Talk: Palpatine/Legends/Archive2

Back to page |
< Talk:Palpatine/Legends

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

Senator/Supreme Chancellor/Emperor Palpatine.... Grrr!!!

Palpatine is NOT known as Senator/Supreme Chancellor/Emperor Palpatine. Why do you insist on doing this, Jack Nebulax? We simply refer to him as Emperor Palpatine. Especially since the first sentence already indicates that he was the Supreme Chancellor and the Emperor, and the article refers to him as a senator later.

Example: Grand Admiral Thrawn. Not Captain/Admiral/Grand Admiral Thrawn. Another example: President Bush. Not Governor/President Bush. etc etc. --Azizlight 12:20, 14 Aug 2005 (UTC)

  • I would prefer just "Palpatine", but of these two options, "Emperor Palpatine" is certainly better. - Sikon 12:37, 14 Aug 2005 (UTC)
    • Of course he's not known as "Senator/Supreme Chancellor/Emperor Palpatine". But those were his three titles, and he wasn't known as "Emperor Palpatine" when he was a Senator or Supreme Chancellor. That's why I keep putting those other titles in. It's the way it should be. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 13:55, 14 Aug 2005 (UTC)
      • Yes, but Emperor Palpatine was the highest "rank" he achieved, and that's what we go with here. --Imp 14:34, 14 Aug 2005 (UTC)
        • For Sith sake, someone's done it again --Azizlight 01:02, 17 Aug 2005 (UTC)
          • It's not me, that's for sure. I was the one that got rid of the "Senator/Chancellor" part the first time. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 12:13, 17 Aug 2005 (UTC)
            • Haha yeah that one wasn't directed at you Jack :-) Princess/Senator/Chief Of State Leia Skywalker Organa Solo? Anyone? ;-) --Azizlight 12:19, 17 Aug 2005 (UTC)
              • Glad to see that someone believes me. I'm trying to think of the last person was to edit the Palpatine page before I got rid of the Senator/Chancellor part. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 12:22, 17 Aug 2005 (UTC)
                • I agree with Azizlight. It should be just Emperor Palpatine. KFan II 15:47, 23 Aug 2005 (UTC)
                  • I also agree. And Darth/Senator/Supreme Chancellor/Emperor Palpatine/Sidious would be more accurate.

Lord Darth Sidious... another fanboy wonkery?

Isn't the title Lord Darth Sidious a little redundant? I think there's really no need for it. Where do people ever refer to him as Lord Darth Sidious anyway? It's either Lord Sidious or Darth Sidious. Anyway, I thought Darth was short for Dark Lord of the Sith, in which case the title becomes Lord Dark Lord of the Sith Sidious. Just a thought... --Azizlight 02:26, 18 Aug 2005 (UTC)

  • We actually have no idea what Darth means. And while it is PRESUMED Darth is a shortened form of Dark Lord of the Sith, we don't know. And Darth Vader was often styled Lord Darth Vader. I say we make it either Lord Darth Sidious, or Darth Sidious, Dark Lord of the Sith. --User:SFH
  • Just looking through the New Essential Guide to Characters, and none of the Sith lords are ever referred to as Lord Darth Whatever. Most of the time they are just Darth Whatever. However the first mention of Vader is Darth Vader, Dark Lord of the Sith, which i think is more accurate than Lord Darth Vader. But if someone can prove me wrong with a source, then please do so. --Azizlight 02:57, 18 Aug 2005 (UTC)
    • They call Darth Vader "Lord Darth Vader" in the Essential Guide to Alien Species. KFan II 16:00, 23 Aug 2005 (UTC)
    • That "Darth" stands for "Dark Lord of the Sith" is a fan speculation. I agree, though, that "Lord Darth" is redundant. After all, the title Darth only precedes the names of Sith Lords. - Sikon 03:04, 18 Aug 2005 (UTC)
      • Cool, i didn't know that "Darth" = "Dark Lord of the Sith" was also a fanboy wonkery, so thanks :-) --Azizlight 03:27, 18 Aug 2005 (UTC)
      • KFanII is the one who keeps putting it in, purely based on an offhand reference to Darth Vader as Lord Darth Vader in Essential Guide to Alien Species. 'Course he doesn't seem to be able to explain why this applies to Palpatine, nor does is he willing to entertain the notion that this is a purely Imperial name for Vader, rather than a set-in-stone Sith title. QuentinGeorge 05:52, 18 Aug 2005 (UTC)
        • Regardless, don't put it in the paragraph, as it looks crap. :) QuentinGeorge 05:56, 18 Aug 2005 (UTC)
          • Finally, maybe KFanII will stop putting it in so I can stop taking it out. Plus, the majority of the time, Sith Lords are addressed as either "Darth (name)" or "Lord (name)", but barely ever "Lord Darth (name)". Cmdr. J. Nebulax 11:56, 18 Aug 2005 (UTC)
              • I doubt "Lord" is an Imperial Army designation, as only Darth Vader and Dark Side Adepts recieved the "Lord" thing (i.e. Lord Vader, Lord Hethrir, Blackhole had a "Lord" name too, I forget what it was) Its obviously a Sith title, as in "Dark Lord of the Sith". Lord Darth is not "Lord Dark Lord of the Sith", as we do not know that "Darth" means "Dark Lord of the Sith". KFan II 16:05, 23 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Edit war

I think this edit war with 194.30.198.* should be resolved. Should the (?) be put next to 84 BBY or not? Also, why did 194.30.198.81 replace "himself with Darth Maul" with a single "?"? - Sikon 13:25, 20 Aug 2005 (UTC)

  • According to Lucas, Palpatine during the prequels is no older the McDiarmand. So I suppose that 84 is accurate. But I'm also in an edit war with this user. I keep trying to place the line "Darth Sidious, the greatest Dark Lord of the Sith, was finally dead" at the end of the Palpatine reborn section, but the user keeps removing it, saying it contradicts the whole point of the entire saga. I think the fact Palpatine survived may do that more than a quote, but I think the line is good for effect. Any opinions? User:SFH
    • Put in the line. I'm annoyed (even though there is no emotion...) that we have to discuss virtually every change here. Always there's someone unsatisfied. - Sikon 16:22, 20 Aug 2005 (UTC)
      • Sorry if I ticked you off. However, I think the safest thing with 84 is make it definite. I'm confident enough that he was born then. It's obvious Palpatine never learned Plagueis control over midi-chlorians, so 84 is reasonable. User:SFH

--194.30.198.48 23:53, 20 Aug 2005 (UTC)It seems I'm a troublemaker, huh? Yes, 84 IS reasonable, but we're not SURE about it. It is possible Palpatine was born looooooooooooooong before he wants people to think he was born. The character deserves this ambiguity, and the (?) displays the fact we're not sure about him. It isn't obvious he didn't learn the midi-chlorian tecknique, perhaps he actually created Anakin. Let's leave the ambiguity inherent to these events... The other line I remove to leave open the possibility Palpy was not a Sith in Dark Empire. Anakin Skywalker destroying the Sith and bringing Balance to the Force, remember? I don't SUPPORT he wasn't with removing the line. Not at all. I'm just leaving a window of opportunity for the possibility. I don't see the problem here. The changes are minor, why make an edit WAR?

  • Palpatine was not a Sith in Dark Empire? Why wouldn't he be? People like that don't just renounce the title of Dark Lord of the Sith. Anakin did bring balance to the Force, and it didn't necessarily mean killing Palpatine, but just ending his reign over the galaxy. I think SFH's "Darth Sidious, the greatest Dark Lord of the Sith, was finally dead" line should remain. --Azizlight 00:03, 21 Aug 2005 (UTC)

--194.30.198.48 00:16, 21 Aug 2005 (UTC)I DIDN'T say he wasn't. I just want this opportunity to be open, because I see a terrible contradiction here. Oh, and sorry about the "Himself and Darth Maul" removals, my bad...

  • Sith Lords do not simply abdicate. And Palpatine DIDN'T know the midi-chlorian trick. He said as much in Episode III, saying Plagueis took it to his grave, and he told Anakin that they would discover the secret together. It also says that on the Plagueis article. User:SFH

--194.30.198.48 00:45, 21 Aug 2005 (UTC)Exactly. Palpatine said it. That's why we can assume he knew the trick. Palpatine lies a lot, and surely he wouldn't admit that he knew it if he did. How else would he ensnare Anakin? Ambiguity once again. There's nothing certain about this character. And again, I repeat, I DON'T WANT TO SUPPORT PALPATINE WASN'T A SITH IN DARK EMPIRE. I just don't want a "He WAS a Sith" or a "He WASN'T a Sith" phrase. Ambiguity. Why don't we make it "Palpatine, the most evil motherf$#%^&* ever born was finally dead"?

  • The lie that ensared Anakin was that he DID know it. Once he had him, he admitted that he didn't know the secret. Seriously. You *did* watch, ROTS, didn't you? And it's Palpatine's EXISTENCE in Dark Empire that would constitute a continuity error, not whether or not he's Dark Lord of the Sith. QuentinGeorge 00:48, 21 Aug 2005 (UTC)
  • Anon User. Please stop your constant edits. One: The height is correct - see Palpatine's entry in the databank and the NEGTC. The Sidious databank is a diversion so as to throw people off the scent pre ROTS to Sidious identity. Two: The "?"s add nothing to the article. The date is the current correct age for Palpatine. Three: The line "Darth Sidious, Dark Lord of the Sith was finally dead" was fine and contradicts with nothing in Dark Empire, considering Palpatine goes to Korriban, where the dead Sith Lords acknowledge him as one of their number. DON'T revert this article again. QuentinGeorge 00:58, 21 Aug 2005 (UTC)

--194.30.198.48 01:07, 21 Aug 2005 (UTC)You don't listen to me. I just ask for some windows of opportunity to be left open and you say: "NO, THIS WAY!!!". We don't know about the age. Palpatine's age, sure, the fake facade's age, sure, but can we be certain it was the age of the guy behind the mask? No. No = (?). We don't know when he's lying or not. We know nothing about the guy. LET US NOT MAKE CONJECTURES. LET US LEAVE SOME AMBIGUITY. Oh, and in Empire's End, the ghosts don't treat Palpy a lot like a Sith. Okay about the height, though.

  • I think I get what your trying to do. You are trying to preserve the mystic about Palpatine. That's perfectly understandable. In many ways, it's admirable. But there are somethings that just have to be taken as fact. He never renounced his title as Dark Lord of the Sith. He never learned the midi-chlorian trick, or he simply would have used that instead of the clones to keep himself alive. I'm aware Dark Empire was written years before the prequels came out, but the Expanded universe is just as canonical as the movies, though the movies do take precedence. So please, I can see it from your view. Can't you see it from ours? Otherwise, we are all gonna be spending our time reverting each others edits. User:SFH
  • This should end. The consensus is that we don't need the "?" after the dates, and that we keep the line. Any opinions on Palpatine that are different should be in "Behind the Scenes", which they already are. QuentinGeorge 01:36, 21 Aug 2005 (UTC)

--194.30.198.48 02:17, 21 Aug 2005 (UTC)SFH, yes, you understand what I am trying to do. Yes, some things can be taken as fact. Sidious is from Naboo. Fact. Okay. Sidious was born 84 B.B.Y.. It seems to be a fact. But is it? The R.o.t.S. Visual Dictionary says: "Always two they are; not only master and apprentice, but persona and true face. Did the T.P.M. Visual Dictionary that revealed Palpatine's age mention anything about a true face? No. It mentioned the age of the persona. While both could have the same age, it isn't necessarily so. We assume they did, but since we aren't certain, there's a questionmark. And everybody should be happy. I don't see the problem with the questionmark... It could be 84 B.B.Y., it could be something else. I think Palpatine deserves this kind of ambiguity around his birthdate. And I do see it from your point of view. I have already made some compromises. About the line then: For the tenth time: I DON'T SUPPORT THAT PALPATINE RENOUNCED THE SITH. I MERELY DON'T RULE OUT THE POSSIBILITY. That way, I can say he is a Sith in Dark Empire while X can say he isn't. If 99% of people believe he is, then this way we allow X to believe he wasn't without saying, "HE WAS" or, "HE WASN'T". I really don't see your problem. I understand the way you react. "Palpatine renounced the Sith? Nonsense!" But I never said he renounced the Sith. I JUST DIDN'T COMPLETELY RULE OUT THE POSSIBILITY FOR THE SAKE OF ONE LINE THAT EXISTS MERELY FOR EFFECT AND CAN BE CHANGED AS TO HAVING THE SAME EFFECT WITHOUT COMPLETELY RULING OUT THE POSSIBILITY. If we both made a compromise and changed the line somehow? "Emperor Palpatine, the most powerful practitioner of the Dark Side was finally dead"? "Palpatine, the most evil user of the Force was finally dead"?

  • Palpatine wasn't the most powerful, nor was he the most evil. - Sikon 02:34, 21 Aug 2005

--Master Starkeiller 02:43, 21 Aug 2005 (UTC)Well, he defeated Yoda by lifting pods like feathers and was so evil that he was rotting alive, but okay... How about, "Emperor Palpatine, perhaps the most powerful practitioner of the Dark Side was finally dead"? Oh, and sorry for not logging in...

  • Ah, don't worry about the logging in thing. But I think that until we see evidence that he did renounce the the title of Dark Lord of the Sith, he should still be considered as such. Also, I'm comfortable calling Palpatine the most powerful user of the Dark Side. User:SFH

--Master Starkeiller 03:03, 21 Aug 2005 (UTC)But he is! And I agree that he should be considered a Sith Lord for now. But because in D.E. he does not act much or is treated much like a Sith Lord since when it was written, he was not supposed to be, I think we should remove the line. I repeat: Just in case. Just not to rule the possibility out. Not that he is not a Sith. JUST IN CASE.

  • Use "perhaps" if you want, or maybe "one of the most powerful", just not "most powerful" because that's POV. - Sikon 03:33, 21 Aug 2005 (UTC)
  • This is getting ridiculous. Do we want a whole article that says, "Palpatine was a Sith Lord. OR MAYBE HE WASN'T!!!!! He was born on Naboo.... OR MAYBE HE WASN'T!!!!! It is getting incredibly tiresome. QuentinGeorge 04:05, 21 Aug 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree with QuentinGeorge. "Palpatine's species should be marked with a (?), because even though he was said to be Human, he may have actually been some sort of cosmic potato, since there is no source that specifically says that he wasn't one." --Azizlight 09:29, 21 Aug 2005 (UTC)

--Master Starkeiller 13:55, 21 Aug 2005 (UTC)Guys, that's what the character is like. He's a big questionmark, and in the case of his age, he definitely deserves the questionmark. We know Sidious is a Human from Naboo. That's what the Databank says. We don't know ho old he really is though. Perhaps we'll learn in the future that he's a cosmic potato from another Universe, but for now, he deserves the questionmark right next to his age.

  • Starkeiller and I currently have a dialogue going on to try to find some compromises. If you have some suggestions, ideas, or inspirations you recieved during a meditation on the Force, please leave your suggestions at our respective talk pages. All idea's are welcome. Tirads and threats will not recieve an answer. User:SFH

--Master Starkeiller 23:44, 23 Aug 2005 (UTC)Yes, let's all make some compromises... Let's just talk, people. Civilized discussion... Now that the article is locked it might be easier.

  • Well, Palpatine was a Sith, that's for sure, and he never renounced being a Sith Lord. But the problem is not that, the problem is that EU released before the prequel trilogy was usually regard Darth Vader as the only lord of the Sith. What the Sith were was so unknown during that time, that Timothy Zahn even planned to name the Noghri as Sith, but George Lucas vetoed that because he had other plans for the Sith. And Starkeiller, while I understand your position, we must allow ourselves some liberty with facts. After all, Star Wars is a mythology, we can't work with only undeniable facts. We must figure things out as we get the facts and if needed correct past wrong information --Andrelvis 00:06, 25 Aug 2005 (UTC)

--Master Starkeiller 00:27, 25 Aug 2005 (UTC)I can't understand how much it can hurt ruling out the possibility that he renounced the Sith. The mere possibility. It's not like saying, "He did!" or, "He didn't!". It's like leaving the possibility open. In the current version it is actually left open, but me and SFH proposed, "The Emperor, cut off from a host body, was destroyed. Palpatine, once supreme ruler of the galaxy, Darth Sidious, once the greatest Dark Lord of the Sith, was finally dead." and, "Cut off from a host body, Emperor Palpatine, the supreme ruler of the Galactic Empire, was destroyed. Darth Sidious, once the greatest Dark Lord of the Sith, was finally dead.". Do you like them? Which one do you prefer? Their purpose is to be perfectly neutral as to what he was when he died. And about the ambiguity issue, even if we should make conjectures or assumptions, a questionmark and a good dose of ambiguity are certainly needed where we can't be sure. I didn't say we have Palpatine's early life as, "We know nothing about Palpatine's early life.". But adding a questionmark next to some things does justice to the character and is canonically correct. 'Cause all we know about Palpatine could or could not be correct. Stories told by himself, false info he fed the galaxy to hide his true identity and so on. Like saying, "Nothing is certain, all is speculation at this point." and then presenting the details. Presenting the details in a "That's the way it happened FULLSTOP" way just takes away the essence of the character. Again, I can't see how much it hurts saying, "It is possible that..." and then telling Palpy's story.

  • In my dialogue with Starkeiller, he actually convinced me that Palpatine should have that question mark at 84 BBY. There is just so much we do not know about Palpatine. For example: How did his injuries transplant to his clone bodies? In the exact same places? There are just some so much we don't know about his past. And lets just face: He couldn't have killed Plagueis in his sleep. You don't just kill a Sith Lord, no matter how powerful, in their sleep! So, at least until November, when Revenge of the Sith comes out, lets just put the question mark by 84 BBY. User:SFH

--Oh, I agree with all your concerns about Palpatine's past. It IS a big question mark. But we DO know his present/future. And frankly, nobody renounces being a Sith Lord. It is unreasonable, and I can't think of any good reasons for Palpatine to do so...--Andrettin 00:09, 26 Aug 2005 (UTC)

  • That is why Starkeiller and I came up with the wording "Darth Sidious, once the greatest Dark Lord of the Sith, was finally dead". While I believe that Palpatine was still a Sith Lord, the "once" is neutral, in that it acknowledges Palpatine's Sith past, but doesn't specify if he is still one at the time. User:SFH
  • Oh, I see... Yes, I agree with that rewording. Btw, answering Starkeiller's question, I prefer the first one.:)--Andrettin 01:34, 26 Aug 2005 (UTC)
  • George Lucas said that Palpatine was about as old as Ian McDiarmid by AOTC. I don't really see why it needs a question mark if the creator of Star Wars said otherwise. Demented Smiloid 01:07, 26 Aug 2005 (UTC)
  • Could you get a source on that? User:SFH
  • All I know is that it's been confirmed... and didn't you yourself say Lucas confirmed it above? Demented Smiloid 01:17, 26 Aug 2005 (UTC)
  • True, but I've realized that there are too many questions. User:SFH

Even if I see a source for Lucas saying it, what SFH said above is still true... --Master Starkeiller 15:36, 26 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Sidious was the most powerful of the NEW Sith?

To quote The Dark Side Sourcebook from Wizards of the Coast, 2001:

When the Sith finally emerged from a thousand years of watching and waiting, they numbered - in accordance with the tradition set down by Darth Bane - only two. The most powerful of these was Darth Sidious...

I'm a little confused by this sentence. I think it means that Sidious was the most powerful Sith in the 1000 years since Darth Bane. But I think the sentence is poorly worded, because technically it is saying that Sidious was the most powerful Sith out of those that revealed themselves 1000 years after Darth Bane. Thoughts? --Azizlight 09:49, 21 Aug 2005 (UTC)

  • Too vague to be encyclopedic. - Sikon 11:32, 21 Aug 2005 (UTC)
    • I agree with Sikon. Plus, I think Darth Bane was the most powerful Sith in his "new order". Note: The last sentence was just a random thought. I do no twant anyone to argue over it. KFan II 16:11, 23 Aug 2005 (UTC)

--Master Starkeiller 23:47, 23 Aug 2005 (UTC)It's all percpective. I believe Palpatine was the most powerful Force-user to have ever existed. Mister X may believe he was the weakest. None of us is right.

Locked? Protected?

This is ridiculous! Why can't I edit the page? What's going on? Can't I have a different opinion? I know this is a result of the edit wars, but this thing is outrageous! Okay, I edited the page a lot. We discussed about it, we were on a path of agreement on some matters and now, paf, "No, it's NOT going to be your way, shut up!". Please unlock it. We will keep discussing it and reach an agreement, I am sure.

  • It's with mine, too. It's probally meant like that for every user to stop the edit war on the article. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 14:06, 21 Aug 2005 (UTC)

--Master Starkeiller 14:10, 21 Aug 2005 (UTC)Yes, but this is Wiki. It MUST be unlocked. This is Wiki for God's sake!

  • Well, if people will keep messing up the article, then it should stay locked in my opinion. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 14:13, 21 Aug 2005 (UTC)

--Master Starkeiller 14:17, 21 Aug 2005 (UTC)And who CAN edit it, anyway? The grand dictator that is always right?

  • It cant be editted by anyone until the admins unlock it AFAIK Durnar 14:18, 21 Aug 2005 (UTC)

--Master Starkeiller 14:21, 21 Aug 2005 (UTC)But that's not a Wiki anymore... If nobody can edit it...

  • Good lord man, theyve frozen one page because of a useless edit war thats going on, and it will be unfrozen when its decided on this very talk page ehat to do with it. Its not the end of the world. Durnar 14:23, 21 Aug 2005 (UTC)

--Master Starkeiller 14:25, 21 Aug 2005 (UTC)Let's decide it, then!

  • Calm down! First of all, it's not for you to decide. That's the administrator's decission. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 14:26, 21 Aug 2005 (UTC)

--Master Starkeiller 14:29, 21 Aug 2005 (UTC)I am calm, it's just that I'm getting paranoid about that questionmark! I'm getting mad! Who is the administrator?

--Master Starkeiller 14:33, 21 Aug 2005 (UTC)Thanks. Now, let's resolve all disputes, shall we?

      • Unlock the page! This is proposterous! I mean, Main Page is not protected! Why should Palpatine be? Pretty soon they'll be locking up all the pages! KFan II 16:08, 23 Aug 2005 (UTC)
      • Good lord! Its all been explained perfectly clearly. This page is in the middle of an edit war, which is useless. Its staying locked until its decided how things should be (probably in a poll). Durnar 16:09, 23 Aug 2005 (UTC)
  • This page is locked only because consensus could not be reached on a certain issue and the page had to be reverted over 5 times. I advise that an edit war begins after 3 reverts, and so my locking of the page is justified. But as said already, this isn't the end of the world, there are over 10,500 other articles not protected that you can contribute to. -- Riffsyphon1024 19:04, 23 Aug 2005 (UTC)
    • Well said, Riffsyphon. I agree with you. If this article is to be continuely editted for only one thing, then it should be locked. Starkeiller, there is no need to be outraged. Once the edit war is resolved, it should be unlocked. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 20:45, 23 Aug 2005 (UTC)

--Master Starkeiller 22:29, 23 Aug 2005 (UTC)I'm not outraged. I'm calm. But I don't think a poll would be a good way to solve the dispute. I think what's canon and what's not has nothing to do with opinions. I propose we keep discussing it until we find a solution that satisfies EVERYONE. Then it can be unlocked. I believe in the power of discussion. So, tell me, why do you think the questionmark isn't needed? Then I'll tell you why I think it is.

I have a suggestion. As this page is locked and only admin can unlock it, then why not post any suggested changes here, and let the adminguy add them if he agrees with them. That way perhaps we could get Palpatine's list of appearances added to or something. My first suggestion is to add the short story In His Image to Palpatine's appearances 20:22, 24 Aug 2005 (UTC)

--Master Starkeiller 22:11, 24 Aug 2005 (UTC)I don't agree that the article should remain locked and add suggestions here. We will discuss, then it will be unlocked and we will contribute to it. The only thing the admin has to do is unlock it when the time comes. I agree about the Republic / Senate thing, though.

  • I have implemented both of the requested edits. Starkeiller, the article won't be locked forever. I think the suggestion was just so that uncontroversial additions could be made until consensus is reached. – Aidje talk 22:55, 24 Aug 2005 (UTC)
    • Thank you very much, Aidje. I have done that many times, and after each time, someone tends to put it back the other way. Hopefully, it will now remain that way. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 23:24, 24 Aug 2005 (UTC)

--Master Starkeiller 00:01, 25 Aug 2005 (UTC)Okay then, we could do that. That means more discussion anyway! Did I mention discussion can solve most problems?

  • Calm down, Starkeiller. You're starting to sound very frantic here. Plus, the article is being edited still as we put suggestions in. So don't worry. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 13:48, 25 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Yeah Aidje was right, i wasn't saying it _should_ remain locked, just that while it is then there was a way we could still get uncontoversial things added. And thanks everyone for taking my suggestion on board! Emtrey 14:28, 25 Aug 2005 (UTC)

  • We are still discussing it. It's on the Edit War section above. User:SFH

Why do I give people the impression I'm not calm? I'm veeeeeeeeeeeeeery calm... I don't know why people don't think I'm calm... Anyway, come up in the Edit War section to discuss it with us... --Master Starkeiller 15:34, 26 Aug 2005 (UTC)

84 BBY

  • I think it is time for a vote on whether or not we should put a question mark after 84 BBY. Since a compromise on the Darth Sidious issue has been found, if this is voted on, we can unlock the page and end the Great Edit War. Anyone who votes on this here by agrees to respect the decision, no matter what the outcome. I suppose I'll go first. I vote for putting a question mark after 84 BBY. -- SFH 23:52, 26 Aug 2005 (UTC)

But a vote is not the way to solve this, no! Vote will be based on personal opinion! Canon and a certain characteristic of a fictional character (in this case, mystery) have nothing to do with opinion. No, I don't believe the Edit War should be resolved with voting, 'cause we're a couple of people here, with different opinions, and as I said, they're just opinions. There was a vote on StarWars.com about Palpatine's face. Was it injury or was it his true face? Most people said it was both, but that's just the opinion of most visitors of the site and it means nothing. Officially, there is an ambiguity about the matter, even though most evidence seems to point out it's his true face. Some sources even explicitly state so, while some others mention injury. Or the vote on if Palpy let Mace win... Even though from the movie it is clear Palpatine had it all planned, that doesn't rule out the possibility it wasn't. In fact, most people voted it wasn't, if only with an insignificant difference, it was something like 49% - 51%. Officially, we don't know. The same with Palpatine's age. He looks old in his deformed appearance in R.o.t.S.. OLD. He's full of wrinkles. He's got more wrinkles than my grandmother who's gonna be 90 next year. His clones in D.E. are genetically tampered with to AGE FASTER, causing him to look eventually just as he did in R.o.t.S.. In Empire's End, when his clone body is in its 60-70-year old configuration, he looks roughly as Ian McDiarmid normally looks now with some extra Dark Side deformity. His R.o.t.S.-looking configuration is his clone body 100+. But someone could point out evidence that he's in his sixties in R.o.t.S.. Okay. But are we sure he's in his sixties? No. Just as we aren't sure he's in his nineties. Just as we're not sure he's older than Yoda. Just as we're not sure he's an Aztec god that escaped to the Star Wars galaxy and entered the body of Palpatine from Naboo. Just as we're not sure he's a potato from another dimension. Just as we're not sure he isn't Cindy Crawford in disguise. We're not sure about anything is my point. Some evidence and some ambigious official word easily interpreted in many different ways is all we got. That's why I believe this questionmark belongs there. 'Cause it belongs. That's not just a personal opinion. It's what can be or cannot be canon. That's what the character actually IS. Just tell me... Who of you enjoys watching R.o.t.J., watching Ian in the best performance ever in a Star Wars film when he has read in an encyclopeadia online that he's 88-years old at the time? "Hey, that's an 88-year old guy!". No. I think he might be a ancient evil entity from the beginning of time, a thousand-year old malicious spirit, or just a boy from Naboo that kids treated badly, had no friends, and the good-looking guys always stole his girlfriend. Try it. Try seeing that guy as a big questionmark, and suddenly he has meaning. That's how he became my favorite character. If was alive back then, I'd think, "Ah, I miss the R.o.t.J. days when we knew nothing about Palpy...". And from the newest film, we still have the opportunity to know nothing about him. The character isn't yet destroyed. He's still one big questionmark, and saying he's a big questionmark born 84 B.B.Y. makes him just another guy, not a questionmark. I'm reading that book, Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince --even if you don't like such books, it's worth for that marvelous deluxe edition!--. It's got that villain, Voldemort, whose name people are afraid to say and is supposed to be inhumanly evil, and (PEOPLE WHO WOULD LIKE TO AVOID SPOILERS ABOUT A CERTAIN BEST-SELLING BOOK CALLED Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince SHOULD STAY AWAY...)

they're showing Harry Voldemort's past, his problematic, actually non-existant family, his childhood as a kid with no friends in an orphanage, his grandfather and uncle who were mad, and so on, to humanize him so they can find his weaknesses. Do you imagine the same thing happening to Palpatine? He'd be just a normal human being. As Ian McDiarmid said in an interview, we can assume from Episode III that he's a patron of the arts, and that's his only weakness, the only human thing about him. M.r. and M.s. Palpatine and their lovely son can stay in fanfics...

(PEOPLE WHO WOULD LIKE TO AVOID SPOILERS ABOUT A CERTAIN BEST-SELLING BOOK CALLED Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince SHOULD COME BACK...) So it's not just opinion here. It's the entire very ESSENCE of the character. --Master Starkeiller 01:51, 27 Aug 2005 (UTC)

  • But failing that Starkeiller, were having a vote on it.And I say leave it as just 84BBY until we et an official source saying otherwise. Durnar 11:47, 27 Aug 2005 (UTC)
  • Failing what? Did you read what I wrote? It is big, I admit it... It has nothing to do with votes! Votes are just ways to express opinions, and this has nothing to do with opinions! Did the votes on StarWars.com decide whether Palpy's true face was the deformed one or if Mace actually defeated him? No, they just gathered some opinions. Just because, say, 51% of some of the site's visitors thought that Mace won, it doesn't mean Mace won. If, say, 49% of some of the site's visitors thought he didn't, it doesn't mean he didn't. Here, a couple of people, say ten, are going to express their opinions. So what? This is an encyclopeadia, it has nothing to do with opinions, nothing to do with votes. --Master Starkeiller 14:12, 27 Aug 2005 (UTC)
  • They are opinions on what should be cannon. -- SFH 19:19, 27 Aug 2005 (UTC)
  • Exactly. That's why we must not base wheter we'll have a questionmark there or not on opinions. There are so many unanswered questions about his past. Add some sources stating a birthdate of 84 B.B.Y. = 84 B.B.Y. (?). I'm not asking to have a plain questionmark there, but a questionmark next to a date. I figured everyone would be happy that way. I don't get it why they're not. I'm not asking for the most radical of changes, just a taste of ambiguity to preserve the spirit of the character. Opinions about what should be canon are still nothing more than opinions. I think we should keep discussing it until we find a compromise, NOT vote. We found a compromise with the "finally dead" issue solely through discussion, without voting. --Master Starkeiller 20:02, 27 Aug 2005 (UTC)
  • We will vote, and it will be a majority vote to determine what is placed in the article. I'll set up the sections for you. -- Riffsyphon1024 23:31, 27 Aug 2005 (UTC)
  • Why don't you listen ( or read or whatever) to me? Voting is not the way to solve this... Opinions don't mean anything here... Voting doesn't solve all problems, only those that have to do with opinion... Even if the majority of Star Wars fans could vote, it still wouldn't mean anything... Now a handful of people will vote, so what? --Master Starkeiller 00:06, 28 Aug 2005 (UTC)
    • A vote fairly determines how many people are for or against a certain measure on this site. If you are outvoted, learn to take defeat for once. -- Riffsyphon1024 00:04, 28 Aug 2005 (UTC)
  • But this is an encyclopaedia! People come here for information, not to see the opinions of a couple of fans! And all you people that vote... You didn't answer my invitation to discuss it. You just wanted to remain silent and vote to end the subject... None of you came to discuss it with me... --Master Starkeiller 00:06, 28 Aug 2005 (UTC)
    • What's all that 7.5 screens worth of text above, if not discussion? — Silly Dan 12:53, 28 Aug 2005 (UTC)
      • It seems we need more, then... We are not in a hurry, are we? --Master Starkeiller 00:27, 29 Aug 2005 (UTC)
        • How much more do you propose? -- Riffsyphon1024 00:33, 29 Aug 2005 (UTC)
          • Until we find a solution that satisfies everyone. Until everyone is happy. Then, we can unlock the page. --Master Starkeiller 01:05, 29 Aug 2005 (UTC)
            • Well apparently everyone is happy except for you. -- Riffsyphon1024 01:07, 29 Aug 2005 (UTC)
              • In here. And still, I'm not alone. Why don't we spread this out of the Wiki, find out what Star Wars fans feel about the issue on a bigger scale? --Master Starkeiller 01:09, 29 Aug 2005 (UTC)
                • Why can't you just be happy with it left at an official figure, given in an official source, without the question mark? Later, if something else contradicts this (unlikely considering that continuity errors are better avoided now) we can change it. -- Riffsyphon1024 01:14, 29 Aug 2005 (UTC)
                  • Because from the source we have, we can't be sure about it. It was published before R.o.t.S. when Sid and Palp were two different people in published sources. Who knows how much there is in Palpy's past we don't --and shouldn't-- know? I say we spread this out of the Wiki and get some more opinions. --Master Starkeiller 01:26, 29 Aug 2005 (UTC)
                • Fine, I'll bite. JMM's Star Wars Chronology says 82 BBY, citing the Ep. I Insider's Guide, as does Time Tales. Is there a newer number? If so, I'm changing my vote. — Silly Dan 01:21, 29 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Vote on Question mark after 84 BBY

The question for the vote is: do you think we should include a question mark after the year 84 BBY, the alleged birthdate of Palpatine, yes or no?

  • Please sign in if you wish to vote. Anonymous users cannot participate in votes. – Aidje talk 12:45, 29 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Yes

  1. Okay, I'll add my vote... Tatataratataaaa... Now that we seem to be getting closer to a solution through means other than voting... --Master Starkeiller 14:24, 30 Aug 2005 (UTC)
  2. SFH 00:22, 28 Aug 2005 (UTC)
  3. --McEwok 20:14, 29 Aug 2005 (UTC) Yes. While I suspect that the date is correct, there's no guarantee. I'd also be in favour a compromise such as adding "according to Old Republic records", and perhaps a Behind the Scenes note that it's not clear how accurate supposed facts of Palpatine's life are for Sidious...
    • According to Old Republic records would be the best thing to do. Awesome idea, McEwok. --Master Starkeiller 00:55, 30 Aug 2005 (UTC)
  4. Shouldn't be a vote...Y-E-S! --OB1KNOB 21:18, 29 Aug 2005 (UTC)
  5. --Yyyshlik 21:12, 29 Aug 2005 (UTC)
  6. --JuanSolo 21:05, 29 Aug 2005 (UTC) There shouldn't be a vote for that! It's obvious that Question Mark is NECESSARY...
  7. --Master Urkanoid 14:19, 29 Aug 2005 (UTC)Yep definitely, absolutely, no doubt about it whatsoever! I mean it's obvious, right?
  8. YES, DEFINITELY.--Koumbari Vrouves 08:50, 29 Aug 2005 (UTC)
  9. On the one hand, 213.5.21.187, now Gianakin, also voted yes on 12:01, 29 Aug 2005, and this vote was somehow lost. On the other, I've changed my vote - see below. — Silly Dan 02:44, 30 Aug 2005 (UTC)
    • The mystery of the lost vote... Gianakin m'boy, you seem to have lost your vote...
      • According to Wikipedia, this is not sockpuppetry, but rather meatpuppetry. See [1]. Abiding by the rules which we here have adopted as our own, these new members cannot be eligible to vote based on the fact that they came simply because of this vote. They must be Wookieepedians, contributing information, before being able to fully do so. -- Riffsyphon1024 05:19, 30 Aug 2005 (UTC)
        • These people are here to contribute information, at least some of them. Gianakin tells me he already has. --Master Starkeiller 14:13, 30 Aug 2005 (UTC)
          • These new members cannot be eligible to vote based on the fact that they came simply because of this vote. Doesn't matter what they did afterwards. Kuralyov 14:32, 30 Aug 2005 (UTC)
            • The first thing they did was to vote. They came here to vote, not SIMPLY BECAUSE OF THE VOTE. They came here to contribute, starting with this vote. --Master Starkeiller 15:08, 30 Aug 2005 (UTC)
              • But if the reason you asked them here was so that they could vote, and then maybe contribute, their vote doesn't count. MarcK 15:12, 30 Aug 2005 (UTC)
                • This is getting disgusting. Now it's my fault I'm bringing people to the Wiki. I've been accused of all kinds of nasty things. I've argued with people... I've started this entire edit war... &%$# the vote. Check the end of the page. QuentinGeorge has an idea. He's right. This is getting out of hand. We failed through discussion, through voting... Let's try something else, o.k.? --Master Starkeiller 15:18, 30 Aug 2005 (UTC)
                • Jasca Ducato 16:46, 8 Sep 2005 (UTC)

No

  1. Riffsyphon1024 23:31, 27 Aug 2005 (UTC)
  2. QuentinGeorge 23:35, 27 Aug 2005 (UTC)
  3. Demented Smiloid 23:43, 27 Aug 2005 (UTC)
  4. Kuralyov 00:06, 28 Aug 2005 (UTC)
  5. Durnar 08:38, 28 Aug 2005 (UTC)
  6. Rhysode 10:33, 28 Aug 2005 (UTC)
  7. MarcK 10:54, 28 Aug 2005 (UTC)
  8. Neomessiah 11:10, 28 Aug 2005 (UTC)
  9. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 14:13, 28 Aug 2005 (UTC)
  10. Darth Culator 21:02, 28 Aug 2005 (UTC)
  11. – Aidje talk 04:06, 29 Aug 2005 (UTC)
  12. If Lucas said "about as old as McDiarmid", I suppose we might be off one or two years. Star Wars Timeline Gold says 82 BBY, though they may be wrong. Actually, "c. 84 BBY" might be better, as we know that's his approximate age. Any guesses about him really being decades older than that, or being a prematurely aged clone during the prequels, is fanon. — Silly Dan 12:59, 28 Aug 2005 (UTC)
    • I wouldn't be against putting c. 84 BBY, by the way (since we've used it elsewhere), but that's an entirely different question. QuentinGeorge 06:06, 29 Aug 2005 (UTC)
      • I see what you mean. I change my vote to no, though I'd like someone to post the text in the Ep. I Insider's Guide which leads us to say 84 rather than 82. — Silly Dan 02:47, 30 Aug 2005 (UTC)
        • Yeah, I'd like to see that, too. I searched mine, but I didn't find it. Perhaps the mention was ommitted in the Greek version. --Master Starkeiller 02:56, 30 Aug 2005 (UTC)
        • I can also find no mention of Palpy's date of birth in my version of the Visual Dictionary. Is it on Palpatine's page, or somewhere else? --Azizlight 03:06, 30 Aug 2005 (UTC)
          • And now that I think of it, Greek translations of the Visual Dictionaries are always close to perfection. They would never miss such a thing. Please point us to where the mention can be found, someone... --Master Starkeiller 03:16, 30 Aug 2005 (UTC)
  13. LtNOWIS 05:33, 30 Aug 2005 (UTC)
  14. No Pure silliness.--Eion 13:54, 1 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  15. Azizlight 02:09, 4 Sep 2005 (UTC). Episode I Insider's Guide says his age, and no other official source contradicts that age. What GL said in an interview is way too vague and ambiguous to be encyclopedic.

This vote is a joke, and Star Wars Wiki risks becoming a FANON ENCYCLOPEDIA

Really, a vote has no place here. If there is an official source that can give us a definitive answer to his date of birth, then by all means include it, and provide a reference. Otherwise, his birthdate is unknown. You can't just speculate on something and then justify your reasoning simply by placing a question mark after it.--Azizlight 09:27, 28 Aug 2005 (UTC)

  • Well, the majority ae supporting that we dont need the question mark seeing as we do have a source in TPM Visual Dictionary. And its hardly making it fanon to include a questionmark. Durnar 09:40, 28 Aug 2005 (UTC)
    • The date is official, there is no question of that. The vote is purely on whether to use the question mark or not, since certain individuals believe that pre-ROTS information on Palpatine is not trustworthy. QuentinGeorge 09:52, 28 Aug 2005 (UTC)
      • Ah ok. Sorry, I should have read into it a little more before starting a section with a controversial heading. May i withdraw my last statement? :-) --Azizlight 09:59, 28 Aug 2005 (UTC)
        • No problem. Things are getting a little heated over this topic....and such a small part of the article, too. QuentinGeorge 10:26, 28 Aug 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, isn't it funny? I think the same thing about Wiki risking to become a fanon encyclopedia. That's why I try to squeeze in as many questionmarks as I can... --Master Starkeiller

00:33, 29 Aug 2005 (UTC)

    • Bunging in a question mark does nothing to allievate the fanon problem. If a date is official, it's official, and hence doesn't need a question mark. If it isn't official, it's not needed at all. QuentinGeorge 06:07, 29 Aug 2005 (UTC)
      • Why do you seem to ignore the case WE AREN'T SURE? It isn't that rare... --Master Starkeiller 13:35, 29 Aug 2005 (UTC)
      • When we arent sure (generally for birth dates where we have no number at all), we put a ? in. But we HAVE a date for Palpatine that has never been contradicted, so to me thats grounds to be sure. Durnar 14:40, 29 Aug 2005 (UTC)
        • For Palpy, yes. For Sidious, no. Back in 1999, these two were treated separately, and if Palpy was a million years old, he wouldn't want that in public records, would he? I kind of think the two shouldn't be merged like they aren't in the Databank. --Master Starkeiller 14:49, 29 Aug 2005 (UTC)
  • Am I the only one who finds it a trifle odd that all those users are suddenly popping out of nowhere and voting Yes on the vote? Even stranger, their comments are virtually the same... I'm not pointing any fingers, but just felt like noting this down. Heck, maybe a lot of people just like the question mark. Demented Smiloid 21:34, 29 Aug 2005 (UTC)
    • Five users, whose ONLY contribution EVER was to vote "yes," hmm? Call me paranoid, but my Force Sense is screaming "Sock Puppets!" -- Darth Culator 22:08, 29 Aug 2005 (UTC)
      • Quite strange, but I'm getting that sense as well. Demented Smiloid 00:43, 30 Aug 2005 (UTC)
        • Guys, it's not me. I'm a good guy. But as I said, I'm spreading this out of the Wiki. New people will be coming aboard. --Master Starkeiller 00:56, 30 Aug 2005 (UTC)
      • I also take offense at that accusation. --SFH 01:00, 30 Aug 2005 (UTC)
        • Be aware that sockpuppeting will get you banned indefinitely, if you are controlling the other users. Even forcing them to agree with you is a form of sockpuppetry. -- Riffsyphon1024 01:02, 30 Aug 2005 (UTC)
          • This poll's got more socks than a washing machine. MarcK 01:18, 30 Aug 2005 (UTC)
            • That reminds me, I gotta move the laundry over now. -- Riffsyphon1024 01:22, 30 Aug 2005 (UTC)
              • Hey guys, chill out! I'm no sock! I'm not forcing anybody! I'm just taking this issue out of the Wiki walls, that's all! This issue's getting bigger. Relax and stop accusing me of these nasty things. Socks! Ha! Sockpuppets! Ha! A Jedi frowns upon these things! --Master Starkeiller 01:38, 30 Aug 2005 (UTC)
  • HEY! You deleted the other people's votes! That's blatantly unfair! These people are my friends, I talked to them, told them about the vote going on and the issue and the sources there are, and they came here to vote! No forcing or anything, just letting them know about it and asking them to join the Wiki. They said the same things because they're new here! That's why they didn't register at first! Chill out! I bring more people to the Wiki and you're accusing me of being a sock? Sure, I accuse you of deleting votes you don't like! Please put the votes back in. --Master Starkeiller 01:43, 30 Aug 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm also going to cry foul on removing them. It says that only those with acounts can vote. So don't you think maybe that people made accounts to lend their voice? Or are there alterior motives for the removal? -- SFH 01:57, 30 Aug 2005 (UTC)
    • They think I forced them to vote. Why should I not think the same about the people who voted no? Now, that is absolutely unfair, put back the votes, please. --Master Starkeiller 02:10, 30 Aug 2005 (UTC)
      • You got what you wanted, but for the people that said no, they are all independent of one another and did not discuss this outside the wiki before voting. You may not have forced your friends to vote with you, but getting them to join just so they could voice their opinion is a little alterior to me. I do hope they can add other things to this Wiki than just opinion. -- Riffsyphon1024 02:17, 30 Aug 2005 (UTC)
  • Thank you for reinstating those votes. And I apologize for the accusation of voter fraud. I just really want this edit war to be over. -- SFH 02:20, 30 Aug 2005 (UTC)
    • Thanks from me, too. Rest assured that I have told them about what they can offer to the Wiki. I hope they will add to it. I will be talking about this to more people and whoever wants to do the same, feel free to do so. I hope we make this vote very big to resolve the Great Questionmark Edit War. --Master Starkeiller 02:28, 30 Aug 2005 (UTC)
      • I thought you didn't want a vote. -- Riffsyphon1024 02:33, 30 Aug 2005 (UTC)
        • Yet you went on with the vote anyway... What could I do? The only thing I can do is take this vote out of the Wiki walls. A vote on a bigger scale is better than a vote between a couple of people. Note that I have not voted yet. --Master Starkeiller 02:35, 30 Aug 2005 (UTC)
  • In my view, if Starkeiller manages to get enough of his socks...sorry, friends, to vote for him on this to tip the scale, and they don't contribute anything else within a week or two, the decision should be overturned. Also, I highly suggest that admins prohibit Starkeiller from attemtpint to bring in any more of his goonies. This sort of thing happened on several articles I was involved in at Wikipedia, and I hate it. It's just as crooked as Florida. Kuralyov 02:37, 30 Aug 2005 (UTC)
    • Goonies? Socks? First, please, be polite. Talking this way about people is what should be prohibited in here. Second, are you suggesting I force people to add something to the Wiki so you can trust them? Tsk, tsk... --Master Starkeiller 02:40, 30 Aug 2005 (UTC)
      • I don't really see the need to be polite to someone who stoops to vote-rigging when they can't force their way. And no, I'm suggetsing that their votes should be discounted since they made their accounts specifically to influence this vote. If they had actually had accounts before this vote, that would be different. Kuralyov 02:46, 30 Aug 2005 (UTC)
        • No matter to who you're talking to, you should always be polite. But I thought I'd let you know that I'm don't stoop to vote-rigging when I can't force my way. As I said, I'm just letting people outside Wiki know about this vote. This particular group of people wasn't familiar with the Wiki, that's why they first needed to register first. I intend to post a thread about the issue in some boards and perhaps we'll find some Wookiepedians. Otherwise, in order to vote, people will have to register. --Master Starkeiller 02:49, 30 Aug 2005 (UTC)
      • Lets just all calm down. I am talking to both Kuralyov and Starkeiler. If we cannot do this in a civil manner, we should simply dissolve this website. People have different opinions, thats what talk pages are for, NOT to make threats to each other. Remember, the Sith were destroyed because they couldn't work together. -- SFH 03:09, 30 Aug 2005 (UTC)
        • Yeah, this seems to get pretty heated up. But hearing talk about socks and goonies makes me furious! I lose control when I hear such accusations, sorry... I really want to be polite, but... Let us be polite, okay? --Master Starkeiller 03:14, 30 Aug 2005 (UTC)

This is getting out of hand....

  • Ok, look at all the discussion over this age thingy...check out the edit history...we seem to be only working on this page....and for the love of K'Kruhk's hat, there's accusation of socks....sheesh...is this really this important? If it's any consolation, I'd accept this solution: bang a "c." in front of the age at the top, and then add "According to Galactic Republic records" at the beginning of his opening paragraph....just, please, no more of the horrible "?"s... QuentinGeorge 06:03, 30 Aug 2005 (UTC)
    • I would be comfortable with that. -- SFH 13:53, 30 Aug 2005 (UTC)
      • Me too. After these dreadful accusations, this page starts looking shameful... Even if I do not like the "c." that much, I love the Old Republic records idea. And if it's for the love of K'Kruhk's Hat (Shouldn't the most important Star Wars character have a page of its own?)... Somebody just please point me to the age mention in the Ep. I Guide. --Master Starkeiller 14:16, 30 Aug 2005 (UTC)
  • So, are we gonna do this? Does everyone agree? Come on, let's see the Visual Guide birthdate source, close this vote, unlock the page, add "Old Republic Records" and "c.", and do something creative for this site! --Master Starkeiller 14:21, 31 Aug 2005 (UTC)
    • Just because this is all you care about doesn't mean that everyone else has been on hold for this whole mess. And the fatc that no admins have agreed to that plan probably means it won't be implemented.Kuralyov 16:54, 31 Aug 2005 (UTC)
      • Or they are still deciding on the idea. I think we should wait until they post a reply. And some of us really do want this unlocked. -- SFH 18:25, 31 Aug 2005 (UTC)
        • Kuralyov, this is not the only thing I care about. Take a look around the Wiki and you will be surprised to see that I have been contributing to it while the Great Questionmark Edit War was going on... I would be contributing much more without the war, though. And I think MOST of us really do want this unlocked, don't we? Let's all, as QuentinGeorge suggested make a compromise. This vote IS a joke after the sock accusations. COMPROMISE, okay? So, any admins around, please take a look at this. It's the best way to solve this after we've heard about socks, and I wouldn't believe anyone wants this disgusting situation to go on, right? We all want this unlocked, right? Let's all make a compromise, right? It's the only way we can stop slaughtering each other in here. We have found a compromise, let's not let it go away. --Master Starkeiller 21:07, 31 Aug 2005 (UTC)
  • It's a 'compromise' that 3 people out of 23 voters have agreed to. And I can't help but think that if the vote had gone your way, you would be crying about how any such compromises would be unfair, biased, etc. Kuralyov 15:36, 1 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • Then help it 'cause I wouldn't. --Master Starkeiller 18:24, 1 Sep 2005 (UTC)
    • Well at least Starkeiller, QuentinGeorge, McEwok and I are trying something, Kuralyov! What the Hell have you contributed to trying to end this debate?...I apologize for my outburst, but this is frustrating, Kuralyov. These talk pages are for civilized discussion, not for you and Starkeiller to throw accusations and diatribes at each other. If this cannot be done civilized, DO NOT POST!
      • The vote is 14 to 3, for crying out loud. Watch yourself. I haven't seen an uncivil comment yet from Kuralyov. This whole debate is ridiculous. As an admin, I should probably just close the vote and declare the result to be no question mark. That would be what would make sense, seeing as that's what the clear majority of Wookieepedians are saying. For some unknown reason, I haven't closed the vote, and neither have either of the other admins. You're lucky for that. Please stop complaining, or we just might do that and end it now. – Aidje talk 21:51, 3 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • I HAVE seen uncivil comments from Kuralyov. The 'cronies' accusation was pretty bad... And he said there was no reason to be polite to me because I bring goonies in here to change the results because I can't bully my opinion. But it doesn't matter as long as we find a solution. We can restore peace to the page! You may close the vote, since we have found a solution and it's actually 82. --Master Starkeiller 22:56, 3 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Here is exactly what the Episode I Insider's Guide says

The Episode I Insider's Guide includes the following facts about Palpatine, presented in a simple table of information. Note that age and height contradict the current info in this Wiki:

  • Homeworld: Naboo
  • Species: Human
  • Age: 50
  • Height: 1.78 meters
  • Affiliation: Galactic Senate
  • Title: Former Senator of Naboo & Current Supreme Chancellor

Information about Darth Sidious includes:

  • Homeworld: Unknown
  • Species: Unknown
  • Age: Unknown
  • Height: 1.78 meters
  • Affiliation: Sith (Master)
  • Weapon of choice: Darth Maul

--Azizlight 15:53, 3 Sep 2005 (UTC)

  • You mean to tell me that everyone told Starkeiller and I that he was born in 84 BBY, and it's not even the right date?...It... we...I... THAT IS IT. Some one unlock the damn page! -- SFH 16:00, 3 Sep 2005 (UTC)
    • We shouldn't extend the vote and lockdown period past a week anyway. Since the vote has swayed towards "no question mark", this information says 82 rather than 84, and no one's raised any serious objection to McEwok's suggestion that we add a BTS note saying "it's not clear how much of Palpatine's background might have been fabricated by Darth Sidious", I propose we do that and archive this talk page. — Silly Dan 16:21, 3 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks, Azizlight! That settles it for me.
By comparison, as Ian McDiarmid was born in August 1944, he was 54 when Episode I was released, 57 when Episode II was released, and 60 when Episode III was released (though he'd have been one or two years younger during filming and casting.)
An 82 BBY birthdate would make him 50, 60, and 63 respectively during the three prequels. Did the 84 BBY birthdate come from Lucas's statement that McDiarmid was about Palpatine's age (i.e. around 52 when filming began)? If so, that doesn't rule out this more precise information from the Insider's Guide. — Silly Dan 16:13, 3 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, the height contradicts his height on the official website Databank. Which one takes precedence? Kuralyov 16:18, 3 Sep 2005 (UTC)
    • Databank's info is probably newer, so I'd say it takes precedence. (If it's a few centimeters off, perhaps Palpatine was just wearing different shoes that day. 8) ) — Silly Dan 16:21, 3 Sep 2005 (UTC)
      • There are some strange inconsistencies with the height. The New Essential Guide to Characters says that Darth Sidious is 1.78 meters, while Palpatine is "1.73 (in Jedi) meters", whatever that means...--Azizlight 16:26, 3 Sep 2005 (UTC)
        • Databank says the same. Perhaps his natural height was 1.78 meters, but he lost two inches of height due to his ROTS injuries and aging by the time he died in ROTJ. Or perhaps he wore lifts as Sidious. — Silly Dan 16:29, 3 Sep 2005 (UTC)
          • I'd say we have him be 1.78 since more sources seem to say so. Even the Databank has Sidious be 1.78. But what is Ian McDiarmid's actual height? If it's 1.78, we have him 1.78, if he's 1.73, we have him 1.73. Or he actually lost height with age, it happens to old people. Well, that's it! According to the Character's Guide, that's what happened! It says, "In Jedi". So we should have it, "1.78 (later 1.73)". But there's a strange thing about Jango's height also. The Ep. III Guide says he's 1.78 while the Databank has him, Jango and the stormtroopers be 1.83. I think Temuera Morrisson is actually 1.78... There's something going on with that number... Oh, and let's unlock the page, change it to 82 B.B.Y. and add the "Old Republic records" thing. Though I have found some interesting evidence I'll post in a minute... --Master Starkeiller 21:35, 3 Sep 2005 (UTC)
        • Yes, by all means, lets unlock the page. -- SFH 21:49, 3 Sep 2005 (UTC)
          • Not just yet guys. Everyone still seems to be a little jumpy. I think we should wait until exactly what we're doing has been decided more clearly, and also until people have calmed down a bit. – Aidje talk 22:01, 3 Sep 2005 (UTC)
            • Yeah, everyone SHOULD definitely calm down. And I'm also posting this new info... --Master Starkeiller 22:04, 3 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • Seems obvious to me that his birthdate is 82 BBY. And I think we should just leave the height the way it is in the Databank. Kuralyov 23:14, 3 Sep 2005 (UTC)
    • What do you other Wookiepedians think about the height? --Master Starkeiller 23:22, 3 Sep 2005 (UTC)
      • This Wookiepedian could care less about the height, but that's just me. I also think we should have the article read "c.82 BBY," at least until Lucas explicitly says something about how old Palps really is, the secret of him being Sidious now confirmed and all. Demented Smiloid 23:35, 3 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • If the admins feel the desire to put a 'c.' in front of the 82 BBY, I think that'd be good, since it's done elsewhere. But theer's no need for some 'according to the records of the Old Republic.' He couldn't have tampered with his records when he was a minor political figure on Naboo, and I'm pretty sure once he was Chancellor that someone would have noticed if his records suddenly changed. Kuralyov 15:21, 4 Sep 2005 (UTC)
    • The records tampering is 100% official, it's from the R.o.t.S. Visual Guide. He HAS tampered with the records. We're going to put something like, "According to Old Republic records, Palpatine was born 82 BBY on Naboo, but everything else about his past, including his ancestry, immediate family members, and upbringing, have mysteriously vanished", which is what the Guide more or less says. --Master Starkeiller 15:51, 4 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Evidence from Ian McDiarmid's interview about the age issue

Yesterday, I read Ian McDiarmid's interview in the Star Wars Insider (actually, I read it in the U.K. Official Star Wars Magazine). It was great, as every interview Ian McDiarmid gives. He actually expressed everything I think about Palpatine. We had the same views on the character, and he's the man who actually portayed him! He said a lot about the ambiguity issue. For example, when asked wether Sidious's seduction of Anakin was easier since Anakin was essentially fatherless, he said:

{removed due to abuse filter}/albums/b153/Starkeiller/FatherQuestion.jpg

"You can make up your own mind what you think fits."

Then they asked him about the transition from Palpatine to Sidious:

{removed due to abuse filter}/albums/b153/Starkeiller/Sid-Palp1.jpg

{removed due to abuse filter}/albums/b153/Starkeiller/Sid-Palp2.jpg

Back then, they were treated as different characters.

And now, the most important part:

{removed due to abuse filter}/albums/b153/Starkeiller/GeorgeApproachAGE.jpg

The Emperor that you see in the last film looks like he does because he's very old and very evil. VERY OLD and very evil. George had this in mind since Episode I. He talked about contact lenses, about the Palpatine we see being fake. So the statement Palpatine was the same age as Ian McDiarmid was just an attempt to confuse us so the Sidious = Palpatine isn't very clear. As if they had grafted his face and put his eyes? Like some kind of surgery or something? To make him look young? VERY OLD and very evil, from the guy who played him... YOUR EYES ARE CONTACT LENSES (as Palpatine) from the creator and director...

And last:

{removed due to abuse filter}/albums/b153/Starkeiller/Intention.jpg

Back and forth... Like in Sithisis... Like a changeling. Back and forth between the true face and the persona...

I think this clearly shows the intention of G.L., the Creatures Department and Ian McDiarmid was = Real face old and evil , Fake face young and good. Is that enough evidence? --Master Starkeiller 23:10, 3 Sep 2005 (UTC)

  • What are you even trying to prove? I think we all agreed that Palpatine was old. Kuralyov 23:14, 3 Sep 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm trying to prove exactly what I said I'm trying to prove: The intention of G.L., the Creatures Department and Ian McDiarmid was = Real face old and evil , Fake face young and good. I came upon the evidence and I thought I had to post it. --Master Starkeiller 23:18, 3 Sep 2005 (UTC)
      • I don't believe anyone was arguing with you on that point, nor that it has any relevance in the current situation. MarcK 00:56, 4 Sep 2005 (UTC)
        • I think the point Master Starkeiller is trying to make is that while Palpy is officially said to be 50 years old during The Phantom Menace, the article above states his true identity is very old, perhaps older than 50, and therefore wants the question mark next to his birthdate. --Azizlight 02:01, 4 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • Before Starkeiller gets too carried away, I'd just like to point out that actor's comments on their characters aren't canon. Otherwise, we'd have to accept that Dooku planned Qui-Gon's death and that Jocasta Nu and Dooku were having an affair. QuentinGeorge 07:40, 4 Sep 2005 (UTC)
    • If not the actors', I am aware the directors' are. This doesn't show the opinion of the actor, it shows the general intention. I'm sure more will be revealed in the D.V.D.. And Azizlight, if nobody else wants a questionmark, I'm fine with an Old Republic records mention --which we know Sidious tampered with. --Master Starkeiller 10:05, 4 Sep 2005 (UTC)
      • We DON'T know that Sidious tampered with his age in the records. That is SPECULATION, fanon. --Azizlight 15:42, 4 Sep 2005 (UTC)
        • We DO. Episode III Visual Guide. He erased immidiate family members records and apparently everything about his past. --Master Starkeiller 15:46, 4 Sep 2005 (UTC)
          • Does it say that he modified his age to be younger than what he actually was? --Azizlight 15:51, 4 Sep 2005 (UTC)
            • No. It says, "Records of Palpatine's ancestry, immediate family members, and upbring on Naboo have mysteriously vanished". Data File page 38. He HAS tampered with the archives, we do know that. We can assume he did the same about his age. "According to Old Republic records, Palpatine was born 82 BBY" covers both cases. He may have been born 82 BBY or he may have changed the age. Both could be right. Is everyone happy that way? --Master Starkeiller 15:56, 4 Sep 2005 (UTC)
            • And there is your key phrase: We can assume. Speculation only, this is.--Azizlight 16:00, 4 Sep 2005 (UTC)
              • Yes, but read the rest of what I wrote. I assume he's older, YOU assume he's younger. Isn't everybody happy? Isn't this the perfect way to end this damn debate? --Master Starkeiller 16:05, 4 Sep 2005 (UTC)
                • I guess it's acceptable. But it's still slightly speculatory. "According to Old Republic records, Palpatine was born 82 BBY". This is still not entirely accurate, because official sources say that Palpatine is 50. Since when was OOU source information based on IU Republic Records anyway? This is something we have made up for the sake of compromise. I know this is being very picky, but just thought i'd point it out. --Azizlight 16:14, 4 Sep 2005 (UTC)
                  • If it is acceptable and restores peace to the article, let's do it. And actually, the source talked about Palpatine, while said "Unknown" for Darth Sidious, so even if we're being very picky, it isn't totally speculatory. --Master Starkeiller 16:36, 4 Sep 2005 (UTC)

If it weren't for the merge...

  • I find it interesting that all of this debate would never have happened if it weren't for the initial merging of Palpatine and Darth Sidious. If they were still separate, then we would be able to put known facts about Palpy in his article, and leave Sidious' vague. – Aidje talk 06:33, 4 Sep 2005 (UTC)
    • I have already pointed out that the merge created all the problem. Why is Palpatine merged with Darth Sidious and Darth Vader isn't merged with Anakin Skywalker? Remember also that even after the "revelation", the two aren't merged in the Databank. --Master Starkeiller 10:10, 4 Sep 2005 (UTC)
      • We're not going through that again. -- Riffsyphon1024 23:39, 4 Sep 2005 (UTC)
        • Indeed, we're going through something even worse. I know that the previous decision stands and that we don't need to do another vote on that. I just find it interesting that this debate would never have happened if we had left them separate. The issues coming up now are the very ones that I foresaw when I voted to keep the articles separate. Anyway, it's a moot point; sorry to bring it up. – Aidje talk 03:16, 5 Sep 2005 (UTC)

McDiarmid said it, not George Lucas

  • According to Starkeiller's article posted above, the whole VERY OLD thing seems to be something that Ian McDiarmid said, not George Lucas. According to this very article, all George said is "In a sense, your eyes are contact lenses". The rest seems to be only McDiarmid's interpretation of that. George Lucas has still never stated, or even implied, that Sidious may be older than what Palpatine appears. Palpatine is OFFICIALLY said to be 50 in The Phantom Menace, and for people to believe that he may have been older is SPECULATION ONLY.--Azizlight 15:33, 4 Sep 2005 (UTC)
    • You know how I see it? Like I see an egg. All evidence points out it is an egg, like the ones we eat for breakfast. And an "Official Source" of some kind comes and tells me, "No, that's no egg, that's a mousepad". Am I supposed to believe the guy? People, just look at the wrinkles! The WRINKLES! --Master Starkeiller 16:03, 4 Sep 2005 (UTC)
      • Give it up, man. Kuralyov 16:21, 4 Sep 2005 (UTC)
        • No please, just look at his neck. Just look at it. As a favor. Here: {removed due to abuse filter}/albums/b153/Starkeiller/MasterandApprentice.jpg.

Look at that neck, man. If not anything else, look at the neck. Is that guy 63 years old? --Master Starkeiller 16:41, 4 Sep 2005 (UTC)

          • He could be a relatively young man with some sort of skin disease or scarring from Force lightning or Dark Side overuse (which is what our article currently says, as backed up by the Databank entries for Palpatine and Sidious.) — Silly Dan 18:19, 4 Sep 2005 (UTC)
            • Dark Side overuse has something to do with his face, his brows and cheeks look unnatural, this was estabilished in Dark Empire. But in Dark Empire, his last clone looked like he did in R.o.t.S. when it had aged to the point he was about to die. It's obvious this guy's old. It's clear to me. Anyway, that's why the "Old Republic records" is great. He COULD be old, he COULD be young. It covers both and is indirectly supported by an official source. Everyone is happy, the page is unlocked, the debate is over and this pages stops growing longer and longer... --Master Starkeiller 19:32, 4 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Ending this mess

Right here, I will finalize what will be inserted into the article. The text is as follows:

  • The c. in front of 82 BBY so that the year is given, but just in case its not entirely right, then noone has a problem with it.
  • The Old Republic records sentence can be added as long as it in a IU perspective and NPOV.
    • I'll add it if you explain what I.U. an perspective is N.P.O.V.. Is, "According to Old Republic records, Palpatine was born 82 BBY on Naboo, but everything else about his past, including his ancestry, immediate family members, and upbringing, have mysteriously vanished" fine? It's perfectly neutral the info is from the Ep. III Visual Guide. Also, we'll have to add it in the 82 BBY page. Is, "According to Old Republic records, Palpatine, on Naboo" under the "Births" category fine? --Master Starkeiller 11:13, 5 Sep 2005 (UTC)
      • IU ==In Universe (i.e., say "During the last days of the Galactic Republic" instead of "During the prequel trilogy"). NPOV== Neutral point of view. — Silly Dan 12:35, 5 Sep 2005 (UTC)
      • Done! --Master Starkeiller 13:41, 5 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • Any comments needed in Behind the Scenes regarding Ian McDiarmid.
  • His height should also be addressed in the BTS section because of conflicting sources, however in the infobox, the most seen height will be used.
    • We could also do the same thing the Essential Guide to Characters Guide does --have both-- since I lately see the 1.78 meters info more and more. --Master Starkeiller 12:06, 5 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • Any other sentences you might have needed to add.
    • Yeah, I have worked a "refined" version of the article with more or longer sentences when it was locked. It'll make the article slightly bigger and will add more detailed info. --Master Starkeiller 11:18, 5 Sep 2005 (UTC)
      • Done. It's slightly longer now. I also made the circumstances of his "Sithing" a little more neutral. --Master Starkeiller 15:44, 5 Sep 2005 (UTC)

I will now unlock this page, but I must see that these rules are followed. -- Riffsyphon1024 03:34, 5 Sep 2005 (UTC)

  • At last! Unlocked! --Master Starkeiller 11:13, 5 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • Praise the Force! Or Yun-Yuuzhan if you prefer. The Great Edit War is over! -- SFH 16:05, 5 Sep 2005 (UTC)
    • Praise Waru and K'khruk's Hat! They combined their powers to end this war! --Master Starkeiller 19:22, 5 Sep 2005 (UTC)

It's great that this page has been unlocked; it's now open to contributions regarding aspects of it not discussed in the talk page...but how will we keep people from adding "Secret de facto leader of the Separatists" or another bogus non-existing title not possesed by anyone else to the succession boxes? I think all the present titles in the boxes are necessary, but anymore would be excessive...

  • Uh, he was the secret de facto leader of the Separatists. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 21:09, 5 Sep 2005 (UTC)
    • The point is 1) "Secret de facto leader" is not an official title and 2) No one else ever held this position, so succession is irrelevant—no one succeeded anybody. – Aidje talk 21:43, 5 Sep 2005 (UTC)
      • That's why we never put the succession box back in for that. There was no need. But, in all truth, he was the secret leader of the CIS. Now you know that's true. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 22:13, 5 Sep 2005 (UTC)
        • Yeah, he was secret de facto leader of the Separatists... I mean, it's obvious, right? "Yeeessssss, Looord Sidiousssssssssssssssssssssss...", you know? Every high-ranking Separatist answers to him and "secret de facto leader" is the best title possible for something like that. It isn't needed in the succession box 'cause it's a secret title and he was the only person to have been secret de facto leader of the Separatists, no preceding, no succession. --Master Starkeiller 12:04, 6 Sep 2005 (UTC)
          • If you leave it entirely out of the article, someone will continue to add it, so it should be placed within the text and made clear that it is not an official title. -- Riffsyphon1024 14:19, 6 Sep 2005 (UTC)