Talk:Palpatine/Legends

Question
The Article says that only Yoda, Mace, and Galen have been able to match him in combat with out aid. and Luke was only able to best him with Leia's help at the time and I can see that from where at the time Luke had only 10 or 11 yrs of jedi experience at the time. But if Luke fought Palpatine now is there any doubt as to Luke beating him senseless?

Powerful
Palpatine being the most powerful sith the galaxy has ever known is an opion not fact. No where has there been anything made that actually declares this other than Palpatines own words. Sith like Bane, Revan, Traya, and Krayt could easily also be the "Most powerful Sith". That should be changed in the beginning to One of the most powerful not The most powerful.
 * Technically, it's stated in the Essential Chronology, IIRC. While that's an in-universe source, and subject to Voren's usual fallibility, I also seem to recall it being stated in an out-of-universe section in Vader: The Ultimate Guide (can someone fact-check for me here?), which would make it impossible to argue fallible character opinion was the source of Palpatine = strongest Sith Lord ever. While we're on the subject of Sidious' power, I'd also like to point out that his loss to Luke Skywalker in Dark Empire, at least as far as the lightsaber duel is concerned, was a straight loss. The comic is ambiguous, but the audio drama specifies that Leia doesn't begin to use Force Harmony with Luke until after Luke's already lopped of Palpy's hand and disarmed him, winning the lightsaber duel itself. They only joined power to counteract the Force storm, not to give Luke an advantage in lightsaber combat. The wording and timing of events is VERY specific- hand gets cut off, Luke tells Palpatine to surrender, Palpatine whips up Force storm, THEN and ONLY then do Leia and Luke join Force power. And they only do it to cut Palpatine off from the dark side and make him lose control of his Force storm. Ergo, I'm going to change the statement that Luke only won the duel itself due to Leia's help- if you want to argue that Palpatine only died in Dark Empire because of Leia's help, then I couldn't argue, but he lost in the duel fair and square. The source material does not lie. Dewback rancher 21:36, October 18, 2010 (UTC)

The Emperor's Pawns show's Good ol palps being defeated and needing to be RESCUED by someone else while facing Sith Lord Spirits on Korriban. Now if I'm not mistaken Darth Revan and Darth Malak both did this and won against the evils there. So if Palpatine is the Most Powerful why does he fail where others succeed? Conclusion: Palpatine is ONE of the most powerful not THE most powerful.

Evil Incarnate + Coward
In the personality section of the article, it refers to Palpatine as "evil incarnate" which I don't think is proper, considering that that is an opinion based on personal morals. If people really need to put somewhere that he was "evil" it would be more sensible to write that he was evil in the opinions of many who suffered under his rule or opposed his reasoning.

It also says in the Personality section that "Palpatine also displayed cowardice at times" which from my point of view is utterly incorrect. Was Palpatine supposed to get up on the invisible hand and punch droids to death? Was he supposed to stand, unconcerned in front of battle droids, when one hit would kill him? He killed Darth Plagueis in his sleep maybe because alive he would be too powerful. That's not cowardice, that's practicality. Palpatine put on the facade of being scared when Mace beat him, so he could convince Anakin that he was the good one, and get Anakin to join him.

What do other people think about this? Venators 07:52, October 19, 2010 (UTC)


 * yeah, the p&t section is full of subjectivity and OR. ASDF1239 Chiss Ascendancy.svg -DISCUSSION- 23:33, October 19, 2010 (UTC)


 * Palpatine is an actor not a coward. Opinion is a tricky subject. Zeta1127 of the 89th Legion (talk) 23:41, October 19, 2010 (UTC)


 * Would anyone have any objections to me changing it from: "Palpatine was evil incarnate, yet also patient, intelligent, and an incredible actor able to keep up the facade of a good and honest politician for a prodigious number of years."

to "Palpatine was considered by many to be evil incarnate, yet displayed patience, intelligence, and was an incredible actor, able to keep up the facade of a good and honest politician for a prodigious number of years."

Anyone? Responses are welcome. Venators 09:28, October 29, 2010 (UTC)


 * On his alleged cowardice, the only time he had no motive to pretend to be afraid was when Yoda stopped him from fleeing. All the other incidents are too ambiguous. On the subject of him being evil incarnate, well I'm new here and perhaps not familiar with the required level of neutrality. However, in the web documentary on Sidious (which is on the Revenge of the Sith 2-disc set) the very first thing George Lucas says about him is that he is "pure evil". To me, that justifies calling Sidious evil right there. Also, we call real world mass murdering tyrants evil, so I don't see why calling a fictional one evil is a problem. JediHistorian 12:09, October 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * out-of-universe comments, even if made by lucas, don't affect the in-universe neutrality policy, and the wikipedia article on Adolf Hitler never calls him evil. ASDF1239 Chiss Ascendancy.svg -DISCUSSION- 20:52, October 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * Given time to think it over, I've realised my problem was with your reasoning for the change, not the actual change you want to make. I withdraw my objection to it. In fact, it might be better to describe him, in the intro to the personality section or later, as a psychopath. It's a less emotionally loaded term, more appropriate for a personality section. To me it's also a more accurate description of his overall personality than a megalomaniac, which seems to be a trait he developed after becoming Emperor. JediHistorian 05:00, November 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * We all seem to be missing the point. All articles are written from an unbiased and neutral viewpoint, regardless of personal feelings, beliefs or morals. The article describing Palpatine as "evil incarnate" directly conflicts with the wiki. I have said that I am willing to change it so that it fits with the overall base neutrality of the wiki. If I have unanimous agreement that this should be done, I will change the article to: "Palpatine was considered by many to be evil incarnate, yet displayed patience, intelligence, and was an incredible actor, able to keep up the facade of a good and honest politician for a prodigious number of years." Unanimous agreement so that we can close this and move on? Venators 10:41, November 3, 2010 (UTC)


 * Didn't both George Lucas and Ian McDiarmid state that Palpatine was supposed to be pure evil or something? That's probably good enough, seeing how several people seem to treat VA information/what the creator says as law from my observations of people who are tuned into a series. Weedle McHairybug 11:35, November 3, 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh my gods. It doesn't matter if Lucas said that. This wiki is neutral and stating that Palpatine is "evil incarnate" deliberately conflicts with that. Whether something is evil or not is a personal moral, and that part of the article should be changed. And as a wise man once said "out-of-universe comments, even if made by lucas, don't affect the in-universe neutrality policy" Venators 01:27, November 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * George Lucas can't be dismissed so easily. He made Star Wars, so Star Wars is whatever he wants it to be - case closed. To say his opinion is irrelevant sounds like all of the other Lucas-bashers who make the ridiculous argument like "Star Wars belongs to the fans, not Lucas" because it has something to do with being a cultural icon or whatever. In this case, it's not just an opinion that Palpatine is evil - that's what his character was created to be from the star; that's how Lucas envisioned him. As for some "in-universe" explanation, everything we know about Palpatine and what he's done indicates him as being "evil" by its definitions like: to cause harm, to deliberately violate some moral code, etc. JRT2010 02:25, November 6, 2010 (UTC)JRT2010
 * It doesn't matter. Whether someone is evil or not is an OPINION based on personal morals. I might well consider Palpatine to be someone who simply wanted to live for a long time, and who genuinely wanted to help the galaxy. What he did can be considered atrocious by us, but that doesn't mean that it's evil, because, once again, this wiki is neutral, wich means it doesn't matter about our opinions of characters, the wiki reflects only facts about them and things written in books or seen in movies! Lords of Kobol, doesn't anyone listen? Venators 11:32, November 18, 2010 (UTC)


 * The problem is that George Lucas was the one who made Star Wars, so whatever he says on the subject pretty much means for the most part that it is fact. Maybe if he were like you and me (IE, not the creator of the franchise) he would mean little. Weedle McHairybug 11:37, November 18, 2010 (UTC)


 * Just drop it already. You said that you would only change it if you had a unanimous vote on the matter. Well, you clearly don't have one. This site is meant to reflect Star Wars as envisioned by George Lucas. He made Palpatine to be a character that personified evil, so that's that. JRT2010 12:16, November 18, 2010 (UTC)JRT2010
 * this should be very simple. it doesn't matter how lucas personally "envisioned" star wars, we work with objective facts as presented in canon instead of favoring certain moral interpretations. we regard lucas' comments as canon when they pertain to concrete facts such as Conan Antonio Motti's name. concepts like "evil incarnate" are subjective, ergo they aren't treated as objective canon. ASDF1239 Chiss Ascendancy.svg -DISCUSSION- 03:15, November 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * This site is objective between the differing opinions of FANS, but that doesn't include Lucas. In the Episode III Commentaries, Lucas specifically said that Palpatine "was the devil, he was the epitome of all evil, etc." Obviously he meant to leave no doubt in anyone's mind that Palpatine was intended to be evil in every sense of the word. Hence, everything he's done has ranged from genocide, conspiracy, corruption, mass murder, establishing an authoritarian state, torture, etc. He was undoubtedly a narcissist and a sadist because he compared his soul to the blackness of space and cultivated entire life forms just to derive pleasure from killing them. This site doesn't count the moral interpretations of fans that lack canon sources to back them up, but it's different when it comes to the person who created Star Wars and based much of it (including the characters) on his own moral view of good and evil. JRT2010 16:54, November 19, 2010 (UTC)JRT2010
 * i'll paraphrase myself. it's irrelevant how certain elements of canon are intended to be morally interpreted. the only thing that matters is that they're subjective, and should not be presented as absolute fact. the site policy favors no moral perceptions regardless of who holds them. this has nothing to do with the "fans vs lucas" outlook or "lucas-bashing" agenda that you seem to be so fixated with.  ASDF1239 Chiss Ascendancy.svg -DISCUSSION- 04:46, November 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not so subjective when a canon source like the Star Wars Encyclopedia describes Palpatine's character as "evil incarnate". JRT2010 12:41, November 20, 2010 (UTC)JRT2010
 * This part of the article directly conflict with the neutrality of the wiki, it should and must be changed. Venators 09:30, November 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * I know my opinion isn't valued because I haven't contributed much, but I have been reading this wiki for some time. Facts, opinion, objective, subjective, canon, George Lucas, sources, etc are all irrelevant. (Paraphrasing) "All articles must be written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly and without bias. All significant points of view are presented, not just the most popular one. Readers are left to form their own opinions." The last sentence is a big one for me. Some guy close to Palpatine once said "From my point of view the Jedi are evil", now you guys use that as a template.71.227.40.49 10:04, November 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * Palpatine is described as evil incarnate on his Personality section, so it doesn't matter what people think about him - it's about how he perceives himself. That part of Palpatine is determined by the person who created and the actor who portrayed him. Ian Mcdiarmid said: "I like the notion that he didn't have any psychological subtlety or depth, that he was just solidly EVIL and the dirtiest word in his vocabulary was 'friend'. I thought that was terrific." That's what Palpatine is at his core. That's how Lucas wanted him to be portrayed. There are many examples throughout Star Wars, and on this site, where Sith Lords are described as truly evil characters. What are you going to do - change them all? That makes no sense since the Sith are clearly depicted as the evil antagonists in the storyline. If anything, the character's creator and actor have more say on what Palpatine is than anyone else. The site is neutral between OUR opinions, but it doesn't trump the views of those who are directly involved in making Star Wars. JRT2010 13:43, November 23, 2010 (UTC)JRT2010
 * I'd like to know where you're getting this "NPOV, unless it's George Lucas" nonsense from, because it sure as Hell isn't from the actual NPOV policy of this website. --  I need a name  ( Complain here ) 14:00, November 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * The NPOV article states that articles must be based on things like "real-world" and "in-universe" information. In the real-world sense, Palpatine was clearly created to be evil, in terms of the popular definitions of that word. In-universe-wise, there's nothing that indicates him as seeing himself as "good." He craves power and he takes pleasure in the death and suffering of others. "Palpatine was evil incarnate" is just for his personality section. It's simply a way of describing his own mind and why he did what he did. It's perfectly fine to point out in his history or biography section that other people (in-universe) took a liking to him, and agreed with him - because those are outside POVs that have nothing to do with how he sees himself. JRT2010 15:23, November 23, 2010 (UTC)JRT2010

One thing to remember, guys, is that "He was considered by many" is a weasel statement. Weasel words are words used to make a statement of opinion sound more factual and meaningful when in reality it's not. "Many" isn't specific, so it doesn't really conform to NPOV. You would have to specifically say who that is referring to. If it said "He was considered by the Jedi," then that's a very narrow statement. While it's NPOV, it's also useless in an article like this. Just my two cents. - <font color="#1A2BBB">Brandon Rhea  <font color="#1A2BBB">(talk) 04:37, November 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * I consider Palpatine to be the savior of the galaxy. In my opinion, Palpatine was completely justified and a good influence on the galaxy. How dare people call him evil, he is the savior! Hence, the wiki can't be based on morals because everyone has different morals. And yet again, we run into the neutrality policy, which some seem to be ignoring. We need an unbiased administrator here to solve this. Agreed? Venators 07:06, November 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * No, you completely missed the point. This is about his Personality section. In that part of the article, it doesn't matter what anyone else in Star Wars thinks about him. You wanted to change it to something like "Palpatine was considered to be evil incarnate by most people." What does anyone else have to do with Palpatine's personality? Do you even know what a personality is? It's about an individual person's own psychology, what his characteristic traits are, his behavioral pattern, etc... In that regard, your argument is pointless. As I said before, there's nothing wrong with adding to his biography or legacy section that some Star Wars characters admired him and thought he was a savior. But "In-Universe-wise", you're not a character in Star Wars so it doesn't really matter what you think about him either. Agreed? JRT2010 08:00, November 24, 2010 (UTC)JRT2010
 * I strongly urge all involved parties to watch their adherence to WP:CIVIL, as this discussion is in danger of breaching it. In terms of canon policies: while yes, WP:NPOV is a strongly upheld policy on this site, so is WP:ATT. If a source specifically says something, it will have to be put into the article one way or another.  CC7567  (talk) 03:56, November 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * there's a simple way of reflecting the SWE's info, as well as lucas' comments, without obliterating npov. work it into the bts, something like "the Star Wars Encyclopedia describes Palpatine as "evil incarnate". it's better than making assertions on the basis of intrinsically subjective morals. i don't even see what your point is; neutral observations of his personality such as how he "craves power and he takes pleasure in the death and suffering of others" could be valid in the in-universe portion of the article, but absolute value judgments labeling him "good" or "evil" are quite blatantly not. i don't see why you keep trying to justify the opinion that palpatine is "evil" when it has little to no bearing on the actual issue. <span style="font-variant: small-caps; font-family: times, cursive; font-size: 16px"><font color=#FF0000>ASDF1239 Chiss Ascendancy.svg <span style="font-family: times, cursive; font-size: 13px"><font color=#00A693>-DISCUSSION- 10:00, November 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * The Star Wars Encyclopedia deals with in-universe material and clearly describes Palpatine as "evil incarnate" from an in-universe sense, and thus it doesn't just belong in the BTS section that deals with the Real-World take on Star Wars. The SWE's "evil incarnate" sums up Palpatine as a person, it defines his personality, and is backed up by his actions. Palpatine himself apparently backs this up with his own words, comparing his essence to the darkness, or stating that he is the embodiment of the dark side, which espouses hate, anger, fear etc. There are other sources, such as the Star Wars Databank and New Essential Guide to Characters, which describe Palpatine as a person who is tyrannical and diabolical. With all of these sources confirming Palpatine as being evil, "evil incarnate" can be used to describe his Personality so long as its backed up with reliable sources, which it is. Yes, I get that it conflicts with the WP:NPOV, but given the sources I just pointed out, it conforms with the WP:ATT. Lucas's statements can go in the BTS section since they're from a real-world perspective. But things like SWE or the Databank focus on Star Wars from an in-universe perspective, thus their information can go in the in-universe portion like the personality section. JRT2010 16:37, November 25, 2010 (UTC)JRT2010
 * it cannot be simply declared here that palpatine is "evil incarnate", as there is no definition of the term that does not vary with relative morals, even in-universe. therefore, describing a character's personality as "evil" is meaningless. as i've said, it's acceptable to describe it neutrally using the concrete traits assigned to him by canon, such his relationship with the dark side, or his harsh, "tyrannical" reign. <span style="font-variant: small-caps; font-family: times, cursive; font-size: 16px"><font color=#FF0000>ASDF1239 Chiss Ascendancy.svg <span style="font-family: times, cursive; font-size: 13px"><font color=#00A693>-DISCUSSION- 03:14, November 26, 2010 (UTC)
 * It can be agreed from a neutral point of view that Palpatine fit the definitions of evil as reflected by his actions and his own psychological mindset. As I pointed out before, in his own mind Palpatine believed that he was the embodiment of all darkness; he literally saw himself as the dark side. From there, we have the "incarnate" part down. The dark side is more equated to "evil" (in its common definitions) as opposed to "good." It's not like his Biography or Legacy sections state that he is "evil incarnate" because that would be inaccurate given the differing opinions of him "In-Universe-wise." But a Personality Section strictly deals with how the character views himself, as well as things like his characteristic traits and so on. If Palpatine truly believed that he was the living incarnation of the dark side of the Force, then "evil incarnate" defines how he saw himself in his own mind. It has nothing to do with someone else (in-universe or out) "declaring" him evil. It states his own personal belief, and then backs it up with why. JRT2010 04:03, November 26, 2010 (UTC)JRT2010
 * a character's perception of himself is just as subjective as any in-universe opinion and shouldn't be favored over others. his own beliefs should be stated as part of his personality, but they don't validate the assertion that he *is* "evil incarnate", presented as fact. "dark side" is a solid concept - force-use oriented around certain emotions - while "evil" is defined by personal morals. neutral conclusions about his personality may also be drawn from his actions and mindset, but they should be expressed objectively. <span style="font-variant: small-caps; font-family: times, cursive; font-size: 16px"><font color=#FF0000>ASDF1239 Chiss Ascendancy.svg <span style="font-family: times, cursive; font-size: 13px"><font color=#00A693>-DISCUSSION- 09:07, November 26, 2010 (UTC)
 * Exactly why shouldn't a character's perception of himself be favored over others when it comes to his own personality? As I told that other guy, a character's personality depends entirely on his own psychology and has nothing to do with how other people perceived him. Yes, there are certain things that help develop a person's personality, but the Personality Section is simply meant to reflect the character's own mindset, not other characters' perception of him, which would be more appropriate for something like the Legacy Section. On the other hand, I can agree with you on the *is* part. But it's still his own personality and Palpatine is described as evil in many sources (real-world and in-universe) so "evil incarnate" should not be removed, so long as its made clear that it's from his own perspective. For example, "In his own mind, Palpatine was evil incarnate, the embodiment of darkness and the living incarnation of the Dark side of the Force." It can be re-worded, but since SWE specifically describes him as "evil incarnate", which is backed up one way or another by other sources, then the term can stay so long as its presented from his own point of view, rather than simply stating that he *is* "evil." JRT2010 16:40, November 26, 2010 (UTC)JRT2010
 * that sounds good, as long as it's made clear that it's his own POV. <span style="font-variant: small-caps; font-family: times, cursive; font-size: 16px"><font color=#FF0000>ASDF1239 Chiss Ascendancy.svg <span style="font-family: times, cursive; font-size: 13px"><font color=#00A693>-DISCUSSION- 09:07, November 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * Now that that's out of the way, I'll change it, unless someone else actually has a reasonable objection to it. JRT2010 10:00, November 27, 2010 (UTC)JRT2010

Why did you change "embodiment" to "ultimate personification"? Embodiment and personification are very similar words. Wasn't "embodiment" a direct (and sourced) quote from DE? Didn't see a reason to change that. But it seems fine the way it is. No complaints. Also, there's still an entire paragraph on Palpatine being a coward and it's just blatantly biased. Just read it, the tone is out of place. The whole paragraph should just be removed. Killing Darth Plagueis in his sleep isn't cowardly, it's smart. Having people fight for you isn't cowardly, it's using your assets. Emperors don't go out and fight on the front lines, they're Emperors. The part about Grievous just doesn't belong. Grievous didn't know he was in disguise so that shouldn't have even been included. What does Mace Windu's beliefs have to do with anything? How is that relevant? The paragraph on Palpatine being a coward is much more disturbing than the "evil" section ever was. I think just about everyone would agree he is evil (whether it should be stated is another argument), but I don't see how you could call him a coward, it's just not accurate. The paragraph shouldn't be fixed, it should just be removed. 71.227.40.49 13:01, November 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * I used "embodiment" in the first sentence (embodiment of darkness). It seemed redundant and repetitive to see the same word used again a few paragraphs down (embodiment of the dark side) so I changed it to "ultimate personification", which basically means the same thing as embodiment. That sentence was sourced, yes, but in a paraphrased form. Palpatine's actual words were "I am the Dark Side!" As for the "coward" part, I wouldn't say he was a coward, but nor was he courageous. He was practical, but unwilling to risk his life unless absolutely necessary. The "coward" part doesn't have to be removed, but it can be fixed to reflect Palpatine's fear. Even if it was "smart" to kill his Master in his sleep, it seemed as though it was done out of fear. Darth Bane would have never approved, as seen in Dynasty of Evil when he stated that the Apprentice must prove his worthiness by killing the Master in open combat. In Revenge of the Sith, Palpatine tried to flee from Yoda, which lends credibility to the theory that Yoda was one of the few Jedi Masters that he feared fighting. If Mace Windu felt that Palpatine was defeated by his own fear, this has been already asserted in Dark Empire by Luke Skywalker, who said that he could sense Palpatine's fear, which is an emotion that any dark-sider would have to possess since it's one of the most essential feelings that make up the Dark side of the Force. I'll edit it from coward to fear in a way that's appropriate from Palpatine's POV and backed up with things like how Luke and Mace sensed his fear. JRT2010 18:11, November 27, 2010 (UTC)JRT2010

Palpatine's loss to Luke in DE- factual accuracy complaint
I really do want to avoid an edit-war over this, but in the Lightsaber Training part of the Powers and Abilities section, the tired bit about Palpatine's loss to Luke in their duel being only due to Leia's intervention keeps getting added in.

But that's not what the source material states. According to the Dark Empire Audio Drama (and I've read and have on hand the transcript of the relevant section, and can post said section if it's necessary to prove the factual innacuracy of the claim that Luke didn't win the duel with his own skill- though I'll warn you ahead of time that it will be a massive wall of text), the sequence of events is

Palpatine and Luke engage in a lightsaber duel.

Luke cuts off Palpatine's hand, ending the lightsaber duel itself.

Palpatine gloats and creates a Force storm, tearing apart Pinnacle Base and its fleet.

Only then does Leia suggest adding her power to Luke's, after the lightsaber part of the duel has already ended, and explicitly only to cut Palpatine off from the Force and make him lose control of his Force storm.

Luke and Leia's combined power cuts off Palpatine from the dark side of the Force.

Palpatine loses control of his Force storm, which consumes him.

If the Lightsaber Training section is as it seems about Palpatine's technical skill with a lightsaber, I don't see how noting Leia's Force harmony is particularly relevant, given that Luke had already demonstrated his superior swordsmanship by lopping off Palpatine's hand, disarming him and ending the lightsaber duel portion of the confrontation by the time he and Leia joined Force power.

I wouldn't be averse to noting the Force harmony thing being integral to his loss in Dark Empire in the section on Force powers, as when it came to a duel purely in the realm of the Force, you can demonstrate that Luke needed Leia's help to cut Palpatine off from the dark side. It's just that it's not particularly relevant when you're trying to discuss Palpatine's skill with a blade is all. Dewback rancher 18:17, October 27, 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, yeah, but didn't Exor say something about the endnotes to the Dark Empire indicating that Leia helped Luke defeat the Emperor in a lightsaber duel? Weedle McHairybug 18:22, October 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * Verily, I did. The Dark Empire Endnotes, just as the comic itself does, indicate that Leia and Anakin began using Force Harmony to aid Luke prior to the Force Storm incident. I will quote the precise text once I am able to do so.--Exor 21:33, November 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, the endnotes say that Leia and Anakin only help Luke against the force storm. The endnotes say that Leia lightened Luke's spirit, and as such he was able to turn against the Emperor, and only after that he unleashes the force storm that took the two and a half jedi to fight. And to that he should consider the audio version of the story that is very explicit about the duel being with Luke alone vs. Palpatine (with the force harmony not helping Luke). Grand Master Luke 23:09, January 14, 2011 (UTC)

Infobox sourcing
hi, I've done some sourcing on the infobox. I've cross-checked some   with their respective articles. I don't have the actual sources so it may require some recheck on the books or whatever ref I've added. Also I'm not sure that Palpatine actually say that Plagueis was his master in RotS... Their is a mistake on the ref for RotJ in the infobo, it's spelled ROTS... I did not change it because it would break other refs in the main part and I don't I have time right now to fix it Trazeris 19:03, November 29, 2010 (UTC)

Three?
"In the end, only three known beings have been capable of combating Darth Sidious on equal terms without aid: Mace Windu, Yoda, Galen Marek and Luke Skywalker."

Mace Windu, Yoda, Galen Marek and Luke Skywalker is four I belive, I just post it here as I can't edit the page myself.

Done. Grand Master Luke 10:04, January 18, 2011 (UTC)

The Force Unleashed
In the TFU, was it Palpatine who planned to use and dispose Galen Marek after he was done with him or was it Darth Vader's plan all along, because I keep reading on different pages about how Vader planned this so he could please Palpatine and I heard that Palpatine planned this to lure out the Rebels. So who was it exactly or did they both plan it out?
 * Hard to say. Before his death, Marek came to believe that Palpatine knew about his existence all along; that Palpatine was his true master and Darth Vader only stood in as a proxy. But Sam Witwer and the game's developers all refer to Darth Vader as Marek's Sith Master; that Vader genuinely wanted to use the apprentice to kill the Emperor. It's possible that Vader did want to kill Palpatine, but was too afraid to act when the time came and instead chose to betray Marek, whereas Palpatine simply sought to capitalize on the opportunity to simultaneously wipe out the rebels and replace Vader with Marek. But without a definitive answer from LucasArts, I can't be certain since information from the TFU material (game, novel, and graphic novel) seem to contradict each other in this matter. JRT2010 20:06, April 21, 2011 (UTC)

Palpatine's Clones...
Two questions I would like to pose if I may. Are the clones that Palpatine created, so he could possess them if he died,lifeless hunks of meat when they are created or are they beings that have their own minds when born? And if they are living when created, wouldn't they be insane since cloned force-sensitives usually do?
 * Palpatine's clones are alive (he can't inherit corpses as far as I know) and it's possible that they do have their own individual mindsets. When he was planning to transfer his soul into Anakin Solo, Palpatine said that when he does so, he "overwrites" the personality and soul within the body in order to completely control it. So in that case, it can't be answered as to whether or not his clones would go insane. We may never know, since any individuality they might have possessed would be overtaken and replaced by the original Palpatine's consciousness. However, it's very likely that Palpatine himself was driven insane by having to repeat the process (dying and soul transfer) over and over again. Throughout the Dark Empire series, he hardly seemed like the "brilliant mastermind" that he was before his first death and much more like a megalomaniac. JRT2010 23:46, February 14, 2011 (UTC)

Palpatine's Hair Change
Palpatine was younger in Episode 1 and his hair was gray curly later in next movie aotc he had white straight hair how and why he change!?
 * Because he aged. JRT2010 17:47, April 25, 2011 (UTC)

Palpatines Hair 2
Why curly in ep 1 and stright in other movies
 * Talk pages are not for discussion about the topic, but for possible improvements of the articles.&mdash; TK-999  Era-imp.png( Rise of the Empire ) 18:23, April 25, 2011 (UTC)

Height
In TPM was palpatine 1.78meters in the infobox how could he bee so short as 1.73?

was he really so tall in ep 1, he looks shorter

Balance to the force.
Its listed on his page that his death brought balance to the force. This is incorrect and should be removed. the death of one of two major darksiders causing the death of the second, ultimately causing the rerise of the Jedi, is not balance. Infact its grotesquely out of balance. The prophecy was misunderstood. It was indeed fulfilled by the destruction of the Jedi.
 * According to George Lucas, Anakin Skywalker fulfilled his destiny as the Chosen One by slaying Palpatine. He also said that the prophecy was true and that Anakin brought balance to the Force. So that's pretty much settled. The prophecy was never about "destroying" the Jedi. It was about killing the last two Sith Lords. Yeah, Palpatine cheated by transferring his spirit into one clone after another. Nevertheless, Anakin fulfilled the prophecy when he killed Palpatine and&mdash;in the process of doing so&mdash;himself as well. Also, don't forget to sign your posts.JRT2010 06:13, June 27, 2011 (UTC)
 * How can the force be in balance if the Jedi rule? Balance means that both sides are completely equal. There are only two ways for the force to be in balance in my opinion. the first way would be for both the Sith and the Jedi to be wiped out, and for there to be no more force-sensitives, or for those Force-sensitives to not know they are force sensitive. The second way would be for the Jedi and Sith to each rule exactly half the Galaxy, and not to want any more fighting. However, this is completely out of the atitude of any Sith. So, I agree that Palpatine's death didn't bring balance to the force, but if you think about it, is Balance to the Force a good thing? If the Jedi rule, the Force is horribly out of balance, BUT the Rule of the Jedi is Benelovent, and a good thing for everyone. Balance is not the key...--VideoGamePower 03:04, June 29, 2011 (UTC)
 * Our personal opinions do not affect Star Wars canon whatsoever. That's up to George Lucas and anything that counts as canonical information. Both Lucas and canon state that the "Balance of the Force" implies the fall of the Sith and the restoration of the Jedi, which is what Anakin Skywalker achieved. In other words&hellip; When the Jedi are in power, the Force is balanced. But when they are superseded by the Sith, the Force is out of balance.JRT2010 06:07, June 30, 2011 (UTC)