Talk: Palpatine/Legends/Archive15

This page is an archive of the discussion of an article. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's current talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.

Archived talk: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15

ROTJ not his firth death

I'm reviving this topic, because last time it got hijacked by a Jack/Herb squabble, and ended with Jack just saying "he did" without providing a source, so here is the question again. He says to Luke in Dark Empire that the second death star was not the first time he had died. Should this be addressed? -- Micah Giett So what is the source for this whole "Chee says it wasn't his first death"? It seems to have been added around September 2005, but Chee didn't have a blog mentioning this or mention it in the Holocron continuity thread at that time. So where is it? Otherwise, canonically, his first death was before his plummet into the reactor. Cull Tremayne 10:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I thought we settled it when Chee said Palpatine lied.--Herbsewell 11:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- The point is that we don't know if Chee said it. I can't find any proof of him saying that anywhere. Cull Tremayne 11:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  - If it's not in the Holocron thread, did you check the VIP thread? I know it's not proof that it happened (or, more importantly, a source), but I do recall a fuss being raised over it on the TFN boards when he said it. - Lord Hydronium 12:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
    - Didn't we even go so far as to get a link to this statement before? —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20px 12:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
      - We tried to go that far, but Chack said that he was unable to find the link. I'll check the VIP thread. Cull Tremayne 05:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
        Oh, right. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20px 15:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
        Okay, I *know* I personally read Tasty's comment to that effect, so don't axe it just yet. However, I can now state that, unless I overlooked it, the comment is NOT in the current VIP thread anywhere between its first page and October 12, 2005 (pg. 63). Suggestions for other threads to look into would thus be in order. jSarek 07:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
        Also apparently not in the BCaT thread of the era, at least not between July 19 (pg. 394) and October 3, 2005 (pg. 443). jSarek 07:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
        Hmmm... —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20px 12:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
        Anyone know if it could have been Star Wars Insider? That seems to ring a bell. I'll check mine. Chack Jadson 23:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
        Nope. I checked my measly two magazines. I know I read it somewhere though. Man, this is annoying. Chack Jadson 22:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
        As I recall, it was during a discussion on the canonicity of Dark Empire. QuentinGeorge 08:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Rewriting (to avoid previous discussion of the same name)

Okay, since I led the previous discussion off-topic, I figured I'd create another section for continued discussion on the matter, in a polite way. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20px 22:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I like the way this article is written. I will admit it sounds far to interesting to be on en "encyclopedia" as Wookieepedia is but I think it should stay the way it is. Hell its the only article that I was able to read compeltely dipsite its size. EDIT: I also liked the Conclusions section which I see was removed. Damn shame. —Unsigned comment by 71.252.9.224 (talk • contribs)
- Well, I share your views, as do many others. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20px 16:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  - Kind of makes me wish the entire wiki was like this. I mean this article is LONG. I mean damn LONG, and I managed to read the entire thing. I like the tone, cause in a way you can't understand something well unless its told a certain way. I could read an article where it says Palpatine was a sadistic maniac, but wouldn't really get it until I read a section like "The example of Canna Omonda" completely which would make you say "Wow, I actually learned he was a sadistic maniac, and actually got a good example of it." —Unsigned comment by 71.252.9.224 (talk • contribs)
    - Without Erik, this article would definitely be dull and boring. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20px 23:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
      - And a featured article.--Herbsewell 23:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
        <sigh> I don't see you doing any major improvement to an article like Erik did with this one, Herbsewell. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20px 23:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
        Your point?--Herbsewell 23:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
        Show some respect. Erik put a lot of time and effort into this article. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20px 23:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
        Well apparently, that effort was for the worse.--Herbsewell 23:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
        Herbsewell, stop it now. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20px 23:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
        <sigh> I have the right to express my opinion. Because of him, the article needs a major rewrite, and has been striped of it's featured article status.--Herbsewell 23:43, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
        Maybe it's not the article that needs to be fixed. Maybe it's the requirements for FA that need to be fixed. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20px 23:44, 16 March 2007 (U(TC)
        Then a vote would have to be placed. Until then, the Inquisitors have come to the conclusion that this article does not come in compliance with the requirements of having the title of featured article.--Herbsewell 23:48, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
        Indeed. I hereby propose the Featured Article Limitation, Addition, Legislation, Alteration and Liquidation Amendment, or FALALALA Enochf 00:02, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
        Can we please be serious here? —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20px 13:56, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
This header is awfully deceptive. I mean, I actually thought this was going to talk about making changes to the article to keep it at FA. :-P Anyway, please stay on topic and continue to work on the article. You can always Re-FA it though. Atarumaster88 20px ^{(Audience Chamber)} 23:34, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
- Can you divulge on how the article would have to change for that to happen?--Herbsewell 00:16, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  - To be blunt, it pretty much needs a total re-write. With sources. And a proper tone. .... 01:42, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
    - Your... attitude on all this makes me wonder why the Inquisitorius even made it. After all, what's wrong with the admins filling the job? —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20px 02:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
      - And if I may be blunt in return, FourDot, if that's your opinion, then you might as well just dismiss the farce of a two-week grace period, because it's perfectly clear that no matter what is done here - and a great deal has been done in the previous week by a great many people, including yourself - there is no concieveable end result that will satisfy you. That may not be what you're trying to convey to me, but it sure as hell is how I'm reading it. Once you advocated trimming, and now you're pretty much demanding a complete scorched-earth policy. And I'm sorry to say that unless you're willing to do so yourself, there is no one I know here who would be willing to undertake a "total rewrite" with a "proper tone," of which only you know the definition. If you do expect people to do that, then if may again be blunt, you're crazy.

I do not for one moment wish to insult the entire Inquisitorius by suggesting that you presume to speak for each and every one of your colleagues - a point which reminds me that this decision is not solely yours to make. When it comes down to a vote, do you honestly believe that this is what the whole group wishes for this site? Do you truly believe that Tremayne, or Culator, or Atarumaster or anyone else in your group of thirteen specifically wants this for the article? They want simply to remove its FA status if it hasn't been sufficiently sourced. You want, what, to erase the whole thing and start over? Because that's what I see a "complete rewrite" to mean. "Revealed, your opinion is." Maybe I'm misreading it, but perhaps others who read what you just wrote could judge for themselves. I don't see how they could come to any other conclusion. Again, I don't presume that you speak for the entire Inquisitorius, and I've tried to defend your group to others, such as my outraged close friend Jack, as being perfectly reasonable. Don't prove me wrong by tarring the rest of your comrades with a completely unreasonable demand.

And Herbsewell, I won't take offense by anything you've said, but I will defend myself. If I'm a major reason the Inquisitors is threatening to strip its FA status, then you had best acknowledge that I'm a major reason the article was awarded FA status in the first place. That is not a boast; it is a fact. Have I gone too far in some areas? I'll have to admit that I have. Have I tried to help make it right? You'd have to admit that I have. Though I have been forced to leave the bulk of deletions to others for medical reasons (I fractured my typing hand last Friday), I have returned to continue to make trims and add sources, despite the fact that I risk worsening the fracture, and suffer significant pain and my wife's wrath to do so. I don't expect that to have any importance to you, but that too is a fact.

If there's any claim I can make and be proud of on Wookieepedia, it's that I've tried. The article may not have been exactly what everyone seems to want yet, but I have tried. It may not be fixed yet, but I have tried. A lot of people have tried. They do so every day. They do it from love for Star Wars in general and interest in this character in particular. They certainly don't do it for me, and I don't expect or want them to. Who am I? I'm no one important, I'm just Erik Pflueger, a nobody artist/architect with a wife, two cats, two children-in-law and two grandchildren-in-law, a wacky claim to be able to make at 35 (I'll explain upon request). I have many interests, but since boyhood my first and foremost interest has been the galaxy far, far away. I thought I had found a forum to express that interest rather than just let it go to waste inside my four walls. It may still be that, and I will have to adjust myself to the rules of that forum. But I have tried; please don't rub my nose in it, Herb, if I haven't tried hard enough for you.

It won't be the end of the world for me if in the end FourDot gets his way, does everything extreme thing he wants, and renders all the work I've done in the past year or more for naught. My ego and self-esteem doesn't hinge on its fate; marriage changes a lot of things. Nor will I quit the Wookieepedia, take my ball and go home. I'm not so constructed. But I will certainly be disappointed, not for myself, but for everyone who claimed to like what I did, and for the 'Pedia as a whole. And, if I may add, for the Inquisitors, for if the article as it stands is simply washed away, like FourDot seems to want, then they risk being in for a world of abuse, for they may very well have proved me wrong about them... and unwittingly painted themselves as the very power-mad tinpots I've said they're not. Erik Pflueger 20px 05:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

If you read everyone of my posts, you'll see that I did not at one time criticize the article. I simply noted that because of it's style, it has been denounced and has been found to be of low quality by the judges whose power has been elected by Wookieepedians.--Herbsewell 11:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
- Maybe you didn't criticize the article, Herbsewell, but you criticize Erik's effort. As for the article, it may have lost its FA status to the power-craving nature of Thefourdotelipsis, but the article is not going to be rewritten. Why? Because people are fine with how the article is. That's the problem with the Inquisitorius: They don't allow others to voice their opinions. The Inquisitorius seems to think that they can do whatever they want. Well, all those who crave power eventually lose it. The Inquisitorius will one day fall, and the FA status of articles will never be challenged again. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20px 13:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  - I warned you, Jack. -- 13:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
    - Then next time don't vote for them. Anyway, I was merely stating fact, not so much criticizing. They aren't going to lose their power because all they do is make sure that the context of articles fall within the boundaries of featured article quality, no more, no less.--Herbsewell 13:48, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
      - So the article is nolonger featured. If it keeps the article enjoyable to read then I say lets not have it featured. Its PALPATINE for crying out loud. People will flock to it anyway. —Unsigned comment by 71.252.9.224 (talk • contribs)
        Frankly, at this point I'm inclined to agree. But it's really not its FA status - or lack of it - that concerns me. It's FourDot's singular solution that concerns me, a solution that I regard as too extreme and which I totally reject. And again, despite my good friend Jack's clearly stated desire to pull down the Inquisitors like they were so many Saddam Hussein statues, I do not now and never have claimed that FourDot, who is only one Inquisitor, speaks for all thirteen Inquisitors. What he wants is restricted to him... for the moment. It's only if his extreme idea is approved by the entire Inquisitorius that I'll begin to suspect that maybe Jack is onto something. But unless and until that happens - and I regard it as very unlikely - I will continue to assume that the Inquisitors are largely a reasonable bunch who have no authoritarian intentions. Erik Pflueger 20px 16:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
        Fourdot does not speak for me. I have no problem with the quality of the prose at all; in fact, if you check the talk archives, you'll see that I voted to keep it last time there was a vote held on this page on that very subject. I understand that different people have different writing styles, and this is definitely Erik's style. Some may say it's too flowery, but I find it is detailed enough. There are some parts that are a little TOO detailed, but I have no issue with that if they are backed up by a canon source and are properly sourced in the article itself. My main issue with the article is sourcing, which if done by a small group of people, should be done in no time. However, I do object to Jack painting us all of us in the Inq as power hungry assholes. Not all of us are like that, and it is a little unfair to paint us all with the same brush due to the actions of a few. StarNeptune^{Talk to me!} 17:07, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
        I thank you for reminding me of the vote, Neptune, but it wasn't necessary. I remember you and your defense of the article very well, and fondly. And no, I did not think that FourDot would be speaking for you. He speaks for himself alone. And as I said, I do not believe his attitude is likely to carry the day. But may I ask you to understand that attitudes like FourDot's give Jack justification to feel what he feels? He's trying to defend the article, as you have done, and he doesn't have time to distinguish between individual Inquisitors. All he is concerned with is that a member of your group is saying these things and implying he has the authority of your group when doing so. So informed, he acts to defend the article, perhaps too passionately, but can you honestly blame him for being angry? You may wish to consider what effect FourDot's extreme point of view has on the perceptions people have of your group. As long as factions within your group pursue agendas that differ from the rest of you, my friend, you may have to continue to suffer being painted with a broad brush.

As far as sourcing is concerned, I humbly ask you to look at the article's progress over the past few days. A great deal has been done, and while the sources section itself now needs to be cleaned up - which I have been doing over the last 24 hours - it's coming along nicely, thanks to everyone's hard work. If you look at it objectively, I think you'll agree that much progress has been done and it is well on the way - if it is not there yet - to meeting the standards for sourcing you have set. Please look, and then let the people here, who have worked so hard this last week, know if you agree. Erik Pflueger 20px 18:21, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

As has been said already, Fourdot does not speak for all of the Inquisitorius, and neither do I. Until "complete re-write" appears on an Inquisitorius template on this page, that will not be necessary. I've mentioned at one of the Inquisitorius meetings that we should be hated because we de-feature articles that are not up to par, not because we're snobby about it. Take that at face value, I suppose. Anyway, I am with StarNeptune in that once this article is sourced, I would have no problems supporting for re-featuring. I appreciate all the work that everyone has done on this article, and you'll notice that I've done some too- albeit as an anon because my log-in timed out. I appreciate all the assuming of good faith done by users on this page, and strongly encourage everyone to keep it civil and non-confrontational. Atarumaster88 20px ^{(Audience Chamber)} 04:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- As an Inquisitor, I feel obligated to put my two cents in. The job of the Inquisitorius is to make sure that all FAs - nominations and those already promoted - meet the current FA standards. Due to its lack of sourcing and excess analysis, it didn't make it. This isn't designed to be a personal crusade, though I can't speak for Fourdot. While subjectivity will naturally creep in anytime anyone is called upon to judge what is "well-written" or "unbiased" or "a reasonable number of images", that's simply unavoidable in making an assessment of quality. And it takes seven people agreeing that the quality standard is not met. It's not just Fourdot running around stripping articles at will. He can't do anything if even two people disagree with him.

And whatever you might think about Fourdot, I'm getting rather tired of implications from Jack and elsewhere that we're all some bunch of power-mad nutty assholes with an axe to grind against Erik or Jack. We're enforcing the standards that we were assigned by the community to enforce. If you don't like it; too bad. You don't have to like it, but the majority of the community did and it's something you have to live with just like any other product of consensus. Don't accuse us of abusing our power simply for doing our jobs. And if you do think we're honestly abusing our powers and not just raising a stink because you don't like our legitimate use of power, then fricking say it. Don't tiptoe around it by suggesting we could or we might or maybe we are but not really. Say it. If we're not, then don't try to tar our name. Havac 04:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

- - You need not worry, Havac. If you check my posts above you'll notice that I specifically stated that Fourdot's viewpoint was his alone, not that of the rest of the Inquisitorius. You'll also note that I said on numerous occasions that the Inquisitors are reasonable people, and that they do not hold any sinister agenda. They are not tyrants. My specific statement to the contrary was that if Fourdot's viewpoint was upheld by the rest of your group, that's when I'd get concerned. But I also specifically stated that this was not likely to happen. We've heard from three of your number now, and they stated to a man that Fourdot does not speak for them, and they don't want to strip the article. I believe them. They just want things brought back up to snuff. That's all.

But this is all distraction, forgive me. Let's concentrate on the article we're all here to discuss. I'd like to ask you, Havac, what I asked of Neptune: please make an effort to drop by the article and observe the changes at work. Then, please let the many people here, who have worked really hard over the past week, know how you think they're doing. A little encouragement will be a great help. Erik Pflueger 20px 13:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I was speaking more to Jack and the others who have been complaining. Frankly, I wish they'd follow your example. I know you realize Fourdot isn't the entire Inq, and you've handled the whole thing quite maturely. I couldn't be happier with your reaction. However, I say to the various others who claim to be protecting you or your work, that we're not nuts out to defeature articles that we're "jealous" of. We're just doing our job. And as I've said, once it's been sourced (and now that the "Conclusions" are gone), I'd be happy to support it for re-FAing. Havac 17:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- Let me say this: Yes, I have painted the Inquisitorius with a broad brush, but that is because I see only Thefourdotelipsis's actions as an Inquisitor, which involves removing articles from FA status. StarNeptune: You say you're fine with the way the article is now. Then why didn't you stop Fourdot when he was trying to remove it from FA status? And Havac, if you agreed with Fourdot's actions in removing articles from FA status, why didn't you put up any of those "FAremove" tags? My point is, you all say that Fourdot does not speak for the Inquisitorius, yet he seems to have become your public face. With a public face comes a painting done with a broad brush. If you don't wish for that to happen, then other Inquisitors have to put up that "FAremove" tag once in a while, or even remove that article from FA status. Yes, I'm aware you all vote on the matter, but it appears that you're letting Fourdot be your de facto leader. That's why I'm criticizing the Inquisitorius. I could care less about the removal of articles from FA status anymore. Put it this way: Would any one of you want me to be the public face of the Inquisitorius? Fourdot and I are alike; therefore, it's in our nature to argue each other. And before you all respond yelling at me (or before I get banned again; Imp, I just want to make my point here), just do me a favor and think my words over. I'd appreciate that. Now, I'll shut up unless I feel it is necessary for me to post. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20px 19:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  - Jack why are you even arguing about the decision? The fact is that the article doesn’t follow the manual of style so the Inquisitors decided to take away it’s status of featured article, simple as that.--Herbsewell 19:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
    - You obviously didn't read my post. I'm not arguing about the decision to remove this article from FA status anymore. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20px 19:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
      - "Then why didn't you stop Fourdot when he was trying to remove it from FA status?" That would certainly be irrelevant at this point if you already accepted that the decision. Also, you shouldn’t pin the blame on Fourdot as if he was the only one who thought that the article was not featured article quality.--Herbsewell 19:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
        Okay, Herbsewell, right now, I don't care what you think. I'm entitled to my opinion on the matter. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20px 19:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
        You certainly are but don’t accuse people of things you are only assuming.--Herbsewell 19:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
        Ya know, Jack. All the time you've spent whining on this frivolous matter could have put to better use. You could have been fixing the article so that it pleases both you and the inquisitors. Just to put it out there...--Redemption^20pxTalk 19:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
        True, I could. But I'm perfectly content with the current form the article is in. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20px 19:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  - To answer your question Jack, my computer was in the shop being repaired at the time the Inq had the meeting to strip this article of its status, therefore I could not voice my opinion on it then. There may be thirteen of us, but since not all of us can be around at any given time, all it takes is 7 of us to put an article "on notice". Seven people did exactly that, so don't go putting the blame squarely on Fourdot. Through no fault of my own, I was not around at the time Palaptine was voted on, so I had no say in its status. If my computer had not of died, I would have voted to put it "on notice", as all it needed was some pruning and sourcing. There is a difference between putting an article "on notice" and removing status from an article. Palpatine was "on notice" for two weeks, during which time, you could have helped to source it and improve it to help it keep its FA status instead of complaining about the Inq being power hungry and how we are (supposedly) driven by an agenda. After being "on notice" for two weeks, we look at the articles again. If we see no improvements, then the FA status goes bye-bye. If we DO see some improvements, then it gets to keep its status.

As for Erik's question to me: Yes, I do see an improvement, and I give a hearty thumbs up to all who helped. I would assist you, but I don't have access to all materials in which Palpatine appeared (Just the movies, the novelizations, Outbound Flight, Shatterpoint, and maybe a couple I'm forgetting). As I said earlier, I will fully endorse giving this article back its status once everything is sourced. StarNeptune^{Talk to me!} 19:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

- - - I don't think we're arguing about FA status anymore, Herb and Redemption; after all, quite a few of the Inquisitors have pretty much stated their conditions for restoring FA status: bring the sourcing up to snuff. Much of the fluff is pretty much gone by now. That's not what this is about anymore, not for me at any rate. The real crux of the argument now is about what Fourdot had to say about giving the article a "complete re-write." Whatever differences we've had on this article, Herb and Redemption, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that that's not something you'd want. Am I right?

The fact that Fourdot is himself an Inq is what makes his statement so portentious. He's implying that he's in line with the rest of the Inqs on this, though of course you'll see that several Inqs have already come here to state that Fourdot wasn't speaking for them. I think that enough of the Inqs have since distanced themselves from him since to prove my belief that they really don't want to stomp all over the 'Pedia, just keep it the best it can be - within the established rules. Jack's contention is that even if they don't think what Fourdot thinks, his presence as a rather public member of the group makes the rest of them look far worse than they really are, and that they don't help if they don't deal with his more extreme ideas themselves. I trust them to deal with the matter themselves responsibly, but they should deal with it.

Maybe Jack takes the issue of FA status more personally than I do, and is far more vocal in his debates with the Inquisitorius than I would be. But tell me if you think he has no cause at all to be angry. I may not feel toward the Inqs as he does, but a case can be made that Fourdot provoked him. Erik Pflueger 20px 19:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the response, StarNeptune, and I apologize to you and the rest of the Inquisitorius for my comments. Erik pretty much summed it up for me about Fourdot and why I said those comments about the Inquisitorius, so I won't comment on him any more or criticize the Inquisitorius without a proper cause to do so. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20px 19:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- In any case that I may want a rewrite of the article, IMO this is one of the most unencyclopedic entries that that wikia has. I don’t doubt how much time must have been put into the article, but the usage and words used can only merit a rewrite. It certainly does seem interesting and well written, but it sounds more like a screenplay and less like an article.

Besides the fact that the majority of the Wookieepedians prefer this style of writing, it still does not reconcile the truth that the article simply is written in a way that is frowned upon in an encyclopedia.--Herbsewell 20:07, 19 March 2007(UTC)

I don't care about the fact that the article might get a rewrite. As long as it's accurate, neutral and gives the complete story of Palpatine, then whatever. As for Jack and Fourdots bickering back and forth...it's kind of hard not to provoke Jack. Sorry, Jack, but you take things way too personally. Way over the edge. Which I warned you about and the failure to listen is exactly what got you banned twice over this matter. This entire discussion really is pointless. All that can be done right now is to fix the article. If there is a problem with another user, I suggest taking it up with him personally, not bringing the entire community into it here. Too much time has been wasted already on this matter. I wish someone would come along and just close the matter and move on to something more productive. --Redemption^20pxTalk 20:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- I appreciate you standing down for now, Jack. Now, if I may venture an opinion/suggestion, now that the Inq discussion is tabled for the present, why not go into the article and do what you can in sourcing things? It doesn't change the article itself and it brings us a step closer to getting it out of the hole and back to FA status. You and Redemption may still have issues, but he is right on that point. You like and respect StarNeptune far more, I'm sure, and he said the same thing. Why not take him up on it? I'll help some more at the end of my work day. Good luck, and godspeed! Erik Pflueger 20px 20:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  - You may already have stopped it Redemption. In any case, I agree with you. If anyone who has contributed to this conversation wants the article to become featured at any cost, I suggest they stop posting and actually improve it. For those who are perfectly content with the article, I think they should also stop posting, for they aren’t going to get anything done and more animosity will be created.--Herbsewell 20:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
    - I think that's one of the wisest things I've ever heard you say, Herb. I'll be jumping into the sourcing action shortly; hope to see you there! :) Erik Pflueger 20px 20:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
      - Well, I for one do not want to see this article changed. If that's the only way it can become a Featured Article again, I hope it never becomes one again. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20px 22:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
        Jack has a point. I also dislike this Inquisitorius thing. Chack Jadson 22:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
        Stay on topic, or kindly stay off the page. This has gone on long enough. If you want to complain about the Inquisitorius, do it elsewhere. Atarumaster88 20px ^{(Audience Chamber)} 22:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
        Definitely. This flame war has gone on too far, and it is my fault. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20px 22:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
        Well, to stay on topic then, they've finally managed to get around to destroying Erik's great article on Palpy. But there's no point in arguing against the Inq-thing or against the butchering of this article, because they just get pissed off, accuse you of all kinds of things and ban you. KEJ 22:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
        Please stay civil, KEJ. -- 22:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
        Isn't there a template for that, Imp? —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20px 22:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
        
        You see? *sigh* I'm just saying that this article will be changed for the worsem abd I get accused of being "uncivil". KEJ 22:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
        It's not an accusation. You're taking this talk page off topic with pointless ranting. Now please stop. -- 22:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
        Agreed. I suggest you stop before you get yourself banned like I did. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20px 22:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
The next person on this topic that only wants to complain about the Inquisitorius should go to Inq:Whine Here!. Seriously. Atarumaster88 20px ^{(Audience Chamber)} 22:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- Ataru, seriously, that's not a good idea at all. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20px 22:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  - Guys, why don't you let me be the judge of whether the article is being destroyed or not, since I wrote a lot of it. People here really don't know that the article won't be improved by what we're doing now. If I'm not worried yet, doesn't that count for something? Now, is anybody here gonna help me source things, or what? That's a good idea! Erik Pflueger 20px 23:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
    - Well, I'm actually waiting to see what Fourdot's going to do. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20px 23:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
      - Never mind Fourdot for the present; just help me out. The majority says they just want sourcing done, and they will then be satisfied. That's all. And it's a smart idea anyway. If it falls on me to do it alone, I'll do it, but if you can, if you have the reference material, please help. Erik Pflueger 20px 23:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
        Well, we can't just disregard what Fourdot's doing. He's going to change the article, and while I'm prepared to revert it completely, action needs to be taken. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20px 23:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- Wow, a lot is being deleted. More than I expected, at least... --Danik Kreldin 00:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  - Fourdot recommended that we change the article. He never threatened to do so. Let's just leave this at "we can all be really stubborn sometimes". And, incedentally, can this be nominated to be featured again? Because, it's still great and all. We should stop this flamewar before someone gets a bridge dropped on them. Rodtheanimegod4ever 00:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
    - Of course he's going to change the article, Jack. It's a wiki for crying out loud; change happens all the time. I realize that change holds the potential for worsening something, but what you seem unwilling to accept is that change can also hold the potential for betterment. Threating to unilaterally revert any change is silly and counterproductive. Fourdot has the right to edit the article. While you have the right to revert it, don't you think it would be better to actually consider that it might be an improvement? To let the wiki editing process sort out what's worth keeping of his edits and what needs changing? To let Erik, whom you profess to respect so much, see if he minds the change? You're not the only arbiter of quality on this website, Jack. Havac 00:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
      - Fourdot is practically destroying the article. If he keeps up what he's doing, the article will be a worthless specter of its past glory. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20px 00:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
        Nebulax, you are not a god. Fourdot is not a god. Imp, Ataru, Eric and Herb aren't gods. Even me, despite my name, am not a god. No one is absolute here. Fourdot has a right to change the article. You have a right to change his changes. Others have a right to change both of your changes. That's the beauty of a wiki. We all have a right to write how we want to write about Palpatine. Come now, let's not turn this into the equivalent of The Great Revan Image Civil War. Rodtheanimegod4ever 00:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
        Quite. While I see that Fourdot has removed a chunk of information, it was primarily about Plagueis and not Palpatine. I'm betting that much of that information will find its way back in eventually, in a more relevant form, and the excess fluff will be trimmed away. I think Fourdot might end up going a little too far. I think you certainly wouldn't go far enough. I think in the end things should balance out. I don't think you're in a position to revert on grounds of your opinion of the article's former glory. Let it happen and then worry about tweaking and filling back in. Havac 00:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
        
        Guys, I really didn't want it to have to come to this, but I'm afraid that Fourdot is going too far. I suppose I could excuse what he did with the opening paragraphs and the section on his childhood, but the fact is that when he got to Palpatine's relationship with Plagueis, he deleted important information just to have it all fit in a single paragraph. He has shown no restraint in carrying out what he threatened to do. And I have to assume that this is his intent across the board. While I never wanted or expected to have to say this, Havac, I do mind this kind of change, and it does make the article worse. Much worse.

But I'm not asking for a full-blown war over this. First, I'd like to see if the Inquisitorius really is a collection of well-meaning people like I've been saying they are. Neptune, Atarumaster, Culator, et. al., I'm going to assume that what Fourdot's doing, he's doing without your consent or agreement. He's not waiting for the end of the two-week grace period for you to make an informed joint decision; he's just jumping the gun and making your decisions for you. If you really didn't have this in mind, and Fourdot really doesn't speak for you, as you've publicly stated on this forum, then act now. Call him back into line and allow us to find a better middle-ground than this, the opposite extreme to what you asked to be changed. Stop him and allow a third option to be explored.

I've been reasonable and gotten your backs against a good friend of mine, just to keep things calm until we'd finished making the changes you asked for. I did what you asked, and was going to keep doing so. Then one of your own started to override both our work and your will. Please prove me right in the good things I have believed about you, and stop Fourdot now, before it's too late. Erik Pflueger 20px 01:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The two week grace period has already expired. The article is now a former FA. And frankly, as I've pointed out above, we can't stop Fourdot. He's editing as a Wookieepedian, not as an Inquisitor, and we don't exist to ban people from editing. He has as much right to edit the article as anyone else. And you have as much right to revert is as anyone else. We can't ban him. We can't protect the article. We're just users with certain abilities when it comes to judging FAs. I'll leave a note on his talk page and suggest he hold back on just how far he's going with this, and halt the whole thing until we get a better consensus on what to do. But if you're looking at me for a big statement, I can't and won't do it. Neither I nor the rest of the Inquisitors have the authority to order anyone to stop editing (except for those Inquisitors who happen to also be admins, but that's a result of that entirely separate role). He's editing as Fourdot, just as he posted on the talk page as Fourdot, and as I edited the article and posted on the talk page as Havac. Our only decisions as Inquisitors are to be found on the Inquisitorius page. And while I personally think Fourdot may have gone too far, there's nothing I could say as an Inquisitor that would have any meaning. Havac 01:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Let's deal with this on those terms, then. If you really think Fourdot has gone too far, do I then have your support if I choose to restore some of what he has removed? Or, perhaps, instead of an edit war, may I suggest that the article be locked for the time being? Erik Pflueger 20px 01:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

You don't need my support. You're as free as anyone else to edit it. Go ahead and restore whatever you want, though doing it in a concise and non-speculative form would probably make everyone happiest. Rewrite to your heart's content. That's what wikis are for. Havac 01:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- So the editting begins. Damn shame. Gonna miss this thing for its greatness. However I still got the history so all is not lost and I will be waiting to see how well this thing plays out. —Unsigned comment by 71.252.9.224 (talk • contribs)
  - Don't worry, Anon. We're not done yet. Erik Pflueger 20px 01:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
    - In my honest opinion, we should all back off and let Erik work his magic. Rodtheanimegod4ever 01:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
      - All of us are backing off; Fourdot is not. It does not matter; let him edit as he pleases. He's wasting his time, for regardless of what he does, if I feel it is in the best interests of the article to restore any part what he removes, I will do so. But in fairness to him, if I see something that I feel he's done right, or better than I have, I will leave it alone; in other words, I will show him more consideration than he apparently wishes to extend to me. Because to me, this is not about doing anything just to honk him off, it's about what serves the article better. What he's been doing lately does not.

In fact, I'd bet good money that if we held a vote on the matter, and asked if people would rather have 1.) the original (sources added) version, 2.) a revised and streamlined (sources added) version maintaining the best parts of the original version while removing all fluff and POV, and 3.) Fourdot's version, Option 3 would get the least of all votes. My expectation for the winner would be Option 2; if 2 wins, the article's interests are served best. They're not being served at all by what Fourdot's been doing.

But don't just listen to me rant on and on: what do you people at home think? Shall we vote on it, hmm? Erik Pflueger 20px 03:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

No, we shouldn't: the way those options are set up, option 2 has to win. A lot of users found the earlier version overly ornamented and POV, and a lot of others think the recent cuts are too severe. The only way this will end is some sort of option 2, or with one "side" giving up. I think if the discussions are kept more specific, though, compromises might be easier to come up with, especially as more and more of them are made. —Silly Dan _(talk) 03:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and before you cast such a vote, take a look at what Fourdot has to say about your opinion in advance: He said this (please excuse his use of profanity) on his discussion page: If you're here to bitch about my fixing of the Palpatine article, kindly fuck off in the Manual of Style direction.

Yeah. He said that. About you. All of you. That's what he thinks of your opinion. As if what he's doing can be called "fixing" anything, as if what he's doing is an improvement. And as if what he's doing had best be observed as permanent.

This is not about observing the Manual of Style anymore, it's about him basically saying "it's my way or the highway." He's doing this, and if you don't like it, go scratch. If I'm said to not be hip to how things work on a Wiki, what does that say about his understanding of things? Erik Pflueger 20px 03:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

So you see, Dan (and I'm sorry we've not talked lately before now), I am willing to compromise; all my edits the last few weeks have been an attempt to compromise. But what does Fourdot have to say about compromising? He tells everyone to go flarg themselves. I'd be glad to go over the details of what an Option 2 might look like, but he's all about Option 3, and refuses to recognize anything but. Who's being unreasonable here? Erik Pflueger 20px 03:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- I personally like this version best. Still all the sources, and still pre-Fourdot but post-removal of fluff and prose. It seems as though Fourdot, no disrespect intended, seems to be only interested in making the article shorter, not better. He almost seems to be removing things at random. I will revert it. Herb or Fourdot will probably yell at me, but it must be done. I only want to end the edit war. Rodtheanimegod4ever 03:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  - I thank you for trying to be reasonable and keeping a level head, Rod. Respectfully, I submit that the version you referenced is still only a starting point; more fluff and prose needs to be removed, and would have... had my typing hand not been put out of commission for a week, and had this controversy not erupted. The Inquisitorius - or at least the majority of Inqs - are quite right; we're still not there yet. I am quite prepared to compromise, long have been. But from what starting point? That's the question. Erik Pflueger 20px 04:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
    - Indeed. We must find this starting point before this escalates into an edit war. Rodtheanimegod4ever 04:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
      - And you know, at this point I couldn't care less about FA status. If the Inquisitors remove it, they're just doing their job. That has nothing to do with the current problem. What's in the best interest of the article? Do we want it changed fast or do we want it changed right? Rod correctly identified the problem: what's more important, shorter or better? Trimming for the betterment of the article, or trimming for its own sake, quality be damned?

Your actions, Rod, and your penetrating analysis of the problem, may not end an edit war; it might just stop one before it even starts in grim earnest. Erik Pflueger 20px 04:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Main image vote

File:Palpycropped.jpg|Option 1 File:Sidsaber.jpg|Option 2

Option 1

Image of Palpatine that is most recent IU, depicts his most iconic appearance -- as opposed to two, which displays an appearance that is least iconic in-universe or out (when people think of Palpatine, they think of "the Emperor" as they first knew him, or they think of the Chancellor. They don't think of his puffy and temporary immediately-post-lightning appearance). Plus it's a clean headshot with none of the distracting lightsabery and the tiny view of his face. Havac 01:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Option 2 is goofy. Option 1 is Palpatine. -- Darth Culator ^{(Talk)(Kills)} 01:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Redemption^20pxTalk 01:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to have to vote for option 1. This was Palpatine as we first saw him in Return of the Jedi, in all his glory. --Danik Kreldin 01:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Lord Hydronium 01:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Cull Tremayne 01:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC) -- I'd like to see a cleaner shot of his entire face, but image 2 is no better at showing his entire visage.
I hate how common this image is, but the fact that the photoshopper on the other pic wasn't thinking in 3-D when he did the lightsaber makes that image a joke. -- Ozzel 01:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
—Silly Dan _(talk) 01:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
And now, silly lightsaber pic, you will die. jSarek 02:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
If I have any problem with Option 1, it's that we've seen it so many times over the last twenty-four years that it's gotten boring to me. That said, I don't have any substantive objection to it. Why not? Erik Pflueger 20px 02:49, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Atarumaster88 20px ^{(Audience Chamber)} 03:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Wow, Ozzel... never noticed that.... Hnnn. Cutch 05:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Obviously KEJ 06:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
^Jorrel_Fraajic 15:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Green Tentacle ^(Talk) 15:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Because then it will be 16. .... 20:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
JMAS 04:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- How's about this one? [1] Lalala la 23:01, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Option 2

Guys, enough with the drama, you're making the fanon wiki envious

I'm biased, I understand that - having looked through Fourdot's edits, I support them. He removed weasel words, speculation and POV (that was generally in Palpatine's favor) and made the article more to the point. But the issue is more than just the (silly) Palpatine flamewar.

What we have here is a conflict between two views on how Wookieepedia articles should be written: should they be long and contain "flavor prose" and context, or short and listing only the relevant facts? It seems to me that Erik and Fourdot are prominent supporters of the first and second viewpoint, respectively. These two are finding a compromise on IRC as I'm writing this, but we need to uncover the deeper issue. The Palpatine article is a frequent subject of controversy because:

It is the longest article on Wookieepedia.
Palpatine is a well-known and highly controversial character.

I know that the possibility of a split was discussed before and dismissed, but I think this is the time to bring up the issue again. Splitting is a universal way of dealing with articles becoming unmaintainable with length. That's what Wikipedia does. If there was, say, an Early life of Palpatine article, issues with its length and factuality could be constrained to that article alone.

If we agreed to split this article, for instance, I would propose the following articles to be branched from the main one (using an analogy with Wikipedia:George W. Bush):

Early life of Palpatine
Early political career of Palpatine
Palpatine and the Naboo crisis
Palpatine's term as Supreme Chancellor
Palpatine and the Separatist crisis
Palpatine's reign as Emperor

And possibly a few more. The main article could thus be reduced to a Wikipedia-style summary article with an abundance of Template:Main instances, while the bulk of the content would then be moved to the specialized articles. The same can be done to Anakin Skywalker, Luke Skywalker, and other long articles.

I'm not saying "We must do that immediately". This is a controversial issue already, and I think that the possibility of splitting long articles should be considered at the CT. - Sikon 05:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

As I've said elsewhere, splitting up an article just because it is long seem unreasonable and illogical. It's easier to have it all lumped together in the same article so you won't have to click back and forth. I've heard the argument "Wookieepedia is not Wikipedia" several times, when reference was made to the way they do things on Wikipedia, and I'm afraid I'll have to pull thus argument here myself. KEJ 15:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

A New Compromise Arrangement has been reached!

People, I'm here to make a startling announcement:

Fourdot and I have talked over at the IRC, and we have agreed to settle this before it becomes a war. We have worked out the details, and he has authorized me to specify them on our mutual behalf. Here are the details:

1.) Fourdot will stop making radical changes to the article itself. 2.) He and I will be going back and forth between us on our respective personal pages to make better, quality-based changes, a section at a time. 3.) He will allow the detail back that conforms to the Manual of Style. 4.) I remove all parts that do not. 5.) When both of us have settled on a compromise we can both endorse, we will add it to the article proper, and see if it works for the group. 6.) This will be done over an extended period, but should result in a lasting compromise that will hopefully permanently settle a debate that has gone on for two years now.

That's the basics. If you have any questions, I will be glad to answer them. But I need to specify one thing to everyone here first:

I have seen much harshness from Fourdot's actions, and he has seen much harshness from my words. The important thing is that, amazingly, we have agreed to put an end to both of these. He will stop making major edits, and he has already removed the offending language (I won't repeat it here) from his discussion page. In so doing, he has made the one concession I have repeatedly asked that he make: he allowed our side to have a say in the work. We will now work to edit the work in a way that satisfies both sides. I will get most of what I want; he will get what he has wanted. There will be no further angry debates here. When we produce a new section, everyone can be assured it will be endoresed by both of us. We will both be satisfied. And then, everyone can judge for themselves if it suits them, and make changes if it does not.

In return for his concession - a significant step in light of what he was doing before - I hereby withdraw my offending statements against him, and if the agreement holds and we continue to work together fairly and openly, I'll have plenty of good things to say about him, a big turnaround from our present attitude. And he has apologized to me both for editing as he has, and for using profanity on his personal page. I'm sorry in return for raising the tensions here to fever-pitch in turn.

I ask only one thing from the group here: please give our agreement time to take hold, and give us time to see if we can work together. If this works, we'll have peace in the valley. If it collapses, we'll be having these fights forever. We need to put an end to this debate once and for all. But we won't be able to, unless we give this a chance to work. The best way to do that is for both sides and their supporters to refrain from inflammatory statements until we begin seeing the results. Otherwise our focus will be derailed. That's all I ask. Can we do that?

I wouldn't have believed one hour ago that I would be making this announcement. Neither, I suspect, would have Fourdot. But I screwed up my courage and talked to him. And he talked to me. Not an hour ago I called him and his ideas unreasonable, but when we actually TALKED, he proved to be VERY reasonable. He gave me something, and I gave him something. I talked, he listened, and vice versa. And together, bit by bit, we calmed down. And we compromised. I got what I wanted. He will get what he wants... but this time we'll do it right. And we'll do it together, under a combined approach. And hopefully, we'll do it as friends. We were at least friendly adversaries once. We then became enemies. Now we'll try being friends.

I want to thank several people for helping me. I want to thank Jack for always getting my back, and fighting for my side. I want to thank the members of the Inquisitorius who offered suggestions about how to resolve this, especially Atarumaster. I want to thank Havac for trying to intercede on Fourdot's side. And I want to thank Rod, the Anime God, for reminding me that I need to keep a level head and ought to prevent an edit war rather than promote one. Atarumaster and Rod are the major inspirations for getting me to try talking things out.

And I finally want to thank Fourdot himself, for being willing to listen to my concerns and willing to stop long enough for us to find a new and better way. And now, let's see where detente will lead us... Erik Pflueger 20px 06:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Yay! Detente! Atarumaster88 20px ^{(Audience Chamber)} 15:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, you didn't think you'd see Nixon-era terminology here, did you? Erik Pflueger 20px 15:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  - This is, of course, good to hear. I hope your continued cooperation is as fruitful as this one hour conversation was. jSarek 20:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
    - Hear Hear! Rodtheanimegod4ever 20:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
      - Great news. The Palpatine article, perhaps more than any other, is central to this site. Both sides have lots to contribute here. Excelsior! —Gonk ^(Gonk!) 20:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
        Well, I won't exactly be contributing in the traditional sense...quite the opposite, I'm afraid. But, rest assured, minimalism has come to a stop. .... 09:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  - Can you enlighten those who do not come from, uhm, the default country what is meant by "Nixon-era terminology"? - Sikon 11:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
    - Sure I can, Sikon. Detente, a French term meaning a relaxing or easing, refers to a relaxing of tensions between the United States - led by Richard Nixon and later Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter - and the Soviet Union - led by Leonid Brezhnev - in the late 1960s and 1970s. It led to several arms-reduction talks and a few agreements. It unraveled in the late 1970s, but changes in leadership and foreign-policy approaches in both countries - Ronald Reagan in the U.S. and Mikhail Gorbachev in the U.S.S.R. - resulted in a much better cooperation between the U.S. and Russia. I actually expect our version of detente to be more successful than Nixon and Brezhnev's version was. Erik Pflueger 20px 15:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

"Palpatine the Undying?"

Okay, he was called that once in the DESB; and by someone giving a speech, not in any sort of official document. That's like having 3PO's article say that he was 'C-3PO, also known by some in the New Republic as Goldenrod.' Kuralyov 17:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Official source, that's good enough for me. -- SFH 17:56, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- Still, it's a title, and we don't mention titles in intros. Or anywhere, for that matter. .... 08:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  - Or anywhere, for that matter.

You're kidding, right? It's a name he was given, by an enemy, it should be noted somewhere in the article. VT-16 14:05, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20px 17:22, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Do we really need...

...that huge 'friends and allies' section near the beginning of the article? It takes up lots of space and I don't think it's necessary. We can always just shorten it to a paragraph or something. Unit 8311 17:22, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd be happy to answer your question, Unit 8311. When I changed that section to what it is now, it was in context of the work I've been doing with The Four-Dot Ellipsis to establish a new, lasting version of the article that will no longer be subject to accusations of not being encyclopedic in format, and we've done good behind-the-scenes work together - the truce we forged has worked as best as we could have hoped. I suggested the "friends and allies" section as presently seen, and he - an Inquisitor - gave it his wholehearted approval.

Why did he do that? Because I felt - and he agreed - that though it is larger (but only in the context of the extremely reduced sections around it that we intend to enlarge and reformat) and though it gives you a large amount of information, it does so in small, easily-digested chunks. If there's something on Palpatine's relationships with C'baoth, or Pestage, or Dangor or Doriana, it's all there, all the relevant data, but the way it's formatted now, you're not flooded with huge, impossible-to-read paragraphs no one could get through. 4Dot loved it, and so do I, and though there has been very little activity on this article because everyone has kindly given us time to get the compromise agreement working - as it now is - I must assume that the fact that you are the only one thus far who has asked about it is an indicator that few have had cause to complain.

As to your suggestion to reduce the section to a paragraph: yes, hypothetically, we could do that, but I must tell you in advance that that would run counter to the plans 4Dot and I have for the article. What we are doing, slowly but surely, is to find a way to keep all the details regarding the article, but to do so without it becoming - as I allowed it to become - more of an essay than an encyclopedia entry. He has been hampered by his hectic schedule, as I have by mine, but we are doing good work, and considering how we were blood enemies for a while, I'm amazed how well we've done together. We've become something like friends. And we've agreed that we will not make things brief here strictly for the sake of being brief. We are less concerned with space than we are with accuracy and completeness... and NPOV. It has to be encyclopedic; it does not have to be short.

This is why I say that we DO need "friends and allies" as presently written in the article. More to the point, what we need in this article is every item of information of remote relevance to the character. What you can expect to happen in the future, step-by-step and over a period of time, is the ENTIRE article being brought up to this standard, not that section being reduced to a paragraph. There was never a possibility of the article being significantly reduced in size - that is impossible, simply because of the sheer volume of information about the character and his significance to the Star Wars saga. In an ideal version of the Wookieepedia, all major characters - Luke, Leia, Qui-Gon, Thrawn, Corran, Mara, etc. - would have articles as extensive - though, again, encyclopedic and not the over-dramatized essay I was taking this article to before. Will it still be long? Most definitely. Will they be ponderous and impossible to keep organized? Not as long as the very format you read in that one section is applied correctly through the whole article. And, given time and your patience, it will be.

I hope that answers your question, Unit 8311 (I love the reversed Lucas catchphrase number), and I hope it explains my rationale in reformatting the section as it now is. Expect to see other sections so reformatted soon, and additional material added - I'm particularly focusing on material from the novel Cloak of Deception on one period and the Dark Empire comic trilogy on another. Both of these are very elaborately plotted - the machinations in these individual stories are extremely complex, and it's not always easy to connect the dots - which is why they've been taking so long, especially since I've been trying to get them right according to the guidelines. But it is my sincere hope that you like them - I know you think this article is important as much as I do, and I do this in hopes that you, like anyone else, would find pleasure in it. Erik Pflueger 20px 05:58, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that the major benefit of this format is that later on, when we meet these characters again, we don't have to go in depth explaining who they were in relation to Palpatine. It just slickens the rest of the bio, if that's even a word. .... 10:20, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
- You make good points, and I agree. It's just that I don't really like very long articles because my computer has trouble handling them. Unit 8311 14:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

A Question

About how old was Palpatine when he started his training with Darth Plagueis? Does any source have any information about that? I just wanted to know. --76.5.169.96 22:44, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, that was me, I didn't realize I wasn't logged in. --Crazy Jedi Girl 22:48, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
- We've got absolutely nothing on when Sidious started his training. There is at least a possible means of concluding when it ended, since it revolved around the issue of creating a Force-conceived child which is generally believed to be Anakin. Anakin was likely conceived late in 43 BBY, and born in early 42 BBY, so that could function as a possible ending point. As for his length of apprenticeship under Plagueis. the Star Wars Insider #88 said: "Sidious served for many decades as the apprentice of Darth Plagueis..." That could mean anything. How many decades? At least two, but possibly more. Keep in mind that if his official age is accurate (that is, he didn't lie in his biographies or anything about being born in 82 BBY), Palpatine would have been 40 when we're guessing Plagueis died. A mere two decades of apprenticeship put him at 20, and it is at 20 - when Palpatine decided to stay in local Naboo politics when others ended and went on to something else - that he shows the first signs of acting as if he had a Sith agenda in mind. After that, three decades of apprenticeship puts him as 10. Do we go further and say that he was raised as a Sith from birth? Maybe, maybe not. We just don't know. There's never been anything written about Palpatine/Sidious that states that was the case - everything speculates that he was a young man who was found by Plagueis, but not that young. Erik Pflueger 20px 15:26, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  - Yeah, it says in Darth Plagueis's article that Palpatine was a young man. "Though the exact chain of events is unknown, it is clear that a gifted young man from Naboo named Palpatine caught his eye." So teenager to early adulthood. Also, here's a quote from Palpatine's article. "Palpatine was born in Naboo's capital city, Theed,[2] to a family of noble lineage.[3]" So he was probably an adult, or at least an older teen, when he became Darth Plagueis's apprentice, because otherwise his family would have noticed something was odd if he started spending a lot of time away from home and stuff. --Crazy Jedi Girl 20:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
    - I'm pretty sure I wrote that passage you quoted, Crazy. But remember that I'm fallible, and that all we know about his family is two things: 1. they were of the nobility, and 2. he had at least one sibling, because he had a grand-niece. That's all. And it's all we're likely to get for some time. So we shouldn't make TOO many assumptions about what the family did or did not notice. Considering how good he was at hiding his true nature, even they may not have noticed anything. That family may not even be real: Insider #88 also said that Sidious "created" the Palpatine persona (I'll be adding that soon), so perhaps there were no parents to notice anything strange. Also, please do me a favor, if you would: don't use other Wookieepedia articles to prove any point; they're very good, of course, but there's no replacement for the hard original sources. We're not yet done with sourcing everything, so until that's done, anything that's written could be considered somewhat suspect, or fanon. Love your Wookieepedia, but respect the sources, too. Erik Pflueger 20px 21:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
      - Okay, I'll try to do that in the future. The thing is, I tend to want to know things like this that haven't been specified. And Wookieepedia seems to be the most informative site out there, more so than even the Star Wars website. It would take a long time to go search through a lot of other webpages, and even longer to hunt down novels! :) But like I said, I'll try to check up on stuff in places other than here. And in the meantime, I'll keep checking back here so I can read that interesting thing about Sidious creating the Palpatine persona! Stupid Sith Lords. They have to make everything so complicated. --Crazy Jedi Girl 02:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Name: Palpatine Essex Yerac

I don't want to write anything in this article. However, I would like to pinpoint an obscure character from Alliance Intelligence Reports, Rebel lieutenant colonel P. Essex Yerac. His full name, as identified in A.I.R. pg 90, is Palpatine Essex Yerac - a reference to the word "Palpatine" used as first name in the Star Wars universe. I suggest a short paragraph about this in 5.4.2. The name of Palpatine. - Skippy Farlstendoiro 13:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- I have that book, myself, Skip, and I'll be damned if you aren't absolutely right: it's in fine printing, but the name is there. And you're right, it does deserve a shout-out. I'll go through the relevant material in the book and incorporate it ASAP. Erik Pflueger 20px 20:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  - Thank you, Erik. I wouldn't like to perturb this article. - Skippy Farlstendoiro 07:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Frank?

"I must be Frank, your majesty."

―Palpatine reveals his true identity

Just doing my job. - Darth Fury

Haha, you know what he means!—Unsigned comment by 75.4.249.253 (talk • contribs)

Can I still be kimu? Kimu 22:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC) RC-0722. 6:41 PM July 24, 2007

Major edit

How long is this article undergoing a major edit?--Windu223 18:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't seem like it is any more. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision) (Record of Imperial Service)} 20px 16:16, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Allusion

I think this early form of the name Emperor Ford Xerxes XII,may also be an allusion to the use of "Ford" from Huxley's Brave New World Sochwa 02:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Uh... Emperor Ford Xerxes XII? —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20px 11:33, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- Don't blame me, Jack, I didn't make it up. ;) I just got it from the new Making of Star Wars book, I'm blameless. I was only one year old when Lucas came up with it. And we know how he is with funny names, don't we? Erik Pflueger 20px 22:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
  - Sounded like fanon at first... —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20px 22:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
    - I wonder if that's in part because the average fan looks at that and thinks "Jesus, I can think of better names than that! And I'm just a fan!", so the natural assumption would be that it had to come from a dumber fan than they, rather than the creator of the whole thing. Even after the shocks of names in the prequels, we still have a hard time realizing that Lucas is for the most part just bad with that sort of thing, particularly since he really did make a few names that hit it out of the park on occasion. "Luke Skywalker" sounds right, so does "Han Solo." But somehow "Nute Gunray" or "Jar Jar Binks" doesn't work. We just got used to them. ("Lando Calrissian" probably didn't look good on the page, but it worked great because he was played by Mr. Colt 45.) Erik Pflueger 20px 03:49, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Sources

I honestly don't think this article has a sources problem anymore. Permission to kill the template? Rodtheanimegod4ever 01:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

There's still a lot left to be sourced. - Lord Hydronium 02:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- In the words of Tey How: "Yessah!" Rodtheanimegod4ever 02:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  - In the words of many: "Nooooooooooo!!!" Sorry, I just had to do that. ;) —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20px 19:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
    - These need to be mentioned (they were brought up in Jedi Counseling #71)- "[The] real Palpatine is the one who bursts forth at a calculated moment . . . That is when the true person comes out, letting the evil fully manifest itself. The Emperor . . . looks like he does because he's very old and very evil -- it is what he always looked like. Star Wars Insider 82 (page 58) AND [It’s] the intensity of reflected lightning and the channeling of such raw dark side power that are the catalysts for Palpatine’s transformation. Perhaps the face that boils up to the surface is shaped by his dark side corruption, but the lightning is definitely the cause. Star Wars Insider 83 (page 32). The article from Jedi Counseling is mentioned but these don't appear to be quoted anywhere within THIS article. Mrobviousjosh 14:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

My opinion, the ARTICAL looks like the dicussion page.

OK, 1st of all the whole issue about his deformation is a "formal debate" lokking thing.You all saw in revenge of the sith that palpatine's face was getting scarred while mace's lightsaber redirecting the force lightning was blowin up n hiz face.The reason luke did'nt deform in ROTJ was because at 1st he was only getting short, powerful burst of it, like he did 2 yoda, and the long one at the end that he gave luke was not redirected by a lightsaber with one of the most powerful jedi ever pushing it as hard as he could and amplifying tha power x 10.U are not stupid,personally, i think if you keep doing this "debate in the artical" thing, people will screw this site and just go to wikipedia.PLEEZ GIVE ANY FEEDBACK YUV GOT IN THAT HEAD OF YOURZ(which mean's george bush cant, even if he had a thought.) —Unsigned comment by 74.245.15.50 (talk • contribs)

Okay, this entire topic, from topic name to the end of your post, shows me that you're annoying. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20px 11:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- To say nothing about his appalling lack of spelling prowess... Erik Pflueger 20px 18:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
  - Man, if I could only blast this topic into dust... —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20px 19:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
    - ...BE the Death Star, BE the Death Star, just target and fire when ready... Erik Pflueger 20px 22:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
      - If only it was that simple. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20px 22:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
        If you want to discuss this, 74, go to TheForce.Net or some other forum website. And please, please, learn to spell. Unit 8311 16:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
        The guy's IP address indicates he/she's in Brandon, Mississippi, so I'm assuming the guy knows English and the spelling of words and sentences therein. I'd forgive the spelling if the guy was from a foreign country, but SHEESH! "Artical!?" Erik Pflueger 20px 19:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
        Geez, Erik's getting vicious! Chack Jadson 23:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Where'd his lightsaber go?

Correct me if this has been asked already. I just noticed while watching Ep III again that Palpy's electrum saber goes out the window. Has it been explained to where it went or anything? Should I wait to see if it is revealed in the new SW.com Visual Guides when Ep III comes around? -- Riffsyphon1024 05:10, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Dunno but he got it to fight with Yoda. -Darthtyler

No he didn't. Watch the movie carefully. They are two different lightsabers. The one he used to fight Windu had a gold handle; the one he used to fight Yoda had a black handle. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20px 16:20, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah. Palpatine would surely be clever enough to have spare lightsabres. Unit 8311 16:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Change Quote

Under the section "The plot to assassinate Luke Skywalker," the quote is between Mara and Palpatine. I think it should be the discussion between Vader and Palpatine on how Luke would be a great "asset." -- User:Siteoftupac

If he's such a great asset, then why is Palpatine trying to kill him? That quote would make the section misleading. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20px 13:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Imperial military

In the intro it says the Imperial military was one of the largest military forces ever. Wouldn't it be the largest? I know it's a real minor thing, but I'd like to see what others think first. Chack Jadson 17:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

It's hard to say. The Republic's was very large, too, considering the ground forces were almost entirely clones. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20px 18:14, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
- True, but the Imperial military used some clones too. And Palpatine had two decades to build up the Imperial military. Plus, he had unlimited power and thus practically unlimited resources. Chack Jadson 18:23, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
  - I'm not saying that the Republic military was larger; I'm just saying that it's hard to tell. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20px 18:36, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
    - True. There really is no canon source that specifically states what army was largest (at least none that I know of). Chack Jadson 16:59, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
      - Exactly, which is why we have it worded as is. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20px 19:55, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
        In any case, the highest number given for any of the SW armies, as far as I know, is quintillions for the CIS droid army, so it's pretty certain that the Imperial army wasn't the biggest. Unit 8311 20:10, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
        You're just assuming that the Empire's military had less than the Separatist Droid Army. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20px 22:03, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
        Yeah, I assume the Imperial military would be largest, but no canon source states the exact numbers. Chack Jadson 12:32, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
        Therefore, until some source says which one was the biggest, we don't know. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20px 13:54, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Did vader ever weild sidios' blade?

in Dark lord, the rise of Dath Vader, we learned that sidious provided vader with a sith crystal as well as his own saber for a model to create his own. Now true Dark lord, The rise of Darth vader has contradicting information that does not agree with the movie; but that aside, is it possible Vader used sidious' blade 4 a short time before he was finally able 2 use his own. —Unsigned comment by 24.34.199.57 (talk • contribs)

It's possible, I guess.--Imperialles 20:59, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Spoiler?

Does anyone else think that there should be a spoiler warning before they say that Palpatine is Darth sidious?

Oh goodness no. It's been decided spoilers only go on things like Sacrifice, things that have just come out. We have the warning on the main page after all. There's been a discussion (or possibly a CT) about this, and it was decided to place spoiler warnings only on new material. Chack Jadson 18:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

False article information

This article and subsequent editors have arrogantly attempted to surround the topic of palpatines name with an aura of "'It is unknown why he has this name; "no one knows", and "oh its a mystery and we will never find out, OOOOOOH!" Ill clarify the info for people who are too stupid to put the actual meaning down and instead add dramatic and moronic lines to articles.

When writing the story for Star Wars: Episode VI - Return of the Jedi (1983), George Lucas named the Emperor Palpatine as an homage to his friends Martin Scorsese and Paul Schrader and their film Taxi Driver (1976), in which a politician is named Palatine. Futher reference: in Episode III, Palpatine draws his lightsaber from his sleeve, another sly reference to Taxi Driver (1976), in which Travis Bickle (Robert De Niro) draws his gun from his sleeve.

Anon, you're taking this too seriously. People have noticed similarities between Palpatine and others not from Star Wars. So what? It's not a big deal. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20px 22:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Do you have a reliable source on this, Anon? If so, feel free to add this info to the article. jSarek 00:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- Without removing this "aura" of "dramatic and moronic lines", of course. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20px 00:58, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Palpatine and Darth Sidious

Okay, I tire of seeing people try to throw Sidious's titles all into just "Palpatine" when really that is not the proper way to address him. I have seen so-called "administrators" try to retract corrections made in the usage of Sidious's name, and it's a very infuriating situation. They even go so far as to lie about the corrections people such as myself have made calling it "vandalism" or "false information" when it's not that at all. While I agree that the administrators should exercise their powers when necessary, I do not agree with them abusing their powers to silence the truth even if it is not what they want to agree with. When the Sith Master is involved in a military or political situation, he should be addressed as Palpatine, granted. However, when he is involved in a conversation or situation involving the Force or Force-related topics, his true title of address is his true name, Darth Sidious. "Palpatine" was merely as mask created by Lord Darth Sidious to hide his true persona and his true intentions. While the general public knows him as "Palpatine," it is the correct way to address him as "Darth Sidious" when he is in the presence of other Force-users and discussing Force-related topics because Palpatine was merely his mask. It is truly misinformation to merely try to refer to him as "Palpatine" all the time because true Star Wars fans recognize that his titles are not to be misused or tossed aside just for simplicity's sake. This is an encyclopedia, and as such his true titles should be used where they are appropriate. Therefore, I make for the case of calling him "Darth Sidious" when it is appropriate for him to be addressed as such, such as when Vader is discussing the threat of Luke Skywalker to the Sith with him, or when he is torturing the last of the Jedi (Luke Skywalker), etc. His title of address needs to be corrected and the old-school people who refuse to adjust to the change in canon brought about by the Prequel Trilogy need to step back and realize that his true identity was the Sith Lord Darth Sidious, and he should be addressed as such in the appropriate cases. (SithLord990205 18:44, 8 August 2007 (UTC))

Palpatine is his real, proper name. 'Darth Sidious' amounts to a nickname. For this reason he is called Palpatine here. Unit 8311 18:45, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Good. We are actually on the talk page. It would help your situation and put yourself into a better light if you didn't cry administrator foul to further your argument since it only makes you look like an immature turd. I'll take this seriously when you decide to drop the issue of administrators abusing their power over a name. Yeah. That's a real good reason to abuse power...--Redemption^20pxTalk 18:47, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- Per Redemption. Try changing this from a conspiracy theory about admins (and they are not so-called admins, they are admins) to whatever your point is, and then maybe more people will tell you why it is that you are incorrect. -- 40pxdmirableAckbar ^{(It's A Trap!)} 18:51, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I could care less about the adminsitrator part, although that should be brought up at some point b/c there are those that are trying to abuse it and it needs to be pointed out. Back to the point however, Darth Sidious was his "real" name. "Palpatine" was merely an invention of his, a mask if you will. It doesn't take a mental giant to figure that out. "Palpatine" is his name of address when in public, but in private he is called "Darth Sidious," especially when he is involved in some Force-related event. I'm afraid those who just like to call him "Palpatine" for the sake of laziness are the incorrect ones in this case. The Prequel Trilogy should have taught you that.(SithLord990205 18:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC))

You do know how the title Darth works, right? Because it's certainly not his real name. -- I need a name (Complain here) 18:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

You miss the entire point: The point is that people don't address him by his correct title when it should be. His true "identity" is that of Darth Sidious, and as such when he is involved in some event involving the Force, he should be referred to as such. (SithLord990205 19:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC))

- Show me some conversations where "everyone" calls him Sidious. And how do you know Palpatine was just a name he invented? That's speculation, and thus, fanon. And yes, of course his apprentices call him Sidious. Why wouldn't they follow the "Sith rules". Chack Jadson^Talk 19:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

He abandoned his original identity (wether his true name ever was Palpatine is unknown) when he peldged himself to the Sith, and henceforth his true identity was the one he portratyed as Darth Sidious. You didn't see him being addressed as "Palpatine" by Darth Maul or Darth Tyranus, and they both knew who he was. They addressed him as Darth Sidious in that case because that was his appropriate title in that situation, and others should follow suit. That's exactly right, just what you said about "Sith rules." He was addressed as Darth Sidious in those cases, as well as any concerning the Force. That's how others should refer to him as such, not just "Palpatine" all the time. In reality, it is "fanon" to assume that was always his name and that he should just be referred to by a public name that doesn't reflect his true identity. "Palpatine" was the mild-mannered politician you saw in 1, 2 and 3. "Darth Sidious" was the identity he displayed thereafter, he just kept the name of "Palpatine" to hide his misdeeds as the Sith Lord Darth Sidious.(SithLord990205 19:08, 8 August 2007 (UTC))

Who cares? It's not as if anyone's going to be unsure as to who the article is referring to. -- 40pxdmirableAckbar ^{(It's A Trap!)} 19:12, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Those of us that care about proper titles care, that's who. Those of us who know Star Wars the best know when to use a certain title of a character because a lack thereof shows incompetency and laziness. This is an encyclopedia, and encyclopedias make use of proper titles. When in public, he should be called "Palpatine," but in private, Force-related situations he should be addressed as "Darth Sidious" because that's how it should be according to the rules of the story. (SithLord990205 19:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC))

Then it should be noted that in more recent history, his hands addressed him as Palpatine (Mara Jade) as did his final "apprentice", Luke Skywalker. And because of our "latest name" policy, he remains at Palpatine. The prequels do not and cannot determine names of a character such as this. --Redemption^20pxTalk 19:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree, he "abandoned" the name Darth Sidious when he became Emperor Palpatine. Since Emperor is his "rank" and Palpatine is his name the article's title is correct. --Jedimca0^{(Do or Do Not, There is No Try)} 19:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

You are quite wrong there, b/c the prequels are the actual films Lucas oversaw and approved. You are referring to books that have no more credibility than the fan-made stories. What is in film is actual canon, so I'm afraid I'd have to disagree with you 100% there. (SithLord990205 19:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC))

- It doesn't matter that you don't think the books are canon. They are. This wiki covers all official sw stories, so your point is invalid. -- 40pxdmirableAckbar ^{(It's A Trap!)}

Wrong again, just because you think the books are "canon" doesn't mean they are by definition. The films and Lucas himself are the final say on everything, not secondary, fan-made books. The films come first before book information b/c Lucas himself approved the films and even made them to a large extent. Many of you need to learn to address Lord Sidious properly b/c you don't give Episodes I, II and III the credit they are due. (SithLord990205 19:35, 8 August 2007 (UTC))

The Books are not fanon, please see canon, that will explain everything. --Jedimca0^{(Do or Do Not, There is No Try)} 19:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Go read canon. They are not fan-works, they are official LFL approved canon books. Lucas approved the books. True, the movies hold a higher level of canon, but the only time the movies override them is when there is an inconsistency, which there is not in this case. -- 40pxdmirableAckbar ^{(It's A Trap!)} 19:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

The books may not be actual "fanon" but they do not by any means hold the same weight as the actual films Lucas made. And by Lucas's standards, the Sith Lord that destroyed the Republic was known to the public by his mask of "Palpatine" and to his underlings in private as his true identity of the Sith Lord "Darth Sidious." When Dooku met with Sidious at the end of AotC, he addressed him as Lord Sidious, not Palpatine, even though he was aware of his dual identity. Then in RotS, he addressed him as "Chancellor" on the Invisible Hand. He knew there was a time and place for Lord Sidious's titles, and that is why many others need to learn that same rule of thumb. I don't mean to harp on something so small, but those of you that just refer to him as "Palpatine" all the time do him a SERIOUS injustice b/c that just is not right, and any real Star Wars fan will tell you that. (SithLord990205 19:43, 8 August 2007 (UTC))

- - - SithLord990205's really cheesed off over this, isn't he? My advice - from having been where you are too many times myself - is to not let this get you so angry, and not to dig your heels in too deeply. You'll find you won't be able to move them when you have to dodge a counterattack. As far as the Palpatine/Sidious naming issue is concerned, in my personal work, once the prequel period is over, I never have Palpatine addressed as Sidious by anyone other than Vader, because in both eras, it seems to be only his apprentice and those in his immediate in-the-know circle who know who he really is. The average Imperial citizen neither knows nor cares that he is Sidious. He's just Palpatine to them.

In fact, there are EU canon arguments to support this (emphases are mine): the ROTS Visual Dictionary (p. 60) says: "After the destruction of the Jedi Order, he has no need to reveal his Sith identity, for he is now the beloved Emperor Palpatine, who has restored peace to the galaxy." And here in the Star Wars Chronicles: The Prequels (p. 290) "As the Sith Lord ascends to the position of Emperor, he all but discards his Sith name of Darth Sidious, as he has achieved his objectives and no longer needs to skulk in the shadows. The galaxy knows only their beloved Palpatine as Emperor and blames the treasonous Jedi for the scarring of his once-handsome features." Therefore, those that are referring to him as Palpatine are perfectly in line WITH ESTABNLISHED CANON and need to be acknowledged as such.

I'm not against the occasional sprinkling of the Sidious name in classic-era-material, if only to maintain continuity between the two eras. That's why, as I said above, maybe I'd have Vader and Sidious be known as such in scenes where they alone are present. I'm not even against putting it in the final ROTJ duel scenes; after all, only three people are there, and all of them know who he is. But to assume that he is properly addressed as Sidious and that Palpatine is not his name of birth based on facts not in evidence (only supposition from one sentence in one issue of Star Wars Insider - I know because I added it), is not productive and a poor reason to allow yourself to be pushed into a corner.

Which really brings us to your poor attitude. You've said - rather melodramatically, I might add: "Those of us that care about proper titles care, that's who. Those of us who know Star Wars the best know when to use a certain title of a character because a lack thereof shows incompetency and laziness. This is an encyclopedia, and encyclopedias make use of proper titles." Well, I just provided you with all the evidence you need that we DO care about proper titles and we are properly following the established canon to show us what is proper. Tell me, which of us REALLY knows Star Wars best? Think about that before you answer, before you decide to come here again and bark at us like some little junkyard dog like you've been doing. We know what we're doing and we don't deserve to be pilloried for an offense we never committed. We're neither incompetent or lazy; you're acting like a strutting little pissant, and I won't allow such accusations against my friends and their professional competence to go unanswered. Erik Pflueger 20px 19:52, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I could care less what you think of anyone's "attitude" but I am voicing my opinion as we are entitled to do so. If you do not care to listen to a just debate, then you don't have to be here. I'm afraid you are acting like the "pissant" here, and it is you that has a poor attitude b/c I've given you ample evidence from the films themselves that justify my argument, and you continue to ignore them. Go blow off some steam before you come on here trying to bite off someone's head that is making a just argument. (SithLord990205 19:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC))

- How many fricking times do I have to tell you, this wiki encorporates more than the films. Read Eric's comments again. -- 40pxdmirableAckbar ^{(It's A Trap!)} 20:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

And how many times have I told you: "The films have precedence over other forms of Star Wars information." The books do not hold the same weight, and that is beside the point as well. The entire point here is that he should be addressed as "Darth Sidious" when he is discussing Sith or Force-related events with Vader or his minions and "Palpatine" when he is in public as the Emperor or Chancellor. If you would actually read the posts, you would know that by this point. (SithLord990205 20:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC))

- - I don't see a need for such hostility on the talk page. A) Ample canon evidence has been provided to show that Palpatine rarely uses the title of Sidious. B) Books are canon, and not just the films. That's fact from on high. Unless the movies directly contradicted the books (which they don't), the point is moot. C) The next person who commits a WP:NPA violation will be blocked. Atarumaster88 20px ^{(Talk page)} 20:05, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  - I see a reason to address Lord Sidious properly, and while he may not use the title himself very often, it is his given Sith name and represents his true persona. And as I said before, Lucas had the most involvement with the films and while the books may be considered canon as well, they still do not hold the weight the movies do. I stand by the belief that he should be addressed as Lord Sidious in those instances where it is appropriate b/c the characters in the films followed that rule themselves. (SithLord990205 20:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC))
    - Which, as Erik pointed out, we attempt to do. He does not use the title often, however. In fact, aside from his prequel-era appearances, the title should barely be used as it is not used IU. And the books are indisputably canon. The only time their "weight" comes into question is when they conflict with the movies. Which they dont. Atarumaster88 20px ^{(Talk page)} 20:12, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah, Atarumaster, always the calming figure here. Thank you for that, my friend. In any case, I never said that he should NEVER be called Sidious in the classic era, but it should be used appropriately. I even offered some approapriate times. Anyone who looks at my posts above will see that. But the canon makes it clear that in general, he is known as Palpatine, nothing else, and only those few in the know would call him otherwise. Vader, Amedda, Pestage, a few others. But only those. Erik Pflueger 20px 20:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Palpatine is only called Palpatine in the classic era, SithLord990205. Technically, you should have been blocked for breaking the three-revert rule. You have been warned, so if you do it again, you will be blocked. Don't bother complaining any further. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20px 20:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Sithlord36536386, we all understand your point. It's not too bad a point. However, it is clear that nobody agrees with it, so therefore you are in a minority. Any more posts only serve to take up more space. -- 40pxdmirableAckbar ^{(It's A Trap!)} 20:23, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- - - When those of us that do attempt to use his Sith name where it is appropriate try to do so, we are docked for it and threatened with being blocked and have insults such as "vandalism" thrown as us. If it is granted that his name can be used as such, then I'd like to know why someone such as myself is crticized for doing so and threatened with being blocked? Using his Sith title is not by any means "vandalism." And yes, the books are canon, but the movies can override them, and in the movies he was called "Sidious" when the occasion arose that it was proper, and it was established in the prequels that he was known as Darth Sidious by his minions, even if Sidious didn't use the name himself. And minority or not, I'm sure there are many out there that feel the same way I do, and those of you that refuse to see this point just run them over. And don't worry about me posting on any of the pages again b/c it's obvious that it's only a good-old-boys system and not free-to-contribute page so many make it out to be. I have violated no rules in fact, as some are trying to portray it as (which is a lie). If anyone has violated rules, it is those that try to silence others with new ideas.(SithLord990205 20:24, 8 August 2007 (UTC))
Palpatine is not called Sidious at all in the original trilogy. Give it a rest already. You're not going to win this. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20px 20:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
The threat of being blocked was due to your violation of WP:3RR and toeing the line of WP:NPA. It's perfectly acceptable to propose and change things on the Wookiee, provided that it it's canon and within policy. Atarumaster88 20px ^{(Talk page)} 20:32, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- Absolutely! SithLord's always welcome to propose things, offer up new ideas. We don't just reject them out of hand; in fact, we thrive on them, we need them. The issue is that from the beginning, the specific proposer of this new idea - which really isn't THAT new - adopted a bad attitude, blaming others, calling them conspirators in a "good-old-boy" network, incompetent, lazy and ignorant. THAT violates established rules of conduct, as Ataru would - and has - told you. Rather than make any adjustments to the way this proposer acted when called on it, he continued to maintain the same aggressive and insulting tone of voice and anyone who called him on it was the one being un-civil. And no matter how much evidence to the contrary he read or heard, he just stubbornly dug his heels in and made things worse. He has only to try again, from scratch, with a nice attitude when he wants to propose the next new idea, and I promise we'll give him a good listen and a well-considered answer. If it works, we'll be glad to adopt it. That's how we are. We're professionals; he only needs to act as one himself. Erik Pflueger 20px 21:09, 8 August 2007 (UTC)