is what makes Star Wars so fascinating, and you don't have to be a fanboy to value those dates. They are crucial to keeping all of the events straight. 38.2.108.125 20:46, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

As I said before, the purpose of the opening is to give an introduction and summary of the entire article. His birth date is an important part of that, regardless of the fact that people may not understand what it means. And besides, it is also custom in Star Wars character articles to link the date to Dates in Star Wars for an explanation, if one is needed. My point is that if they want an explanation of the birth and death dates so badly, they can click on the year, and read an explanation. This is an encyclopedia after all. It would be like if those who write the mathematics articles "dummed down" the content because they wouldn't expect their readers to understand it. We report the facts about a character, regardless of familiarity with the content. The Wookieepedian 22:30, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Jean-vic, the information you just added looks very much like speculation. Please back up with sources. DJ Clayworth 19:58, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

How old?

How old was Obi-Wan in "The Phantom Menace"? Thanks in advance. Deskana (talk) 00:02, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

IIRC, the novelization of TPM places him at 25 at that time. The Wookieepedian 00:05, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Year of Obi Wan's death

It should be noted that, since there is no such thing as a "Year 0" on any timeline, whether in science fiction or in realty, it is inaccurate to list the year of Obi Wan's death as "0 BBY". It is true that he did not die one year before the Battle of Yavin, but he did die during the year: 1 BBY.

Please sign your comments to talk pages using four tildes (~~~~)
Would that be original research?. Because simply searching for "0 BBY" on Google leads numerous results. There are clear references to 0 BBY. Do you have a source that says this rule applies in the Star Wars universe? Even other people are reverting your changes to the article, as they share my viewpoint. Do you have a source? Deskana (talk) 00:39, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

It is not a matter of research...everyone using a "Year 0" is incorrect. In our calendar, the year 1 BC is followed by 1 AD (or, if you perfer, 1 BCE is followed by 1 CE). Zero, meaning "nothing", is not used to denote a year. What I am saying is it is inaccurate, to use the Year Zero on any timeline, in the Star Wars Universe, in the real one, etc. (Just because it is on Google does not mean it is correct). Dmcg 01:20, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

The Star Wars science fiction does consider 0 BBY an actual year. Every SW source you will find will define the year of A New Hope as 0 BBY. By WP:FICT, we must take official word on fiction, over anything else. The Wookieepedian 01:44, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
I can accept that. Please do not consider me a "vandal". Dmcg 01:58, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't, as vandals would do this kind of thing with the sole intent to cause trouble. And vandals usually don't back things up like you have. The Wookieepedian 02:01, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Which Image is better?

Please put your name under the image you thinks looks better.

Image:Obi-WanANH.jpg

  1. The Wookieepedian 07:17, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
  2. Billvoltage 02:06, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Image:Obiwankenobi.jpg

  1. Mithridates 10:04, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
  2. Jedi6-(need help?) 10:05, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
  3. His Imposingness, the Grand Moff Deskana (talk) 09:06, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Gray Jedi again...

I was looking at the discussion and it was concuded that Obi-Wan was not a gray Jedi, but he is mentioned on the Gray Jedi page. Which one should be chaged?Billvoltage 00:35, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Due to Yoda'a statment "Qui-gon's defiance I sense in you" it might make sense to list him as a grey jedi. 70.106.189.85 16:58, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
But Qui-gon never used dark powers in a neutral way. He only used the light side. Jedi6-(need help?) 04:43, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Besides, what you said is original research. We can't include original research on Wikipedia. --His Imposingness, the Grand Moff Deskana (talk) 09:59, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
I must agree with is Imposingness, the Grand Moff Deskana, as that would constitute orignial research, and that is something that wikipedia does not support. I believe that we should vote on it, and sense the general consensus, for this talk page, was that he was not a Gray Jedi, I vote Delete his mention on the Gray Jedi page.Billvoltage 21:48, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
In addition, the concept of Grey Jedi is more of a fanon thing than an actual canonical concept. And according to WP:FICT, that's not allowed either. The Wookieepedian 23:43, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • NOT Grey Jedi. Obviously. (I know, I spell grey with an 'e'...) -Xol 03:09, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't think there should be a vote. You can't vote to ignore WP:NPOV and state "concensus". In the same fashion we can't vote to ignore WP:NOR and state "concensus". Unless there's a source, it has to go. Grey Jedi do get a mention in Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic II as there is a Grey Jedi robe... that does make it a canonical subject. Doesn't mean most of the stuff in the article Grey Jedi isn't fanon though... --His Imposingness, the Grand Moff Deskana (talk) 10:53, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Where is this from?

"A few years later Ben Kenobi returned to the Lars farm carrying Anakin's lightsaber....". Which work is this paragraph sourced from? I have no memory of it being mentioned in any of the movies, so presumably it's the Expanded Universe. Does anyone know where? DJ Clayworth 18:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like the non-canon story, "Old Wounds". 'Leastways, that's the only EU material I can think of in which Kenobi visited the Lars homestead with a lightsaber. --maru (talk) contribs 20:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I removed two paragraphs from the 'Powers and abilities' section, as there is no indication of where they come from. They can go back if someone knows what work they are sourced from. DJ Clayworth 18:52, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Who would win between Darth Sidious and Obi-Wan? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.228.245.85 (talk • contribs)

Both the film and novelization for Revenge of the Sith say pretty clearly that if Obi-Wan had faced Sidious, Obi-Wan would have lost- the novelization even goes so far as to say that his death would have been "painful". So that's pretty much the end of that discussion.  :) --DarthBinky 02:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)