Talk:Darth Maul/Legends

Needs KFIIWT. KFan IIKFan II

Tales: Resurrection
Since this story has been officially confirmed to be canon, shouldn't it's events be moved to the main part of the article? It certainly doesn't belong in the same section as "Old Wounds" (which has been officially confirmed to be non-canon) and "Phantom Menaces" (which hasn't been confirmed by any official source either way but can generally be assumed to not be canon just by how silly and improbable it is)? 199.79.168.160 12:26, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * When and which source state that it was canon at all? It always list in the Appearance list as Non-canon appearance! Darth Kevinmhk 12:48, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * All that means is that the appearance listing is just as wrong as the rest of the article. Leland Chee has confirmed that it's canon. 199.79.168.160 07:48, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Show us a reliable source which states so, a link on Starwars.com for example, would be a good one. - TopAce 08:45, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I really don't think so. The story is a "Tale story with canon", not a "Tale story which is canon". If it really is canon, NEC would likely state it, and tons of fans would already ammend the article a long time ago. Darth Kevinmhk 10:05, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Scroll down to the comments on this page, where Leland Chee states that the Vader vs. Maul duel is canonical, although the exact nature of the version of Darth Maul that Vader fought is unknown, and could very well be anything from a clone to a spirit to an illusion: http://blogs.starwars.com/holocron/22/comments 199.79.168.160 02:19, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Umm... hey how do you guys feel about that? (I am shocked) Darth Kevinmhk 16:17, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I think "Holy crap" is a pretty fitting reaction. Although, personally, I like it the best of all the Maul resurrection stories, with an almost Shakespearean ending: "What could you hate enough to allow you to destroy me?" "Myself." Cutch 17:56, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Ya, that was a great quote. Darth Kevinmhk 17:38, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * This is going to require some hardcore additions to not only Darth Maul, but the Darth Vader, Death Star, Prophets of the Dark Side, and Sithspawn articles... Cutch 17:56, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The Maul vs. Vader story is canon?!...Um...I am freaking out right now...-- SFH 00:57, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Happy freak out, or disturbed? Cutch 01:28, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Uh, disturbed. -- SFH 03:11, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * That's nice... fixed the aforementioned articles with mentions of Maul2.0, as I'm affectionately calling this revelation. Cutch 04:51, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Strictly speaking, the Maul in Resurrection is not the original Maul, so Maul didnt actually "Appear" in resurrection. Should we add a bracket in Appearance and briefly explain it? Darth Kevinmhk 04:22, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Vague it up a bit. Cutch 04:27, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I add a "Identity disputed" bracket... See if it suits. Darth Kevinmhk 05:34, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * By the way, I think "Duel with Darth Vader" should change (although i put it there in the first place). Because for the same reason: this is likely not the real Maul. Does Cutch or anyone get a good new name for the part? Darth Kevinmhk 06:16, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * How about "The Kalakar VI Doppelgänger"? I like the world "doppelgänger", and I think its definition is appropriate for this situation: "A ghostly double of a person, especially one that haunts its fleshly counterpart." Comments? Cutch 16:55, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Great idea! Darth Kevinmhk 03:41, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Wait, "The Kalakar VI Doppelgänger", "Kalakar VI Doppelgänger", or "Doppelgänger on Kalakar VI"... which is better? Darth Kevinmhk 03:45, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I like the third one best, now that you mention it. Cutch 19:43, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Visionaries
Should the spin off story in Star Wars:Visionaries ("Old Wounds") be considered for note in this article, even though it may not be canon? -- Riffsyphon1024 05:25, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Yep. Both it and the clone Maul that fought Vader in Star Wars Tales should be added in "Behind the Scenes" QuentinGeorge 05:33, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree not only could Darth Maul have been cloned by his master Palpatine, but I believe that for a force user few things are impossible. Maul was obviously a great wielder of telekinetics and therefore could have found a means to suspend himself long enough for his droids to rescue him if need be. Also as for his wounds the cauterizing affect of a light saber would have saved him from bleeding to death, and he could have used the force to suspend his biological failures long enough to be transported to safety (as Luke did in one of those books that took place after The Battle of Endor..I forgot which one, he was trying to survive the vacuum of space in a damaged star ship). I don't think maul would have returned to Sidious after failure again but it is known that was very adept at mechanical engineering. So he would have done this for himself. Perhaps he returned to his homeworld and sought medical attention. I am partial to this idea of Maul tracking Luke on tatooine because it adds depth to the story of Obi Wan's exile as protector of Luke Skywalker. Why he would attack Luke instead of "Ben" Kenobi is beyond me unless he had the insight to see that Luke would either become Kenobi's apprentice" or servant of Sidious and Vader all of whom Maul would have sufficient reason to fear and loathe. Even if Maul renounced the ways of the Sith he would probably hate these people..but he could have only himself to blame really. I've seen glimpses of the aforementioned art novel in the bookstores but have yet to read it fully, maybe I will soon. Oh yeh does anybody else notice how Darth Maul was cheated?! in the movie his light saber is inexploicably deactivated as Kenobi leaps out of the pit. kenobi could have done this I suppose but, its almost too convienient say so. Watch the scene closely.

Darth Maul comic disagrees with this paragraph:
''Darth Maul was also a skilled mechanical designer. He created a custom-designed spacecraft for his personal use, as well as a unique speeder bike and the "Dark Eye" probe droids.''

In the Darth Maul comic, Sidious gives all the above mentioned items to Maul as a gift. May I ask what was your source? Azizlight 12:21, 20 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 * It's probably fanon. Was the editor an anonymous user? --Imp 12:30, 20 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 * He definately didn't design his spacecraft. Raith Sienar did, and Rogue Planet says just that. QuentinGeorge 12:31, 20 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 * I thought so. I think I remember reading somewhere that Maul did build his own dueling droids (the ones he practiced against), and rebuilt them every time he dueled (and destroyed) them. If anyone can verify this, maybe we could replace the offending fanon paragraph with this information. Azizlight 13:55, 20 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 * According to the New Essential Guide to Characters, Maul had mastered Mechu-deru, a Force based mechanized skill. It is how he built C-3PX. User:SFH
 * Somewhere in  Shandow Hunter i thought it said he designed Bloodfin, his speeder, but Raith Seinar deffinately designed/bruilt Scimatar, maul's ship. Cause thats the design the Jedi Intercepters/TIE-fighters used. Yoda1300 23:35, 15 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * added the mechu-deru & C-3PX into article. 219.77.36.126 06:40, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

CIS

 * Should Darth Maul be under CIS characters because he fought with the Trade Federation? i noticed other TF members who died in TPM were under the CIS catagory Sep. 1 2005
 * He was never affiliated with them. Note Darth Sidious is not under them either. Dooku is because he was official CoS of the CIS.QuentinGeorge 06:05, 2 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * PS, the other TPM TF members are under that category because the category is defined as "Members of the CIS or any of its member organisations. QuentinGeorge 06:05, 2 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Visionaries
[Edit] never mind

Darth Maul's Real Name
Darth Maul's Real name has never been said. The name that is in this page is what super shadow made. i think that part should be erased. Dylankidwell 23:09, 27 Sep 2005 (UTC) Do you have proof? like the novels name??--Dil 00:09, 6 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * Wait, what about the year he was born, since it says he was born on 54 BBY. If it's SuperStupid's crap, then it should be deleted. If it's not, I'd like to know the source. Gwai Lo 21:09, 29 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * The year was official, the name isn't - but it doesn't come from SuperShadow. Read Khameir Sarin. QuentinGeorge 22:45, 29 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * I think it should stay on. It is in a novel.(Prince Xizor 03:44, 30 Sep 2005 (UTC))
 * It's *alledgedly* in a novel. No one has yet been able to satisfactorally cite the reference for us. jSarek 06:20, 30 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * The name has Khameir Sarin is canon. Its not SuperShadow material. Jasca Ducato 20:40, 5 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * Its in the TPM novelization Jasca Ducato 20:02, 22 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * Could you give us the page number and mention which edition it's in? The only reports I've heard say Khameir Sarin was in some foreign-language editions, but not in any English printings.  &mdash; Silly Dan  20:06, 22 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Tales images
Azizlight, should the Tales images be incorporated into the article proper regardless of Tales' non-canon status? --SparqMan 08:19, 10 Oct 2005 (UTC) Problem solved then. Thanks for clearing that up. --SparqMan 18:37, 10 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * These pics are from the "all-canon" issues of Tales. QuentinGeorge 08:41, 10 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Resurrection...
Should we or could I add the clone resurrection stories of maul
 * No, because they are not canon. --SparqMan 02:15, 26 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't know. I saw that entire section and it seemed to put in alot of typing and it was well put together. All it really needs is a non-canon tag. Redemption
 * Length and quality aside, the whole thing needs to be moved either to a subsection of "Behind the scenes" or into a separate article with the tag.  &mdash; Silly Dan  02:27, 26 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * I thought resurrection tales story was canon now? razzy1319
 * What ever gave you that idea? MarcK 02:38, 26 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * a credible guy over at TFN Lit boards... razzy1319
 * No such thing! LOL. Seriously, don't trust any non-canon source, no matter how "credible". I've moved it all to behind the scenes, but I think its a little to indepth. QuentinGeorge 07:17, 26 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * And another thing &mdash; that section of the article is a bit too speculative for my tastes. How do we know, even if we pretended all three resurrected Maul stories were canonical, that the three incidents were perpetrated by the same group? I'm going to have a go at condensing it and removing some of the more speculative stuff.  &mdash; Silly Dan  01:59, 27 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * OK, so I removed the implication that the Prophets of the Dark Side were behind Maul's first two resurrections, and made the origins of the three resurrections a little bit vaguer (clones, necromancy, Maul surviving apparent death through sheer ornriness?) I only have the "Resurrection" story, and skimmed the "Old Wounds" story once, so the descriptions of the first and third resurrections like as not miss some important details.   &mdash; Silly Dan  02:52, 27 Oct 2005 (UTC)

A new twist. The implication of his answer in the comments section is that Resurrection has been included in the Holocron (although he does mention that it's vague on what exactly form Maul is, and that it may not really be Maul). Should we move that story to the main section then, with the proviso that it "appeared to be Maul" or "took the form of Maul"? - Lord Hydronium 03:10, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * This never got a response, but does anyone else think that Leland's mention that the Vader/Maul (or fake Maul, or clone Maul, or whatever) duel is listed as canon in the Holocron means that story should get referenced in the canon section? - Lord Hydronium 10:13, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Image for your consideration
I feel that this article could benefit from a picture of Maul fighting either Qui-Gon or Obi-Wan. I suggest this:

Thoughts?


 * Good Picture, put it in. Yoda1300 23:46, 15 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Age
What sources states he was born 54 BBY? Lieutenant Gerard 22:54, 30 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * I dunno. I thought he was confirmed as being 25 in TPM, same as Obi-Wan? He should be born in 57 BBY - Kwenn
 * 54 BBY is the date in the holocron. 58.105.93.140 23:26, 30 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Main Image
Bad? Good? Redemption 02:38, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Ohh, scary. I like it. -- SFH 02:39, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Might not a closeup of his face work even better for the profile pic? Like the following
 * What about it? QuentinGeorge 02:40, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I think profiles give the Wiki a more encyclopedic view than the full body shots. I'd go with that one (sized down I hope)Cull Tremayne 02:48, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * And the head one is a little too scary looking for my tastes. -- SFH 02:57, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Scary? He hasn't been to the dentist for a while, that's for sure. QuentinGeorge 03:01, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Quote
Are there no apt quotes about Maul for the lead-in quote? That seems to be our precedent. Complicated, I suppose, by the fact few people knew he existed, but there must be some. Even Qui-Gon's ''He was well trained in the Jedi arts. My only concl-and so on'' would work, wouldn't it? --Fade 21:27, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

darth maul and human supremacist speciesism
it's repeatedly stated that the empire taught and practiced human supremacist speciesism. the empire was founded by the sith order. the logical conclusion is that human supremacist speciesism is part of the sith ideology. but darth maul was both a sith and a non-human. i also mentioned this on the human high culture talk page. i'm very confused about this. Gringo300 04:05, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Erm, no. Seeing as the Sith were not human i doubt they would originally be humanocentrist. Especially snce Dark Lords such as Marka Ragnos and Naga Sadow were not human. So Darth Maul being Iridonia is no infringment on the Sith idioligy. Humanocentrism is an Imperial idea, not a Sith. Jasca Ducato 19:20, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, I think I read at the wiki here that while the Empire practised humanocentrism, Palpatine didn't. I could be wrong but I recall that. There is evident for it.--DannyBoy7783 19:29, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Khameir Sarin
Just to draw attention back to this subject... Why is Darth Maul's name still listed as apocryphal? I believe the proper reference for it is 'Star Wars Journal - Episode I - Darth Maul. As far as I'm aware, isn't this Canon? "What was my name? I don't know. It doesn't matter. My former name represents a death&hellip;"

- Star Wars Episode I Journal: Darth Maul, p.17 --Xwing328 17:36, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Good point. I haven't read it myself, but there's an entry for him in the Star Wars timeline gold compilation, which points out when something is canon or not...
 * OK, so timeline gold confirms that the name "Khameir Sarin" is not in the journal, and only in some foreign virtual encyclopedia, which also uses the 54 BBY DOB. It says the journal is canon, by the way.--Xwing328 18:13, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * What? The entry for Maul says he was taken from Iridonia etc, then lists the source as the journal, I can't see any reference to foreign virtual encyclopedias Jedi Xian 18:37, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Here is a quote straight from the timeline: "54 BSW4 • Khameir Sarin, the Zabrak who will become Darth Maul, is born on Iridonia. Very soon after his birth, Darth Sidious (AKA Palpatine) arrives on Iridonia and takes the child to raise as his own Sith Apprentice. He gives the child the name “Maul,” in preparation for his eventual title “Darth Maul.” At this time, Sidious is not yet the reigning Sith Lord, but raises and intends to train Maul in secret, avoiding detection by Darth Plagueis.* (conjecture based on Star Wars: Journal—“Episode I: Darth Maul”)* not in the journal. The name comes from the foreign editions of the Virtual Encyclopedia (I’m assuming the Insider’s Guide). It was cut from the English edition, but made it through to be officially “printed” in the foreign markets. This also uses the revised birth date of 54 BSW4 for Maul, given by Leland Chee on the starwars.com forums."
 * NOTE: This information has been confirmed in the Darth Maul journal. The name Khameir Sarin, however, was

- Timeline Gold - SWTG39.pdf --Xwing328 20:02, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Wait, I don't get it. Are you saying his 'real' name is official or not?
 * As of now, he didn't have a name before Darth Maul. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 20:25, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Red skinned Zabrak
Just out of curiosity, does anybody know when Maul got his red skin. Its just there's a pic of him as a kid but its not something that all Zabrak have. Like Bao-dur. Jasca Ducato 19:44, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * He's a different subspecies than Bao-dur. Like Blue and Red Twi-leks. An example of another red-skinned Zabrak can be seen on the cover of No Man's Land, a clone wars comic taking place immediately after Obi-Wan Kenobi's escape from Rattatak, and can be found in the graphic novel Clone Wars: Volume 5.--68.0.144.96 01:31, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Attacking his master

 * I know Maul attacking his master in his final test was a canonical event (stated in New Essential Guide to Characters), but may I ask whether this event was actually presented in comic / novel / short story / etc? Darth Kevinmhk 06:26, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The Episode I Adventure Journal: Darth Maul, I believe. Cutch 06:34, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Can anyone help out a new user?
Hi there! I'm a relatively long-time user of Wikipedia and have only recently discovered Wookieepedia which is in many respects like a dream come true. However, I'm more than a little confused about some aspects regarding the use of canonicity in the in-universe entries.

For example, this Darth Maul article contains a section on Maul's various contradictory resurrection stories. This subsection is very similar to (or is possibly even derived from) a subsection I originally contributed to the WIKIpedia Darth Maul article, but contains a confusing difference. Here, the "resurrections" section seems to be trying to make the various clearly contradictory stories all fit into canon, whereas it seems to me that they obviously (all) don't. The section is headed by the out-of-universe statement:

"The following is a continuation of Darth Maul's biography, based on the assumption that all of the non-canon appearances of a resurrected, reconstructed, or cloned Maul are, in fact, part of continuity."

So, my question is; why? Why this effort to sandwich contradictory stories into canonical (dis)harmony? Unless someone knows something I don't, the Star Wars Tales 17 story is explicitly non-canon as it's published under the "Infinities" imprint. And the "Old Wounds" story from Visionaries seems to have unclear canonicity at best. As to the Vader vs. Maul story, I confess I've never read it.

But at any rate, I'm puzzled by the assertion that "Drell Kahmf managed to acquire and preserve a duplicate of Darth Maul's brain", because that is certainly not what is stated in or implied by the actual story in question. Does anyone have a canonical source to support this assertion? It seems to me that the stories are simply irreconcilable and that to even try to mesh them strikes me as against the spirit of SW canon, at least as I understand it.

So, please don't get me wrong; I'm not really criticising anyone over this. As a new user of WOOKIEEpedia I'm confused and would like to know if I am justified in my opinion of this article's subsection, or if I am failing to understand an established policy or rule of Wookiepedia regarding canon. If anyone out there would be kind enough to explain this to me in regards to the system/standard of proof here at Wookieepedia, I'd be much obliged.

Cheers, DarthFistula.


 * That section simply means that non-canon information is being presented as if it were canonical. It's not implying that it is, hence the "behind the scenes" header. Adamwankenobi 15:06, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
 * We added that section (with a disclaimer) to the article mostly because one or two persistent Maul fans kept on putting all of Maul's resurrection stories into the canon biography section. I've only read the Vader vs. Maul and Kenobi vs. Maul stories, so any correction to the details of the other stories would be much appreciated. &mdash;Silly Dan (talk) 15:23, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Even though these stories are non-canonical, I have to say that they should be kept seperate, as there doesn't seem to be any connection between the three of them, especially considering Darth Maul's body. (SPOILERS ALERT):
 * First, the visionaries story (Which is totally awesome) has Darth Maul as missing his lower torso, and then later being shot in the head, in a panel that clearly shows bits of skull flying everywhere, and a size able portion of his head missing from the blast, and Kenobi stating that he'll burn the body in the desert.
 * Second, we have the Vader vs. Maul fight (Also awesome), which has a fully flesh and blood (And rather talkative) Darth Maul battling Vader, supposedly being resurrected/cloned/unhospitalized/time travelled/whatevered by some Dark Side prophets. Pretty dubious, considering the full burning of the body.
 * Third, we have the solid state hologram, powered by Maul's brain (Not so awesome, really). Considering that his head was blown off earlier, I have no idea how anybody could get a functioning brain out of that.
 * So, this says that all three stories probably fall into their own continuities, with the visionaries probably being the most eligible for ANY kind of canonality (Is that a word?) in the main Star Wars universe, and I feel that the article as is tries to enmesh them a little too much, and should probably separate them.--68.0.144.96 01:47, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


 * They are already in the BTS section, and the Resurrection stories already has a label stating they are non-canon. Darth Kevinmhk 07:10, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello again. Thanks everyone for your comments. I've taken them under consideration and felt that the general consensus is that the way the article had been attempting to mesh the three clearly contradictory resurrection stories was improper. So, what I've done is removed the assertion that the three stories fit together, as well as statements like Drell Kampf was using a "duplicate" of Maul's brain, when the actual story says no such thing, but rather clearly says that it was the real Maul (within that story at least). I've also removed the bit in the Visionaries story that referred to that version as the "one true Maul", since it is quite clear that no single one of these stories is any more canonical than the other two. Since I still haven't been able to actually read the Star Wars Tales 9 story myself, I have therefore left intact the vague assertion that the Maul featured there may have been a clone, although I suspect that was not necessarily the original implication. I'm also going to upload some more illustrative pictures of the Iridonia story. So, I hope you guys approve of what I've done. Even though the stories are non-canon I felt it was important to restore their own individual integrity as tales which were never supposed to coexist (apologies to whoever did that in the first place). All the best, DarthFistula.
 * Tales 9 doesn't state directly he is a clone. There are vague references to being able to bring those that no longer live back to life. I think it can be safely assumed, considering these are in the BTS section, that it was in fact a clone of Maul. if I wasn't it would have required he be put back together. It makes more sense that he's a clone of some sort. A Dark side cult was responsible for the events in that story.--DannyBoy7783 02:43, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, why I think your efforts are admirable, they are a bit unnecessary. No one claims the stories are canon. The bulk of the information is there. I wouldn't worry so much about it.
 * I'm sorry you feel that way. I just thought that even though it's non-canon (and yes, I did know that no-one was claiming that) I still think it should provide accurate information. The Ressurrections section had contained information which simply was not true and had been inferred/invented by someone trying to link stories that were never intended to BE linked. Surely Wookieepedia's goal is to provide accurate info and to eliminate misleading fanon? All the best, DarthFistula.
 * Thanks, that's exactly what the article needed. It's much more accurate and organized now.--68.0.144.96 07:49, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Incorporation of New Bio Info

 * I feel that Maul's new canonical Resurrection second death is formatted oddly, amidst all the Infinities stuff... can we have the Infinities stuff separate, but keep the Resurrection bit in the main bio? Cutch 03:07, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * They're currently formatted in chronological order (if they were in the Star Wars universe) and, though it does look odd, I feel it's better overall as it uses the new templates as they're supposed to be used and also means we won't have to move anything around if they're later incorporated into canon (which is entirely possible). &mdash;Jaymach Ral'Tir (talk) 03:09, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Okeeday, moto-grande admin. Cutch 04:34, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The Resurrection is not canon, quit trying to make it canon. Maul is dead, leave him like that. All the resurrection stories are infinities DarthMalus 02:28, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Please, DarthMalus, see the above thread or Leland Chee's blog: http://blogs.starwars.com/holocron/22/comments Resurrection is now a canonical story, like it or not. Cutch 03:04, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Can I have some help in watching that this newly canonized info doesn't get deleted? Cutch 04:11, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * What on earth are you talking about? Nothing on that pages points to it being canonised. QuentinGeorge 06:02, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Well there is the fact that it appears in the "Resurrections" section, rather than the "Non-canon" section like Watto's death does. &mdash;Jaymach Ral'Tir (talk) 06:07, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Plus, later, Chee says (and I quote): "[One reader asked] 'the Vader vs. Maul brawl is canon?' It's not quite the real Darth Maul. Hence the 'or something.' Who knows, it could have been a vision like Luke confronting Vader on Dagobah or just some sort of Sith illusion. Or a clone. Nothing's been determined as to what we are actually seeing, just that Vader and Maul have a pretty cool battle." Sounds like canonization to me. Cutch 06:11, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * First, although the new template looks a little odd, i wanna keep the article that way. Second, please kindly read through the attached link - the originaly blog and the comments. The story is canon, but Maul still died on Naboo. That Maul is a possibly clone or other means. Finally to Cutch: You got it again. Darth Kevinmhk 06:12, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Not to be a whiner, but DarthMalus is arguing this pretty strongly. Cutch 17:48, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I will provide a simple answer: Unless a new source state that Leland Chee was wrong about this, otherwise this will stay canon. Darth Kevinmhk 03:43, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * well i just mean I have been through all the blogs and the databank, and this seems to be the only incident yet the statement is in the context of other confirmed non canon stories, and was referred to as Infinities by Leland Chee as being so, so I was just wondering why he is contradicting himself. That is why I'm skeptical bt note I am not changing the article, I did a few days ago because I thought some anon was wanking the article, so do yo see where I'm coming from? It's already been revealed that Vader is actally still fast even as a cyborg, and that he is a practitioner of all lightsaber forms. So the Resurrection story would be hard to fit in to the continuity, especially when Vader would have probably just Force Gripped Maul and threw him into the lava. I mean in this story he seems like a whimp. I mean it just doesn't fit. I mean I like Darth Maul just as much as the next guy and I think it was ashamed he didnt get more speaking parts, but this is like trying to say that Vader's use of Force Lightning in Splinter of the Mind's Eye. It may just be a typo, pls there would have been an announcement abot it, there was none, and this is why I am skeptical. Cutch and I have come to an understanding, and might I add he did a fine job incorporating into the article, and that I won't change it, but I will remain skeptical about it. DarthMalus 17:54, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I suppose we can take an "innocent until proven guilty" aspect this time... I'm inclined though, to think that it wasn't a mistake on LC's part, as the posters asked him and he addressed it in a separate reply. Only time will tell. Cutch 19:44, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * So easily counter. Do you see Splinter of the Mind's eye, Dark Empire Saga, Legacy comic really fit into the timeline that perfectly? A big NO, but yet they are canon. Nothing is perfect. Darth Kevinmhk 03:22, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Nope. DE is refrenced in the the novels. SotME isn't really referenced, at least some parts. The Legacy Comic fits perfectly. This one just doesn't fit, I think the only canon element in the entire story is the Prophets of the Darkside. It was never intended to be in the canon, so why include it now is beyond me, but his statement, within it's context doesn't confirm or negate it being canon, especially since he has also labled it infinities. It is a silly story, and one that makes no sense. Why would they want the weaker apprentice (Maul) when they could have simply restored Vader to full health? I mean it's just a ludicrous idea. If a comic such as this was to be declared canon, why didnt he simply make a big announcement about it? It's just out of character for him. DarthMalus 04:08, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Anakin Skywalker bring balance to the Force by destroying the whole Sith: the Master Sidious, and the Apprentice Vader. This is the biggest claim for Movie-Only fans to disregard EU - which resurrect Palpatine and the Sith. George Lucas himself said in an interview that "Leia would become a Senator, she probably married Han, have kids and live happily together, but no more adventures." Now, about Resurrection: 1) Canon is for the Holocron department to decide, not the author. Authors obey orders, just like NJO author group obey order to kill Ani instead of Jacen. 2) Check Dark Horse site and you will see the whole Tales series is labeled Infinities, and we all know that the new volumn contain 100% canon stories. 3) You show that you dont understand the story at all: it was Darth Vader's Jedi past that the prophets hate, it has nothing to do with power. 4) Why should it make a big announcement at all? Many bugs in NEC are reported and repaired via OS blogs like this one. 5) Alright, maybe you can mail the Holocron Keeper to get an answer once and for all, if he replied a yes, then please accept it. Nice chat. Darth Kevinmhk 05:28, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Although Dark Horse labels the entire Tales series as Infinites, a number of stories have been placed into the timeline at a later date (such as Darth Vader: Extinction among others). Resurrection is apparently one of those retroactive additions - Kwenn 09:12, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Pardon me, but I don't like the new setup here. The other resurrection stories take place in different timelines than eachother (Consider Darth Maul's head getting blown apart, and then his intact brain being used in the later tales story), and I feel that this organization of the now-canonical Vader vs. Maul (Or something), being sandwiched between two non-canon stories is an effort on purists' parts to portray it in a non-canonical light, which strikes me as dishonest editing. I think the non-canon resurrection stories should be moved back into the "Behind the Scenes" section as two different stories taking place seperately from eachother (rather than in the same continuity as each other), as this would be far more accurate, and organized. Whether the newly canonical story is canon or not is not at the heart of this complaint, but rather the organization and depiction of the article. This has been nominated as a featured article, so let's clean it up and make sure that this is presented in a neat (and accurate) light. This is an encyclopedia, people! Let's not try to convince anyone of our opinions but rather just state the facts. Fix the resurrection section!--68.0.144.96 04:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Non-canon warning is enough to seperate canons and non-canons. This presentation method merely try to present everything follow by a timeline. As far as ppl pay attention to the non-canon claims, there is no problem. We cant help those who dont pay attention. Darth Kevinmhk 11:13, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * However, two of those events are non-canon and did not happen as per the Star Wars timeline. They are unofficial, and do not even fit together as their own continuity. The Visionaries and Phantom Menaces stories belong in their own section(s) and not in the article proper. As it is now makes that section look sloppy.--68.0.144.96 21:23, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Weakest Sith Ever?
I mean, he didn't have any of the superior Force TK or TP that any of the other Sith Lords displayed, nor did he have a particularly good type of DBL. So, is it safe to assume he is the weakest ever? Movie wise?
 * Maul was good, he would have defeated Obi-Wan easily had he paid more attention - TopAce 21:22, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * He died for the same reason he died in Resurrection: overconfidence. He was good, but the problem was that he knew he was good. Cutch 21:43, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * If it wasn't for the fact Ray Park wasn't holding a real lightsaber, Maul would have his hands chopped off over 5 times in procession....(god, the DBL was such a bad weapon). Maul also didn't display any really powerful TK or telepathy period, did Sidious even teach him those most basic things/
 * He mastered Juyo, that's great enough, consider his age. Darth Kevinmhk 02:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Still didn't save him from grabbing the blades of his saber themselves.
 * Sidious is powerful enough, can it save him on Death Star 2, the end of Dark Empire I & later on Onderon? No one is invincible. Darth Kevinmhk 03:12, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not about being invincibible, it is fighting effectively. And really, since he grabbed the blades themselves it also proves the fallacy and weakness of the DBL. Remember how Kun controlled it? Why didn't Maul?
 * First, their lightsabers are not the same. Kun's lightsaber is just a little bit longer than a normal hilt, while Maul's hilt is double the length of a standard lightsaber. 2nd, they do not share the same lightsaber style. 3rd, read EP1 novel to hear how Jinn praise Maul's power. Darth Kevinmhk 11:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Ever heard of hyperbole? Jinn praising Maul's power could fall into that if Maul did nothing to back up that praise.
 * Unless you are a Force-sensitive + lightsaber duelist in the galaxy far far away, otherwise I dont think you qualify to judge Maul's performance. After all, that was not our real world Earth. Darth Kevinmhk 02:26, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Take this for an example: Superboy claims that Superman(post-Crisis) could sneeze Earth in half. Should we take that seriously? No, since Superman(Post-Crisis) never displayed that power, thus it is hyperbole. Now, unless Maul proved that he was up to that praise from Jinn(who really wasn't that impressive either), it is considered hyperbole.
 * Unless you can prove that Maul does not up to Jinn's praise, otherwise please let go, because it has nothing to do with the article. Darth Kevinmhk 02:22, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Darth Maul was powerful but you have to understand that he desired pure physical domination. He demonstrates his skills several times. He never grabbed the blades, that objection was refuted long ago. The Jedi of this time don't flaunt their power, the Sith can't flaunt their power, less they reveal themselves, but had Maul survived, we would have likely seen his power. His master taught him well. His master, according to the NEC was the most powerful Sith Lord who ever lived. Sidious even said Maul was powerful. Alot of fanboy fanatics like to say that Naga Sadow was sooooo powerful because he ripped the core out of a star. Well firstly, it wasn't by his own power, but by his weapon systems on his ship. Secondly, why did he flee and stay hidden for so long if he were so powerful? Fact is Sadow was merely an alchemist. Could he use force powers? Probably. Do we see him demonstrate them? Well the sword fight with Ludo Kressh seemed to indicate that he can use force powers. Your arguement simply fails on all levels as it is Non sequitur and has a False Premise. DarthMalus 15:55, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Why his Saber design is based on Zannah's

 * From Abel G Pena's Grievous articles, we know Zannah wielded a double-bladed red lightsaber. We know that Exar Kun's was blue. The source for Darth Maul's research of his lightsaber design never specifies who he based it on - only that it was a "Sith Lord of the past". It's more likely to be Zannah purely because a) His is red, like hers, and not blue like Kun's and B) Darth Bane created a new holocron when he started his order, and it's quite likely Exar Kun was not even IN the holocron Maul had access to. Regardless, Zannah based her design on Kun's, so the ultimate pedigree of Maul's design still dates back that far. QuentinGeorge 12:45, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * ...Maybe I overlook? Because I just read Unknown Soldier: The Story of General Grievous again and couldnt find a clue about Zannah. Anyway, we know Kun and his tales survived even in Jedi Holocrons, so it is reasonable to expect his tales would survive in the Sith holocrons. Plus, color of blade depends on the crystals only, doesnt affect the design of hilt much. I personally prefer mentioning only Exar's involvement in the article, because it's the only thing we are really sure. Darth Kevinmhk 13:57, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Isn't the bit about Zannah on the Hyperspace supplement to US:TSoGG? Cutch 06:32, 30 May 2006 (UTC)