Talk:True Sith

I was under the distinct impression that the 'True Sith' were the Sith Empire around the time of the Great Hyperspace War, who in turn were descended from the Sith species, who are the true Sith. I have played through KOTOR II several times, and never is the age of the Academy or of the true Sith mentioned by Kreia or anybody else. This should probably be a redirect to either Old Sith Empire or Sith (species) Lord Patrick 10:34, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * True Sith is mostly a load of fanwanking. Some big, mysterious threat that holds out in the Unknown Regions throughout the entire timeline. Not gonna happen. - Kwenn 11:21, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Why was this moved? Is there any source for the new information written in it? Charlii 17:44, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Some newbie adding nonsense. Kuralyov 17:49, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Everything in the article comes from KOTOR 2. Just to be safe, though, I added a conjecture tag.SithPower 08:16, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Where are statements like this: "According to Kreia, the so-called "True Sith" were millennia older than the Old Sith Empire" coming from? Are people just writing this stuff because Kreia said that the 'True Sith' were "tens of thousands" of years old? It should be noted that Kreia also said that the Mandalorian Wars began "little less than a decade" before the events of KOTOR2 which took place in 3,951 BBY. In fact, the mandalorian wars began sometime between 3,976 BBY and 3,963 BBY. Soooo, obviously the old hag is none too good with dates. Or more accurately, Obsidian did not do their research properly. The "True Sith" could not have come before the Sith Empire for the simple reason that the term "Sith" did not come to be synonymous with 'dark side user' until the dark Jedi conquered the Sith species in 7,000 BBY. The "true sith" are obviously just the remnants of the sith empire...--Sentry 08:42, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was wondering this too. Kreia never compares the "True Sith" to the Old Sith Empire to begin with, she only mentions Revan's Sith Empire, saying that they were "untru" Sith. I'm rRemoving it until someone comes up with quotes real quick.
 * I for one am certain that the "True Sith" was supposed to be an offshot of the old Sith Empire, but that can't be true after the NEC retconed that empire to have been founded about 6.900 BBY. If I remember correctly, the "tens of thousand years" for the age of the Trayus Academy is stated in the OOU loading screen history info. And, since author intent isn't canon, we can only work with the info we've been given and say that there were some sort of Sith running around long before the old empire. That also works very well with the fact that we have other troublesome Sith, timeline-wise, for example Adas and the Killik Sith Lord. Charlii 20:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

"Many fans argue that the "True Sith", logically, could not have come before the Sith Empire for the simple reason that the term "Sith" did not come to be generally synonymous with a unified sect of "dark side users" until the exiled dark Jedi conquered the Sith species in 7,000 BBY. Before that time period, canonical sources implied that the Sith were a primitive, if highly Force sensitive, species that dabbled in what they called 'sorcery' or 'magic'. Of course, it is possible that the primitive Sith were the decedents of a powerful, space-faring race of dark Jedi, but at this point in time, there is not evidence for such a presumption except for the existence of Adas, a Sith Lord who was said to have lived more than twenty thousand years before the Dark Jedi made contact with the natives of Korriban and Ziost." Happy?--Sentry 22:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Possible explanation: As the article says, it's a nickname. They could have predated the Sith, even the word Sith, yet they were some dark side fraction, later nicknamed Sith, in lack of a better word, and the word True is there to distinguish them. so the real problem is not their existence, but the name. I see no continuity problem here MoffRebus 11:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes there was such a sect of dark Jedi. They were called the Legions of Lettow, but they were not Sith. In fact, there is no evidence whatsoever that the "True Sith" was a nickname. The only reason the term 'true' would be used by Kreia, in such a case, would be to imply a connection to the ancient Sith/Dark Jedi hybrid species of the sith empire.--Sentry 22:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Let me point out that "[...]the term "Sith" did not come to be synonymous with 'dark side user' until the exiled dark Jedi conquered the Sith species" is actually pure fanon. What we know is that the Sith species had a natural force-sesitivity. It's not more unthinkable than anything else to beleive that the primitive people that the Dark Jedi conqoured were the decendandts of a powerfull, space-faring race. Charlii 11:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, it was just bad wording on my part. I'll change it to this:

The article has some confusing talk about the origins of the Sith name, and points out Adas as one quirk. I'd like to ask, if it has been confirmed that Adas was called Sith (Lord) in his time, or was the title given to him in later ages? If so, it would verify or nullify any point he has in the argument. --213.216.199.18 02:13, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I believe it was in Tales of the Jedi that he was refered to as a Sith Lord. SithPower 07:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * (see Adas and Talk:Adas) --Sentry [ Talk ] 07:53, 12 June 2006 (UTC)