Talk: Palpatine/Legends/Archive3

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

Possible Dark Empire discrepancy retcon...

Did Leland Chee actually provide a reason for this retcon? If Palpatine first died around the same time the Battle of Yavin took place, why does it matter? It doesn't contradict anything in ROTS, so why retcon this? Also, Palpatine discovered the path to immortality AFTER his speech to Anakin (lie or not) in ROTS, while the Jedi Master Ashka Boda was brought before him during the aftermath of Order 66. That explains everything, there is no need for a retcon. It explains why Palpatine was so interested in Vader succeeding him, and then seemingly decides that isn't necessary after he discovers the path to immortality. Palpatine's disfiguration is still ambiguous despite what Pablo Hidalgo or the Databank exclaims, so that doesn't factor into this at all. Besides, Palpatine looked exactly the same as his post-Mace fight self when he is introduced in Dark Empire within a clone body. Explaining away the reason why he looked similar in DE by saying it was due to the degerative affects of the Dark Side ONLY on his new bodies makes no sense. He looked EXACTLY the same, not "similar", proving that his use of Dark Side power still had something to do with the deformation and that no scarring occured. Mr. Tasty Taste is just so fanatically infatuated with retcons, that he can't help but retcon every single piece of EU literature even if these works don't warrant it. What does this retcon accomplish? Why was it made? —Unsigned comment by Exor (talk • contribs)

  • Why does everyone always blame Leland Chee for these continuity decisions? He doesn't make them, he just puts them in the Holocron continuity database after a committee makes the decision. Hell, for all we know, the decision came from George Lucas himself. jSarek 19:55, 10 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Maybe so, but that still doesn't change the fact that we aren't given a reason as to why such a retcon is necessary. Basically, Mr. Chee just said "This is the way it is..." and thats all we get. Anyway, its inclusion into the article is a bit unexplained. As it is now, it's just there. --Exor 01:55, 11 Nov 2005 (UTC)

  • What retcon are you talking about? - Sikon [Talk] 17:49, 11 Nov 2005 (UTC)

The retcon that states Palpatine was lying to Luke in Dark Empire about having died previous to their encounter at Endor. —Unsigned comment by 64.251.53.34 (talk • contribs)

  • Well, I wasn't even aware that Palpatine was supposed to die before Endor. Now I support this retcon. - Sikon [Talk] 16:24, 16 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Palpatine explained to Luke that Endor was not the first time he died, and that he had to transfer his consciousness into a clone body prior to his death in ROTJ due to the Dark Side's degenerative effects claiming his life. Leland Chee responded to this by saying he lied (even though it was stated that his first death occured sometime around ANH in the DE Sourcebook). Why retcon this in the first place, and moreover, why would Palpatine lie about such a thing in the first place? It still doesn't make the least bit of sense. --Exor 03:13, 17 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Seperation between Expanded and Film canon

I feel that expanded universe material in this article specifically _needs_ to be seperated because there are many Star Wars fans out there—myself among them—who believe that much of what the EU has to say about Palpatine's continuing existence after ROTJ is blasphemy. If Palpatine survives ROTJ, then the prequels and Vader's return to the Light Side are completely pointless; knowing how things turn out in the EU makes watching ROTJ completely anti-climactic. I believe that film canon is film canon and overrules all other, so in my opinion Palpatine is definitively destroyed along with the entire Dark Side (as prophesied in the prequels) when Darth Vader dies and Anakin is reborn.

This opinion does not need to be expressed in the article, but I feel that the article doesn't leave any room for that opinion because it makes no seperation between film and EU canon. —qrc

  • What fans think doesn't change the fact that Dark Empire is considered canon by LFL. It's even one of the few EU pieces that Lucas actually likes. Since no other article separates film information form EU information, there's no reason to do it here. Kuralyov 20:37, 6 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • We have already neutralized the Dark Empire part of the article with the, "Darth Sidious, once the greatest Dark Lord of the Sith, was finally dead". It is considered canon, so the best thing we could do is neutralize it more --if this is possible-- or add something Behind the Scenes. --Master Starkeiller 21:04, 6 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • Why seperate anything? Are you suggesting we should have dividers between film canon and EU canon just because some fans don't like Dark Empire? Some fans don't like the EU period, must we have dividers on every page just because of a few opinions? No thank you. Demented Smiloid 21:34, 6 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • This wiki is based on canon alone, not the whims of the fans, and more likely the fanboys. We won't change the chronological layout just because someone doesn't believe in the EU. -- Riffsyphon1024 22:10, 6 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • We should add a section to Star Wars: Dark Empire describing how some fans disliked it.-LtNOWIS 01:44, 7 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • If you want "seperation", then don't read the Palpatine Reborn (10 ABY to 11 ABY) section. It's already seperated into sections anyway - it's quite obvious where the film stuff ends and the EU stuff begins. --Azizlight 11:07, 7 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Endless

Goddamn, does this never end. People, particularly an anon and Starkeiiler are adding and removing the years and the succession box. Starkeiller alone has over 30 edits on this page in the last 3 days. Must I have to reprotect this page? More so, do you need to learn how to use the preview button? -- Riffsyphon1024 18:27, 7 Sep 2005 (UTC)

  • If I have done a mistake, I come back to correct it. That's why I edit so much? Where is the problem with that? Does the number of edits affect anything? --Master Starkeiller 19:19, 7 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Picture

This may be nitpicking, but could we get a picture of Palpatine hooded and cloaked in the character box? I mean, when you think of Emperor Palpatine, what comes to mind: Elderly, grandfather like statesman, or the Dark Lord of the Sith? -- SFH 14:14, 14 Sep 2005 (UTC)

  • But the current image does portray him as both. He is in his Supreme Chancellor clothing, but he has that sneer of evil on his face, and seeing how Episode III was his transitional phase, I think the picture suits his character well. -- Riffsyphon1024 17:58, 14 Sep 2005 (UTC)
    • I suppose you're right. Just a thought. -- SFH 18:20, 14 Sep 2005 (UTC)
      • The current one is nice, but it's not the real Palpy.

Palpy=http://i19.[that bucket with the photos].com/albums/b153/Starkeiller/sidious1024x7688uv.jpg. But it's not a really problem, is it? --Master Starkeiller 18:29, 14 Sep 2005 (UTC)

    • Uh, I was thinking something like Palpatine on Death Star II...and preferably one that didn't get so upclose to his scars. -- SFH 18:37, 14 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • The current main image is terrible by the way, very bad quality and lighting. I much preffered the RotS one we had before. --Azizlight 00:13, 25 Oct 2005 (UTC)
  • I kind of like this one. I always thought we should have a picture of Palpatine hooded and cloaked, but the only acceptable images would have been from Episode VI. And is it just me, or does Palpatine actually look worse in Episode III than in Episode VI? -- SFH 00:39, 25 Oct 2005 (UTC)
    • I like the actual image, i'm just complaining about the quality of that particular image uploaded. And I agree, the Emperor's make-up job in RotJ was far superior to that in RotS. --Azizlight 00:48, 25 Oct 2005 (UTC)
      • Seriously, I think someone should try to take an image from their DVD player, a jpg, and see if they could do any better (and with Palpatine, its hard to tell the quality of the image considering Palpatines skin in the first place isn't in great shape). Redemption
        • Yes I know, and that's why it's better just to stick with the promo pics, at least until we can get a really nice and clean sceenshot from RotJ somehow. --Azizlight 04:31, 25 Oct 2005 (UTC)
          • The R.o.t.S. is superior to the old one by far. It's smooth and realistic. It doesn't fall off in pieces and is nicely put together. The best Sidious pics are the promotional images from the Ep. III bunch where he holds his saber, like the two beneath. File:SIDGOD.jpg|thumb|center|120px thumb|center|120px If anyone can find them without the fan-made backgrounds, they're perfect. --Master Starkeiller 20:05, 25 Oct 2005 (UTC)
  • I can remove the background but I still stand by that it should be a ROTJ image since the ROTS looks more like a mask and isn't his final movie appearance anyway.Redemption
    • Well, the current RotS image should stay, since it has a very good quality. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 22:15, 25 Oct 2005 (UTC)
      • Just because its good quality? What kind of logic is that? Redemption
        • Well, your picture didn't exactly have a good quality. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 22:54, 25 Oct 2005 (UTC)
          • Who cares about my picture?! It doesn't matter whos picture it is as long as its an image of him in his most recent appearance.

File:Palpatine243154.jpg Does this show any improvement? Redemption

            • Let's keep the current one until we find one with better quality and prosthetics that actually blend with Ian's skin. --Master Starkeiller 09:57, 27 Oct 2005 (UTC)
  • Here's a good one from R.o.t.J.:

File:InSidious Smile.jpg|thumb|center But it's neither very good quality nor good enough as the one we have now. --Master Starkeiller 12:39, 27 Oct 2005 (UTC)

  • We had an image of Palpatine smiling on the Death Star II, that i can no longer find on this wiki. It was during Luke and Vader's duel, just after Vader had thrown his saber at Luke. Does anyone remember the picture I'm talking about? If so, I think that would satisfy our lighting problem. -- SFH 21:39, 28 Oct 2005 (UTC)
  • While we're on the subject, take a look at the shot of Palpatine electrocuting Luke. It's awful and just hard to even look at. A better shot with a decent angle would be a vast improvement. - Anon Fan
  • Yeah, it's better. But back to our discussion on the main image. How about this one?

File:Palpshuttle.jpg|thumb|center Is this any better, or is it still too dark? -- SFH 23:25, 17 Nov 2005 (UTC)

  • Then if no one else objects, I'll add it in on Saturday the 19th. That way people will have a chance to see it and form an opinion. -- SFH 00:20, 18 Nov 2005 (UTC)
    • Wow, a strategy on putting up a picture? Cmdr. J. Nebulax 00:36, 18 Nov 2005 (UTC)
  • I just want to give people a chance to speak up, especially in regards to this article. Some people might want to keep the current picture, or put it in a different part of the article (which is what I'm leaning toward). Remeber how intense tempers got during the Great Edit War? -- SFH 00:42, 18 Nov 2005 (UTC)
    • Well, I think that the current picture up there now should be placed somewhere else in the article as well. And don't remind me about the Great Edit War. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 00:47, 18 Nov 2005 (UTC)
  • That's why I'm giving people a chance to speak up. As to the nameless thing, I will never speak of it again. -- SFH 00:51, 18 Nov 2005 (UTC)
  • No. I think we should keep the current one. It would be unwise to throw away a good quality nice pic for a small, dark one. Definitely no. --Master Starkeiller 21:48, 18 Nov 2005 (UTC)
    • We wouldn't throw away the current one; we'd just move it. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 21:51, 18 Nov 2005 (UTC)
  • The Cloaked picture would also be enlarged. I just put it up at this size as a sample. -- SFH 21:57, 18 Nov 2005 (UTC)
    • It's not only that. It's the quality too. The Cloaked pic is inferior to the current one from that aspect. Also, the current one has excelent lighting while in the Cloaked one Palpy's hardly visible. That's why I prefer images from photo shoots. Plus, we have one pic that depicts the same thing in the article already:

File:SidEmp.jpg

Don't get me wrong-o, Palpy looks so... Palp-y there, if we had this image in better quality it would deserve to be the main image. --Master Starkeiller 00:00, 19 Nov 2005 (UTC)

--Master Starkeiller 23:54, 18 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Actually, they are different pictures. In the small one, Palpatine is still decending the shuttle, while in the large one, Palpatine is already off. But they are from the same scene, so that may just be nitpicking. How about this one? File:EmPalsmile.jpg|thumb|center It would be larger than it's current size, and it does solve some lighting problems. I think we already have this image, but I can't seem to find it anywhere on this wiki. -- SFH 00:12, 19 Nov 2005 (UTC)

  • A full-body (or at least showing as much of the body as possible), good-quality picture is what we're after, preferably from a photo shoot. Check Bail Organa and Zam Wesell. That's the kind of main images Wookiepedia should have. The current one is the closest thing we have to that. --Master Starkeiller 00:21, 19 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Like this one? File:Sidsaber.jpg|thumb|center This this one okay? -- SFH 00:32, 19 Nov 2005 (UTC)

  • Actually, that's the one I consider to be the best Palpy picture. But I haven't found it in great quality yet. Only with a fan-made background. --Master Starkeiller 00:37, 19 Nov 2005 (UTC)
  • That's good enough for me. I'm putting it in. -- SFH 00:40, 19 Nov 2005 (UTC)
    • By far, that is the best picture we could have put up there. It shows Palpatine's true nature as a Sith Lord. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 01:11, 19 Nov 2005 (UTC)
    • Can I add my voice to the votes to put this new picture at the top? Yes, it's already been done, but I wanted to say that I love it. It's far more effective. Bravo!

Erik Pflueger 04:50, 19 Nov 2005 (UTC)

      • I agree. If Palpy is something, that's what he is. But I'm not satisfied with the quality. I've started a "crusade" to find that pic in good quality. --Master Starkeiller 10:58, 19 Nov 2005 (UTC)
  • I for one say that we put up an ROTJ picture. The one of Palpatine walking down the landing ramp gets my vote. Kuralyov 16:59, 19 Nov 2005 (UTC)
  • As long as Palpatine is hooded in the main image, I'm okay with it. The saber picture represents him as both Emperor and Dark Lord, while the landing ramp picture represents his mysterious aspect. Just don't ask me go out looking for a new image. Way too many people seem to find a similarity with Pope Benedict and Emperor Palpatine...I'm not Catholic, but how can somebody equate the Bishop of Rome with the Dark Lord of the Sith? -- SFH 17:18, 19 Nov 2005 (UTC)
    • But they look so similar. Benedict assumes similar expressions when he speaks, and he has that same smile Palpy has. John Paul looked much more benevolent. --Master Starkeiller 18:06, 19 Nov 2005 (UTC)
      • They do look so similar, though. And Starkeiller, this picture's quality is perfect. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 20:58, 19 Nov 2005 (UTC)
  • The crusade is over! The best picture of Palpy around belongs to Wookiepedia! Great picture, great quality. --Master Starkeiller 13:59, 22 Nov 2005 (UTC)

What the Holocron says

For what's it worth, from the weblog of Leland Chee, and the dates of character births in the Holocron continuity database -

(By the way - ages with fractions, you round the BBY dates up to the nearest year, and the ABY ones down to the nearest year).

Link

If this makes any difference. QuentinGeorge 10:36, 17 Sep 2005 (UTC)

  • Whatever... Let's keep it as it is and we'll be fine. --Master Starkeiller 11:09, 17 Sep 2005 (UTC)
    • Um, no. This is the statement of the official keeper of Star Wars continuity. If he says Palpatine was born in 82 BBY, then that's when he was born. If he meant that Palpatine was born circa 82 BBY, then he would have added in a "~." 82 BBY is the official date of Palpatine's birht, we finally have an incontrovertible source. Kuralyov 17:44, 20 Sep 2005 (UTC)
      • Couldn't he have said this earlier so we could have avoided this stupid edit war and all the nasty thing that were said because of it? Ah well, I might as well get used to the damn date... I might even start to like it since it seems to be final... If he was only 64 when his face was deformed by the Dark Side to the level he looked like he was a thousand years old and he had to hide his true face, he is the most powerful Force user ever... And if the official keeper of Star Wars Continuity that is responsible for so many helpful ret-cons says so, what can I say? --Master Starkeiller 15:33, 20 Sep 2005 (EDT)
        • I say who gives a damn about it anymore. Case closed. -- Riffsyphon1024 21:22, 20 Sep 2005 (EDT)

Dantius Schmantius

  • Is there some way to stop all of these constant additions of this StuporShadow poodoo to the article? jSarek 21:39, 21 Sep 2005 (UTC)
    • Silly Dan left him a message. Lets give this user a day. After that, if he keeps it up I say we block him. --SFH 17:44, 21 Sep 2005 (EDT)
      • The thing is, it's not just one user; Looking through the edit history, at least three anons have made the change in the past two days. jSarek 21:50, 21 Sep 2005 (UTC)
    • Really? We may be experiencing a SuperShadow invasion. Meditate on this, I will... -- SFH 22:02, 21 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Thank you fellow users for backing me up. Oh and Silly Dan, Google it!

  • You should go google Supershadow, O anonymous person. — Silly Dan 23:18, 21 Sep 2005 (UTC)
    • Hopefully, this won't start another edit war. "Dantius" is not Palpatine's name, and "Khameir Sarin", although being a possible name for Maul, was never given as the official name. This is all SuperShadow crap, and, for all we know, SuperStupid himself might be the one doing all of this. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 23:29, 21 Sep 2005 (UTC)

I'M NOT SUPERSHADOW! I there is a slight possibility that Dantius isn't his name but if you google it, I have got over a hundred sites to prove it. And that is mauls name. It is in books! I will keep on puting Dantius and Khameir up there!

  • Dantius is NOT Palpatine's real name! And that is not Maul's official name! Therefore, after I revert this article, I REQUEST FOR IT TO BE LOCKED. That way, our SuperShadow follower here will not be able to post up these false facts. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 23:44, 21 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • Then you (not Cmdr. J. Nebulax, Prince Xizor) will likely be banned by one of the admins, or at least blocked from editing this page, I'm afraid. Dantius Palpatine is a fanon fabrication, and all of the websites using that name are fanfiction, unofficial message boards, or people quoting Supershadow. (As for the number of sites, "Cos Palpatine", which is equally unofficial but at least comes from conjecture from Lucas's early drafts, gets almost as many hits.) You may have a point about Khameir, but I suggest you don't add it until someone gives an English-language official source for the name. — Silly Dan 23:47, 21 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I am calm, I would gladly take Mauls real name off of there but I am sticking up for what I believe. I can fight fire with fire by here stating, I can(or get somebody to) erase everyting about Plageius becuase it was never proven to be real. The only thing there is about it is that they simply mentioned him in EP. III. They never proved it to be real.

  • Then, we revert the edit to put up all of the facts about Plageius again. Plus, that is not Maul's real name. At least we know that most of the Plageius stuff is true, unlike the false items like "Dantius" and "Khameir Sarin". Cmdr. J. Nebulax 23:55, 21 Sep 2005 (UTC)

I don't know how you can say that because it is in books. I know that it is not in American books but it is in books and I would go to Italy just to prove a point! --Prince Xizor

  • Well then go to Italy already and leave us alone. --Azizlight 00:26, 22 Sep 2005 (UTC)
    • Listen Prince Xizor, you cannot keep adding Dantius Palpatine to the article until you PROVE its OFFICIAL source, and IF you can do that, then the Wiki community will decide on whether it should be included in the article or not. For now, leave this article alone, or an Admin is likely to ban you from using the site. --Azizlight 00:38, 22 Sep 2005 (UTC)
      • Even better; if you can prove that this name is stated in an official source - an actual Lucasfilm-sanctioned publication or direct statement from George Lucas or Leland Chee quoted in a reliable source (this means, among other things, not StuporShadow) - then we will be *obligated* to include it. Until then, however, we have EVERY REASON to believe this is patently fanon, and will continue to keep it out of the article. The Plagueis stuff has such a source - the novelization of Revenge of the Sith. "Dantius" does not - as we can see in a post made on this thread at the Official Site, Leland Chee, who maintains the Holocron continuity database, states "Sometimes, aside from a title, all we have is the last name, ie Palpatine, Dooku, Panaka, Typho." Palpatine's first name is currently unknown. jSarek 01:24, 22 Sep 2005 (UTC)

OK! You won. Just keep in mind that I am NOT sorry for what I have done and hope someday in the future someone will prove it. I do request to put the name Dantius, Cos and Albert under the behind the scenes as fanon names.

  • If you check, you'll see that they're already there (at least the first two; hadn't heard of Albert before). jSarek 01:45, 22 Sep 2005 (UTC)

I am soooooo sorry. I wouldn't have even started this edit conflict if I had known that. Oh and yes, Albert is one of his fanon names.

    • I would shoot myself if his name was Albert Palpatine. -- Riffsyphon1024 02:21, 22 Sep 2005 (UTC)

What in the San Hill's been going on here today? I spent a lot of time incorporating my research into this page, I go to sleep, go to work, visit my girl, eat, and come home only to find this game of fanon badminton going on all day! "He's Dantius, he's not, he's Dantius, he's not!" And this unidentified computer-number person is running roughshod all over our work (why just single my work out when others did a lot more?). Can somebody figure it out? Is he trying to make a point? Or is he doing this just to pull our chains? I hate that.

I want to know Palpatine's first name as badly as anyone here, and possibly more than some. That he has a first name is likely, given the nature of names among the Naboo. I can even concede that Dantius sounds good as a name. But he doesn't have one that has been verified in ANY official source whatsoever. If one had appeared, I'd know about it, and others would have to race me to the keyboard to get it in here! In any case, if someone wants to make the case that Dantius IS real, can he/she show me the money? Scan your printed source and put it up here, so we can see it, agree to it, and end this absurd show! Otherwise, back off!

In any case, I'd hoped to keep on beefing up the article with VERIFIABLE facts (of which the name Dantius is not), but if he's gonna keep manifesting a stick up his heinder, I say lock it off and let him cool his heels. I can wait. It gives me more time to compose my entry words. Please let me know, Steve, if you like what I'm writing, or if you want to try some other approach. Thanks to Nebulax, Silly Dan, JSarek, SFH, Azizlight, and all the others who stuck up for common sense. And send a computer-crippling shock through to this unknown gunman's system, Steve, if you'd be so kind. Best regards. Erik Pflueger 04:22, 22 Sep 2005 (UTC)

  • I gave him a nice whack with the ban hammer; hopefully he'll have learned his lesson by the end of his twenty-four hours. – Aidje talk 05:59, 22 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • I should note the closest we've ever got to an official first name isn't "Dantius" - it's "Ethril" - which nearly made it into the Episode I VD until vetoed by GL. It's still not official, though. QuentinGeorge 06:09, 22 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • LOCK THE DAMN PAGE, BLOCK THE GUYS!!! This isn't debatable. Supers^!t are forbidden in here. I have grown to hate edit wars and this one is meaningless since there's no debate. Just crap spewed out by that retarted piece of dim-witted crap called Supershadow that some people unfortunately believe. And I hope Ethril becomes official, it sounds so cool. --Master Starkeiller 14:07, 22 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • If the user continues, I would rather block him/her/it/whatever than lock the page again. -- Riffsyphon1024 14:16, 22 Sep 2005 (UTC)
    • If he reverts again, please ban him immediately. And I suggest that someone who may know some things about the "Ethril" name replace it with the Supers^!t mention in the "Behind the Scenes" Section. --Master Starkeiller 14:33, 22 Sep 2005 (UTC)
      • We really need to leave that in, so people can know that StuporShadow's comment isn't some new information that they need to write into the article, but stupid, worthless fraud they should mock mercilessly. jSarek 14:37, 22 Sep 2005 (UTC)
        • Damn SuperStupid, the mess he has created... Okay, but let's add the Ethril name too... --Master Starkeiller 15:21, 22 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Hey, I already said that I stopped. And no you didn't ban me. I didn't know that Dantius was already there and I want all of what has been to be a thing of the past! I said I was sorry. And by the way, I don't think Supershadow created Dantius.

Lightning at the Face

In ROTS, Palpatine tried to kill Mace with Force Lightning, but Mace blocked it with his lightsaber. So his lightning backfired, and his face deformed, so why didn't Sidious stop firing, I mean if he felt the pain of his own lightning, you'll think he would stopped firing right away. Double D 21:50, 22 Sep 2005 (UTC)

  • He did this on purpose to reveal his real face while presenting it as an injury. That's one of the theories, the one I believe. There are many others, but according to all theories, Palpatine wanted to look injured and weak in Anakin's eyes. --Master Starkeiller 22:31, 22 Sep 2005 (UTC)
    • Exactly. In order to gain Anakin, the Chosen One, as his Sith Apprentice, Palpatine had to make Anakin "save" him from Mace Windu. It was all just one big plot. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 22:37, 22 Sep 2005 (UTC)

What confuses me is Luke, Anakin, Mace and Palpatine were all shocked at sometime, but only Palpatine face deformed. Double D 01:19, 17 Oct 2005 (UTC)

  • That's why I think the deformities=effect of Force lightning theory can't be accurate. --Master Starkeiller 18:38, 17 Oct 2005 (UTC)
    • I agree. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 21:47, 17 Oct 2005 (UTC)
      • Believe it or not, it is in the Databank [1]:
      • Neither Anakin, Dooku nor Luke were hit by their own' Force lightning, however. QuentinGeorge 06:10, 18 Oct 2005 (UTC)
With Anakin Skywalker's help, Sidious was able to defeat Mace, though he was severely scarred by the reflected power of his dark side lightning. To conceal his disfigured visage, Sidious returned to his simple Sith robes.
      • Actually, it was once on the Talk page, but it got archived. And I tried adding the link to the article (with an explanation) to end the debate once and for all, but it was deleted. - Sikon [Talk] 04:25, 18 Oct 2005 (UTC)
        • I don't say the lightning had nothing to do with it... Some sources say it was the lightning, some say it was his true face. Lightning did have something to do with it... --Master Starkeiller 15:24, 18 Oct 2005 (UTC)

So what happend to his face before he became a politition? Double D 19:13, 18 Oct 2005 (UTC)

  • The other explanation is that the dark side of the Force simply deforms people with it's corrupting power. That phenomenan is shown in Star Wars: Dark Empire and KOTOR. I think that affected Palpatine, especially after he gets the Empire established and can focus more on the Dark Side, but it was the lightning that actually warped his face.-LtNOWIS 20:25, 19 Oct 2005 (UTC)

I don't want to go about beating around a dead Bantha, but after reviewing the sequence of the transformation on DVD I discovered something interesting when viewing the scene in slow motion within chronological order. In one shot, we see Palpatine's face becoming the Sidious of the OT, followed by more lightning to the face. After a few close-ups on a conflicted Anakin, the camera focuses back on Palpatine, who is still in a transitional state but is lacking the details present in the previous shot. It is as if the Sidious face is showing through once as the lightning is interacting with the skin, then fading away, and then finally breaking through again as the Palpatine face melts away and Sidious says he's too weak to continue. If Palpatine was indeed literally deformed by the lightning, why did his face go from normal, to Sidious, to semi-normal, and back to Sidious again. If the lightning scarred and burned him, wouldn't the wounds stay instead of suddenly disappearing and re-appearing? Watch your DVDs, you'll see it. I have a few screen shots that I can provide to show you what I am referring to. By the way, both this and the regular Wikipedia article fail to make any mention of Sidious' strange voice after he rises from the window sill and before he puts on his hood. In the commentary, Lucas said he added synthesized effects to the voice to make the "true Sidious" drip a bit more menace. That's all well and good, but there must be a within-universe explanation for it. [that bucket with the photos.com/albums/v151/LordExor/CHARLOTTE_DISC1-27.jpg Shot #1] [that bucket with the photos.com/albums/v151/LordExor/CHARLOTTE_DISC1-28.jpg Shot #2] [that bucket with the photos.com/albums/v151/LordExor/CHARLOTTE_DISC1-29.jpg Shot #3] [that bucket with the photos.com/albums/v151/LordExor/CHARLOTTE_DISC1-30.jpg Shot #4] All of these pictures are in chronological order. --Exor 18:10, 4 Nov 2005 (UTC)

  • Never noticed before... That's what call "evidence"... --Master Starkeiller 20:47, 4 Nov 2005 (UTC)
  • On top of all that, Sidious' eyes transformed at the same time, and we know Sith eyes aren't caused by lightning. --Fade 22:28, 15 Nov 2005 (UTC)
    • Which means, the possible "mask worn away by the lightning" theory seems correct now. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 00:50, 16 Nov 2005 (UTC)
      • At long last... I mean, I could see skin melting away at the theater, and the deformed face appearing... I thought it was obvious. And all those wrinkles... --Master Starkeiller 11:43, 16 Nov 2005 (UTC)
  • I'll throw in here that as Sidious looks at his new face in the novel, he comments "And so the mask becomes the man". --Fade 14:03, 16 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Adding Palpatine's Speeches to the Article

A question for the group, since a lot of people have a stake in this particular page. I want to add, where applicable, portions of the speeches made by Palpatine. I'd do them in the way you'd expect, in italics and quotation marks, the works. Though I'd love to add the speeches in their entirety, it'd REALLY fill up the page, so I'll just stick to the passages, possibly no longer than a few sentences, tops, that are most relevant.

Why ask at all? Well, as I do my level best to beef up these pages with the G- and C-level canon, both obvious and very obscure, that I've spent a good ten years or more accumulating, I'll probably honk off at least a couple people. It's for a good cause, true, but let's face it, egos are involved, and I'd be no different. So, rather than just impose myself on the page, "Dantius-style," and get deleted, I thought I'd be considerate.

Want a sample? Well, take the biggie, the "glorious speech" we all know about. I'd use a few words to set it up, and then go:

"In order to ensure our stability and continuing security, the Republic will be reorganized into the first Galactic Empire, for a safe and secure society which I assure you, will last for ten thousand years. An empire that will continue to be ruled by this august body, and a sovereign ruler chosen for life..."

And since I quoted a passage that was longer than what Palpatine said in the film, I would like to state that on principle, if it is relevant, I will be using material from the final draft scripts to supplement the film's lines if, and ONLY if, it is not contradicted by anything else. Why? Well, mostly because it is G-level to me, and it is a published source.

I would also like to ask to be allowed to add brief quotations from in-universe text sources. For instance, if I wanted to remark on what was officially said about Palpatine's dissolution of the Senate, I'd open up the handy-dandy Imperial Sourcebook and type in:

To better protect our citizens and our member worlds, the Emperor has superseded and suspended the Imperial Senate for the duration of this emergency. The moffs and the grand moffs will now have direct control over their systems until such time as the danger has passed. We are sure who shall all do everything in your power to assist us during this time of crisis.

Notice there's no quotation marks this time around, because it comes from a printed text source rather than a person's mouth (or whatever passes for a mouth, depending on the species).

Anyway, there's my proposal. Please consider it, and let me know what you'd like to see. I hope you will agree, because I dearly wish to expand upon and enrich the Palpatine article to the best of my abilities (no fanon allowed, don't worry). He's not only my favorite character, but the one with the richest possibilities for an encyclopedic article.

Thanks for your consideration, and best regards!

Erik Pflueger 02:39, 23 Sep 2005 (UTC)

  • I think the dissolution of the Senate should probably go into the Imperial Senate article, or an actual article about the dissolution. As for the Declaration of the New Order, I think it deserves a place in here. -- SFH 02:43, 23 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • I think we could make new speech and quote pages like Wikipedia does at Wikiquot. Call it Wookieequote. -- Riffsyphon1024 03:00, 23 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Palpatine/Bush

While I'm aware Lucas has stated that there are similarities to Emperor Palpatine and George W. Bush, I think we should not include it in the Behind the Scenes section, as it has the potential to be to politically polarizing, and I do not like speaking ill of the dead, even if they are fictitious. -- SFH 00:54, 29 Sep 2005 (UTC)

I've been thinking about this for some time, friends, and I feel I can take a crack at this and have it be factual and at the same time not so polarizing. As the article states, inspiration for Palpatine and his Empire came from sources spread across history, because the phenomenon of a state or an individual acquiring fantastic discretionary powers in a crisis is not at all unique to the present. We would be honest with the material by framing it in these terms.

We know, for instance, that the constitutional crisis ignited by President Richard M. Nixon in the early 1970s served Lucas as inspiration for the character of Palpatine. It would not be an exaggeration or a biased opinion to state that, in similar fashion, Lucas used post-9/11 events (which resulted in the overwhelming passage of new measures - like the controversial Patriot Act - and the creation of new and massive governmental security agencies - like the Department of Homeland Security) as inspiration when he wrote Episodes II and III. Other writers in the Expanded Universe followed suit, resulting in the naming of certain of Palpatine's agencies after agencies created under the Bush presidency - The Department of Homeland Security became the Department of Homeworld Security, for example. In the politically charged atmosphere of the early 2000s, these subtle satirical elements raised a debate among some Star Wars fans as to just what the saga's political underpinnings were.

Something along these lines, I feel, would get the point across without throwing language around that misdirects the issue. The purpose of the Wookieepedia, I have felt, is to relay factual information about the saga and the creative process that put it together, not to use such information to support one side or the other on any person or event. The sole exception to this would be what Lucas' own opinion on said person or event would be, and these are difficult to always determine. For one thing, Lucas tends to be private by nature, and with certain exceptions keeps his opinions close to the vest. For another, Lucas has never believed in hitting people over the heads with his opinion, since he felt this would effectively alienate half his audience, and by all accounts he believes in the Gene Roddenberry method of approaching sensitive subjects from the side rather than the front.

Hope this seems a sound suggestion that appeals to all sides. Erik Pflueger 03:06, 29 Sep 2005 (UTC)

  • This is an encyclopedia. Plapatine reflects Nixon and Bush like he reflects many other "dictators". Fact. Patriot Act=Palpatine's dictatorial Acts. The Homeworld security thing is obvious... No matter how polarising it may be, it is a fact and belongs there... --Master Starkeiller 11:20, 29 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Informing Vader

Are we sure that Palpatine really lied to Vader about him killing Padme? I mean, maybe there was a holocam that recorded the events on the landing pad between Anakin, Obi-Wan, and Padme, and Palpatine simply thought he was telling Vader the truth. -- SFH 22:54, 14 Oct 2005 (UTC)

  • According to Leland Chee [2], Palpatine didn't know Padme's children were alive. Does it also mean he didn't know Padme was alive? - Sikon [Talk] 12:47, 16 Oct 2005 (UTC)

This has really been bugging me...

Hopefully there's a good answer, but probably not.

Where did that shaft actually go? I mean, the DS2 was 900km wide. They were in the Emperor's observation tower, which is above the outer shell, so the main reactor was roughly 450km below them.

Was there a set of secondary reactors near the surface? Or did Darth Pruneface just hit the deck somewhere and explode on impact? —Darth Culator (talk) 18:29, 16 Oct 2005 (UTC)

I think you might as well ask why Palpatine had a pit like that in his private chamber to begin with (except maybe so he could throw other people into it). There probably is no logical explanation for it, but it makes more dramatic sense than Luke & Anakin's moment happening alongside a dead Sith Lord. :) --Schrei 19:02, 16 Oct 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, acording to the Original Trilogy locations guide, Palpatine's throne room was about 100 meters (I believe) above the second Death Star's surface. Which meant he either fell a long way in a short time to the Death Star's core, or on his way down to the core, he hit the side and detonated. The more reasonable one would probably be number two. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 19:07, 16 Oct 2005 (UTC)
  • In that case, the article is incorrect in saying that it was the heat of the reactot which caused the explosion seen on Palpatine's death. I suggest something along the lines of " So great were the energies of the Dark Side which had been imbued in the Sith Lord's body that when the fall killed him they escaped in an explosion which engulfed a great area" rather than the existing passage "The massive energies of the reactor at the bottom of the pit incinerated the tyrant's body upon collision, causing a massive explosion that engulfed the surrounding area."
    • The energy was visible. So the reactor definitely had something to do with it. The body didn't have to reach the bottom for it to explode. Perhaps the lightning ignited the energy particles or something... --Master Starkeiller 17:22, 29 Oct 2005 (UTC)
      • Then why did C'Baoth detonate just like Palpatine in the text of the Last Command? Mara Jade impaled him on her saber, than C'Baoth exploded. No reactor energy involved. Demented Smiloid 18:00, 29 Oct 2005 (UTC)
        • Definitely sounds like this is something that happens when an obscenely powerful Sith or Dark Jedi dies.
      • My whole point was, he really couldn't have reached the main reactor that quickly. The main reactor was 450,000 meters down from their location, give or take a few hundred. The distance from the Emperor's tower to the center of the main reactor is roughly 1,181 times the height of the Empire State Building, assuming my math is right (which it might not be, since contrary to my username I actually hate math). That would be a l-o-n-g fall. Either he had to hit a catwalk or outcropping or something and explode from his own dark energies, or there was some kind of energy stream coming up the shaft that he intersected with spectacular results (which makes the placement of a shaft from the reactor to the throne room even stupider), or it wasn't a shaft to the main reactor at all (which would contradict everything I've ever heard about that event). I prefer the theory that he hit the deck or wall and cracked his head open or broke his neck or something equally grisly, and the waves of power coming back up the shaft were the visible manifestation of all his dark side energy being released. But nobody has ever given us a detailed analysis of Darth Pruneface's exact cause of death, and they probably never will. —Darth Culator (talk) 00:06, 30 Oct 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, as we can see by the shaft, there were many catwalks in the shaft, so I'd have to agree with Darth Culator. He probably either hit the side or smashed against a catwalk. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 11:44, 30 Oct 2005 (UTC)
    • (gets a mental image of an unlucky stormtrooper standing on the catwalk when Palpy impacted on it)
  • I'll go with the "ignited the air" theory. --Master Starkeiller 11:49, 30 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Twelfth picture

  • Not for the main picture, but for the twelfth one, I have three better images that can replace it.

1. File:VEEEERY VERY NASTY.jpg|thumb|center|200px|The Supreme Chancellor shows the Jedi his true colors

2. File:VERY NASTY.jpg|thumb|center|200px|The Supreme Chancellor shows the Jedi his true colors

3. File:Against Windu.jpg|thumb|center|200px|The Supreme Chancellor shows the Jedi his true colors

4. (No change) File:Supreme Chancellor Sith.jpg|thumb|center|200px|The Supreme Chancellor shows the Jedi his true colors

Which one should it be?

  • I'd still go with the one that's up there now, to tell you the truth. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 19:17, 29 Oct 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, that's an option too. But these ones have better quality and show him either feral or smug. In the current one, he looks very neutral. --Master Starkeiller 19:23, 29 Oct 2005 (UTC)
    • I still say the current one only because it clearly shows his face and shows his rage. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 19:28, 29 Oct 2005 (UTC)
  • I started a vote.

Picture 1

  1. Master Starkeiller 21:32, 21 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Comments

  • He reeeeeeeeally shows his true colors in that pic.

Picture 2

Picture 3

Picture 4 (Current Picture)

  1. --Darth Mantus 17:44, 22 Nov 2005 (UTC)
  2. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 14:35, 23 Nov 2005 (UTC)
  3. --MarcK [talk] 14:51, 23 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Comments

  • This vote is stupid, but this current picture should stay. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 14:41, 23 Nov 2005 (UTC)
    • Why is it stupid? I want that image replaced. Would you prefer if i replaced it without asking? --Master Starkeiller 14:43, 23 Nov 2005 (UTC)
      • This vote is stupid because there is no need for that picture to be replaced. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 14:48, 23 Nov 2005 (UTC)
        • But that's the reason it isn't stupid. You think there isn't, I think there is. What do we do? Vote. --Master Starkeiller 14:51, 23 Nov 2005 (UTC)
          • Still, it seems like more people want the picture that is on the article kept. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 15:49, 23 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Is that needed? All it does it take up space. Plus, the blocks don't give much help when saying "Palpatine". Cmdr. J. Nebulax 15:25, 6 Nov 2005 (UTC)

  • I've noticed these pop up regularly among articles now, I don't like the look of them either. And a number of times i've seen those little rectangle characters: not good. --Azizlight 21:56, 8 Nov 2005 (UTC)
    • I say that we remove them from every article they're in. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 21:58, 8 Nov 2005 (UTC)
  • I started a vote. --Master Starkeiller 21:32, 21 Nov 2005 (UTC)

What's this No-POV rule?

What, I'm not supposed to say that Palpatine was bad, that his Empire was evil? I'm not supposed to say that destroying Alderaan and killing six billion people was a bad thing? Starkeiller's been removing stuff like that after me, and I'm sure he only wants to improve the article. We all do. But there's the objective historian, and then there's just going too far, if you asked me. For this reason, I'd like to appeal to the group to put some of that back in. Check the history and differences pages to see what I'm talking about, then make your decision.

And, Starkeiller, I have no resentment of you in this. As I said, we both want the same thing here, and you're good at what you do. But I genuinely challenge this decision on the grounds of honesty. And, I might add, on the perspective of the Star Wars universe. Only thirty years have passed since Palpatine fell, as the books have them, and are we not writing from that perspective? Any historian - Voren Na'al, for instance, or even Arhul Hextrophon - would be writing from the perspective of having experienced Palpatine's bloody dictatorship first-hand. They are objective historians, but they call a spade a spade.

William Shirer's biography of Hitler, which was published only fifteen years after the dictator's death, is rife with personal opinion, since Shirer was a Berlin reporter for a long time and personally witnessed the effects of Nazism. Ian Kershaw's biography is different, less opinionated, but even he says flat-out: Hitler is evil. And what about Radzinsky's and Montefiore's biographies of Stalin. They still call evil for what it is (and, in Radzinsky's case, do so with superb prose). Are we not supposed to do the same?

If we bury the effects of his villainy, or even refuse to call him a villain, does that reflect the spirit of what Lucas intended when he created the character? I think not, people.

Erik Pflueger 14:12, 11 Nov 2005 (UTC)

  • Yes, you are not supposed to say this. This is an encyclopedia, not a historical essay, and articles are supposed to be factual. You can mention the destruction of Alderaan (which was, by the way, not Palpatine's fault), but don't attempt to judge his actions. Just list the facts, and people will decide for themselves. Although the NPOV policy (which stands for "neutral point of view", not "no point of view") is enforced less strictly here than on Wikipedia, there must be a border somewhere. - Sikon [Talk] 14:18, 11 Nov 2005 (UTC)
  • I'll try it out, Sikon, but it's hard to be neutral on some things. Let's take the Alderaan example, for instance (and yes, it was more Tarkin's doing than Palpatine's - see my work on that subject in the article) I described it initially as a barbaric act, and how can the extinguishing of six billion lives not be considered barbaric? To be indifferent - or neutral - on a subject like mass murder is to say that one is indifferent to the lives lost. Did I include Tarkin's and Palpatine's points of view? Of course I did, since it was about their motives and actions. But if I include theirs, that's not a NPOV scenario. And in any case, certain things deserve a moral stance. Maybe I should be less strident about it, but the fact remains. Where's the border to be placed? Maybe we should work that out together. And we should keep in mind what all other published Star Wars material has used as descriptions (Dan Wallace's Essential Chronology comes to mind. If they're not indifferent, why should we be?
    • NPOV doesn't imply indifference. You are free to write that "the majority's opinion is that the destruction of Alderaan was a barbaric act, because: <...>". But an opinion, even overwhelming, doesn't make the matter inherently have the supposed qualities. - Sikon [Talk] 17:41, 11 Nov 2005 (UTC)
  • If I tried to reintroduce it, Sikon, I couldn't state it in that fashion, no offense intended. The fact that the "majority opinion" feels it was a barbaric act leads me as a reader only to ask, "So who the hell holds the minority opinion that says it wasn't, and what kind of raving twisties are they?" If it wasn't barbaric to them, doesn't that mean they think it was a good thing? They'd be equivalent to Holocaust deniers, if you asked me.

To use your own homeland's history as an example, it's not the same as saying "the Gulags were places of terrible human suffering, but under Lavrenti Pavlovich Beria's direction the slave laborers contributed immensely to the Soviet economy." That would be a statement that gives weight to both positive and negative aspects of a thing, especially since examination of the facts holds it to be true. But what positive aspect did the destruction of Alderaan have? None. So what minority opinion is there here?

Not to beat a dead horse, Sikon, especially since you do excellent work yourself here, and are a pleasant person. Also, the article really isn't about Alderaan, but Palpatine. I use it only to make a point. I simply hate moral relativism, and my personal opinions, as with any writer, cannot help but have some impact, however small. If someting is evil, call it so. And if someone is evil by most accepted definitions, label him as such. Say that he didn't feel that way himself, if it's true, but name something for what it is. If you don't say what you mean, you can never mean what you say. ;) Erik Pflueger 18:39, 11 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Here's a suggestion, I'm just going to throw this out here, it might help: take a deep breath and say to yourself, "It's only Star Wars, it's not real life." Kuralyov 19:01, 11 Nov 2005 (UTC)
  • ~:mumbles:~I'm having this debate again and again~:mumbles:~ Okay...

a.) This is an encyclopedia. There's no "evil" and "good" in encyclopedias, just "most people consider X evil", "most people consider Y good". b.) You can't state that killing six billion people is an evil act, you can say it's bad thing, and there's a huge difference. Most people here on Earth consider it evil—and the imaginary Star Wars galaxy follows the same rule—but the Nazis for example thought it was okay. You may call them barbaric monsters, but it was their opinion. Since they started actually killing people who obviously disagreed with them, they became harmful, bad, and had to be stopped. They didn't think it was evil. You can't possibly say it wasn't harful, but for them it wasn't evil, so you can't say it was. Let's use other terms, because "good" and "evil" depend solely on the point of view. c.) There's a rule here, and I think there actually is an award for neutrality. The crawls may be biased, but this is an encyclopedia. Oh, and I love moral relativism... --Master Starkeiller 19:45, 11 Nov 2005 (UTC)

  • OK, since I'm obviously outvoted, let's try to work around the problem. What if I said, instead of a barbaric act, I said it was an act that condemned six billion innocent beings to death? That would probably strongly say "evil" to me, and be closer to the facts but still be more objective, as it seems to be defined here. Fair enough? Please do not hesitate to offer your opinions.

As I've said earlier, we're all after the same thing here: really good articles that contain all the facts. But I respectfully ask, please, that no one imply that I don't know it's just fiction. I'm 33, I think I have a grasp of that. My real life is my grandmother having a month or less to live and my girlfriend having to have surgery to relieve terrible pain. She'll be in the hospital on our anniversary, which just happens to fall on Thanksgiving. Please forgive my shortness of temper, but I'm quite cognizant of reality today. I know no one intended any insult, but I felt I needed to give some perspective on my mood. I also know that many others have it harder, but that's my trouble for today.

I've come to like all the people here, and I feel I have something to contribute. If my mood affected my judgment, I'm sorry. There are rules for contributing articles, and I will abide by them. I should love to hear Riffsyphon's opinion on this, but I will stick with the rules, since you have all been very good to my work and to me personally. I also wanted to say to Starkeiller that he's got a great picture with McDiarmid in sunglasses. Go see his page and prepare to chuckle.

But I hate moral relativism... :))

Erik Pflueger 20:18, 11 Nov 2005 (UTC)

  • Also, just in passing, Master Starkeiller, even Palpatine was an apprentice once, and would have had to give obeisance to Plagueis as his master, even if it was through gritted teeth. If he didn't, then for all we know, Plagueis might have killed him. So, no, I wasn't there, but yes, it was likely the tradition in inducting a new apprentice, that the apprentice get down on his knees to receive his name. Maul and Vader did for Sidious, why not Sidious for Plagueis? I'm too tired to argue deeply about it today, but perhaps tomorrow...

Erik Pflueger 20:27, 11 Nov 2005 (UTC)

    • That's the encyclopedia spirit: Say "he killed half the galaxy", but not say "he's evil because he did". Let the reader judge for himself. I wish you the best with all your troubles and I understand you, because my mood has sometimes affected my work here too.

About the other thing now... We never saw Palpy do it, so let's not say he did. We only saw Anakin do it, nobody else, so we don't even know if Maul or Dooku did it. And I didn't say he didn't, just that the image strikes me as out-of-character as Palpy in sunglasses... --Master Starkeiller 20:37, 11 Nov 2005 (UTC)

      • Palpatine in sunglasses is out of character? Come on! I bet he liked to sit on the beach on Naboo or Byss and sip the GFFA equivalent of a margarita every now and then. (Occasionally I also have similar mental pictures of Saddam Hussein barbecuing and Adolf Hitler water-skiing. It's probably not healthy.) —Darth Culator (talk) 21:07, 11 Nov 2005 (UTC)
  • I was always under the opinion that Palpatine would avoid sunlight after the Clone Wars, probably because it may have done some more damage to his skin, or maybe burst into flames, I don't know. But back to the discussion at hand, does anyone here actually disagree that Palpatine was pure evil? Even that know it all Vergere couldn't explain it. Remember Obi-Wan's words, "Anakin, Chancellor Palpatine is evil!" -- SFH 21:26, 11 Nov 2005 (UTC)
    • He was evil, but that doesn't mean he didn't do anything good. From the movies and EU, we know that he restored unity to the Galaxy, was a major patron of the arts, did try to stop (at least some) organized crime and slave/drug smuggling, and instituted policies that brought a level of economic prosperity to the Galaxy not seen in centuries. Kuralyov 01:36, 12 Nov 2005 (UTC)
  • Do we know this for certain, though? The unity he supposedly established was to replace a disunity and chaos he, and his Sith predecessors, had a large part in creating. His patronage of the arts? COMPNOR imposed a rigid standard of ideology on the arts that most likely choked off all creativity. Economic prosperity? Read the Han Solo books The Hutt Gambit and Rebel Dawn. According to them, Palpatine's taxation policies were ruinous and continuing to get worse. By the onset of the Civil War it was difficult for an average Imperial citizen to keep decent food on the table. Smuggling looks like it did better under the Empire than ever.

State control of all facets of life engenders nothing but suffering. Control of the arts kills the spirit of the arts (I should know, I'm an artist). Control of the economy kills the personal desire to succeed that drives an economy (I should know, I own a small business). In the end, what was the Empire, but the revenge of a cult whose philosophy had already been proven to be nothing but destructive, not once, but many times. More personally, it was born of the desire of one man to imprint himself on the galaxy, whether the galaxy wanted it or not. There may have been some good points, but not those Kuralyov cited. If Palpatine did any good, I'm sure it was not a good he intended. Erik Pflueger 16:18, 12 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Palpatine is pure evil, plain and simple. He thinks of himself as a savior, doing what is right for the galaxy (which some may believe he is), but that doesn't change the fact that he is presented as the personifcation of pure unadulterated evil. I wouldn't be surprised if he was spawned by the Dark Side of the Force itself, or its physical avatar. Yes, he was apprenticed to Darth Plagueis at one point, but that doesn't mean he wasn't pure evil beforehand. We don't even know whether or not Palpatine was taken in as an apprentice while he was still a [that bucket with the photos.com/albums/v151/LordExor/babypalpatine1.jpg baby]. Also, remember that Vergere's philosophy on the Force is just that, a philosophy. It isn't fact. She could be a complete nut for all we know. --Exor 03:34, 17 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Was Palpatine racist?

I'd like to knowed if he was really since the Galactic Empire said to've a High Human Culture type of thing since it had to do with Anti non humans. Even though that Eariler in his career as a Dark Lord of the Sith his first apprentice was non-human, a zabrak by the name of Darth Maul in a matter of fact. So this makes me wonder,Was Palpy really anti Alien or not?Thanks.

  • That's talked about on this board of the Jedi Council Forums, but no consensus has been reached. IMO, it's possible he could tolerate some kinds of aliens but not others. But it's also concievable the whole speciesism thing was just to gain power and support, and he didn't actually believe in it. I would lean more towards the first option.-LtNOWIS 22:24, 13 Nov 2005 (UTC)
    • There are a few possible answers right off the top of my head: 1: Palpatine was a racist, he just made exceptions to his prejudices for the sake of convenience. 2: the anti-alien policies were his subordinates' doing, and he just didn't care enough to stop it; 3: Chiss and Zabrak (along with Etti, Firrerreo, and other species he associated with) don't just look human, they're actually related to/descended from humanity so Palpatine considered them close enough; and 4: he just did it for the sake of evil. Oppression breeds suffering and negative emotion, which feeds the dark side. Personally, I prefer number 4. Palpatine is just so evilly evil he secretes evilness from his pores. —Darth Culator (talk) 22:00, 16 Nov 2005 (UTC)
  • Evilly evile, evilness...Can that be done to the English language? -- SFH 17:08, 19 Nov 2005 (UTC)
    • Damn right it can! Especially when you're talking about Palpatine, who was just the evilest mofo in the Galaxy. —Darth Culator (talk) 19:18, 19 Nov 2005 (UTC)
  • It wouldn't be racist but actually speciest. -- Riffsyphon1024 00:19, 5 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Where does it go?

I was watching ROTS yesterday and noticed something. Where does Palpatine's lightsabre go after it is knocked out of the window by Mace Windu? How come he has one later on when he faces Yoda? Is this a second lightsabre or did someone pick up the other and give it back to him?--Darth Mantus 17:34, 16 Nov 2005 (UTC)

  • I noticed that to. I assume that the lightsaber Palpatine had during the fight with Yoda was a spare or an older lightsaber, or that the saber used during his fight with Windu was a spare made smaller for easy concealment. Either way, one of those is a spare. -- SFH 19:28, 16 Nov 2005 (UTC)
    • Not really. He could have actually used two lightsabers at one time. Just because he had another one during his fight with Yoda doesn't mean it's a spare. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 20:20, 16 Nov 2005 (UTC)
      • It would have been cool to see Palpatine use both if that was the case!--Darth Mantus 21:15, 16 Nov 2005 (UTC)
  • Palpatine wields two lightsabers in the movie. I'm sure he carries a whole collection like Grievous inside his big long cloaks. The one he duels Mace Windu with is coated with gold. The one he fights Yoda with is black. Check it out on your D.V.D.s. --Master Starkeiller 22:29, 16 Nov 2005 (UTC)
  • Yeh perhaps like Grievous he collects them.--Darth Mantus 16:21, 17 Nov 2005 (UTC)
    • I doubt that. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 20:25, 17 Nov 2005 (UTC)
      • Why? --Master Starkeiller 20:43, 17 Nov 2005 (UTC)
        • Palpatine was probably not a lightsaber collector, unlike Grievous. Plus, where would he get the lightsabers from? Cmdr. J. Nebulax 20:51, 17 Nov 2005 (UTC)
          • Well, he'd make them or have his apprentices give him the lightsabers of Jedi they might slaughter. We already know he had two at the same time, the golden one and the black one. I can imagine him having a collection with a hilt of the same design in all colors of the rainbow. Plus, Vader didn't collect the sabers from the Purge as far as we know. What a more appropriate place for them to be but inside Palpy's long cloaks? --Master Starkeiller 21:16, 17 Nov 2005 (UTC)
            • True... Cmdr. J. Nebulax 21:20, 17 Nov 2005 (UTC)
              • Pablo Hidalgo says something about this in Star Wars Insider 85: "The inference is that Palpatine does indeed have multiples of his lightsaber; however, it is not known how many he had. Such redundancy is a prudent measure given that during his days as a plain simple simple Chancellor, he probably didn't carry a lightsaber on his person at all times. He hid them away in various Sith urns, staturary, and other hidey holes in his residences." -LtNOWIS 22:20, 17 Nov 2005 (UTC)
  • For those of you who have Star Wars: Dark Empire, remember that palpatine had a collection of lightsabers in his cloning room? I don't know, but that infers to me that he made a lot more than one.--Xilentshadow900 22:24, 17 Nov 2005 (UTC)
  • I do remember that collection, but I had assumed that it was from Jedi he had killed, the remnants of General Grievous' collection, or a combination of both. Also, the thought of Palpatine mastering Ataru and Jar'kai is too scary to think about. -- SFH 22:45, 17 Nov 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes, I remember that collection... But, notice that none of those lightsabers are styled after his in Episode III. Notice that both lightsabers he uses are of the relatively same design. My guesses would be that he either made two (or possibly more) of them or that one came from Plagueis. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 23:26, 17 Nov 2005 (UTC)
  • I think that I will try to resolve this multi-lightsabre issue in my book that I am writing at the moment about Palpatine's past (though its probably not of interest to anyone)--Darth Mantus 11:55, 18 Nov 2005 (UTC)
    • Book? About Palpatine's past? What the...? Cmdr. J. Nebulax 21:29, 18 Nov 2005 (UTC)
    • Its just fanfic. But I try and link the story of Palpatine and Plaugeis with that of Count Dooku, and also the Mandalorians --Darth Mantus 11:58, 19 Nov 2005 (UTC)
    • Thanks --Darth Mantus 16:27, 19 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Quote

Shouldn't the main quote be about Palpatine. Not what he said? Especially since what he said wasn't even about him. I was thinking more along the lines of "A new apprentice you have, Emperor. Or should I call you Darth Sidious?" or "Do not..do not underestimate the powers of the Emperor..." Redemption 00:17, 21 Nov 2005 (UTC)

  • Well, while the quote doesn't really talk about Palpatine, it is actually a good one, since he was probably the greatest Sith Lord ever. Plus, there are many better ones that those two, no offense. But, in my opinion, I think the current one should stay. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 00:46, 21 Nov 2005 (UTC)
    • I know there are better quotes, no doubt. But it really doesn't match up with other articles where the quotes were said about others about the person in the article. I could see this quote being put in the dark side of the force article (or simply the force article) Redemption 02:46, 21 Nov 2005 (UTC)
    • The current one kind of talks about him, his great powers and the unnatural, that is, his disfigurement. But the "Do not underestimate" one sounds better. --Master Starkeiller 14:00, 21 Nov 2005 (UTC)
  • Okay, anyone got any better quotes, or shall we start a vote? --Master Starkeiller 21:32, 21 Nov 2005 (UTC)
    • I'd still prefer the one there now. And please, no more votes. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 21:57, 21 Nov 2005 (UTC)
      • Why, what's wrong with votes? As long as they have to do with cosmetic matters of the Wiki and not with canon, they're fine. --Master Starkeiller 22:06, 21 Nov 2005 (UTC)
        • Well, what's wrong with the current quote? Cmdr. J. Nebulax 22:09, 21 Nov 2005 (UTC)
          • Nothing, I just think "Do not underestimate the powers of the Emperor..." is more appropriate. And considering its humorous new twist, it's more fun too. Yoda speaks from experience... Look where he ended up after trying to defeat Palpatine... --Master Starkeiller 22:12, 21 Nov 2005 (UTC)
            • Well, fine. But, how about putting one on top of the other. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 22:17, 21 Nov 2005 (UTC)
              • Nah, each article gets one main quote. But we could put one of the quotes to a different section. How about putting "The dark side of the Force is a pathway to many abilities some consider to be unnatural." in the "Powers and Abilities" section and the other one as main? --Master Starkeiller 22:19, 21 Nov 2005 (UTC)
  • Personally, I think the "Unnatural" quote was fine, but can you guys figure out which one you want? I'm a big supporter of lead-in quotes, but I like some stability. Someone keeps changing it. -- SFH 21:58, 26 Nov 2005 (UTC)
    • An anon who I think hasn't talked to us in this discussion page. --Master Starkeiller 22:56, 26 Nov 2005 (UTC)
      • I'm putting back the Yoda quote. The other quote don't talk about him. Admiral J. Nebulax 00:30, 27 Nov 2005 (UTC)

How about the "Your feeble skills are no match for the power of the Dark side..." one? --Maru (talk) Contribs 18:38, 27 Nov 2005 (UTC)

On the highest level

I guess when someone said that SuperShadow was hated on the lowest level by many SW fans, could we say that Palpatine is hated on the highest? --68.102.193.78 09:19, 23 Nov 2005 (UTC) (Shultz from Wikipedia)

  • What does this have to do with this article? Cmdr. J. Nebulax 12:10, 23 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Motive for Plagueis's murder

The Palpatine#The murder of Darth Plagueis is a very interesting section- but what sources is it based on? AFA I knew, the only real source for Plagueis was Ep 3, which I'm pretty sure doesn't mention all that stuff about a replacement apprentice, and being created by the Force &etc. --Maru (talk) Contribs 01:40, 25 Nov 2005 (UTC)

I'd appreciate that. I'd add the section in to Wikipedia's [3] now, but I'm being hammered as it is for being too comprehensive. -_- --Maru (talk) Contribs 03:25, 26 Nov 2005 (UTC)
  • Please provide a better link, as the one provided is screwed up. Admiral J. Nebulax 12:33, 26 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Palpy and "Sithisis"

1), is this story canon, and 2), just what the hell was happening in it, anyway? Thanos6 10:04, 1 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Wait a minute, since when is Infinities canon? - Angel Blue 451 21:03, 1 Dec 2005 (UTC)

  • Usually, it isn't canon, but there are exceptions. Admiral J. Nebulax 21:10, 1 Dec 2005 (UTC)
    • It's not part of Infinities, I think. The only thing I heard about its canon status, is Leland Chee summing up what is and what isn't in Visionaries and going "as for Sithisis, who knows?". lol. VT-16 21:13, 1 Dec 2005 (UTC)
      • Yeah, but since elements from it have been used in other sources it should be considered canon. Leland's statement must have been about the mystery of the story. We aren't supposed to know Palpy's darkest secrets after all... --Master Starkeiller 21:17, 1 Dec 2005 (UTC)

What other sources have referenced it? (Btw, sorry about that, I meant Visionaries.) - Angel Blue 451 21:40, 1 Dec 2005 (UTC)

No reason it shouldn't be canon, folks. After all, seventy-five percent of it is some kind of a drug trip anyway. At least that's my take on it. After all, until he eats the worm, everything's normal, right? Once he's eaten it, everything gets all hallucinogenic. Also, the author of Sithisis stated that this was the last time Palpatine became Sidious before the events of Revenge of the Sith. And Starkeiller correctly pointed out that the meditation chamber in the ChanPal SuRecon Center, as seen in Star Wars: Complete Locations, closely matches the one in Sithisis. My belief is that this was a vision rite conducted in his very secure Sith lair, that he ate the worm - which was probably loaded with naturally trippy ingredients - specifically to help him see along the lines of eventuality, to essentially forsee the future. Once the vision was done, he handed his black Sith robes over to a Red Guard and adopted his nice-guy Palpatine shell again. Almost. The eyes were still yellow... Erik Pflueger 02:10, 2 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Unbeaten

Why exactly is Luke Skywalker's duel with Emperor Palpatine aboard the Eclipse not considered a victory? Palpatine gets his hand cut off. I'd call that a victory. -- SFH 16:12, 2 Dec 2005 (UTC)

  • Palpatine comes back. Really, it is a victory, but that duel really doesn't seem to be a victory since he came back. Admiral J. Nebulax 21:16, 2 Dec 2005 (UTC)
  • Jedi do not messure victory by the body count. They try to stop a fight without dying, and only kill their opponets when necessary. -- SFH 21:23, 2 Dec 2005 (UTC)
    • Well, really, it was a victory, as I said, but Luke probably didn't count it as one when he found out Palpatine returned. Just a thought. Admiral J. Nebulax 21:30, 2 Dec 2005 (UTC)
  • It wasn't a victory. Read Dark Empire I. Read what Palpy says. It wasn't. Although Palpatine was defeated afterwards, it wasn't in battle. They just made him lose his connection with the Force storm and it ate him up. --Master Starkeiller 22:01, 2 Dec 2005 (UTC)
    • Well, technically, it was a victory, since the bad guy was defeated. Admiral J. Nebulax 22:05, 2 Dec 2005 (UTC)
      • We're talking about defeats in battle, in dueling or a fistfight or whatever. Nobody won the duel. --Master Starkeiller 22:11, 2 Dec 2005 (UTC)
        • Nobody won the duel, but it was a victory because Palpatine was defeated. Admiral J. Nebulax 22:14, 2 Dec 2005 (UTC)
          • "Darth Sidious was an enormously talented fighter". That's what the sentence is about. So, what happened next is of no relevance. --Master Starkeiller 22:20, 2 Dec 2005 (UTC)
            • Listen, the point is he was defeated. Therefore, it was another victory for the New Republic. Admiral J. Nebulax 23:54, 2 Dec 2005 (UTC)
              • He was not beaten in battle, as a warrior, a fighter, a duelist, therfore, it shouldn't be counted as a victory. --Master Starkeiller 10:16, 3 Dec 2005 (UTC)
              • He was defeated by his own storm, which the New Republic would definitely consider a victory. Admiral J. Nebulax 12:41, 3 Dec 2005 (UTC)
                • The New Republic, exactly. Not Luke Skywalker. He didn't lose the duel. --Master Starkeiller 13:11, 3 Dec 2005 (UTC)
                  • So? Isn't Luke a part of the New Republic? Didn't he technically emerge victoriously? The answer to those two questions is yes. Admiral J. Nebulax 13:13, 3 Dec 2005 (UTC)
                    • Yeah, but the question here is: Who won the damn duel, not who emerged victoriously. --Master Starkeiller 13:20, 3 Dec 2005 (UTC)
                      • You are right. Palpatine lost, because of his Force storm, and Luke and Leia won because Palpatine lost control of his Force storm. So, Luke and Leia were victorious. Admiral J. Nebulax 13:30, 3 Dec 2005 (UTC)
                        • And then he came back, and... it's a mess... --Master Starkeiller 13:51, 3 Dec 2005 (UTC)
                          • Exactly. It was a victory until the Emperor returned. Admiral J. Nebulax 14:33, 3 Dec 2005 (UTC)
                            • Something like that. What's the purpose of the arguement again? --Master Starkeiller 14:57, 3 Dec 2005 (UTC)
                              • SFH was wondering whether or not that was a victory. Admiral J. Nebulax 15:00, 3 Dec 2005 (UTC)
                                • If we've reached an answer that would be: It was a quasi-victory. --Master Starkeiller 15:17, 3 Dec 2005 (UTC)
                                  • I agree, Starkeiller. I had basically said this at the beginning, but I guess I had forgotten about it. Admiral J. Nebulax 15:19, 3 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Apparently you seem to forget that Luke wasn't alone in his duel with Palpatine. He was being helped by his sister and the unborn child through the will of the Force. Together, they used a sort of as of yet unknown Force ability to aide Luke in combat and to cut off Palpatine's connection to the Force, hence why he lost control of the Force Storm. Palpatine beat Luke previously in the cloning labs while the Jedi Master was without aid from any outside sources. If you want more evidence, read the footnotes included in the DE Graphic Novel collection. Also take note of the quote "Now you will experience the full power of the Dark Side!" from Palpatine in the notes, do you think Lucas could have derived the line as a homage to Dark Empire?

Lightsaber pictures

Stop getting rid of the pictures I placed from other pages, unless you want to dispute about them.. -Carsonley

[[:File:Shii-Cho.jpg|thumb|340px|Kit Fisto's Shii-Cho failing before Darth Sidious's Ataru]] [[:File:Ataru 1.jpg|thumb|250px|right|Darth Sidious fighting Mace Windu with Ataru]] [[:File:Vaapad.jpg|thumb|400px|A masterful display of Vaapad by its creator and one of its masters]]

December 4, 2005

  • All that does is screw up the page. Therefore, I will continue to get rid of them if you put them up. Admiral J. Nebulax 20:42, 4 Dec 2005 (UTC)
    • Well, they [i]could[/i] be put there if they were shrunk...TIEPilot051999 00:56, 5 Dec 2005 (UTC)

To Admiral J. Nebulax, can you describe how it screws the page up because I personally think they show Palpatine's true nature pretty well and therefore is needed? If you personally do not want to discusses this in the open, talk to me. - Carsonley December 4, 2005

  • These images already belong to other articles. We could add one of them but more than one would mess up the article's flow. --Master Starkeiller 13:18, 5 Dec 2005 (UTC)
    • Plus, they were bunched too close together and therefore make the article look horrible. Admiral J. Nebulax 21:36, 5 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Length of article

Is it just me, or is this article waaaaaay too long? I mean, this is essentially a play-by-play transaction of every movie scene he's in. Does anyone else agree with me that a lot of this stuff should be trimmed? Kuralyov 00:15, 5 Dec 2005 (UTC)

  • I agree. Although it is all valuable information, the sections on Palpatine's early and unknown life should be trimmed down a lot. Admiral J. Nebulax 00:18, 5 Dec 2005 (UTC)
    • Maybe the best thing to do, so that we don't lose information, is to add it to those other articles that relate to him. -- Riffsyphon1024 00:21, 5 Dec 2005 (UTC)
    • What other articles? I hope you don't mean re-activating the Darth Sidious page. Admiral J. Nebulax 00:22, 5 Dec 2005 (UTC)
    • Personally, I disagree. Since this is Star Wars wiki, it is an enclyopdia. (essentially) Therefore, the longer the page the better in terms of info though. If too many useless words are being added then it needs to be shrinked up. However, every thing he has done, even by movie scene, it should be kept. Therefore, I oppose this proposition and no do not start new articles, if they are related, it should be in one wiki page.Carsonley
      • I agree with Carsonley. We must make it longer, not shorter. --Master Starkeiller 13:09, 5 Dec 2005 (UTC)
  • I knew this problem would arise when the page was merged, perhaps it should have stayed as two articles--Darth Mantus 11:26, 6 Dec 2005 (UTC)
    • How can a big article be a problem? For goodness' sake, long=goood, short=bad! And we're talking about useful, juisy stuff, not useless information! --Master Starkeiller 12:06, 6 Dec 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree with the above. The more information, the better. In my opinion, it would be a shame to lose any of the information on this page. This page is one of the best, if not the best developed page on Wookiepedia. I think that the information we have should stay, and any new information be added as needed. - Angel Blue 451 15:38, 6 Dec 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to thank Carsonley, Angel Blue 451, and especially Master Starkeiller for sticking up for a longer article, as opposed to removing material. Why? Partly out of self-interest, since a lot of the early and unknown life material is stuff I worked on! I'm willing to accept that my prose style is a little wordy, if you want to throw that accusation at me (I won't change it, but I'll accept it.). But remove data? WHY?

I want people to consider the difference between Wookieepedia and any other Star Wars database out there. Every such site - including the official site's databank, which you'd think would do otherwise - is far too abbreviated in its information. Here - and here alone - there can be a repository for every known fact about a given character, location, event, and so on. With the exception - possibly - of the Holocron that Leland Chee keeps in his safe, who else can make this assertion?

If we didn't do things this way, there would still be a need for exactly this format. In other words, someone has to do it, and why not US?! I still hope to have us be a much-used tool for writers in the official Expanded Universe. Believe me, they're look at what we're doing. They have to say we're not 100% canon, since it can be edited at any point, and not always for the better (I'm talking to you, SuperShadow and company!). But they respect us and what we do. That's why I write in and create articles here. If it means it's necessary for me to transcribe Palpatine's day-to-day itinerary, then I'm constrained to do just that. The standard of quality we hold ourselves to demands it.

And as far as our friend the Emperor is concerned, I'm coming back to work! As some know, my girlfriend was brought into surgery, but it went fine, and she's recovering in time for me to promote her to fiancee. As for my grandmother, she died, but peacefully, among her entire family. A good way to go. Business is in good shape. In other words, watch out Wookieepedians! I'm back! And I'll work hard to help you all make the Palpatine article as good as I possibly can. I'll have good work to build on, because you've all done fantastic jobs yourselves.

And in that spirit, although it's not here yet, I'd like to wish you all a happy holiday season. Expect my presents - new additions to the article - very soon. Erik Pflueger 20:51, 7 Dec 2005 (UTC)

  • While it should be long, the sections on Palpatine's early life should be shortened, as we have no information on that. If you notice, it's mainly questions and other somewhat unnecissary statements. Admiral J. Nebulax 20:59, 7 Dec 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't think any of the information should be removed. But definitely the fluff that is sued to pad the information should be toned down. Consider:
By the time biographers turn their attention to the lives of the most infamous figures among us, such individuals often become the subject of legends so far removed from reality that it is difficult to concieve of them as ever having been young or innocent. The very idea that there was a time when Palpatine could have been an innocent child is difficult—if not impossible—to accept. Such a possibility seems overshadowed by his later actions. Too often did he affect an air of innocence to achieve his ends. Nevertheless, even for Palpatine, the rule must remain: he was a child before he was a man, and a man before he was a monster.
The difficulty comes in documenting those very years of innocence, if indeed there were any. Information about Palpatine's youth is extremely hard to come by. What there is often cannot be verified by primary sources such as archival documents, since most records on his homeworld concerning his ancestry, his immediate family and his upbringing had "mysteriously vanished" by the time he became a Senator, most likely deliberately destroyed. It is known that Palpatine was born on the eleventh day of the eighth standard month, in the year 82 BBY.

Those two paragraphs could be toned down to just:

Although much of the data on his family and early life was lost, perhaps erased deliberately by him, Palpatine was born on Naboo in 82 BBY.

That is much easier to read, there is no need to sift through mounds of flowery prose to get to the information (after all, like you said, this is an encyclopedia, and should be written like one) is the style that all other articles here use. Kuralyov 21:05, 7 Dec 2005 (UTC)

  • That's what I was thinking. Admiral J. Nebulax 21:06, 7 Dec 2005 (UTC)
    • Though I agree the prose is unnecesary, I prefer two paragraphs instead of the sentence. Let's make it simpler, not crop it down. --Master Starkeiller 21:11, 7 Dec 2005 (UTC)
      • Then what shall we do? Admiral J. Nebulax 21:14, 7 Dec 2005 (UTC)
        • Make the text more encyclopedic, not cut it down to one sentence. --Master Starkeiller 21:20, 7 Dec 2005 (UTC)
      • Cutting it down would make it more encyclopedic, since the only reason it's so long is because it's clogged up with so much unencyclopedic nonsense. Kuralyov 21:23, 7 Dec 2005 (UTC)
        • Check out what I did with it. I think it's fine now. --Master Starkeiller 21:27, 7 Dec 2005 (UTC)
        • I trimmed it up a bit more, but I think that that one section is good. Kuralyov 21:30, 7 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Folks, I perfectly understand your rationale, but if we're to edit it, I hope you'll hear me out first. What I've put into this article is material I spent the last four years working on. I won't lie to you; it hurts to hear it's not being well-received. In many cases, even those who want a change have been complimentary - I'd like to single out Starkeiller, with my thanks - but while I can handle constructive criticism, not everyone has given me this. Kuralyov has the right to his opinion - it's a free Internet, after all - and he's a good person, but, forgive me for saying it, I feel that to call what I've written "nonsense" is not the best way to get his point across. I'm not angry at him, but I feel that's not the best choice of words.

But before you ask me, "Want some cheese with that whine?" I'll repeat what I wrote earlier today: I'm doing this to make the article good. I'm not in this to make it mine. There's a big difference. I can't accept two paragraphs being whittled down to just two sentences anymore than others here would, but I'll try to make us both happy. So rather than just restore the deleted material and dig my heels in, I'll ask: "Okay, the consensus is we should trim the fat. But I would still like to maintain the style of it somehow, I don't think that's wrong. How then should we do it, and if I take a stab at it, would you be willing to consider it?" I ask knowing you are all fair enough to say yes, you'll try it out, and if you like it, you'll keep it.

Let me also make this offer: I also sense that if the "too many notes, Mozart" problem is cropping up for the "early years" section, it might do so in the future for other sections. With that in mind, I'll ask now: is the rest overwritten too, or is the rest of the article a good mix of substance and style? I don't fish for compliments (though I would love to know I've been doing good by you all), but I do hope for fairness. If the answer is yes, I'll work on it for you all. Then, if it's possible, we'll have a win-win situation.

Thanks for listening, and do let me know what you think. Best regards. Erik Pflueger 01:37, 8 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I'm a bit sad to see Erik Pflueger's work go. I thought it was excellent, and it actually says quite a bit about the character if you stop and think about it. - Angel Blue 451 02:58, 8 Dec 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't have to go, Angel. I just have to find another, better way of saying what I said before. That's all. I can still say "quite a bit" about the character. A good writer can say things artfully in more than one way. But I thank you very much for your complement. It means a lot. Erik Pflueger 03:08, 8 Dec 2005 (UTC)

  • My only objection is that it isn't very encyclopedic. It's written like a novel, not an article for an encyclopedia. May I propose something? We could add a section about what could lie in Palpatine's head in the Behind the scenes section where all the great but un-encyclopedic stuff Erik wrote will fit perfectly and enrich the article. --Master Starkeiller 12:44, 8 Dec 2005 (UTC)
    • Well, I've read the article, and I enjoyed it. I don't have a problem with the style of prose, and I don't see what is wrong the the length either. There is a lot of information in there. The logical outcome of an article containing lots of information is - no matter how much you try to package it into nominalizations and so on - a long article. I don't understand why so many users here seem to suffer from 'long-articlo-phobia'. KEJ 12:53, 8 Dec 2005 (UTC)
      • Agreed. I liked Erik's style. Thanos6 12:59, 8 Dec 2005 (UTC)
        • I like long articles. This one is going to grow bigger and will always be the longest in the encyclopedia. But the prose is un-encyclopedic. --Master Starkeiller 13:37, 8 Dec 2005 (UTC)
          • Is there an encyclopaedic style? I've read a couple of similar articles in other encyclopaedia. KEJ 13:41, 8 Dec 2005 (UTC)
            • If there isn't, then I should put back Erik's full sentences, along with the prose. But I thought an encyclopedic style was: This happened, then this, then this, just facts. --Master Starkeiller 13:54, 8 Dec 2005 (UTC)
              • I'm not saying that there isn't such a style. What I'm saying is that I don't know if there is one. But I think that we agree that, whether complex or simple, an encyclopaedic article should be written such that the facts are clearly understood by the reader. KEJ 14:01, 8 Dec 2005 (UTC)
                • Erik's prose wasn't difficult to understand. Anyone knows about a standard encyclopedic style? --Master Starkeiller 14:04, 8 Dec 2005 (UTC)

All right, I took another stab at the "early days" paragraph. I kept it at a single paragraph, but I added back the fact that the reason he purged the archives was to cover up his second life. I restored that because I felt it was a good lead-in to the section about meeting Plagueis and becoming his apprentice. The rest, the stuff having to do with historians dealing with Palpatine's years as an innocent child, I left out. I liked it, but I have to agree, it could be taken as padding, so it stays gone. My defense: I was thinking the way Dan Wallace did when he wrote the intro to his New Essential Chronology bios of Han, Lando, Luke and Leia. Hope this works better! Erik Pflueger 17:41, 8 Dec 2005 (UTC)

  • But yes! The New Essential Chronology bios of Han, Lando, Luke and Leia. I changed my mind. I support putting all the prose back in. --Master Starkeiller 17:57, 8 Dec 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree. The prose is nice. -- SFH 17:59, 8 Dec 2005 (UTC)
    • While it is nice to have a lot of information, I again say that the first couple of sections are only more like questions than facts. Therefore, it should be shortened down more. Admiral J. Nebulax 20:38, 8 Dec 2005 (UTC)

OK, Admiral Nebulax, I was able to shorten the "Darth Plagueis" section by a paragraph. But this is as far as I'm willing to go. The rest, save for the introductory paragraph in the section (which I maintain is necessary and good material), is more fact than question, as far as I'm concerned. The best that can be done with it, and maintain its stylistic integrity, is to trim one word out of a given sentence, tops.

I hope this does a little better by you, Jack, because I have to say that this is as far as I'm willing to go. The rest I would sooner have stay as it is. And if I'm willing to go by the will of the group on things - which I think I've proved - then others should as well, if the group decides to leave the rest of the material untouched.

As for the questions being a problem, I think that's not the case. First, it is important to say how much is NOT known, because it emphasizes the mystery of his character without omitting anything that IS known. Second, if we're to be a complete source of information about a given subject, then aren't we obligated to include the gaps in the record, and the existing theories about what filled those gaps? Third, and most importantly, for a character like this, the mysterious and enigmatic Darth Sidious, who took so many secrets with him to the grave, the questions themselves ARE facts. That's how I see it.

Now, to those who want to restore the opening paragraphs, I thank you for your support, but I caution you: be sure that's what you want, first. I won't argue if they go back, but I will only restore it if I have the majority at my back. So think on it a bit. It'll still be here when we're done. Erik Pflueger 21:48, 8 Dec 2005 (UTC)

    • I still want everything that was cut restored. --Master Starkeiller 22:02, 8 Dec 2005 (UTC)
      • You can't just order people around, Starkeiller. Admiral J. Nebulax 23:09, 8 Dec 2005 (UTC)
        • He's not ordering anyone, Jack. I asked people to think if they still wanted to restore the opening paragraphs, and he's answering me. That's all. May I assume that you do not wish them restored? Erik Pflueger 23:59, 8 Dec 2005 (UTC)
          • I don't mind it being restored; it should just be less text. Admiral J. Nebulax 00:18, 9 Dec 2005 (UTC)
            • You have the good of the article in mind, Jack - you always do - but saying you don't mind restoring it "just with less text" is a little hard for me to make sense out of. It would be helpful if you could be more specific in what needs to be removed, on a paragraph-by-paragraph basis. Would you be willing to give that a shot? It would help me in deciding what - if anything - to pare down, and help others to make up their minds on the keep-or-remove decision. Thanks for the assist. Erik Pflueger 01:10, 9 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think the length is a problem. It is an asset. In other formats (such as books) encyclopedia articles need to be concise in order to preserve space for the other topics. But because of the unique format of Wookiepedia, we as editors have the freedom to present these facts with as much detail and flavor as we want; detail and flavor that would simply not be possible in any other format. I think that it would be in our benefit to take advantage of this freedom. Indeed, we would be remiss not to. Even the official site's Databank does not have a quarter of the detail we do. The greatest asset of this format is the ability to present our information with detail that is not possible anywhere else. I suggest we use it to our advantage. - Angel Blue 451 02:39, 9 Dec 2005 (UTC)

  • Angel, you just restated some of the central points I've made about my approach to the Wookieepedia from the beginning of my stay here. It's good to see that others feel the same way about the wonderful potential this format offers. Also, did you paraphrase Admiral Motti with that last sentence? Sure sounds like it. :) Erik Pflueger 03:14, 9 Dec 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree with Angel. Plus, Jack, I didn't order anyone, Erik asked for our opinion.
    • My apologies, Starkeiller. It was just the way you had it worded that made it sound like an order. Admiral J. Nebulax 13:09, 9 Dec 2005 (UTC)
      • Yeah, since this is the Palpatine page, I thought I should sound like Palpatine... --Master Starkeiller 13:23, 9 Dec 2005 (UTC)
        • Okay, then... Admiral J. Nebulax 13:25, 9 Dec 2005 (UTC)
          • I'm sure old 'Keiller was just making a funny, Jack. In any case, if he wants to sound like Palpatine, he should have more croaking and cackling and hissing in it. ;) Erik Pflueger 17:08, 9 Dec 2005 (UTC)
            • Agreed. Anyways, back to the good of the article: While it is fine now, I just think we should shorten the sections on Palpatine's early years by getting rid of some extra details and some sentences that don't tell much about Palpatine. Admiral J. Nebulax 17:25, 9 Dec 2005 (UTC)
              • Well, in my opinion, if you wanted to shorten those sections, they are already significantly shortened as it is. The real conflict, as I see it is clarity versus detail. Obviously, our main concern as editors is to present all of our information clearly. While it is true that longer does not always equal better, more information does equal better. More detail is always good as well. The question, which is still not totally answered (from my point of view at least), is: what do we want to keep, and what do we want to cut (and why)? - Angel Blue 451 17:43, 9 Dec 2005 (UTC)
                • There are a few things that I have seen that appear to be unnecissary. For example: "What exists often cannot be verified by primary sources such as archival documents, since most records on his homeworld concerning his ancestry, his immediate family and his upbringing had "mysteriously vanished" by the time he became a Senator, and were most likely destroyed". That could really be shortened. Admiral J. Nebulax 17:48, 9 Dec 2005 (UTC)
        • It could, true. But should it be? Is it really necessary for it to be shortened? What reasons do we have for shortening it? It seems to me that we have more reasons to leave it as is than to change it. It gives us information, and provides detail and flavor. Aren't those things to be encouraged? Just because something can be reduced doesn't always mean it needs to be, or even necessarily should be. What need do we really have to shorten it? - Angel Blue 451 17:56, 9 Dec 2005 (UTC)
          • Yes, it should be. Right now, the sections on Palpatine's unknown early life has a lot of information that should be cut down, since it was unknown. Admiral J. Nebulax 17:59, 9 Dec 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to address the paragraph with historians grappling with the depiction of Palpatine as once having been an innocent child. Does it really not say anything about Palpatine? I think it does, but indirectly. It keeps him mysterious by saying that the gaps in his record confound historians, that his crimes against history, deleting archive after archive just to conceal the Sidious identity, are yet another atrocity the Galaxy has yet to recover from. His wrinkled, claw-like hand is all over that paragraph even if he's not in it. The attitude of historians is no different than that of anyone who endured Palpatine's Empire: they have to clean up the mess he left behind, but also have a very difficult time of it because he's fudged things up so bad that all they're left with is ruins. That, and his cackling laughter mocking their efforts. In the absence of the facts they seek to uncover, what else can they put in but an acknowledgement of the very mystery he left them with?

And I'd like to repeat that what I wrote was perfectly in line with what is done in Star Wars materials themselves. Dan Wallace did the same thing for the New Essential Chronology (and the old Essential Chronology before that, since the section I'm referring to wasn't revised much) in acknowledging that certain facts of Han's and Lando's early years (especially Lando's) are unknown, and Han and Lando themselves aren't talking. What do you do if you're the author of such an article but acknowledge to the reader that you don't know and shrug your figurative shoulders, and yet do so in a way that at least gives the reader some meat for his money? Best regards. Erik Pflueger 18:00, 9 Dec 2005 (UTC)

  • Listen, all I'm saying is that it can be cut down a little. I'm not saying to get rid of it all, just cut out a little of the unneeded stuff and keep all the necissary stuff in there. Admiral J. Nebulax 18:05, 9 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Let me repeat my last point again, Jack, if I may. If something is unknown, what are we supposed to do, say nothing at all? Shouldn't we at least say why it's unknown? "Sorry, reader, we'd tell you more if Palpatine hadn't erased the records. We hate that he did that, but here's why he probably did it." That tells you something about Palpatine. Erik Pflueger 18:08, 9 Dec 2005 (UTC)

  • You're missing my point. It's completely fine to have that there, but it should be shortened a little. Admiral J. Nebulax 18:11, 9 Dec 2005 (UTC)
  • And, by the way, who's to decide what is necessary and what is not needed? In the absence of a consensus or even a majority vote, who decides? If any one person has the right to decide, it would be Riffsyphon, but he's letting us have our debating fun without needing to step in yet. In any case, you've still not specified what is and what isn't, as your opinion holds it. I need more info if I'm to try to make you happy. Erik Pflueger 18:16, 9 Dec 2005 (UTC)
    • It just needs to be shortened. Every section involving Palpatine's early life should be shortened. Do you get it now? Admiral J. Nebulax 18:18, 9 Dec 2005 (UTC)
    • I don't think I'm missing the point that you want it shorter. But if that's all you want, I don't see how I can do it without losing the things you say it's perfectly fine to keep in. Shorter for its own sake? That's not for me. And don't get cheeky with me. Erik Pflueger 18:19, 9 Dec 2005 (UTC)
      • Guys, settle down before an admin has to get involved. Admiral, could you give an example of how you would rewrite it? - Angel Blue 451 18:21, 9 Dec 2005 (UTC)
        • Listen: We know nothing about Palpatine's early life, except for the fact that Palpatine had all records of it erased. Therefore, I find it pointless to have such a long section on something we have no clue about. Admiral J. Nebulax 18:23, 9 Dec 2005 (UTC)
          • I understand your rationale. I'd like to see an example of how you would rewrite it. - Angel Blue 451 18:28, 9 Dec 2005 (UTC)
            • Well, for example: "What exists often cannot be verified by primary sources such as archival documents, since most records on his homeworld concerning his ancestry, his immediate family and his upbringing had "mysteriously vanished" by the time he became a Senator, and were most likely destroyed". I would make that into something like "Most records of Palpatine's early life "disappeared", most likely destroyed, by the time he became a Senator". Admiral J. Nebulax 18:32, 9 Dec 2005 (UTC)
              • Okay, Jack, that's a very good example. Here's my counter-point: everything from "most records" to "vanished" is taken practically word-for-word from the ROTS Visual Dictionary (the Palpatine page), and therefore can be taken as an established fact about the character. The stuff I couched it in is partly to keep it from being a direct transplant of that quote; I can't just steal someone else's goods. Yes, I could pare what I wrote down to something like what you wrote. But I'd lose some good color and I'd be reducing info from an official source. And by the way, I'm sorry I snapped at you. Erik Pflueger 18:42, 9 Dec 2005 (UTC)
      • Ok Admiral, I see what you have in mind. My question to you is this: why shouldn't we take the sentence you just produced and add more detail to it? Isn't that desirable? - Angel Blue 451 18:48, 9 Dec 2005 (UTC)
        • For once, Angel, I want to play devil's advocate (no offense intended). I think Jack's answer to your question, if I read him right, is this: "There's no other facts that have been established than what I wrote, and if there's no other facts, then what's the point of adding a bunch of extra words? Why say the facts in twenty words when I just said them in five? Just say the facts and have done." Do I have it right now? That's not to say that I agree, if that's Jack's viewpoint, because I don't. But you're doing an excellent job of arguing my side of things. I want it known that I'm trying to see Jack's side of things. I've said it before, I'll say it again: we all have the good of the article in mind here. It's how we promote that good that's at issue. Erik Pflueger 19:14, 9 Dec 2005 (UTC)
  • Erik, I do not want to argue here. I have respect for every person trying to do good for the article. This is just my opinion: I think it should be shortened a little. Not a lot so that the main point of it is taken away; just a little. Can that be done? Admiral J. Nebulax 19:37, 9 Dec 2005 (UTC)
  • All the historians thing gave flavor to the article. It is needed. --Master Starkeiller 19:34, 9 Dec 2005 (UTC)
    • Don't get me wrong, guys. Admiral, I do understand where you are coming from (or as much as I can). I think I've been asking my questions in the wrong way, and I apologize for that. Please allow me to try again: In what way do you feel the article would benefit from shortening the sections in question? What things do you feel would be improved, and how? - Angel Blue 451 19:49, 9 Dec 2005 (UTC)
      • I just think it would be a lot easier to explain that Palpatine's early life is unknown. Admiral J. Nebulax 20:42, 9 Dec 2005 (UTC)

I would be willing to concede that point, Jack, if I honestly felt that removing the bits under discussion would make it easier to explain. I've read almost any kind of reading material under the sun, and there have been only rare occasions for me when too many words made the point of a passage confusing. Anne Rice's work comes to mind, and even that's changed with her new Christ the Lord novel. In all other cases - especially, in my opinion, Thomas Harris - description enriches my reading experience, it doesn't hinder it. This article is the history of a character, a very pivotal one in the Star Wars universe, and the core word in the word history surely must be the word story. And no story that I have ever read, Jack, has benefited from being a bare-bones read. It has to be more engaging than that, or it is diminished. Only bad government pamphlets are written that way.

You've written that you think it would be "a lot easier" to explain that Palpatine's early life is unknown. I understand your point well enough, I think. My question is, easier for whom? For me? For Starkeiller, or Angel Blue, or SFH, or Carsonley? They've not indicated that it would be easier for them; in fact, they seem to be OK with it back in. I don't even think it would make things easier for you, Jack, since you appear to have understood what was written easily enough. Are you sure you don't mean that what I wrote, as you see it, doesn't seem relevant to the subject of Palpatine's early life? That there's the historians, and then there's young Palpatine, and they don't have anything to do with each other? That too is a good point to make, Jack, if that's it, but I feel I've defended myself well on that point as well. As I've written above, I feel the efforts of historians to uncover that mysterious period is relevant. If there is a fact they discover about the period, that says something about the character, but if he's hidden that fact, that too says something about him. It indirectly - but clearly - states what it was Palpatine felt important enough to hide. It also says something about the kind of impact he has had on galactic events: a terrible but temendous one.

Thinking that I have at least produced a decent counter-argument to the points of brevity or relevance, I have little to fall back on, save the thought that you feel that easier is equated with economy of words. The shorter the read, the easier it is to understand. But, with all due respect, I just don't - and can't - agree with that. It guts the points I was trying to make, points that many other readers seem to get just fine. You've said that you have no objection to what's there, that you don't say what I wrote had to go, just that it should be shortened. But I read your example paragraph, which you wrote for Angel Blue, most carefully. When you shortened it, nearly everything I wrote was gone. It was dead, lifeless. Again, I won't support shortness for shortness' sake, and I will work hard to maintain the integrity of this page - and, yes, of my work. Nothing I have seen shows me that the article would be at all improved by the deletions. Just . . . shorter.

And so, Jack, noble Admiral of the Fleet, I feel I've argued my case as well as I can. I have to close my book, turn off the Internet, return to my recovering girlfriend. Yvette's crocheting a blanket for me, and we want to watch Iron Chef together. There's the issue, and then there's her, whom I love. She's good enough that she doesn't feel the need to ask: "Do you have to watch Star Wars ONE MORE TIME?" And she's more important to me than any galaxy far, far away. So I leave it to the readers of this column to talk amongst themselves. They will, in the end, decide what goes and what stays, will they not? And I give you, Jack, by best wishes and blessings, and my congratulations for an excellent debate, whatever the outcome. You stuck to your guns, defended your opinion to the last, even if I don't agree with it. You're a good man, Charlie Brown.

G'night, y'all! Erik Pflueger 04:50, 10 Dec 2005 (UTC)

  • Erik, you are a great debater yourself. No matter the outcome, I respect you. So, after this is over, we could always work as a team. Sound good? Admiral J. Nebulax 12:51, 10 Dec 2005 (UTC)
  • So, are we gonna bring it back or not? --Master Starkeiller 15:55, 11 Dec 2005 (UTC)
    • Bring what back? Admiral J. Nebulax 16:00, 11 Dec 2005 (UTC)
      • Erik's stuff that were cut. --Master Starkeiller 16:04, 11 Dec 2005 (UTC)
        • Well, I guess it could, but I still think some of it should be edited a bit. Admiral J. Nebulax 16:08, 11 Dec 2005 (UTC)
          • If it's minor things then it's no problem. You mean, like words, or sentences or paragraphs? --Master Starkeiller 16:11, 11 Dec 2005 (UTC)
            • Some sentences that really aren't necissary. Admiral J. Nebulax 16:16, 11 Dec 2005 (UTC)
              • I put everything back. Feel free to remove these sentences you feel are unnecessary. --Master Starkeiller 16:24, 11 Dec 2005 (UTC)
                • Starkeiller, I'm glad to see the passages restored. Out of respect to Jack, I made some trims. Modest, but hopefully effective. Jack is right in this respect: why say something in six words when you can say them in five? So I took a little weight off it. And, rather than say "monster," which I'm sure Starkeiller would say is too biased, I put "tyrant," which is just as damning to me, yet more accurate for him. Some can doubt that Palpatine was a monster; few can doubt he was a tyrant.

And finally, can we lose the tense bar at the top? I ask here, instead of below, because I feel the problem of tense may have been tied in with the issue of the paragraphs that have been debated. Now that the debate's done, can that be removed as well? If it's all right, I'll ditch it, and if the problem, in the opinion of the group, still exists, don't hesitate to put it back.

Best wishes! Erik Pflueger 17:19, 11 Dec 2005 (UTC)

  • What do you think now, Jack? Anything else you feel would need trimming?

And Erik, I prefer the monster and legend thing. Not only does it explain that while to some in the Star Wars galaxy Palpy was the greatest hero that ever lived to others he was the most diabolical figure in history, it also is more accurate: A tyrrant is still a man. A legend and a monster is one step further. Someone stops being considered a man when he becomes a symbol for something, not when he achieves a rank or profession. Marx, for example, was a philosopher, a man, but stopped being thought of as a man when he became a symbol of socialism as its creator. It can be said that Alexander was a Greek king. So, what makes him different from other Greek kings and kings in general? He conquered half the Earth. He became a legend. Yet he was a man before he became a legend. The same can be said about Gandi on the legend side and Hitler on the monster side (I can't think of any other examples that aren't based on points of view).--Master Starkeiller 19:22, 11 Dec 2005 (UTC)

  • It looks perfect now. Great job! Admiral J. Nebulax 19:29, 11 Dec 2005 (UTC)
    • Erik always does a good job in writing. Not a compliment, my opinion. --Master Starkeiller 19:40, 11 Dec 2005 (UTC)
      • Starkeiller, that's not a opinion—it's a fact. Admiral J. Nebulax 19:43, 11 Dec 2005 (UTC)
        • Starkeiller, you made a damned good case for keeping "monster/legend" in. I mean, it was "so artistically done," to quote a certain Chiss strategist. In the face of that, I have to agree. I suppose I could offer the alternative that he was "a child before he was a man, and a man before he was a myth." My reasons? Just the flow of the sentence, that's all. I'd love to offer other ways of saying it as you intended, to see if they flow better, if it's no insult. But if that doesn't work for the group, I'm more than happy to leave it as you've written it. Erik Pflueger 21:16, 11 Dec 2005 (UTC)
          • Well, I personally like the "...myth." one over this new one. Admiral J. Nebulax 22:56, 11 Dec 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, I'm glad to see that in my absence (due to a nasty hacker) the writing was restored (albeit modified). I personally feel it is one of the best pieces on the wiki. - Angel Blue 451 03:35, 12 Dec 2005 (UTC)
    • Well, I think I've figured the best way to say what Starkeiller was talking about. I wanted to spell out that Palps was seen as a hero to some, a villain to others, like he said. And I wanted to maintain the flow of the words. Well, I remembered how I began certain chapter headings with a small paragraph, a la the Naboo crisis and Republic under Palpatine chapters. Why not split the historians bit off from the rest and put it there!? And add the legend/villain bit there? And the best part is, the youth section gets even shorter! Starkeiller wins, Jack wins, I win, EVERYBODY WINS!

So, ya like? Erik Pflueger 03:51, 12 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Tense template

What area(s)in this article does the tense template at the top refer to? - Angel Blue 451 15:42, 6 Dec 2005 (UTC)

  • I've seen issues in a lot of subtopics, actually. I've done some, but I know there's a lot more. Admiral J. Nebulax 21:44, 6 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Major Revert Needed

Some idiot just screwed up this page. A moderator, whom I have been told can easily revert things, needs to revert the entire page and then block the idiot that caused this. Admiral J. Nebulax 14:23, 11 Dec 2005 (UTC)

  • Though we should be very careful with ban, slimos like that guy that just messed the page up should get banned at first sight. They would never contribute anything good. Someone please ban that stupid damned guy. --Master Starkeiller 14:52, 11 Dec 2005 (UTC)
    • ...and fix the article. Admiral J. Nebulax 14:53, 11 Dec 2005 (UTC)
      • ...and bring the F#cK3r to me... I want to exercise my Sithness on someone and these kriffin' vandals annoy me big time. --Master Starkeiller 14:55, 11 Dec 2005 (UTC)
  • Fixered. --Imp 15:03, 11 Dec 2005 (UTC)
    • Don't worry, we'll nail him to the Tree of Woe. Erik Pflueger 15:14, 11 Dec 2005 (UTC)
      • Thank you, Imp. Admiral J. Nebulax 15:34, 11 Dec 2005 (UTC)
        • Not that I ever would, but I was tempted last night when searching google images for Vader pictures to replace his with some very funny ones on his page just for the laughs. But that is not the point of the site and I don't want to be destructive so I didn't. People who are messing this up viciously should be cut in 2 from top to bottom with a lightsaber.--DannyBoy7783 17:48, 11 Dec 2005 (UTC)
          • That's far too merciful. I prefer the approach Palpatine took with Bevel Lemelisk. —Darth Culator (talk) 17:57, 11 Dec 2005 (UTC)
            • OUCH! But which one? The piranha beetles? The dipping in molten copper? Or something else? At least make sure we get it right this time... ;) Erik Pflueger 19:20, 11 Dec 2005 (UTC)
              • Uh, what does this have to do with the major revert that was needed? Admiral J. Nebulax 19:21, 11 Dec 2005 (UTC)
                • It's this crazy thing called bonding. Wookieepedia is not only an encyclopedia, it is also a community. --Imp 19:24, 11 Dec 2005 (UTC)
                  • But why here? Admiral J. Nebulax 19:26, 11 Dec 2005 (UTC)
                    • Here's a good a place as any. StarNeptune 19:28, 11 Dec 2005 (UTC)
                      • Though the revert was accomplished, we just love to vent our frustration at such nabobs. Imaginary executions fit the bill just fine. Wookieepedians are often in a serious business; a little fun never hurts. Erik Pflueger 19:32, 11 Dec 2005 (UTC)
              • Why not have him drink molten gold? Aztec trick, veeeeery veery good. --Master Starkeiller 19:38, 11 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Saber pic

  • Mesa and DannyBoy7783 disagree about which should be the saber image. Your opinion's needed.

1. File:Sidiouslightsaberside.jpg|thumb|center|200px

2. File:MR-SW315.jpg|thumb|center|250px

3. File:Ultimate Sidious Saber.jpg|thumb|center|250px

Which one should it be?

Picture 1

  1. Master Starkeiller 17:39, 15 Dec 2005 (UTC)
  2. Kwenn
  3. Admiral J. Nebulax 18:26, 15 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Picture 2

  1. Angel Blue 451 21:59, 15 Dec 2005 (UTC) - The angle gives you a better view of the saber and it's details.
  2. --Darth Mantus 16:25, 16 Dec 2005 (UTC)
  3. --DannyBoy7783 06:29, 18 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Picture 3

Comments

  • The first is bigger, better, and shows there's no emitter hole. --Master Starkeiller 17:42, 15 Dec 2005 (UTC)
  • The fact that there is no emitter hole proves the saber image is incorrect. For furth discussion on the topic please visit the Image talk:Sidiouslightsaberside.jpg page.--DannyBoy7783 17:47, 15 Dec 2005 (UTC)
    • Exactly the opposite, and it must be highlighted: File:NO EMITTER HOLE.jpg|center|thumb|300px That's a film screenshot right before Palpy ignites his saber. --Master Starkeiller 17:52, 15 Dec 2005 (UTC)
    • Size is also not an issue here. Both images (1 and 2) are larger than they would appear on whatever wiki page they appear on. I will concede the emitter hole point to you, however, my image, Image 2, shows about half of each side of the grip. Yours shows more of one side than the other. I feel Image 2 better represents the saber. Perhaps, as a compromise, we could just make an image that has both pictures in it? That would be a simple photoshop edit.--DannyBoy7783 17:55, 15 Dec 2005 (UTC)
    • Okay, good point, but I still prefer mine. Now it's up to Wookiepedians to decide. --Master Starkeiller 17:59, 15 Dec 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to change image 3 to a composite of both sabers.--DannyBoy7783 18:00, 15 Dec 2005 (UTC)

  • Try it and if it's good, we may use it. --Master Starkeiller 18:01, 15 Dec 2005 (UTC)
    • Done and done. --DannyBoy7783 18:07, 15 Dec 2005 (UTC)
      • Hmmm... Great composite, but picture 1 is of better quality than picture 2 and they don't fit... --Master Starkeiller 18:14, 15 Dec 2005 (UTC)
        • Your image is at a different angle than mine other than that I do not see a difference. Like you said, we'll let the community decide.--DannyBoy7783 18:15, 15 Dec 2005 (UTC)
          • Hmm, it appears Picture 1 is winning by one vote. Admiral J. Nebulax 21:04, 16 Dec 2005 (UTC)
            • Not anymore. I figured no one would vote for picture 2 after the jumpstart image 1 had. Image three seemed like the more likely choice (between 2 and 3) but I was wrong so I am going to go with 2my image (pic 2)--DannyBoy7783 17:48, 21 Dec 2005 (UTC)
              • I have reverted the original File:Sidiouslightsaberside.jpg to what it was in the first place. You didn't win the vote and I posted the picture in the first place. --DannyBoy7783 22:32, 30 Dec 2005 (UTC)
                • But you didn't win the vote either! This isn't fair! It was a tie, so it remains as it was. --Master Starkeiller 22:43, 30 Dec 2005 (UTC)
                • I don't need to win the vote. I posted the original picture and you didn't defeat me. I don't need to defend my picture any further. This vote has been here for long enough now and you didn't defeat me. I'm sorry but it is staying as the original. Even if you think it is unfair my picture was the ORIGINAL image so it should have stayed as that until the vote was done which I am now declaring as being over. Plenty of people have had a chance to cast in and haven't. Please stop reverting it. Thank you.--DannyBoy7783 23:05, 30 Dec 2005 (UTC)
                    • Whatever. Keep the bloody picture. It's the article that suffers, not me. --Master Starkeiller 23:07, 30 Dec 2005 (UTC)
                      • It doesn't suffer because I'm not wasting space with an unnecessarily angled image. Also I think generalizing that your opinion is a widely accepted fact amongst the entire community is a bit melodramatic. I understand that you like Palpatine and this is your favorite page but you need to realize this is a community and not just your site.--DannyBoy7783 23:09, 30 Dec 2005 (UTC)
                          • W H A T E V E R. You want the pic so much, keep it. I'll say it again: I don't care. You're hurting the article, not me. I'll try finding better pics we might both agree are good. --Master Starkeiller 11:46, 31 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Vandalisim!!!!!

Someone should revert what some vandal did to this great article!!!! He deleted the entire Emperor Reborn section.

  • It happens all the time. A moderator will fix it and ban the idiot who did it. Admiral J. Nebulax 01:34, 17 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Problem

Why does Talk:Palpatine redirect to here? Admiral J. Nebulax 01:49, 17 Dec 2005 (UTC)