Talk:Darth Maul/Legends

Darth Maul's status: dead or alive?
First, sorry if I'm doing something wrong, because i'm from Argentina and most of the times I make editions here is to add the spanish Interlang. But I was seeing this article and I saw someone has eliminated Darth Maul's date of death from his infobox. Why has someone do that? Does it says in any CANON SOURCE that Darth Maul survived his duel against Obi-Wan Kenobi? All I see are rumors, but I haven't seen ANY canon source that says he's alive. I don't know if you have talked about this before, because I don't use to read articles' talks, but seriosuly, you should put his date of death again. At least until some canon source tells he is still alive, but before that, DARTH MAUL IS DEAD.Skenar 20px ( Discusión ) 06:35, February 7, 2012 (UTC)
 * Please calm down; even though the retcon being made is rather large, there's no reason to speak so strongly. Several online articles relating to The Clone Wars have reported that Maul is no longer dead, but the canon source you're probably looking for is Star Wars: The Wrath of Darth Maul, which confirms he survived his duel with Kenobi.  CC7567  (talk) 06:40, February 7, 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry if I appeared as if I was angry; I utilized capital letters to emphasize what I said, not to shout. So in that novel it says that Maul is still alive? And what do you mean with "even though the retcon being made is rather large"? You mean that there will have lots of things to fix with retcons?Skenar 20px ( Discusión ) 06:45, February 7, 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I mean the fact that he is being brought back from being dead is a rather major change in canon. The book itself presents some of the plot from the upcoming episode "Brothers," which will feature Maul.  CC7567  (talk) 07:01, February 7, 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, course if he should survive and escape in these upcoming episodes does that mean that the Old Wounds story might become canon? I mean i am just thinking that if Maul should survive, should that story that i mentioned be made canon. course it all depends on what will happen in the upcoming story arc starting with "Brothers". course from what i have seen on the darth maul page, it suggests that darth maul is suffering from amnesia and until we get more information, we just have wait and see. --CC-1990 20:48, February 11, 2012 (UTC)
 * It would be nice if the Clone Wars stopped changing the canon. It could have at the very least not rendered a bunch of sources non-canon by having Maul dead, and then later on revived. But it would have been best to not bring him back period imo. And I don't think Old Wounds will become canonical. In addition to Leland Chee stating it was non-canon, it has Darth Maul killing Watto before 0 BBY, when in Star Wars Galaxies Watto was still alive after the Battle of Yavin. Hanzo Hasashi 23:27, February 11, 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, it would be nice if George Lucas would stop changing canon. Just because almost every writer in the franchise is more talented than you doesn't mean you should undo everything they contributed that made Star Wars great, George. Wookieepedia, do the right thing: leave Maul dead and consider TCW non-canon.

I think that its just down right stupid to bring him back alive. I mean the guy was dead, he was cut in half, and to add to that even if someone put him back together he fell 200 fracken feet. So he got cut in half and broke every bone in his body, including his head. Plus who the hell found him and put him back together, who on Naboo would do that? And if so how did he end up in those caves? I honestly like the clone wars, but I hate it when they don't portray the characters correctly, or when they do stuff that conflicts with canon. They horribly portrayed Dengar, and did a decent Boba Fett portrayal, but his portrayal was worse every episode. Plus Bossk could not have known Boba Fett as a kid. Why you ask? Well in the book Star Wars the Bounty Hunter wars, (which is canon) Bossk clearly says that Boba Fett knew his father Cradossk long before he was even born. So unless in Trandoshan years 1 year is seven or more years, and Boba met cradossk at like 2 or 3. Then there's no way that they could have met, and worked together during the Clone Wars. To add to it Bossk could have not been a well experienced Bounty hunter by then. Now really my point is, is that really the hole reason they brought Maul back, was because they needed to find something interesting, something that people would be really into finding out. But the way they did it didn't make sense.--Tomahawk23 14:35, March 17, 2012 (UTC)


 * If you want to complain about the cannon status write your own blog or on your own talk page, not here. --CC-6616 22:03, March 17, 2012 (UTC)

Darth Maul in The Clone Wars Season 5?
Where does it say that Maul is gonna be in season 5? I don't think that Lucas or anyone has confirmed about this. DragonSlayer2 14:25, February 19, 2012 (UTC)
 * From the page history: see here.  CC7567  (talk) 01:15, February 20, 2012 (UTC)

Darth Maul's Home world

The article states that Maul was born on Iradoina, however in Star Wars: Darth Plagusis Sidious recevis the very young infantfrom a nightsister. is there something I'm missing here? Wouldn't that back Maul's Home world Datmathoir instead? --Darthyoda1396 01:55, February 29, 2012 (UTC)

Maul: Phantom Menaces appearance non-canon?
Maul has been established as being a Dathomiran-Zabrak hybrid (being the brother of Savage, and also suggested in the Darth Plagueis novel), and wouldn't this make the Star Wars Tales Comic, Phantom Menaces, non-canon. The comic also shows Zabraks as being hairless and red-skinned like Maul, but most non-Nightbrother Zabraks are haired with tan or brown skin. Finally, Maul, being alive in the Clone Wars (and not to mention, looking much like his appearance in Old Wounds), could not survive without the brain that supposedly was took off his person on Naboo. Therefore, the comic must be non-canon.


 * oh and, TPM overrides other Canon, it's a movie. Therefore it overrides comics, games, television, books, etc. (Darthyoda1396 02:52, March 1, 2012 (UTC))

OK.Let's just say this. So TCW has sure made a major pile of bantha fodder for us to sort through. Let's just adopt a wait-and-see attitude for the next few weeks, because as soon as we figure out a way to make everything fit... BANG... a stray blaster bolt from TCW will hit us you know where. so lets just wait, if Darth Maul could wait several year to get his fate sorted out, then we can wait a few weeks, and focus on the bigger problem: Sorting through the beautiful mess know as Star Wars: The Old Republic. ("The Hero of Tython"–Darthyoda1396 02:49, March 1, 2012 (UTC))

Darth Maul is Dead
I think this article should be moved back to say Darth Maul is dead since he clearly died in The Phantom Menace and TCW is lower canon than movie canon.

Forgot to sign again, sorryKitFisto19BBY 00:25, March 2, 2012 (UTC)


 * The Clone Wars is produced with George Lucas even working on a couple of the episodes. Anything in The Clone Wars is apporved by him and considered cannon. While movie cannon does have higher status all cannon is still considered cannon till George Lucas or someone else deems it to be non-canon. DarthRevan1173 18:53, March 1, 2012, (UTC)
 * Please keep in mind of the Talkheader template listed on the top of this page.  JangFett  (Talk) 00:37, March 3, 2012 (UTC)

"Darth" status
With his condition newly upgraded to "alive", perhaps we should move this page to just "Maul"? He's alive, he's no longer a Sith Lord, and because we already know what happens in the future from where the show is now, we know he's not going to be a Sith Lord again. I would think, at this point, referring to him as Darth Maul would be incorrect as it refers to a title that ceased to hold some time ago.

In addition, I believe Wookieepedia naming policy actually calls for character articles being named for what the character was known at time of death. Since we know he doesn't become a Sith Lord again, this would appear to be rather black and white. Or red, if you prefer ;)

Thoughts? – DigiFluid 02:27, March 17, 2012 (UTC)
 * You have a point, but all of the sources I've seen (specifically, the new Insider and his SW.com Encyclopedia entry) all still refer to him as "Darth Maul." Until this changes, his name should remain as is. Toprawa and Ralltiir 02:39, March 17, 2012 (UTC)
 * I think as long as he continues to be refered to as "Darth" in canon then the title should remain for the time being. The infobox, however is another matter. As he is no longer a Sith should we change it to Dark Jedi? Jayden Matthews 14:52, March 17, 2012 (UTC)
 * The latest TCW episode specifically refers to him as "Sith". Just because he is no longer Palpatine's servant doesn't mean that he stopped being a Sith. --Kir the Wizard 09:24, March 18, 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure it does. During the Clone Wars, the Sith in the galaxy are the Order of the Sith Lords, which by the Rule of Two consists of Palps and Dooku. He's certainly a darksider, maybe a Dark Jedi as you suggested in your previous post. But he isn't Sith anymore. IIRC the only time he's referred to as a Sith in Revenge is by the narrator. The narrator's authority on factual correctness is (I think) still in question/up for debate, as he doesn't appear to be meant as an in-universe character and only exists as an homage to old pulp films and to give a crash course on episode setup. – DigiFluid 17:45, March 18, 2012 (UTC)
 * I disagree with your logic, but I agree with your essential point. There were other Sith in the galaxy at the time, including the Lost Tribe, and the Dark Force. At the end of the day he was trained to be an attack dog, not a Sith Lord. Sidious had zero intention of being succeeded by him. Jayden Matthews 18:02, March 18, 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with Kir the Wizard. There is absolutely nothing to suggest that he ever stopped being Sith. Palpatine's intended uses for him are completely irrelevant as he was at the end of the day a Sith Lord with the "Darth" title. He also can't technically be a Dark Jedi because he was never a regular Jedi in the first place. If his status can be changed to anything (which there just is insufficient basis for anyway) it should be to Sith acolyte like Ventress.
 * Trouble with that is, very little of that is actually correct. As I already pointed out to Kir, the only time the episode called him a Sith was the narrator; who I note is in a questionable position regarding hard facts. And with regards to the Dark Jedi note, take a look at that article. Dark Jedi do not have to have ever been Jedi or members of the order in any way. To all appearances and reason, Maul is no longer Sith and hasn't been for at least 10 years as of Revenge. Really, I think the only compelling argument for keeping him as Darth/Sith here is what T&R's pointed out above; that the SW.com encyclopedia still calls him Darth. Given the nature and hierarchy of Star Wars canon that's hard to argue with, even if it is, by all apparent reasoning, wrong. (Also please remember to sign your posts with four ~ symbols at the end). – DigiFluid 13:43, March 21, 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, it seems your argument is the incorrect one. I've looked everywhere and there is absolutely NO SOURCE anywhere that even entertains the possibility that Maul isn't Sith anymore. What about the Encylclopedia's reasoning is wrong? He was Sith when he went down the reactor shaft and nothing about that has changed. Just because Sidious took a new apprentice doesn't mean Maul's previous status as Sith was erased.McJediProbie 16:09, March 21, 2012 (UTC)
 * I would like to add that a new source reveals that the Rule of Two officially expired 13 years before Maul was even born. The Rule of Two is completely irrelevant. --R5-X41238-G8-R3-3124-D2 17:14, March 21, 2012 (UTC)
 * StarWars.com still lists his name as Darth Maul and his affiliation to the Sith so he is still a Sith Lord.--CC-6616 05:44, March 22, 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm also not sure why DigiFluid is treating the narrator's comments as possibly not canon. We have no source that says otherwise and cannot assume they are any less canon than anything else in an official source. If anything, as an omniscient narrator, they should be more "correct" than the subjective comments of characters who don't know the whole picture. But either way, they're in a canon source and we don't get to make calls on what is or isn't canon. If there's doubt to his Sith status (which there does not seem to be), it should be mentioned in BTS as a conflict between sources. ~ Savage BOB sig.png 11:42, March 22, 2012 (UTC)

Tattoos and canon precedence
JM and I were just discussing a problem in this article that we don't seem to be entirely sure how to resolve re: Maul's tattoos. In a couple of previous, canon sources (Marked and Jedi vs. Sith), a young Maul is depicted without tattoos and having received them in Marked as part of his training. Images from these are currently in use in the article text to show Maul at a younger age. But along comes Darth Plagueis, and it describes an infant Maul as already having tattoos.

An article without pictures kind of sucks, especially for such an important subject. But what are we to do/what's the best way forward? Does tat-less Maul in more than one source override Plagueis just by numbers? Or does Plagueis override previous sources because it's newer? – DigiFluid 17:37, March 18, 2012 (UTC)


 * I think Plagueis is more important canon it discusses more things, furthermore, have you seen Monster? All the Zabraks, including Savage, Feral and Viscus have tattoos, though they were never trained as Siths. I think some images don't mean he couldn't have had tattoos before he was trained. --XXLVenom998 18:32, March 18, 2012 (UTC)

Not to mention that Marked and Jedi vs. Sith were both written before George Lucas decided to bring Darth Maul back into the fold; and not just bring him back, but with a retconned background as well. In sum, he received his tattoos at birth as part of a Dathomirian/Nightbrother tradition, rather than being marked by his master with Sith tattoos. Furthermore, I'm a bit skeptical about this article continuing to state that he was born on Iridonia instead of Dathomir. In the Plagueis novel, page 183 to be exact, it states that Maul was not of the Iridonian sort; rather, a Dathomirian. It seems like speculation to assume that Maul was still born on Iridonia, as he was in previous canonical sources, when this has essentially been overwritten in the Plagueis novel and the Clone Wars, both of which are clearly establishing a new backstory for the character. JRT2010 19:55, March 18, 2012 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately I think Wrath of Darth Maul still states that he was born on Iridonia. However, this should be considered a mistake, as his encyclopedia entry has his homeworld as Dathomir, and his species as Dathomirian. Jayden Matthews 17:39, March 19, 2012 (UTC)
 * I would note that homeworld does not always mean the world that someone was born on.-- Exiled Jedi  Oldrepublic crest.svg (Greetings)  19:56, March 19, 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh come on! Is this the most important thing? The only thing matters that he is back!--XXLVenom998 19:06, March 19, 2012 (UTC)
 * This discussion is for helping the article, XXLVenom. Zakor1138 21:09, March 19, 2012 (UTC)
 * Exiled Jedi; I agree but the Encylopedia entries do refer to "homeworld" as the place of birth, as they list Ventress' homeworld as Dathomir, not Rattatak. Thefore, when they list Maul's homeworld as Dathomir they are refering to his planet of birth, not the planet on which he was raised, which, to further confuse things is now Mustafar! At any rate there can be no doubt that Iridonia is non-canon. Star Wars: Darth Plagueis makes this perfectly clear, as does The Clone Wars, in which Talzin calls him a "son of Dathomir". The Encyclopedia also lists his species as Dathomirian, not Iridonian. Jayden Matthews 11:52, March 20, 2012 (UTC)
 * Star Wars: The Wrath of Darth Maul, p. 17: "Born on Iridonia." --R5-X41238-G8-R3-3124-D2 14:02, March 20, 2012 (UTC)
 * To get at DigiFluid's original question, we generally favor the more recent source in a case of conflict like this and then note the discrepancies in the BTS section. Since images are involved, though, and we do want to illustrate the article, I can see the added level of difficulty. My suggestion would be to present his background as the more recent sources do (the encyclopedia and Plagueis, I think), and to remove the non-tattooed childhood pictures from the in-universe section of the article, but perhaps still use one in the BTS section with a note about the controversy. Be sure to add the template to the article about it being part of the Clone Wars project and conflicting with existing canon, per pretty much everything else The Clone Wars has messed with... ~ Savage BOB sig.png 11:48, March 22, 2012 (UTC)
 * But it mistaken to assume that there is a discrepancy. One source reveals that he was tattooed before his first birthday with "garish ceremonial pigments" and then we have depictions of him about 12 or so years later where the tattoos appear to be absent. The discrepancy is no more than a difference in artistic interpretation, no different than images of characters in bobblehead doll cartoon style coexisting with more photorealistic depictions as well as with pictures of the actors portraying them, as is the case in this article also. Moreover, it has not been stated in a canon source, from an omniscient POV, that, "at the time of his death, Maul had the very same markings that he had when he was an infant." As things stand now, it is perfectly reasonable to even assume that the tattoos had faded by the time of Maul's depictions in the images (if anyone has knowledge of the long term effects of infant tattooing, please don't bring it up). In any case, I see no real discrepancy. --R5-X41238-G8-R3-3124-D2 12:25, March 22, 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd say it's way more speculative to say his tattoos faded than it is to say that we have a canon conflict. It's safest to treat this with soft cotton gloves, go with the newer sources, and note the discrepancy in the BTS section. ~ Savage BOB sig.png 12:37, March 22, 2012 (UTC)
 * We do not have a canon conflict, only a possible conflict in depiction. Again, how is this a bigger discrepancy than any difference in artistic depiction? --R5-X41238-G8-R3-3124-D2
 * Because tattoos or not is hard to chalk up to artistic license, especially since the non-tatted images in question came from a time when the canon answer was, "He didn't have the tattoos yet." This is clearly an example of a change in canon showing up in artwork. ~ Savage BOB sig.png 13:54, March 22, 2012 (UTC)
 * I disagree, as I still fail to see a serious discrepancy. As a reader, I would find a behind the scenes mention of the possible discrepancy redundant, but I understand how other readers might seek an explanation for the lack of "black tattoos" in the first two pictures in the behind the scenes section. But moving two canon images there because they appear to clash with a vague description of "red and black pigments" is not justifiable the way I see it. --R5-X41238-G8-R3-3124-D2 14:21, March 22, 2012 (UTC)
 * Then we seem to be at loggerheads. Hopefully someone else will pipe in so we can get more opinions. If things cannot be resolved, we can move this to a Senate Hall discussion for more eyes. ~ Savage BOB sig.png 14:33, March 22, 2012 (UTC)
 * I've considered both arguments, but ultimately I have to agree with SavageBob. As has been pointed out, the old images of a tattoo-less Maul were created before his backstory was retconned for TCW; before it was known that he was actually born into the Nightbrother clan of Dathomir, in which they are tattooed at birth. This is the more recent canon. The changes were done on purpose, in accordance with Maul's new background. Simply put, there is absolutely no logic in keeping the "tattoo-less Maul" images in the biography section while stating in the text that he was tattooed as an infant. It would be more appropriate to move one of those images to the BTS section and explain the discrepancy there. JRT2010 17:36, March 22, 2012 (UTC)
 * If I may add that this image, which I believe was once hosted on this website, is perfect for a possible behind the scenes mention of the apparent discrepancy, and that this image appears now to be a more a more accurate representation of infant Maul than the canon childhood images of him! (In the second case, I'm not saying anything about canonicity, just pointing out an amusing fact.) --R5-X41238-G8-R3-3124-D2 23:04, March 22, 2012 (UTC)