Talk:Palpatine

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Featured article star Palpatine is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do.
This article is part of WikiProject Films, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to films and film characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Featured article FA
This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale.
Mid
This article has been rated as mid-Importance on the importance scale.
Portal:Star Wars
 Star Wars Portal
This article is part of WikiProject Star Wars, which aims to build an encyclopedic guide to the Star Wars saga on Wikipedia. To participate, you can improve this article or visit the project page for more information.
Featured article FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the assessment scale.

Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.
The contents of the Darth Sidious article were merged into Palpatine and they now redirect here. For the contribution history and old versions of the merged article please see its history.

Archives

Contents

[edit] War criminal

Palpatine commits atrocities during times of war (the Clone Wars and the Galactic Civil War), which makes him ideal for inclusion in the "fictional war criminals" category. Why that listing keeps getting removed is beyond me. Same deal with the Darth Vader article. Treybien 17:18 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Was he ever formally charged with war crimes and/or convicted? Same question for Vader. If not, then they are not war criminals. --DarthBinky 01:17, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

If you check the definition criteria for the category, you'll see that there is no mention of having been convicted of war crimes, but simply having committed them. Have any of the entries in "fictional murderers" or "fictional thieves" explicitly made a point of of saying that those characters were tried and convicted of those crimes? Treybien 2:01 30 September (UTC)

--According to DarthBinky's definition above, Adolf Hitler would not have been considered a war criminal either, which I don't think anyone would agree with. It is what they DO, not what they may eventually be convicted of, that defines war crimes, and it is the judgement of history (real or fictional) that ultimately defines a war crime and a war criminal. DarthGoodGuy 0111 13 November 2006(GMT)

[edit] Small edits

I've edited down the Palptine article a little bit, without making any major changes; I merely condensed and restructured the writing a little. I did not erase any footnotes. However, maybe you should give some thought to editing this article further; there are way too many comments from film critics and quotations from the movies, for example. I understand the need to use ones that are key to the plot or demonstrate key concepts especially well, but this article's use of them goes overboard. Treybien 16:17 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I would hardly call this not "making any major changes". If you had a problem with the length of the article you should have brought this up at peer review or FAC. As it is, this article as it appears is the consensus version approved by the Wikipedia community. Dmoon1 01:11, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Dmoon1; this is a tried and proven formula, and it's not going overboard, it's neutralizing the point of view and maintaining an out of universe perspective, which often requires more prose. — Deckiller 05:49, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Not true, History is written by winers. If the Empire would have won, then Palptine and DV would not be charge with War crime. Infact, the Rebel were that Rebel. If Germany or the Axis power won WWII, trust Hilter would not be charge with any war crime. He would be a hero!

[edit] Ian McDiarmid

This comment/question really isn't about this article, it's about the actor who played Palpatine. Could any of you check out the Ian McDiarmid article and let me know what changes should be made? I've streamlined most of the star wars information. Any other biological information about McDiarmid would be great. That or access to any interviews by him. (FYI: I'm currently working on citing the article, re-editing the intro, and working on appropriately listing the plays he's been in--most likely a link will have to satisfy the later as he's been in over 70 plays!) Thanks b_cubed 06:57, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Update of article

I have taken the liberty of editing this article to conform to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction), a guideline that did not exist when this article was originally written. I also followed relevant suggestions in the article's original FAC. The purpose of this revision is to make it look less like a Wookieepedia article (here).

Notable changes:

  • Images: An attempt has been made to include only important images that enhance the articles within reasonable fair use standards. While the images in the current article are great, there are just too many to qualify as fair use. These listed below in the revised article are a sample of the most important and illustrative.
    • This image was replaced with the current image because the two are very similar, but the image of the Emperor from Return of the Jedi (Image:Palpatine Ep6 DVD 6.jpg) is how the character was originally introduced and there is no where to really put it in the article. If the previous image is left in the infobox and the ROTJ image is left in the Appearances section, someone will complain that the two images are too similar (see Jabba the Hutt's FAC).
    • Image:Palpatine1.jpg is how the character is introduced in the prequel trilogy.
    • Image:PalpatineCloneWar.JPG is an illustration of the cartoon Palpatine from Star Wars: Clone Wars.
    • Image:DarkEmpire.jpg is the cover of the comic book Dark Empire 5. It both illustrates a major Expanded Universe source that Palpatine appears as well as how he is depicted in Star Wars literature. This image meets fair use requirements. Even though this article is not about the comic book in question, the comic book is thoroughly discussed in the article.
    • Image:PalpatineConceptArt.jpg is an "out-of-universe" depiction of the character that illustrates the concept and creation of Palpatine (as well as illustrates one of his Force powers).
    • Image:The Emperor.JPG is another important image that shows the development of the character in Star Wars. This is the original Emperor from Empire Strikes Back that is replaced by McDiarmid on the DVD.
    • Image:Karl Rove Cartoon.JPG illustrates Palpatine's influence on popular culture.
  • Out-of-universe perspective: no (birth date - death date), no biography. Focus is on Palpatine as a character in film and literature.
  • Appearances in Star Wars fiction replaces a biography with an account of the major Star Wars works the character has appeared in, mainly the films, Clone Wars miniseries, and EU literature; fancruft and excessive detail is winnowed out. Development in literature and film emphasized.
  • Characteristics section describes how this character is portrayed in the fiction.
  • Concept and creation details process that created the character, including the actor's portrayal and costume design.
  • Popular culture section describes how the character has influenced popular culture outside of Star Wars.
  • The article is now well referenced with over 60 notes; external links have been limited to "official" links (no fan sites): Databanks and Wookieepedia.
  • Original research and speculation have been removed.

I used a similar approach to this article as I did when I rewrote Jabba the Hutt (which passed through the FAC process very smoothly) and Padmé Amidala. Dmoon1 21:19, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scottish or British

McDiarmid is Scottish. True, Scotland is a part of the Great Britain, and I myself was debating what to label him. However, after reading an article from the Guardian—a British newspaper—I decided that he should be labeled as Scottish rather than British. Here's the excerpt that changed my mind:

"Such seasoned British - in his case Scottish - stage actors are always in demand in Hollywood to play the kind of villainous roles it's thought unseemly to cast an American in. But McDiarmid hasn't done very many."

A link for verification: http://arts.guardian.co.uk/features/story/0,,1636369,00.html
b_cubed 21:26, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

My question is why should the word "Scottish" link to Scotland rather than Scottish people? These articles on ethnic groups and nationalities exist; why not use them? (I had changed it to point to Scottish people, but someone changed it back.) — BrianSmithson 22:39, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I changed it back to Scotland. When I first started editing at Wikipedia someone left a message that these articles should be linked to country and not ethnic group articles (evidently because some of the articles contain a racist tinge to them or something). I just linked to Scotland to play it safe, but I do know there are some ethnic groups FAs like Iranian peoples. If you think Scottish peoples is more appropriate, by all means link the article there. Dmoon1 01:50, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Scottish links to Scotland in the Ian McDiarmid article too. Dmoon1 05:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I think that was the standard when Wikipedia was first starting up: Link Fooish to Fooland as a piped link. However, there is a WikiProject working on ethnic group articles (Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic Groups), so it seems a shame to bypass their work where the link would be most appropriate. I don't think the Scottish people article is racist. — BrianSmithson 08:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Done. Dmoon1 17:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Calm down

I'm not removing anything of consequence, I'm just condensing the writing a little. Maybe you should actually review the changes being made instead of knee-jerk reverting them. Treybien 13:53 1 September 2006.

You are removing content that has been formed by consensus of editors who have worked on this revised article. The article is currently under review at FAC; if you have major suggestions please make them here on this talk page or at FAC (click on the link above). Dmoon1 21:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] From my talk page

[edit] Piping links for nationality

Hi, I notice that you have been piping nationality links to the "X people" articles, eg. [[Scottish people|Scottish]]. Having worked on thousands of biog articles, primarily European and North American (but also a fair few Antipodean), I can say without hesitation that the overwhelming consensus is to pipe thus:

  • [[Scotland|Scottish]]
  • [[France|French]]
  • [[United States|American]]
  • [[Mexico|Mexican]]
  • [[Sweden|Swedish]]

If this is doubted in any way, perhaps we could consult the good folks at Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography? (Apart from anything else, those "X people" articles are utterly, utterly appalling rubbish in my experience: full of POV, edit warring, AFD's and many other such delights: probably because they tend to focus on pseudo-ethnicity theories, rather than civil society, which is the strength of the country articles.) --Mais oui! 10:09, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

That's silly. There's a whole WikiProject devoted to ethnicity articles, so it's nice to see all their work damned in a few short lines. Besides, a bad article should not be an argument against linking to it; it should be an argument to improve that article. — BrianSmithson 06:47, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] It's happening again

The same thing that happened with the Morgoth article is happening here. People are going over the top about how Palpatine is the ultimate evil and inserting pages of endless prattle whilst removing important details. Like his life, and his biography and his birth and his death date and the date his spirit was incarcerated. It's removed the interesting things like Palpatine going into politics as a child and coming back to life as a clone after his death [three times]. I think the article just need to be compressed and revised and toned down a little. - user: Anon September 2006 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.93.21.138 (talk • contribs).

Well if this was a trivia or fan site those things would be there. As it is there are dozens of those sites already. This is supposed to be encyclopedic information about a fictional character, not a living person who walked the streets somewhere. And most of the stuff you site above as missing is in there, if you had actually read the article. Dmoon1 20:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm saddened by what has happened to this article. This used to be one of the most authoritative articles on Palpatine anywhere on the web. For years it has hovered near Feature Article status, but for some reason the higher-ups in wikipedia never saw fit to make it so. Alas, good job in turning an article that was very informative on who Palpatine was, into a repository of trivial knowledge on how his character came to be.

When you look up a word in a dictionary, you do it to learn the definition of that word. NOT to learn the etymology. In essence that's what has been done here. We know the etymology, but the actual substance of Palpatine has been mainly removed. Now if someone wants to know who Palpatine is, they cannot come to wikipedia and get a summarized version. They have to seek out a more authoritative source of information. Fastastic job guys!

One day maybe someone will make an entry about wikipedia: "site that claimed encyclopedic knowledge of mankind, except it never came close to being as comprehensive as the great library of alexandria." -- Cirdan

Well, Palpatine is not a real person. He is a cultural construct who exists only in fiction. This page takes that view, and rightfully so. If you read the entry on Superman in, say, Encyclopedia Britannica, you will not see pages and pages of prattle about his history and what he did in every issue of the comic book, written as if it's a real biography. This page is lightyears better than it used to be, because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia about the real world, not the Star Wars one. If you want that version of the article, please be sure to stop by Wookieepedia. — BrianSmithson 01:51, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

There's a difference between a comprehensive biography, as wookieepedia attempts to be, and a succinct, digestible summary. Don't think it's much of a stretch to say that anyone who looks up Palpatine will primarily want a synopsis of his character and the major plot points he's associated with.

What has happened in this article is that the synopsis has been eroded, and replaced with trivial information more suited for trivial pursuit than an encyclopedia entry. Ex. "Palpatine is a central character in Genndy Tartakovsky's Star Wars: Clone Wars, an animated miniseries set between Attack of the Clones and Revenge of the Sith that aired on Cartoon Network from 2003 to 2005." How much does that actually tell anyone about Palpatine? The relevant information could have been conveyed simply by saying "Palpatine is a central character in the animated miniseries Clone Wars."

Or another example, "The first mention of Palpatine in Star Wars literature is in Alan Dean Foster's (writing as George Lucas)[15] novelization of the script of A New Hope, published as Star Wars: From the Adventures of Luke Skywalker (1976).[16]" That should start of as... "The first mention of Palpatine was in the novelization of the script of Star Wars: A New Hope." If you want to know who wrote the novelization, when it was written, etc, then you click on the link to A New Hope, that info doesn't need to be in an article about *Palpatine*.

You say the article is better. But all I see is an article choke-full of information that isn't directly about Palpatine. I find it ironic that the complaint is, the article that was here previously was so good, that you could look Palpatine up like you would Napolean and come up knowing as much about him. If anything, you *add* to an article like that by putting in the real-world info. You don't remove the synopsis under the banner that he's not a "real" character, therefore we don't need a bio on him. But I guess that's the price of being a well-known character, that everyone who isn't directly interested in the character gets to contribute to the article. I'm just glad no one has found the article on Odysseus yet and trivialized that. -- Cirdan 16:24, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I found it, let's trivialise the Odysseus article. YAY, TRIVIALIZE. Hey, just a minute, who removed Palpatine from the category of Fictional personifications of evil?

Anon

It Ataru is at a disadvantage in small places how could Darth Sidious fight Yoda on the small senate pod?

Just out of curiosity, who removed the Debate over Palpatine's appearence section? I've looked in Revenge of the Sith and it's not in there either. Palpatine's physical appearence and the debate over whether or not he looks so freaky as a result of being scarred or his true form being revealed has caused much speculation among fans and deserves a category rather than the small, vague mention it has now. That's my opinion anyway though I know you'll probably crucify me for it.

[edit] Incorrect categories

"Fictional war criminials" cannot be added because Palpatine has never broken any law, and has not been tried in court for his "crimes". "Personification of evil" is even less accurate, as Palpatine is hardly evil itself. 129.89.191.226 20:55, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I can see "Personification of evil" being argued (just not by me). EVula 21:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
"This category is for characters in literature, film, television, comics books, and video games who are incarnations of evil in their respective fictional universes." Nope. Otherwise is simply the "Fictional villains" category in another name.129.89.191.226 22:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I realise you do have to be VERY evil to be in the category of Fictional personifications of evil but might I add to the discussion saying that the article does actually refer to Palpatine as the 'personification of evil.' And he is the chief architect of evil in the Star Wars universe might I hasten to add.

[edit] Name

Palpatine has a name - Dantius. -Lone Guardian 11:45, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Dantius was made up by a guy named Supershadow, who is well-known for making up stories and passing them as canon. There is no canon first name for Palpatine, although I've seen some fans use "Cos" because in the original script for A New Hope, the Emperor's name was "Cos Dashit". Cheers --DarthBinky 13:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, i've realised that was fake. -213.59.170.22 02:28, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] His face...

Is there any evidence that the reflected lighting in the battle with Windu reveals Sidious' true face or was it just scarred & deformed as a result? I tend to believe the latter... Tommyt 19:07, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

There's a line in the novelization for ROTS that many have interpreted as that the lightning revealed a "true face". He says something about his face becoming a mask or something like that (I can't find my copy of the book to give a more precise quotation). I never interpreted it that way, and still don't. Cheers --DarthBinky 19:17, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, I have a feeling we'd be outvoted if we tried to change it... Heh, heh, "Darth Binky", that's cute! Tommyt 16:13, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
It was a combination of both, according to various sources. Jon Hart 18:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Costume

I'm curious about the features of SIDIOUS' costume (particularly how his eyes and forehead were hidden from view in the prequels), being the namesake of the subject matter in discussion. Darth Sidious 02:15, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

As film critic Roger Ebert has pointed out, Darth Sidious looks uncannily like Death in The Seventh Seal. I don't know if this was done on purpose, though. Perhaps Lucas simply wanted to hide the true identity of Sidious from the audience as long as possible; this is a weak theory, though, because it's pretty obvious that Sidious is Palpatine. — Loadmaster 22:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This article is full people opinions rather than facts about the character

Some one has deleted some of the articles I created for this character and I suggest that this article may be considered once again for cleanup. I read this article from top to bottom and is completely saturated with people's comments rather than biographical facts. DarthPlagueis, Sunday, October 29, 2006, 07:33 p.m.

I concur. Powers and abilities section seems to be the work of some Palpatine fan rather than an objective editor.--ScipioAfricans 08:03, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The nature of this Character

Palpatine is a character of evil in the saga and I suggest that this article may be considered for cleanup because there is someone who is adding a lot of information that is not related to the character's biography based on what peolple says about Palpatine. --DarthPlagueis 00:26, 30 October 2006 (UTC)DarthPlaguies, 08:23, October 29, 2006 (UTC)

Isn't it more the point of the Star Wars story that Palapatine's evil develops over time, rather than just happens suddenly? One of the things that makes the Star Wars story so fascinating is its study of human nature. Palapatine is in many ways a more evolved form of Anakin Skywalker-Darth Vader. He too was drawn to the easy path that lead to evil, just as he leads Anakin to that same easy path. One of the fundamental points that the entire canon makes is that good is something that requires committment, love and selflessness, and evil is what happens when those fundamental values are ignored or taken for granted. Palapatine is the ultimate result of the the lack of these values, and thier being replaced with laziness, indifference and selfishness that develop into self agrandizement, hatred and greed. --DarthGoodGuy 0122, 13 November 2006 (GMT)DarthGoodGuy 0122, 13 November 2006 (GMT)

[edit] Fictional hermits

Could whoever keeps placing this character in said category please give a rationale as to why.

[edit] Death Star Construction

It states here that at the end of Episode III Palpatine was overseeing the Death Star in the Early stages of construction. I read somewhere, I'll need to check my sources, that this was in fact the Great Weapon, a captured CIS asset that was not completed by the war's end. Much smaller than the first Death Star would be, it nonetheless featured the first Superlaser technology in modern Star Wars time. It was from this that the technology was adapted and later implemented in the Death Star years later.

I'm not sure how this fits in with the established stories about people such as Qui Xux and Bevel Lemelisk in the Maw Installation, but this is what I read, and it did seem to be a reliable source. Again, I can't check it right now, and so I won't presume to edit the article, but it might be something worth looking into. Dark Bullet Magnet 01:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article vandalism reference in the popular culture section of this article

I added the above said as I removed a pic of the Pope and replaced it with the original one. I've seen this happening before and I think that this wuold only add to the article. Someone(and I don't blame him, he's probably right) reverted it and said that the vandalism wasn't notable. What do you think? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tonich03 (talk • contribs).

Unless the vandalism in question has been commented on by news sources, I just don't see how it is notable, which is why I reverted the addition. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
The edit in question: [1] EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox image

SS-Shatz replaced the infobox image with Emperor_shot.JPG for no apparent reason. I personally prefer the older image Palpatine_ROTJ.jpg. I think it should be reverted, unless there is a good reason to prefer the new screenshot over the old one. — Loadmaster 23:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

  • There is no good reason to change the image to the newer version, which does not even show the character's face very well. The image from Return of the Jedi is the first main appearance of the character in the films, which is why it was chosen for the infobox when this article was updated last year. Dmoon1 01:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../p/a/l/Talk%7EPalpatine_a081.html"