Talk:Palpatine/Archive3

Merge
Merged it with Darth Sidious, finally. I haven't yet redirected Darth Sidious here and left it as it was, just in case. Removed doom, but added attention, because I believe the article is still quite raw - more info should be added to the Imperial section, and something should be said about the post-Endor era, if only two words. The previous debate related to the merge and the styles of address duscussion was moved to Talk:Palpatine/Archive. - Sikon 08:44, 2 Jul 2005 (UTC)

DOB
Where is it revealed that Palpatine was born in 84 BBY? - Sikon 14:20, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * The Star Wars Timeline Gold puts his birth at 82 BBY, based on conjecture from the Episode I: Insider's Guide--Eion 15:25, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * The guides to Episode I have him as 52 during TPM. 59.167.63.94 06:18, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * So is it 84 BBY or 82 BBY? Becuase right now, he's listed as being born in both years.-LtNOWIS 20:31, 8 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 * It's 84. QuentinGeorge 05:59, 19 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Dates
I had a reason to extend the "Secret de facto leader of the Separatists" period to 32 BBY. Although the Separatist movement itself was not present at this point, he was the secret shadowy manipulator behind the Trade Federation - one of the main members of the later CIS. - Sikon 03:15, 4 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 * Trade Federation does not = CIS. If you mean "Shadowy Manipulator behind the Trade Federation" than state that explicitly. The two are NOT equivalent - the Trade Federation and Commerce Guild were often in conflict against each other prior to the Clone Wars.
 * Plus, for the record, Sidious' influence in the Trade Federation extends long before the 32 BBY, so what you had was not strictly correct anyway. QuentinGeorge 06:04, 4 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Secret leader?
The succession box for "Secret de facto leader of the Separatists" is useless as it doesn't point to anyone else. --SparqMan 13:17, 20 Jul 2005 (UTC)

NPOV
Clearly, Palpatine is the central villain of the Star Wars saga. It is understandable to use some terms, but "maniacal monstronsity" and its ilk are beyond the pall of NPOV. If you have the chance, try to clean those up here and there. --SparqMan 19:36, 22 Jul 2005 (UTC)

84 BBY birthdate
The 84 BBY birthdate must be changed. We have no info on Palpy's age. He could be older than Yoda as far as we know. The 84 BBY birthdate simply isn't canon. (Unsigned comment by User:Starkeiller)
 * We do. See the DOB section above. He cannot be older than Yoda anyway, Lucasfilms stated that he's no older than McDiarmid by the time of the prequels. - Sikon 15:48, 9 Aug 2005 (UTC)

The Episode I Guide was referring to Senator Palpatine, the good man the Galaxy knew, not Darth Sidious, the Sith Lord behind the mask. The Galaxy thought he was 52 at the time, but in Ep. III, the mask fell and Sidious' true face was revealed. The 84 BBY birthdate was part of that mask. (Unsigned comment by User:Starkeiller)
 * First of all, please remember to sign your comments (see your talk page for more information). Also, please remember to indent your posts on Talk pages by placing asterisks in front of them. Thank you. As for the "Sith Lord behind his face" issue, apart from the fact that the "true face" theory is debatable POV and the guide is an official source, the fact that Palpatine and Darth Sidious are the same person was never meant to be hidden. Therefore, Darth Sidious, with his real name being Palpatine, was born on Naboo in 84 BBY. - Sikon 16:12, 9 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * The Episode I Guide does not reveal that Palpatine is Sidious. So the Guide is talking about the guise.--Starkeiller 16:17, 9 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * Maybe we should just leave it until someone else clears this up with a better source. -- Riffsyphon1024 16:34, 9 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * Uhm... whatever; the Palpatine-Sidious thing was supposed to be obvious after Episode I, and the editors of the Guide were aware of that. As long as the theory that "Palpatine is a mask" remains speculation and we have two canonical pieces of information: a) Palpatine and Darth Sidious are the same person and b) Palpatine was born in 84 BBY, it is assumed that c) Palpatine, also known as Darth Sidious, was born in 84 BBY. It seems to be a logical choice. Any other choice would mean valuing speculation over facts, which is unacceptable in an encyclopedia. If you do not believe that any information regarding Palpatine's image is factual, at least it can be stated somehow in the article that 84 BBY refers to this image, rather than completely omitting the date. It would cause nothing but more misunderstanding and speculation. - Sikon 16:37, 9 Aug 2005 (UTC)

--Starkeiller 16:48, 9 Aug 2005 (UTC)Then we'll have it as a possible date of birth, as a conjecture. Everyone would be happy that way until we have the canonical date of birth for Sidious, be ot 84 BBY or whatever BBY. --194.30.198.104 19:45, 9 Aug 2005 (UTC)With a questionmark next to 84 BBY, it is shown that we are not 100% canonically sure that Palpatine was born then.
 * It's not conjecture&mdash;it's logic. To say otherwise is conjecture. – Aidje talk 16:53, 9 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, listing it as a possible date is certainly better than providing no date at all. But I insist that 84 BBY is a canonical date. The starwars.com Databank now lists "Homeworld: Naboo. Species: Human" for both Sidious and Palpatine, so why can't the birth date be accepted as true too? Why invent arguments against, as tedious as repeating this phrase may be, an official source? - Sikon 16:59, 9 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * Indeed. If anything, it should merely be noted that some people do not accept 84 BBY as the birthyear of Palpatine, with a short explanation why. But the birthyear should not be removed from the article and it should not be presented as conjecture. – Aidje talk 17:11, 9 Aug 2005 (UTC)

On disfiguration
From the Databank entry on Darth Sidious:

''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.''

Does it mean the disfiguration dispute is finally over? After all, it does say that he was indeed scarred by his Force lightning and disfigured, not that he purposefully revealed his true face or had it disfigured as a direct result of unleashing his Dark Side powers (as opposed to a result of these powers being reflected on him)? - Sikon 16:59, 9 Aug 2005 (UTC)


 * Sounds that way. I'm deleting the following two paragraphs, but putting them here for posterity:


 * "There is also the possibility that Sidious had been deformed for as long as he had been a Sith Lord, a process which is believed to have happened to other devotees of the Dark Side. He would have therefore used some kind of Force trick (like Force Concealment) in order to cloak his Sith form and appear like a normal Human to others, even Jedi. During the battle with Windu, he lost concentration and temporarily revealed it to Anakin Skywalker. He then decided to present his appearance publically to accuse the Jedi, and ceased to hide it afterwards.


 * Another theory suggests that, since Sidious had never overtly used his considerable power before, the Dark Side took a heavy toll on his body when his full powers were finally unleashed. The fact that Sidious' eyes changed to the sickly yellow which such Sith as Darth Maul also had lends some credence to this idea." &mdash; Silly Dan  00:19, 14 Aug 2005 (UTC)

--194.30.198.108 13:49, 15 Aug 2005 (UTC)The last theory doesn't work. Wouldn't he have transformed earlier?
 * Actually, the last theory does make sense. Perhaps Palpatine realized that if he was going up againt one of the greatest Jedi, he decided to go all-out on Windu. There is really no record that I know of that says Palpatine unleashed his full potential ever before. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 20:48, 15 Aug 2005 (UTC)

--194.30.198.62 21:08, 16 Aug 2005 (UTC)I meant from the beginning of the duel.

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

Example: Grand Admiral Thrawn. Not Captain/Admiral/Grand Admiral Thrawn. Another example: President Bush. Not Governor/President Bush. etc etc. --Azizlight 12:20, 14 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * I would prefer just "Palpatine", but of these two options, "Emperor Palpatine" is certainly better. - Sikon 12:37, 14 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * Of course he's not known as "Senator/Supreme Chancellor/Emperor Palpatine". But those were his three titles, and he wasn't known as "Emperor Palpatine" when he was a Senator or Supreme Chancellor. That's why I keep putting those other titles in. It's the way it should be. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 13:55, 14 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, but Emperor Palpatine was the highest "rank" he achieved, and that's what we go with here. --Imp 14:34, 14 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * For Sith sake, someone's done it again --Azizlight 01:02, 17 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * It's not me, that's for sure. I was the one that got rid of the "Senator/Chancellor" part the first time. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 12:13, 17 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * Haha yeah that one wasn't directed at you Jack :-) Princess/Senator/Chief Of State Leia Skywalker Organa Solo? Anyone? ;-) --Azizlight 12:19, 17 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * Glad to see that someone believes me. I'm trying to think of the last person was to edit the Palpatine page before I got rid of the Senator/Chancellor part. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 12:22, 17 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Lord Darth Sidious... another fanboy wonkery?
Isn't the title Lord Darth Sidious a little redundant? I think there's really no need for it. Where do people ever refer to him as Lord Darth Sidious anyway? It's either Lord Sidious or Darth Sidious. Anyway, I thought Darth was short for Dark Lord of the Sith, in which case the title becomes Lord Dark Lord of the Sith Sidious. Just a thought... --Azizlight 02:26, 18 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * We actually have no idea what Darth means. And while it is PRESUMED Darth is a shortened form of Dark Lord of the Sith, we don't know. And Darth Vader was often styled Lord Darth Vader. I say we make it either Lord Darth Sidious, or Darth Sidious, Dark Lord of the Sith. --User:SFH
 * Just looking through the New Essential Guide to Characters, and none of the Sith lords are ever referred to as Lord Darth Whatever. Most of the time they are just Darth Whatever. However the first mention of Vader is Darth Vader, Dark Lord of the Sith, which i think is more accurate than Lord Darth Vader. But if someone can prove me wrong with a source, then please do so. --Azizlight 02:57, 18 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * That "Darth" stands for "Dark Lord of the Sith" is a fan speculation. I agree, though, that "Lord Darth" is redundant. After all, the title Darth only precedes the names of Sith Lords. - Sikon 03:04, 18 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * Cool, i didn't know that "Darth" = "Dark Lord of the Sith" was also a fanboy wonkery, so thanks :-) --Azizlight 03:27, 18 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * KFanII is the one who keeps putting it in, purely based on an offhand reference to Darth Vader as Lord Darth Vader in Essential Guide to Alien Species. 'Course he doesn't seem to be able to explain why this applies to Palpatine, nor does is he willing to entertain the notion that this is a purely Imperial name for Vader, rather than a set-in-stone Sith title. QuentinGeorge 05:52, 18 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * Regardless, don't put it in the paragraph, as it looks crap. :) QuentinGeorge 05:56, 18 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * Finally, maybe KFanII will stop putting it in so I can stop taking it out. Plus, the majority of the time, Sith Lords are addressed as either "Darth (name)" or "Lord (name)", but barely ever "Lord Darth (name)". Cmdr. J. Nebulax 11:56, 18 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Edit war
I think this edit war with 194.30.198.* should be resolved. Should the (?) be put next to 84 BBY or not? Also, why did 194.30.198.81 replace "himself with Darth Maul" with a single "?"? - Sikon 13:25, 20 Aug 2005 (UTC) --194.30.198.48 23:53, 20 Aug 2005 (UTC)It seems I'm a troublemaker, huh? Yes, 84 IS reasonable, but we're not SURE about it. It is possible Palpatine was born looooooooooooooong before he wants people to think he was born. The character deserves this ambiguity, and the (?) displays the fact we're not sure about him. It isn't obvious he didn't learn the midi-chlorian tecknique, perhaps he actually created Anakin. Let's leave the ambiguity inherent to these events... The other line I remove to leave open the possibility Palpy was not a Sith in Dark Empire. Anakin Skywalker destroying the Sith and bringing Balance to the Force, remember? I don't SUPPORT he wasn't with removing the line. Not at all. I'm just leaving a window of opportunity for the possibility. I don't see the problem here. The changes are minor, why make an edit WAR? --194.30.198.48 00:16, 21 Aug 2005 (UTC)I DIDN'T say he wasn't. I just want this opportunity to be open, because I see a terrible contradiction here. Oh, and sorry about the "Himself and Darth Maul" removals, my bad... --194.30.198.48 00:45, 21 Aug 2005 (UTC)Exactly. Palpatine said it. That's why we can assume he knew the trick. Palpatine lies a lot, and surely he wouldn't admit that he knew it if he did. How else would he ensnare Anakin? Ambiguity once again. There's nothing certain about this character. And again, I repeat, I DON'T WANT TO SUPPORT PALPATINE WASN'T A SITH IN DARK EMPIRE. I just don't want a "He WAS a Sith" or a "He WASN'T a Sith" phrase. Ambiguity. Why don't we make it "Palpatine, the most evil motherf$#%^&* ever born was finally dead"? --194.30.198.48 01:07, 21 Aug 2005 (UTC)You don't listen to me. I just ask for some windows of opportunity to be left open and you say: "NO, THIS WAY!!!". We don't know about the age. Palpatine's age, sure, the fake facade's age, sure, but can we be certain it was the age of the guy behind the mask? No. No = (?). We don't know when he's lying or not. We know nothing about the guy. LET US NOT MAKE CONJECTURES. LET US LEAVE SOME AMBIGUITY. Oh, and in Empire's End, the ghosts don't treat Palpy a lot like a Sith. Okay about the height, though.
 * According to Lucas, Palpatine during the prequels is no older the McDiarmand. So I suppose that 84 is accurate. But I'm also in an edit war with this user. I keep trying to place the line "Darth Sidious, the greatest Dark Lord of the Sith, was finally dead" at the end of the Palpatine reborn section, but the user keeps removing it, saying it contradicts the whole point of the entire saga. I think the fact Palpatine survived may do that more than a quote, but I think the line is good for effect. Any opinions? User:SFH
 * Put in the line. I'm annoyed (even though there is no emotion...) that we have to discuss virtually every change here. Always there's someone unsatisfied. - Sikon 16:22, 20 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry if I ticked you off. However, I think the safest thing with 84 is make it definite. I'm confident enough that he was born then. It's obvious Palpatine never learned Plagueis control over midi-chlorians, so 84 is reasonable. User:SFH
 * Palpatine was not a Sith in Dark Empire? Why wouldn't he be? People like that don't just renounce the title of Dark Lord of the Sith. Anakin did bring balance to the Force, and it didn't necessarily mean killing Palpatine, but just ending his reign over the galaxy. I think SFH's "Darth Sidious, the greatest Dark Lord of the Sith, was finally dead" line should remain. --Azizlight 00:03, 21 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * Sith Lords do not simply abdicate. And Palpatine DIDN'T know the midi-chlorian trick. He said as much in Episode III, saying Plagueis took it to his grave, and he told Anakin that they would discover the secret together. It also says that on the Plagueis article. User:SFH
 * The lie that ensared Anakin was that he DID know it. Once he had him, he admitted that he didn't know the secret. Seriously. You *did* watch, ROTS, didn't you? And it's Palpatine's EXISTENCE in Dark Empire that would constitute a continuity error, not whether or not he's Dark Lord of the Sith. QuentinGeorge 00:48, 21 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * Anon User. Please stop your constant edits. One: The height is correct - see Palpatine's entry in the databank and the NEGTC. The Sidious databank is a diversion so as to throw people off the scent pre ROTS to Sidious identity. Two: The "?"s add nothing to the article. The date is the current correct age for Palpatine. Three: The line "Darth Sidious, Dark Lord of the Sith was finally dead" was fine and contradicts with nothing in Dark Empire, considering Palpatine goes to Korriban, where the dead Sith Lords acknowledge him as one of their number. DON'T revert this article again. QuentinGeorge 00:58, 21 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * I think I get what your trying to do. You are trying to preserve the mystic about Palpatine. That's perfectly understandable. In many ways, it's admirable. But there are somethings that just have to be taken as fact. He never renounced his title as Dark Lord of the Sith. He never learned the midi-chlorian trick, or he simply would have used that instead of the clones to keep himself alive. I'm aware Dark Empire was written years before the prequels came out, but the Expanded universe is just as canonical as the movies, though the movies do take precedence. So please, I can see it from your view. Can't you see it from ours? Otherwise, we are all gonna be spending our time reverting each others edits. User:SFH
 * This should end. The consensus is that we don't need the "?" after the dates, and that we keep the line. Any opinions on Palpatine that are different should be in "Behind the Scenes", which they already are. QuentinGeorge 01:36, 21 Aug 2005 (UTC)