Talk:Darth Vader/Archive 3
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Contents |
Image caption dispute
If you're willing, we can discuss our content disputes in a mature manner here. Or, you could continue to refer to my good-faith edits as "vandalism" and refuse to discuss them. Your call.
As for the image caption, reproduced below was my preferred version, in the context of the article section. I've emphasized certain parts to point them out--these aren't emphasized in the actual article text.
As you can plainly see, both the full name "Sebastian Shaw" and a link to his article are present within very close proximity to the second caption. It's standard practice on Wikipedia not to place the same link twice in the same section, and aesthetically, I think that the link makes more sense in main article text than in a caption.
As for the first name, it's an issue of having a concise caption that doesn't have a line break. Now, if you have some reason you think the caption is better *your* way, I invite you to provide it.
As to the naming issue, I'll give you the opportunity to be the first to talk about it.
— Phil Welch 02:42, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
I'd be happy if it read: Shaw (left) as the spirit of Anakin Skywalker in Return of the Jedi There are people who read the captions and not necessarily the whole article, and I think the links are useful for that reason. Copperchair 10:45, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
- Fair enough, although if we were to do that, why don't we link the first Sebastian Shaw image caption instead, like I've done above? — Phil Welch 17:09, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
Its OK with me. Copperchair 10:36, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
I have kept my word and changed the caption to the way we agreed to. Copperchair 05:26, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
Check out the last paragragh of [1] to see that the other caption should say "Sebastian Shaw as the dying ANAKIN." Copperchair 17:01, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
Naming dispute
As for the naming issue, I already told you what I have to say. I'll say it again: Didn't Palpatine name him Darth Vader? Hadn't he turned to the Dark Side and slaughtered fellow Jedi and even children? Didn't Palpatine tell the Separatists that he had a new apprentice, Darth Vader? Copperchair 03:02, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
- All of those are true. However, simply because he has taken the name Darth Vader does not mean that the name Anakin Skywalker no longer applies to him. (Killing children doesn't make him Darth Vader either--he killed the Sand People, including women and children, in Attack of the Clones and yet avoided being Darth Vader for the entirety of the Clone Wars). Most Sith lords in the prequel trilogy, in fact, continue to use their birth names as well as their Sith names, including both Darth Sidious (Palpatine) and Darth Tyrannus (Dooku). (You may point out that at least Palpatine uses his birth name to hide the fact that he is a Sith lord, but then again, so does Anakin, in order to gain entrance to the Jedi Temple.) There's also the dramatic issue--Revenge of the Sith (and the prequels in general) are about Anakin Skywalker's transformation into Darth Vader. His fall arguably begins as soon as he slaughters the Sand People, but it is only complete at the end, when he is encased in the iconic cybernetic armor. Also, there is the visual aspect--while Anakin Skywalker is a man of flesh and blood, a man with a face, Darth Vader is more machine than man, a horrific obsidian spectre, etc.
- And perhaps most importantly, the original proponent of your "he's no longer Anakin Skywalker as soon as he turns to the Dark Side" interpretation is Obi-Wan, who in Return of the Jedi characterizes that interpretation as "a certain point of view", and not necessarily the objective truth. So it's pretty clear that this question is not one of literal black-and-white absolute truth, nor is it presented as one by the characters in the film itself. It's a question of point of view. — Phil Welch 03:27, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
He is Darth Vader then because Palpatine already has given him that name, not just because he has turned to the Dark Side. Copperchair 10:39, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, but Palpatine didn't tell him to renounce the name "Anakin Skywalker". You're calling him Palpatine even though *his* Sith master already gave him the name Darth Sidious, why can't it be the same for Anakin at this point? You also didn't quite respond to my other points. — Phil Welch 17:09, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
That's because nobody, even in Episode VI, was supposed to know his alter ego, unlike Vader. Vader is always referred to as Darth Vader, but Palpatine is never referred to as Darth Sidious in the original Trilogy. What other points I didn't respond to? The whole issue comes down to Palpatine granting him a new name, and him turning completely to the Dark Side (which isn't the case with the Sand People incident). Copperchair 10:43, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
- Palpatine is referred to as Sidious several times in the original trilogy--in his holographic communications with the Separatists, and when confronted by Yoda. While it's true that no one was supposed to know Vader's alter ego in the original trilogy, that's only after he was encased in the armor. Before that, he couldn't exactly hide the fact that he was Anakin Skywalker (he WAS a legendary war hero who people would have recognized). Of course, the only people other than Obi-Wan and Yoda who knew that Darth Vader was Anakin Skywalker were the Separatist leaders on Mustafar who Vader killed. The points you haven't responded to are the dramatic and visual points above. — Phil Welch 14:01, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
You are confusing "original" Trilogy with "prequel" trilogy ("Palpatine is referred to as Sidious several times in the original trilogy"). Anyway, that is irrelevant, since once Anakin took the name Darth Vader he WAS Darth Vader. Is it that hard to understand?! And what "dramatic and visual points above" didn't I answer? Give me a direct question and I'll answer it. Copperchair 03:52, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
- You're right, I typed the wrong word. Sorry about that. The point I was making is that (quoting myself), "However, simply because he has taken the name Darth Vader does not mean that the name Anakin Skywalker no longer applies to him." You haven't presented your arguments in the form of questions, so I see no reason why I should, but you have yet to provide any counterargument to what I said above. Reread it if you must. — Phil Welch 04:02, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Of course it doesn't apply, as he is Darth Vader until Anakin comes back to the light in "Return of the Jedi", which is the underlying theme of the whole series. Copperchair 04:09, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
- Or that Darth Vader was always Anakin Skywalker the whole time. You seem to miss the point that saying "Anakin died when he fell to the Dark Side" is meant metaphorically, not literally, and is supposed to be "a certain point of view". — Phil Welch 04:14, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Of course, but that does not eliminate the fact that all the time he was an agent of evil he was Darth Vader, not Anakin Skywalker. Copperchair 04:21, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
See [2] to see I'm right about the naming issue (starting with the paragragh beginning with "With the death of Mace Windu..."). Copperchair 11:31, 30 July 2005 (UTC) Also check out the last paragragh of [3] to see that it should say "Sebastian Shaw as the dying ANAKIN." Copperchair 11:54, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
OFFICIAL site means anything to you? I'll have to copy-paste the information:
"With the death of Mace Windu, Anakin had committed himself to the dark path. He knelt before Darth Sidious, proclaiming himself to be a servant of the Sith. Pleased, Sidious granted Anakin a Sith name: Darth Vader. With the promise of newfound powers, Sidious dispatched Vader to destroy the Jedi Temple.
On that terrible night on Coruscant, Darth Vader became the scourge of the Jedi. He led a column of clone troopers into the heart of the Jedi Temple. They killed all those within. His eyes burning with Sith intensity, it became clear that Anakin was no longer the same hero he once was. He was firmly entrenched in darkness, even bringing his blade to snuff out the bright lives of the Jedi younglings.
Skywalker was no more. He could not hear the entreaties of his friends and loved ones to return from the darkness. As Darth Vader, he killed the leadership of the Separatists, bringing an end to the Clone Wars. In his rage, he would bring about the death of his wife, fulfilling the terrifying vision that prompted his turn to forbidden knowledge. When his former mentor tried to stop his spree of destruction, Vader suffered grievous injuries in the lightsaber duel on Mustafar that followed."
and
"Luke Skywalker scored numerous major victories against the Empire, and was able to lure Darth Vader from the grip of the dark side. Vader, once again Anakin Skywalker, defeated Emperor Palpatine, bringing an end to the Sith reign of terror that had seized the galaxy."
I have backed my arguments with proofs, you have just given a misplaced opinion. Copperchair 01:04, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
- A misplaced opinion? Not at all. Remember, the "Anakin Skywalker died when he turned to the Dark Side" interpretation comes exactly from a speech by Obi-Wan which ends with the phrase, "from a certain point of view". A certain point of view that Luke proceeded to disprove by turning Anakin Skywalker back from the Dark Side, proving that he was not dead after all.
- By the way, from Starwars.com: "When metal coupled with flesh in the form of cyborg implants and enhancements required to sustain him, Skywalker's transformation was complete. He was no longer Anakin. He was Darth Vader." [4]. Your own source states that ceased to be Anakin Skywalker *at the point when he was* placed into the armor. You may point out that this contradicts the excerpts you have provided above: I assert that this only proves the official website to be an unreliable source. — Phil Welch 03:28, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
No, it doesn't. It says the transformation was complete, not that that was the moment when it happened (began). Besides, that page hasn't been updated since before Episode III was released, so that information was just speculation, but the other two I gave you links to were updated yesterday. Copperchair 03:45, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
- Which goes toward my point--if they couldn't bother to update it to account for a movie that was released two and half months ago, the databank isn't a high priority for Lucasfilm, so what are the chances that they actually make sure the articles are in line with George Lucas's intended interpretation? — Phil Welch 03:57, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
The fact that the pages have changed as the new movies were released, although it obviously takes time. Copperchair 04:06, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
- Copperchair, ultimately my point is that well-meaning people can have differing interpretations here. It's not a matter of fact, it's a matter of interpretation and a matter of point-of-view, which is why the article cannot definitively state it as if it were a fact while maintaining NPOV. The interpretation of some copywriter at Lucasfilm is not fact nor is it, strictly speaking, canon. If you actually read the article I've added an entire paragraph explaining why it's an issue for open interpretation. I'm sorry you're unable to understand the idea that other people may interpret a movie differently than you do, but it's something you'll have to deal with on Wikipedia. I might add that your failure to convince someone is not their failure to understand, but that's something that sort of goes along with understanding that other people have different points of view than you do. — Phil Welch 03:48, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
You can't interpret what has been officially interpreted. There are undeniable facts, because what you call "the interpretation of some copywriter at Lucasfilm" is the official point of view. Everything in a debate always comes down to facts, if not, no one could ever be wrong. And it's not my interpretation; it's the movie's storyline. And only YOU can't be convinced, because you are just too proud to accept your mistakes. In the Episode III article, ever since Anakin takes the name "Darth Vader", he is mentioned as such. So it is only you who can't accept what to everyone else is evident. Copperchair 04:02, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
- That's not the case. Both Padme and Obi-Wan refer to him as "Anakin" after he takes the name Darth Vader. And once again, it's not a matter of right and wrong; interpretation of this sort never is. It's not a matter of fact, to say nothing of "undeniable" fact. — Phil Welch 04:08, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Because they hoped to bring him back to the light. Why would do something as stupid as reinforcing in him the fact the he no longer was Anakin by calling him "Darth Vader"? And it IS a fact, for Anakin/before turning to the Dark Side and after coming back to the light : Darth Vader/after turning to the Dark Side. There is no place for interpretation on this matter. Copperchair 04:26, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
- Why do you say that? In the films themselves, the idea that Darth Vader was no longer Anakin Skywalker is presented by Obi-Wan as "a certain point of view", not as a fact. — Phil Welch 04:29, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
What was said "from a certain point of view" was that Vader betrayed and murdered Anakin, in order to avoid telling Luke the truth until he was ready. I.e. a lie. Copperchair 04:36, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
- The entire "the good man who was your father was destroyed" speech was Obi-Wan's explanation of that "white" lie and the point of view from which it is true. — Phil Welch 04:42, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Which further backs my argument that once he "was seduced by the Dark Side of the Force... (h)e ceased to be Anakin Skywalker and became Darth Vader". Copperchair 04:46, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
- My point is that Obi-Wan's explaining his point of view in that line. He isn't presenting it as fact. — Phil Welch 04:49, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
For the reason I told you four paragraphs above, but he is only explaining why he said it HOW ha said it, not WHY he said it (which is, because it was a fact). Copperchair 04:53, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
I understand you, but you are not answering anything by bringing it up. Obi-Wan thinks he said the truth "from a certain point of view", which he did, by saying "Darth Vader... betrayed and murdered" Anakin. What does that have to do with him becoming Darth Vader when he pledged alliance to Palpatine? Copperchair 05:04, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
- My point is as follows: We are discussing the proposition that "The individual in question ceased to be Anakin Skywalker when he fell to the dark side and became Darth Vader." You assert that that proposition is fact. My response is that the proposition was presented by Obi-Wan not as fact, but as an explanation of his point of view, and that from that point of view, Darth Vader did betray and murdered Anakin Skywalker. In other words, "Vader betrayed and murdered Anakin" is not Obi-Wan's point of view, it is a statement that is true from Obi-Wan's point of view, a point of view that Obi-Wan explains by asserting that he "ceased to be Anakin Skywalker and became Darth Vader". — Phil Welch 05:08, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
No, no, no, what was said from a certain point of view was that Darth Vader killed Anakin, not that Anakin ceased to be when he turned to the Dark Side, which IS a fact. Copperchair 05:16, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
- "What was said from a certain point of view was that Vader killed Anakin". Yes, I said that: "'Vader betrayed and murdered Anakin' ... is a statement that is true from Obi-Wan's point of view." My point is that Obi-Wan tells Luke "he ceased to be Anakin Skywalker and became Darth Vader" *as an explanation of his own point of view*. You are saying that the statement "he ceased to be Anakin and became Vader" is a fact, and not an explanation of Obi-Wan's point of view. That seems to be our immediate disagreement; am I correct? — Phil Welch 05:21, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Yes. Obi-Wan said "from a certain point of view" that Vader betrayed and murdered Anakin, so as not to tell Luke at this moment about his father's destiny, but he knew for a fact that once Anakin had been seduced by the Dark Side of the Force he had become Darth Vader. And WE now know that happened when he pledged alliance to Palpatine at his office just after Palpatine killed Windu. Copperchair 06:33, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
- Incidentally, it seems this discussion is going well now. I'm going to take a break now; when I come back I'm going to refactor the discussion to make sure we understand one another's points so that we can hopefully resolve this. (I'll leave the source material in place though.) — Phil Welch 05:28, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
I have protected the page until you two wort out your dispute here.--nixie 03:42, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
I am impressed at the absurdity of this debate. --Vyran 04:02, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
God, you two gotta stop acting like children. Just put him down as Anakin Skywalker/Darth Vader, and no matter what name is put in, it'll still direct to the same Star Wars person. This is ridiculous. --Jedi Striker 12:49, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
Third opinion from Parker Whittle
Pretty silly debate, IMO, but I have the following suggestion: since the debate is over the name of the character, which arguably appeared in a number of films, then why not simply go with the name of the character as referenced in the actual credits? In episodes I, II, and III, the character is listed as Anakin Skywalker. In episodes IV, V, and VI, the character is listed as Darth Vader. There are two characters, or at least two names for the same character. The credits are rather unambiguous. Parker Whittle 21:19, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
- I'm going to concur with this third opinion (with the possible exception of the ending sequence of Revenge of the Sith when the suited Darth Vader returns to the screen) and mention this rationale in the notes. — Phil Welch 00:25, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
I will follow this third opinion. Thank you for resolving this dispute. Copperchair 04:57, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
- Copperchair, try reading the third opinion before you try following it. You just violated it and changed it to your preferred version. — Phil Welch 06:26, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
Then he is still Anakin at the end when he is in the suit? Because he is only credited as "Anakin Skywalker". That appears to be what must be understood if we follow blindly Parker Whittle's opinion. Copperchair 03:52, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
- We can write off the suited Darth Vader as a minor role, perhaps. James Earl Jones isn't credited either. But we can't write off Anakin post-death-of-Windu as a minor role—the intention must have been that the role of Anakin Skywalker *included* the post-Windu scenes. Anyway, between you and me, I'm leaving the suited parts to refer to "Vader" because it's too freaking weird to see the big black armored suit and *not* call him Darth Vader. — Phil Welch 05:43, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
Phil had the right idea. I'm washing my hands of this one—it's just too much. One of you hard core fans must have the script on hand. Run with that. Parker Whittle 04:08, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
Again: he ceased to be Anakin Skywalker when he became a Sith, and that happened when Palpatine granted him the name "Darth Vader", NOT after he was rebuilt in the suit. Copperchair 01:20, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
- Whatever. You've given your word that you'll abide by the third opinion, so I'll trust you to do that. — Phil Welch 01:42, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
- Incidentally, as a sign of good faith I've made a compromise edit. I suggest you leave this ridiculous dispute where it sits. — Phil Welch 02:23, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
I welcome that, but it still isn't entirely correct. Copperchair 19:14, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
- I remind you that you've given your word to accept a third opinion when it was given, and to follow this one when Parker provided it. I am going to hold you to it. — Phil Welch 21:05, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
- It's entirely academic at this point because you've already agreed to my version (your inability to keep your word regardless), I thought I might add that the track listing for the official soundtrack lists the music for the duel with Obi-Wan as "Anakin vs. Obi-Wan". Obviously, if your interpretation was correct, the title would be "Vader vs. Obi-Wan", but clearly, TPTB think differently. — Phil Welch 04:31, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
- Oh, yeah. Not to mention the shooting scripts that I've linked to in the endnotes. And right now I'm finding out about the novelization. — Phil Welch 04:35, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
- The novelization refers to him as Anakin, even as late as the point he's inside the suit. It goes into a lengthy diversion about how he feels at that moment that ends with, "This is what it is like to be Anakin Skywalker...forever." I invite anyone to fact-check this if they can get a copy of the novelization. — Phil Welch 04:43, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
So what you are saying is that Sony Classical and Del Rey are reliable sources, but the OFFICIAL site isn't? Copperchair 21:11, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
Kenobi clinched the duel non-violently
About the results of the Mustafar duel, Kenobi actually won the duel because he jumped into the black sand and into the higher ground, putting Vader at a massive disadvantage. Kenobi told Vader to give up since Vader has no chance of catching up, therefore, Kenobi actually told Vader to admit defeat and stop the violence. Kenobi didn't maime Vader--it was Vader who did it himself--morally. Remember Sith believes in Violence and Jedi does not. Kenobi tried to tell Vader to return back to the Light Side as Anakin and to stand up for what he had done. Vader, though, showed hatred of the Jedi and his words provoked violence alone, it wasn't the fact that Kenobi ignited his lightsaber saying that he had to do whatever he must, it was Anakin's/Vader's words that provoked the violence. If Vader just listened to Kenobi and just admit defeat, then he wouldn't have been maimed and charred at Mustafar. Instead, Vader ignored Kenobi and just tried to strike at Kenobi, getting maimed and charred through the process. The real reason why Vader got maimed, charred, and transformed into his fearsome appearance in A New Hope was not because of Obi-Wan gaining the high ground and did a deft defensive flash to severly immobilize Vader, it was the weight of Vader's words and Vader's refusal to concede that got Vader maimed and charred. — Vesther 18:34, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
- That's a fair interpretation, but I've been avoiding letting interpretation seep into the article for reasons of NPOV and keeping out original research. Nonetheless, it was Obi-Wan who moved his blade across Anakin's legs, so from a purely factual basis (not an interpretive/moral/metaphorical basis), the article is still correct. — Phil Welch 19:00, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
- Also, if Jedi do not believe in violence, why did they serve as Generals in the Clone Wars? Why do we see them consistently (albeit justifiably) engaging in acts of physical force? Why do they carry lightsabers? You may say that the Jedi do not believe in unprovoked or unjustified violence, but they are more than willing to engage in violence when it is morally legitimate, in both "self-defense" and "just war" situations. — Phil Welch 19:03, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
Voice Talent
I just learned that Anakin was voiced by Matt Lucas, Lucas' son for the Revenge of the Sith game, and want to add it.
- If you can find a source, sure, I'll be sure to add it when it's unprotected unless someone else gets to it first. — Phil Welch 06:04, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
George Lucas's son's name is Jett Lucas, not "Matt".
Huh, weird, it might've been another Lucas not related to George. I'll recheck. What do you want as proof? I found out in the video game.
Someone must review the article and rewrite all related to Anakin's life as a young adult. We already know that Anakin's turn to the Dark Side was because the Jedi were running him down all the time. So he used the Dark Side as a way to advance his training the best way he did. DarthPlaegis, 5:10, August 7, 2005
What happened to this article?
...it's pretty much gone. Is this vandalism, or was it taken off for some reason? There's a single line of text. That's it.
Woah. Nevermind. I typed in the name, properly capitalizing it..."Darth Vader" yielded an article with one sentence on it, saying that he was the villain in star wars. Then, I typed "darth vader", without capitalizing, and I got the complete article.
- That wasn't what it was. It was just momentary vandalism that was quickly reverted. Here's to RC Patrol. — Phil Welch 03:36, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
Anakin vs. Darth Vader
Has a consensus been reached on whether to refer to the character as Anakin or Darth Vader in this article? Copperchair recently switched everything from "Anakin" to "Darth Vader" and deleted the reference note at the bottom of the page that seems to specify that the character should be referred to as "Anakin" up through Episode III; his edit was marked with this note: "Fixed article to be consistent on the Anakin/Vader matter." However, I see no discussion and cannot find a place where a consensus was reached. Am I just blind and missing something here? (Possibly this is due to Copperchair's erasing of his talk page, I don't know.) – Mipadi 20:33, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
Actually, it is some lines above, under "Naming dispute". Copperchair 02:40, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
When you read above, be sure to see the lines where Copperchair agrees with that third opinion and then proceeds to violate that agreement every day since then, and then the part where I note that I've found shooting scripts and posted links (in the article itself), which Copperchair keeps removing. While there's no specific policy that says you have to actually follow your agreements, I think it falls under m:Don't be a dick to give your word and then go back on it within the space of six hours. Unfortunately, no one cares about this stupid dispute other than Copperchair (who has nothing better to do than POV-push on Wikipedia for Star Wars interpretations, of all things), and me (who's been trying to bring this to Featured Article status and is being somewhat of a perfectionist at this point.) Still, I've had a third opinion given in my favor and if you want to give a fourth I'd appreciate that. — Phil Welch 03:04, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
- Well, the reason I brought up the point was that the footnote seemed to make a good point: I think the character should be named according to the script, which specifies his name as "Anakin" up through Episode III, not "Darth Vader". It seems to make sense that he would be called "Anakin" up through Episode III. – Mipadi 17:23, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
But YOU didn't want a third opinion to begin with. Also, attacking me only rests you credibility. And I am also a perfectionist, and I will do whatever I think is correct. And you have not followed you agreement regarding the Episode VI images captions, so don't come telling me how I have to keep my word. You have no authority whatsoever on that matter. Even the script you linked here refers to him as Anakin at that point. Finally, I proposed to end the edit war by keeping my word if you keep yours, but you refused, so the edit war will continue. Copperchair 06:56, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
- I never opposed asking for a third opinion, I believe I said that it was your prerogative to ask for one. I have never attacked you, only told the truth: you have acted in continually bad faith, making agreements and breaking them at the same time. If you point out to me where I have broken any agreements I have made I will rectify my error. — Phil Welch 18:50, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
How about the caption on Episode VI end celebration? And you do keep attacking me ("don't be a dick" and "assholery"?) Copperchair 04:49, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
- "Assholery" is a characterization of behavior and not you as a person. "Don't be a dick" is the title of a Meta article that I believe applies to your behavior. Finally, how have I violated any regarding the spirits image? I've taken the effort to produce direct quotes and diff links regarding your behavior and I think it's only fair I request the same from you. — Phil Welch 04:52, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
You keep removing the link to Episode VI. Copperchair 05:39, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
- When? And when have I ever agreed not to remove that link? Provide diffs, please. — Phil Welch 05:48, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
See the second and third posts in the "Image caption dispute" discussion. Copperchair 06:14, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
- Furthermore, it's useless to negotiate with someone who refuses to keep his word, Copperchair. Had you done as I requested and keep your word on the agreements you've already made for a 72-hour period, I would have considered your offer. But given your repeated refusal to show any good faith at all, I'm not going to waste time making more agreements for you to break. — Phil Welch 19:11, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
See the paragraph above. Copperchair 04:49, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
Possible Edit War again
I've recently viewed the history only to know that Darth Vader has been edited too many times (I, for one, had to edit just to explain the pictures). I didn't bother editing the page since then.
When Anakin kneeled towards Sidious/Palpatine, he ceased to be Anakin for 99.8% of the time (He would only be addressed as Anakin by Obi-Wan and Padme only), becoming Darth Vader.
At the end of The Empire Strikes Back, it should be noted that Anakin Skywalker was far more powerful than Darth Vader. Vader starts to have conflicts as the sanity left inside him starts showing from the outside.
He ceased to be Vader after realizing that the Emperor continues to electrify Luke. Becoming Anakin again and knowing the error of his ways, he killed the Emperor with great risk. — Vesther 15:01, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
- That's a pretty fair interpretation, but I think the reality here is that there are many different good interpretations. I think the best policy is to say that in the article and to sort of go by the script. — Phil Welch 15:35, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
I now have a third opinion on my favor, too. Copperchair 03:37, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
- Looking at this page for the first time, I am absolutely floored that this kind of issue has persisted. Stop pushing POV. Acknowledge the controversy and move on. Bulwark 04:14, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
- Who cares, Copperchair? First off the third opinion isn't entirely in your favor, second off I have a fourth AND fifth opinion in my favor, and third off, you've already accepted the *first* third opinion anyway. Give up already. — Phil Welch 06:08, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
All right, then I'll change Darth Vader to Anakin in ALL of Episode III, following your precious third opinion, which you didn't want me to ask for in the first place. Does that make sense to you? Copperchair 06:49, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
- The third opinion suggested going by the scripts, which I have done. Please cease your blatant assholery. As for the Return of the Jedi captions, it is here that I edit to the compromise version, and it is here that you agree to the compromise version and call a truce, a truce that you have continually violated with regards to that caption. Between that and your blatant violation of the third opinion you have agreed to, you have no credibility. If you continue your aggressive actions, I will pursue a request for comment against your conduct. — Phil Welch 18:57, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
Bring it on, name-caller! Copperchair 04:45, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
- I never called you any names, I'm simply characterizing your behavior. As you may recall you have made the majority of the personal attacks. — Phil Welch 04:47, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
I always took it back, and even deleted those posts. On the other hand, since then you have increaseingly insulted me. Copperchair 04:58, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
- How? Where? I've criticized your behavior (because it needs criticism) but I don't believe I've ever attacked you as a person. — Phil Welch 05:01, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
By calling my conduct "assholery" you are calling me an asshole. Copperchair 05:39, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
- No, I'm saying that certain actions you are taking are characteristic of the behavior of an asshole. If I said you made an "idiotic edit" I wouldn't be calling you an idiot, this is the same. — Phil Welch 05:48, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
Of course you would. Are you familiar with "deduction"? Copperchair 05:58, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
- This debate is useless. Suffice it to say that it was never my intent to make a statement about anything other than your behavior. Arguing with you has ceased to be a useful enterprise--I will allow your version of the dying Anakin caption to stand so long as you agree, once and for all, without any further violations, that this dispute ends here and now. — Phil Welch 06:00, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
That was my offer in the first place. Of course I'll keep my word. Copperchair 06:11, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
