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)

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)

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)