Talk:Darth Vader

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Good article Darth Vader was one of the Arts good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Other languages WikiProject Echo has identified Darth Vader as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Hebrew language Wikipedia.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Darth Vader article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

Archives

Contents

[edit] Vader

Vader in dutch means father in english. This should be put in the main article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.182.131 (talk) 04:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Spoiler

Isn't saying that Darth Vader is Anakin Skywalker in the Intro a spoiler? If you haven't seen any of the movies it would be giving away a major plot point and twist. dark567

well it has grown very popular in everday life.Lokon40 03:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clarification

It might be easier to edit this article if it were made clear what parts of it were overlong, confusing, or ambiguous. Treybien 19:36, 26 September (UTC)

[edit] Vader vs Ben Kenobi

If Obi -Wan were actually trying to fight Vader in Episode 4, would he have won? They are both old but I'm pretty sure Obi-Wan could have won.--suit-n-tie 06:59, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Ben knew he would lose. McDonaldsGuy 14:17, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
That makes sense.--Atomic-Super-SuitWhat Have I Done?! 19:20, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Although not stated, it's implied that Kenobi 'knew' that he would lose. "He's not dead... not yet."

Yoda921 06:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Yoda I think Obi Wan is more powerful as for he was Vader's former master. By the way, if Obi Wan hadn't decided to sacrifice himself, I think he would have killed Vader.LearnguyLearnguy (talk) 00:22, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Why would Vader be old? He'd be in his thirties, early forties at least.

-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.158.83 (talk) 09:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Darth Vadar should be around 50. He was around 18-21 when he became Darth Vadar and the Empire ruled the galaxy for 30 years until the events of Return of the Jedi. Azn Clayjar (talk) 20:29, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Do you have some sort of canonical evidence that the empire ruled for that long? I don't think that Luke Skywalker was supposed to be in his 30's. Luke was more like late teens early 20's. -Scarlocke —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.48.250.215 (talk) 13:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA Re-Review and In-line citations

Note: This article has a small number of in-line citations for an article of its size and subject content. Currently it would not pass criteria 2b.
Members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles are in the process of doing a re-review of current Good Article listings to ensure compliance with the standards of the Good Article Criteria. (Discussion of the changes and re-review can be found here). A significant change to the GA criteria is the mandatory use of some sort of in-line citation (In accordance to WP:CITE) to be used in order for an article to pass the verification and reference criteria. It is recommended that the article's editors take a look at the inclusion of in-line citations as well as how the article stacks up against the rest of the Good Article criteria. GA reviewers will give you at least a week's time from the date of this notice to work on the in-line citations before doing a full re-review and deciding if the article still merits being considered a Good Article or would need to be de-listed. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us on the Good Article project talk page or you may contact me personally. On behalf of the Good Articles Project, I want to thank you for all the time and effort that you have put into working on this article and improving the overall quality of the Wikipedia project. Agne 04:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Personification of evil

There have been several reverts over the last week or so about this appellation. I think the difficulty stems from the difference in viewing individual films (such as ANH), and watching them as a series.

The Anakin Skywalker of the prequels, has developed a three dimensional quality, which can make him seem, "understandable", the tragic character, such as one might find in King Lear, or Hamlet.

However, the Darth Vader of the first movie, was very clearly designed as a personification of evil. See: Star Wars sources and analogues, for examples. The design of the character's look, including the use of WWII paraphernalia, and the "not-quite-human" sense to the character, shows this rather clearly. Some citations from both sides of the debate would obviously be helpful.

For now, I'm putting the category back on the page, but commenting it out, until we have more direct citations of this (which is directly related to the request above). - jc37 22:00, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Devil's Advocate- if he's the "personification of evil" in Episode IV, then why is he taking orders from Tarkin? In every film in which he appears, Vader takes orders from others- hardly seems like a "personification of evil" to me. Also, that "Sources and Analogues" page doesn't cite a single reference- it smells strongly of OR--DarthBinky 22:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
What does being evil have to do with being under someone else's thumb? : )
Vader isn't "vile", he's "evil". - jc37
Because he's not really a "personification of evil" if there's someone more eviler than he. You could even take the "he's just following orders" defense (not that I subscribe to that...). Also, several of the villains in that "category" I would argue don't belong there. Sauron wasn't the personfication of evil in Middle Earth- Morgoth is (and he is, in fact, in that list). Arawn isn't even considered evil, yet he's on the list. I suppose it depends on exactly what is meant by "personification of evil"- when i think of it, I think of it in the sense of being the embodiment/incarnation of evil, like Satan or Morgoth. --DarthBinky 18:39, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Not every evil person is a personification of evil. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:07, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

True enough, but neither is Vader "every evil person". Check out the category. Vader is on equal or greater standing with several of them. But that aside, we're looking for citations at this point : ) - jc37 18:26, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

The characters in that category are actual personifications of evil in their respective fictional universes. Being designed to represent evil and being designed to be evil itself are two different things. If we went with the former interpretation, we might as well save the time and merge the category with Category:Fictional villains. Interrobamf 02:00, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Vader was the first Sith Lord introduced into the Star Wars storyline (if you consider EP IV the first story). He was designed to personify evil, whilst Luke personified good over-coming evil. By the beginning of Ep VI it has become Sidious who personifies evil, Vader/Anakin Skywalker symbolises a corrupted being. Jasca Ducato 18:34, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:NOR. -Silence 21:06, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Silence has a good point. Please come up with reliable sources describing Vader as a "personification of evil" (or a "war criminal," since user:Treybien keeps sticking that cat on this category for some reason). - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:50, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed (especially since I mentioned it above : )
I think it might be a good idea for us to go through the categories on this page and have citations for them all. I know on CfD, that's one of the things we look for is whether an article has an explanation/citation for category placemement. - jc37 06:44, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe it is mentioned by GL on one of the DVD documentaries that Vader was orignally meant to personify evil. i'll check tonight to see which one exactely. Jasca Ducato 11:01, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I think he's hot. He's not evil. He's misunderstood.

[edit] I am your father

There is no mention of the ominous "I am your father" line, surprisingly. JaderVason 21:05, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I've always thought Vader's response "Luke, I am your father" was a rather too simple way of replying to Luke's comment "Obi-Wan said you killed my father". He should have said something like "I thought about it, but then I reasoned suicide wasn't the answer" and left Luke to figure it out on his own. JIP | Talk 19:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

he could have said "I was going to but I realised there where laws against suicide" ♥Eternal Pink-Ready to fight for love and grace♥ 22:28, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
That wasn't his reponse...

LUKE: He told me enough. He told me you killed him!

VADER: No - I am your father.


@ Trivia (?) Vader =~= Vater (german 4 father)

Yoda921 06:45, 25 December 2006 (UTC)Yoda

I think it's wonderful the way George Lucas did it. The story goes that the original shooting had actor David Prowse as Darth Vader say "Obi-Wan killed your father" and then Lucas dubbed it with "I am your father" by actor James Earl Jones. This allowed it to remain a complete surprise until it's actual viewing. -Scarlocke

[edit] Is Vader the ultimate Sith?

This one always bothered me. I know that Palpatine is considered the greatest Sith ever, but, Darth Vader seems to be the one doing all of the lightsaber fighting, while the Emperor just sits and watches. So, basically Darth Vader is one of the main reasons Palpatine is feared. Does anyone else agree? sean7gordon@epix.net 11/8/06

This isn't a messageboard to discuss things like that. This is meant to be used to discuss how to make the article better. Cheers --DarthBinky 02:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

it can bring a good discussion paragraph in like: the greatest sith?

Pece Kocovski 06:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Am pretty sure that Luke Skywalker is the greatest Sith Lord: he worsted Darth Vader in their second duel. Theavatar3 17:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Darth Vader had the POTENTIAL to become the "ultimate sith" due to his sky-high midichlorian count. However losing the duel to Obi-wan cut his abilities considerably. Consequently, Palps was left to be the "ultimate Sith".

Palpatine admitted this himself. "Darth Vader shall become more powerful than either of us"

Yoda921 11:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)Yoda


The "greatest Sith Lord"? That's a rather arbitrary, video-gameish concept. It's not like they have character levels or "Awesomeness Meter" readings. For example, I notice people talking about "who could beat who in a duel". But any fight or combat is inherently random and situational, outside of video games. I'd refrain from including such speculation here - it's kind of fanboy(/girl)-ish, in a painfully DBZ sort of way, and outside the interest of most people. --GenkiNeko 15:40, 2 February 2007 (UTC) just to clean up you're thinking theavatar, luke was never a sith and never "roasted" darth vader.george himself said that when vader nearly died on mustafar, he was 80% as powerful as palps,but if he hadnt burned alive he would have been twice as powerful.also the ep 111 game shows that if vader had won on mustafar he would have killed palps and became emporer.he killed him anyway in ROTJ. vader was not just the superior sith but the superior force user.

The greatest Sith lord in the Star Wars universe is definitely Palpatine. He's the smartest, he's the most powerful and he actually succeeded in taking over the galaxy and ruling it quite well for a long while. Even if Vader had eventually surpassed him in power (which he never did) Palpatine would still be the greater Sith Lord because he was the more intelligent of the two and the better Force user. He's like the Dark Side personified. Although he admits that Vader had potential to become more powerful than him he still refers to himself as "the greatest Sith lord the galaxy had ever known" in the novelisation of Revenge of the Sith. Vader only killed him in Return Of The Jedi because he was physically stronger than Palpatine and besides he was fatally injured by Palapatine's Force lightening in the process. --Illustrious One (talk) 14:58, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

All sith call themselvs the greatest though.--Jakezing (talk) 20:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

You are all referring only to sith shown in the movies. There were plenty of powerful sith before and after the movies in other expanded universe material. Some of them were very powerful among the sith, such as Darth Bane or Darth Nihilus. Take into account that Vader needed the Death Star to destroy a planet. Darth Nihilus ended all life on Katarr with nothing more than the force. Orcahuman (talk) 00:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] *Grumble* bureaucratic Morons

I can't believe that wookiepedia merged the Anakin Skywalker article with the Darth vader article. In terms of size, it would explode (believe me the content on wookiepedian articles like that are huge). Also, it is clear that Darth vader is different from Anakin Skywalker with or without the suit. Either way, HE said it himself that he is not Anakin Skywalker at anymore.

What i'm trying to say is, please, do not change the Wiki articles on the two articles that wookie merged. Probably some do****** did it for some reason to fit himself. Hmph, ever since they started removing the special articles links (in the from of like eg: this place is just a big desert. With some really unfriendly inhabitants] (i just made this up.), and now they removed this links, which not only do leaves people asking, "what is this referring to" But it makes them seem just lazy, unlike before. And to think they say it "clutters it up", Well, isn't the point of wookiepedia to be the most detailed and elaborate star wars wiki ever??

all I'm saying is, wookiepedia has changed man. it should go back into its original glory, to the time where the order and archives were completely detailed and elaborate, where the quotes linked to many articles themselves, and the links to there articles, where in sentences and simple words like "this". Traitors!!!! (supporters of the merge)

Pece Kocovski 08:54, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Go voice your complaints on wookiepedia.Darth Anzeruthi 18:30, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I mentioned this on the Anakin talk page but I think it's worth repeating why it shouldn't be two seperate articles. This is what I put in the Anakin page: We might as well make seperate articles for all aliases of other characters. We could make two for Obi-Wan Kenobi and Ben Kenobi, or four for Senator Palpatine, Chancellor Palpatine, Emporer Palpatine and finally Darth Sideous. Seriously people get rid of this article. -Scarlocke —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.48.250.215 (talk) 13:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Category: Villains

There has been revert removing Darth Vader from the Star Wars villains list. I disagree with this, redeemed or not, he's still a villain. People are acting like "Oh, he's redeemed, now all those villainous things he did are poof!" Villains are villains. George Lucas intended for Darth Vader to be a villain (who was redeemed, but still). He is not a good guy, so he must be a bad guy. I am discussing this here because it currently says in the category section <Do not add this category!> by a person who has failed to explain why he does not qualify as a a villain. It even says in the second paragraph "Vader is one of the most iconic villains in movie history", so he IS a villain. Anakin isn't, but Vader is.

So he should qualify for the Star Wars Villains category. But some say he doesn't. Why not?--DeadGuy 00:11, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

He's already in Category:Star Wars Sith characters, which is a sub-category of Star Wars villains (and is also a sub-cat of Category:Dark Lords). - jc37 00:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Yet Darth Maul, Count Dooku, and Palpatine are all in those categories and in the villain category. Darth Vader is both a dark lord, villain, and sith (as is Palpatine, who seems to not apply to this logic).--DeadGuy 01:20, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
If they are, it means that, while I'm sure well-meaning editors added them, they too should be removed. - jc37 02:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes he is a villian. For the better part of his career he was a villian. If Hitler decided at the last moment that he was sorry for all that he did would we simply say oh okay no problem then, you are no longer a villian. Give me a break, this guy didn't simply have a moment of darkness his entire jedi career and subsequent job as as sith lord are mired in evil acts, do I need to remind us of his slaughter of the sandpeople. -Scarlocke

[edit] The Empire Strikes Back section

I added a citation needed to that section (and it was removed without really explaining it other than a weak claim that "is made clear in the film itself").

The issue is that the TESB section claims that Vader tortured Han because he knew that Luke would sense it through the Force and would come rescue Han. I believe this to be spurious, considering Vader tortures Han after Luke is already en route to Bespin. Second, the film isn't clear on it- I got the impression Vader was torturing Han because Vader was angry about the Death Star (they found out Luke blew it up, I'm sure they could find out that Han helped) and having had to chase Han all over since Hoth. Third, how could Vader possibly know what Luke could and couldn't do with regards to the Force? During the battle in the carbon freezing chamber, he makes a bunch of observations as he learns firsthand what Luke is capable of doing ("Obi-Wan has taught you well" and all that).

So that claim needs a citation. Stating that the film "is clear" or linking to a copy of the script is simply not enough. --DarthBinky 13:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Would this rewrite work? (I'm new and don't feel comfortable editing the actual article yet.)

Through the aid of a bounty hunter, Boba Fett, Vader finds and captures the Millenium Falcon. He tortures Luke's friends. Luke, training on Dagoba with Yoda, senses their suffering. Fearing for his friends, he abandons his training to save them. Doodit 19:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's better IMO, but that particular version brings up two new issues- 1. Vader/the Empire didn't actually capture the Falcon (nitpicky, yes, but true) and 2. Solo is apparently the only one tortured (Chewie was in prison and fixing C3PO; and Leia doesn't appear to be tortured when she shows up). Also, as mentioned, Luke is already leaving (or left, I forget exactly which) by the time Han and the gang get captured- so it should reflect that Luke had already pre-sensed their suffering.--DarthBinky 19:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm the one who removed the request for the citation originally because I felt this was clear in the films. Here's my reasoning:
  • From the opening crawl, we're told Vader is obsessed with one goal: finding Luke Skywalker.
  • Leia asks rhetorically why they're being put through their suffering. Han states he was never even asked any questions.
  • To back this up, Lando enters their cell and corrects Leia's belief that Vader wants them dead.
    LANDO: He doesn't want you at all. He's after somebody called Skywalker.
    HAN: Luke?
    LANDO: Lord Vader has set a trap for him.
    LEIA: And we're the bait.
Luke has left Dagobah before the Falcon has touched down at Cloud City because he foresaw their suffering. As the characters disclose that this was all to entice Luke to Bespin, Vader must already suspect that Luke could sense their suffering and come to their aid.
Perhaps there's an audio commentary track on the ESB DVDs that mentions this... I could check later, if I remember. --Recurring 12:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

This is actually "sourced" in the discussion(s) Luke has with Yoda, including "always in motion the future is...". The point was that Vader knew Luke could sense his friends in future danger. That is the trap that Lando mentions above. - jc37 13:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

But that doesn't mean that Vader knew that Luke would sense it through the force. Like I siad, I never took Han's torture to mean it was some sort of homing beacon for Luke, I thought it was just Vader being angry about what Han had put him through (the Death Star, the asteroid chase). Like I said, notice that he singles out Han for torture. If it were such a homing beacon, then why didn't he torture all of them? Lando's prison discourse doesn't prove anything- do you really believe there's an unspoken "oh, yeah, that's right, because Luke can sense our 'suffering' and he'll come save us"? They probably figured that he'd find out where they were through conventional means (just my speculation, but no less likely). --DarthBinky 14:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I checked the audio commentary on the DVD to find out if it's mentioned and Lucas provides the material. Citation is now added. Took me a few shots to get the link to look right! --Recurring 21:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I can't believe I'm correcting a Star Wars geek, but Chewbacca was tortured in The Empire Strikes Back. He's tortured with sonics. It's right in the movie and it's blatant. Clashwho 05:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Does Darth Vader really need a motive to torture someone...maybe he was just bored...-Scarlock —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.48.250.215 (talk) 13:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] a few notes on semantics

i'm very sorry for all the hassle, but it does need to be said that i made two very significant and indisputable changes to this page which stood for months and now have been amended back to what can only be described as 'garbage'. for a start, darth vader / anakin is not A pricipal character in star wars but THE principal character of ALL SIX FILMS WITHOUT EXCEPTION!!!!!! this is corroborated by lucas himself and if anyone can claim legitimacy of argument in this case over george lucas they are, actually, just daft. also, i made an amendment to this article which included the fact that vader is not to be seen as the villain of the saga, but the shakespearian 'tragic hero' of the series, manipulated by the true villain, palpatine. these are two very important notes on star wars semantics, however pedantic, and they have to be included else the entire article is just inaccurate. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Darth Toxic (talk • contribs) 04:48, 24 December 2006 (UTC).

As long as these contentions can be sourced, I've no real argument. In addition, if it were not for the retention of spoiler warnings in the article (necessary), the dual identity and personas of this entity would appear upfront in this article and that of his former self; as such, and per the Manual of Style, I've bolded these instances in the introduction. Psychlopaedist 10:25, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
And been reverted by two different people. Only bold alternate terms for this article, not alternate terms for subjects in this article. Basically, don't bold it unless it's a term that redirects to the article in question. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 10:29, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
And how is this/your argumentation consistent with the Manual of Style? Erroneous groupthink. No thanks; I think I'll pass. Psychlopaedist 10:31, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
You bold alternate names of the article to reduce confusion when the user is redirected. For example, if someone clicks U.S.A., "USA" is bolded in United States of America to draw attention to the explanation of the acronym. Likewise, if "Lord Vader" were in the intro of the article, it would be bolded. While one could make an argument that Anakin Skywalker is an alternate name for this character, there's no possibility of making the argument that Anakin Skywalker is an alternate name for this article: Anakin Skywalker is another article entirely.
You're conflating the article itself and the subject of the article. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 10:35, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Excuse me but before my edition, the connection between the 'two' wasn't even clear in the introduction or the article, so I hardly see how this conflates anything. If anything: Edit. Summaries. With. Horrid. Or. Overemphatic. Punctuation. Do. Fix. Attitude. Psychlopaedist 11:05, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This is one of those oft mentioned moments in which a person may suggest to others: "Please assume good faith : ) - As for the issue of "bolding": Wikipedia:Manual of Style (text formatting)#Boldface suggests that it's to be used for synonyms. It's been previously determined that there is a difference between the persona of Darth Vader, and the persona of Anakin Skywalker (even if they may be the same person), therefore the two terms are not synoyms. Hope that helps : ) - jc37 10:40, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks; some would argue that the two are synonyms for one another, with Vader merely being the later phase or chapter of Anakin's life; I observe a lengthy vote transpiring about whether these should be one and the same article. In any event, I will defer regarding at least this aspect. Psychlopaedist 11:05, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


These two sentences seem to imply that Prince Xizor wishes to return to his former self. I think (though am not 100% sure) that it is Vader that wishes this. Can he knows be changed to Vader knows...

In the story, Prince Xizor, leader of the crime organization Black Sun, plots to overthrow Vader and take his place as the Emperor's second in command. The story also reveals that he knows there is some good left in him, and that he wishes to use the Force to return his physical appearance to that of his former self.

I seriously fail to see why we need two articles for the same character? It makes no sense. He is the central character in all six films he is the same person, he doesn't become a different person literally, even as Darth Vader he aknowledges Luke as his son, he "redeems" himself in the end and goes back to the light side and becomes anakin again. He IS NOT two different people he is one person, if I put on a helmet I do not become someone else I am still me in a helmet. Wikipedia should go ahead make seperate articles for Bruce Wayne/Batman, Clark Kent/Superman, Tony Stark/Ironman. Where does it end? PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF ALL, REMERGE THEM AS ONE ARTICLE! It's way more confusing to have two articles on the same frickin character! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.48.250.215 (talk) 13:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Merge

Even on Wookipedia there's only one article for Skywalker. They are one character. Regardless of the two being different personas, identities or even personalities.--Gonzalo84 02:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

It's been discussed to death. Basically they're two separate articles because otherwise we'd have one really huge article. This way it's two large articles instead- it's easier to manage. Cheers --DarthBinky 02:15, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
There are other reasons as well - See also Clark Kent and Superman. - jc37 07:24, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
And you don't know how split the decision about the merge was on Wookieepedia. The article only merged due to policy, there was no consensus otherwise. Jasca Ducato 09:59, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps if someone drastically slashed the amount of plot synopsis in this bloated article, a merge would be more feasible. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 10:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

As Darth Binky already indicated, this was already discussed to death and decided -- two articles (vote summary) Psychlopaedist 10:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Um...hello? CLARK KENT IS SUPERMAN! THOSE IN FAVOR OF KEEPING THEM SEPERATE ARTICLES CONTINUE WITH YOUR FAULTY LOGIC. THERE IS A GREAT DEAL OF REPETITION BETWEEN THE TWO ARTICLES. ISN'T THERE ANYONE ASSOCIATED WITH WIKIPEDIA WHO CAN FINALLY DETERMINE THAT THIS IS THE CASE AND FINALLY GET RID OF REDUNDANT ARTICLES? -Scarlocke —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.48.250.215 (talk) 14:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC) As far as I can tell, Anakin Skywalker and Darth Vader are completely different entities. Episodes IV-VI and Episodes I-III are completely different movie trilogies. They aren't even in the same fictional universe. This has something to do with the quality of writing when George Lucas was a young man, and when he was an older man. Things just don't add up. Vranak 01:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I also believe the articles Anakin Skywalker and Darth Vadar should be merged, as they are infact the same person. 80.229.169.189 17:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

For all I know, this was split once already. Please keep it that way... --Addict 2006 23:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

How much bigger would the article be? There's a fair amount of repetition between the two. 140.247.147.88 05:56, 25 May 2007 (UTC) Yeah but thats like having Hulk Hogan and Terry Bollea as two seperate articles. Anakin IS Darth, therefore the articles should be merged. Jay316 12:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

The articles shouldn't be merged, as they are completely different entities, as already stated. Merging this would be like merging Clark Kent into Superman. RC-0722 247.5/1 17:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Height

How come Vader was 6'1" when he was a Jedi, but 6'7" as a Sith. -- Tim, 3 February, 2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.109.130.11 (talk) 22:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC).

In case you didn't know, the armor made him look taller and intimidating, and he was about 2 metres. --Addict 2006 23:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Why does it say that he is 1.35 Meters that's like 4'8?!

[edit] Two articles question

Do they both need FULL bios for him? The Anakin article covers straight through. The Vader article covers the OT then doubles back to the PT. If we're to have two articles, there really shouldn't be so much double coverage. And considering that aside from the introduction, the Anakin article is nothing BUT said bio, I fail to see the overwhelming need for two. I know "its been discussed to death" but I just want a logical answer to that question. If we remove all content from the Anakin article that is covered on the Vader article, we are left with enough information to, say, put on a character list. If we keep two articles, I STRONGLY feel we should treat them as two seperate entities. Cover the Jedi Anakin's info on that page and the Sith Lord Vader's info here.

[edit] Picture

I think there should be a new picture of vader. That one at the top has been on for ages.Lokon40 02:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Height

Can someone fix the height.? It says 1.35 meters but thats was when he was a child (1.35 meters is a little over 3 and a half feet)

[edit] "Anakin Skywalker" in the intro

There is currently a link to an Anakin Skywalker page in the intro, but said Anakin Skywalker page redirects back to Darth Vader, so it is pointless. I would fix the problem myself, but I cannot edit this page, so I must resort to pointing it out here. 69.246.150.153 02:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Done. Onikage725 00:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anakin's name as the title of the article

Since the character was born and died as Anakin Skywalker, why not make that the name of the article, with "Darth Vader" redirecting to the point of Skywalker's fall from grace? Lucas himself has stated that the movies are Anakin's story, why unify the article under the umbrella of his alternate identity? --CmdrClow 08:23, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I assume its a common name thing, for familiarity and whatnot. You do bring up a good point, though. By the same token, Palpatines article isn't "Darth Sidious," and one can't really argue familiarity there as he was previously known as simply the emperor (likewise the article on Count Dooku rather than Darth Tyranus). Onikage725 19:53, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Protect

Please do not protect the main page of this article because there are errors what need to be corrected. Grumpanelli 12:55, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bold Merger of Darth Vader and Anakin Skywalker articles

It would seem that over the last two months, Anakin Skywalker is slowly being merged to this page, contrary to prior discussions. However, rather than just cite the previous discussions again, I would like to start a new discussion about whether the pages should be kept separate or not. Please give reasons why you are for or against the merging of the page. (Something more than just comments of "I want!", which will be removed as unhelpful to the discussion.) - jc37 16:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Support the articles on Darth Vader and Anakin Skywalker being merged

  • Support - The sad fact is that the articles were redundant. If they could be sectioned off, then maybe I could see the point. But wanting to keep the Anakin article as-is smacks of fanboyism. I don't mean that as an insult, but the two articles' "History" sections are nearly identical. Remove the redundant portions from the Anakin article and you are literally left with the first half of the opening paragraph... and that's about it. Onikage725 14:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Support - Lucas considers them to be the same person and the entire saga had been reworked basically to underline that point. Both articles are far too heavy in plot summary and with a decent amount of editing, a single article would suffice. And as it is his natural state, that article should be Anakin Skywalker. 128.151.71.16 15:38, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Support - Someone has given an example of Superman/Clark Kent. I have examples of Spider-man/Peter Parker, Robocop/Alex J. Murphy (Why? Robocop is completely difference from Alex Murphy), Hulk/Bruce Banner (Why? Bruce Banner is not the only Hulk. Why Bruce Banner directs to Hulk, huh?) Pmuean 11:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Support - There is a distinction that needs to be made between alter egos like Superman/Clark Kent and different periods in a person's life (even that of a fictional person's). Does John Newton need separate articles for his time as a slave trader and that as an evangelist? It's an easy call. Gabrielthursday (talk) 04:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - If this is one person we're talking about why shouldn't there be one article on him? Superstarwarsfan (talk) 21:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - For all the reasons given before, and what I mentioned below. The Clark Kent/Superman precedent isn't a standard, it's an abnormality (that quite frankly I think is incorrect as well, but that's not the issue here). The two articles have become redundant, and other iconic characters such as Spider-Man, Batman, etc etc don't have separate articles for their aliases, nor should they. The separatist movement (ha, irony) for the two articles is a classic case of irate fans wanting to keep peanut butter out of their chocolate, new out of their old. --Venomaru 2.0 (talk) 18:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Merge Same character and shouldn't have two different articles for same character,plus the Anakin article is 20Kb and this is like 36kb so that would only make it 56kb long and that is not long for an article. Gman124 talk 09:36, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
    • also violation of the Wikipedia Manual of Style., since there's nothing but plot on the Anakin page. Gman124 talk 15:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Merge I seriously fail to see why we need two articles for the same character? It makes no sense. He is the central character in all six films he is the same person, he doesn't become a different person literally, even as Darth Vader he aknowledges Luke as his son, he "redeems" himself in the end and goes back to the light side and becomes anakin again. He IS NOT two different people he is one person, if I put on a helmet I do not become someone else I am still me in a helmet. Wikipedia should go ahead make seperate articles for Bruce Wayne/Batman, Clark Kent/Superman, Tony Stark/Ironman. Where does it end? PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF ALL, REMERGE THEM AS ONE ARTICLE! It's way more confusing to have two articles on the same frickin character! I have to add that in the opposition it states that Vader does things that Anakin wouldn't. Do we not recall his slaughter of the sandpeople, or the slaughter of the jedi? Those were done before any helmet was put on...-Scarlocke —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.48.250.215 (talk) 14:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Oppose the articles on Darth Vader and Anakin Skywalker being merged

  • Oppose - Not only due to the previous discussions, but for the reasons of those discussions. One of the best examples I can think of is Superman and Clark Kent. Each article deals directly with each persona of the character, even though each persona is a single person. Also, there are length concerns. See also: Wikipedia:Featured article criteria. - jc37 16:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose - It makes more sense to me to keep the two articles separate. Different people, same body. Vader does things that Anakin does not, or wouldn't want to and vice versa. Even the movies suggest and symbolise this separation with the taking off of Vaders helmet & mask at the end of Return of the Jedi. (That is one interpretation of the helmet/mask scene.)Chovynz 13:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Let's keep them seperate. Darth Vader and Anakin Skywalker are quite different, especially if you look at it from a monomyth point of view. Plus, Darth Vader as an entity has solidified in culture in a way that Anakin Hasn't. Stargate70 02:25, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
  • It also seems preferable from a "subject" point of view. Darth Vader really is different to Anakin Skywalker. I suggest we clean both up, remove the totally identical bits and put in cross references to each other. There's no harm (IMHO) in having one article on one point of view of this particular subject, and referencing to the other POV in a different article. It would allows us to focus on the strengths and differences of each persona. I reckon. :)Chovynz 13:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Absolutely not. Usually, I'm all for avoiding unnecessary inflation of the number of articles, but Darth Vader and Anakin Skywalker are best handled in different articles imho. Dorftrottel (ask) 10:06, April 24, 2008
  • Oppose These should absolutely not be merged. They both need there own article becuase they are difffent characters in Star Wars. Same person but different characters. If anything thing it should be focused on improving both articles and not merging them into one bad one. --Vertigo315 (talk) 14:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Distinct characters for 1/3+ of the movie series, not to mention EU. Granted, we're not interested in plot summary and there will be overlap between the articles, but I think it helps to have distinct articles on each. --EEMIV (talk) 15:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose - For the same reasons I opposed on Wookieepedia. Jasca Ducato (talk) 18:54, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] General discussion

I also want to add that what another set of articles does should not set a precedent for what we should here. Superman has pretty much been synonymous American super heroes and comic books since the 30's. Hardly the same set of circumstances. Likewise, I could throw any number of other influential (and older) characters than Vader who don't get multiple articles. Batman and Cpt. Marvel (1939, 1940 respectively), Spiderman (the 60's) just off the top of my head. If it is simply concerns of length, I've noticed that many articles on characters from long-running series' (like comics and novels) will have a general bio and leave in-depth stuff to specific articles on those titles. The Vader/Anakin articles have a rundown of his involvement in each film, and the Vader article goes into the EU. Maybe that could be trimmed and generalized, with links to the appropriate articles on each title. It would help with the very in-universe style it is written in, if nothing else. Onikage725 14:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll just reiterate the conversation I had on this issue in the Anakin Skywalker article:
Neither article is particularly large, it wouldn't hurt to merge the two. The question of title, however, is tricky. Is it against wikipedia policy to create a title such as Anakin Skywalker/Darth Vader, or perhaps Darth Vader (Anakin Skywalker)? --Venomaru 2.0 (talk) 20:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

This has been debated time and time again here. There needs to be 2 articles as they are essentially 2 different characters and there is a need for 2 articles to explain them. Instead of wanting to merge them if you think the articles are to small then expand them.Vertigo315 (talk) 20:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

How exactly are they two different characters? Are Spider-Man and Peter Parker two different characters? After all, he wasn't Spider-Man until he was bitten by the radioactive spider. Just as Anakin wasn't Vader until he turned to the dark side. By that logic all characters who have an alter ego or an assumed identity should have separate articles for both sides of the coin. If I decide to change my job and name, am I not still the same person in every other respect?
The only precedent set for this particular issue is Clark Kent/Superman, and I disagree even more strongly on that distinction than I do on this one. As stated before, I'm for the merger, and as far as I can tell the only reason (if you can call it that) for people to disagree is that they have some sort of vendetta against the prequel trilogy. Anakin Skywalker and Darth Vader are one and the same, as such they should have the same article. --Venomaru 2.0 (talk) 06:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
My opinion hasn't changed. Vertigo315 replied with a follow up comment, lamenting about how this has been discussed before. Well, I still disagree and I think it needs to be discussed again. The articles should be merged, and the main name on the article should be Darth Vader. Personally, I think Darth Vader (Anakin Skywalker) works. The articles share a lot of similar and/or identical material and could be easily merged without bloating. Point being: I say merge. --Venomaru 2.0 (talk) 18:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  • The Anakin article fails WP:N anyway, since it doesn't have any sources and is nothing but plot. Gman124 talk 04:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] French pronunciation

I remove these lines :

"In France, Vader is known as Dark Vador (and, therefore, Dark replaces Darth for the French names of all other Sith Lords). One explanation could be that the French use le water-closet as slang for "toilet", and aller aux waters for "going to the toilet". Since the French pronunciation of "water" sounds somewhat similar to "Vader", the name was changed to avoid puns. However, Quebec French does not use the aforementioned slang terms, and so Vader keeps his original name in French Canada."

The firt part is true: Darth Vader is known as "Dark Vador" in France but the alleged explanation looks like a joke. Actually, "darth" was replaced by "dark" because the sound "th-" doesnt exist in french and is quite impossible to pronunce for a french speaker (particularly in that case where "th" is following a consonant). Same thing for "vador" : it sounds better in french and is closer from the original word than the french pronunciation of "vader".

Why is this relevant.Darth Anzeruthi 18:32, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank goodness they stopped dubbing Family Guy into French, otherwise we'd have "Dark Stevie"--172.134.203.34 (talk) 00:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Arms/Prosthetics

Last Sentence, Fourth Paragraph under "Expanded Universe" states "...On Mimban, Luke nearly defeats Vader, severing his right arm, and Vader suffers massive injuries when he falls into a pit." Whos arm is this refering to? Luke's or Vader's? With the inclusion of this sentence there are now at least 3 times one of these two peoples arms get sabered. Could we have some clarification on the "timeline of the arms"?

As far as I know it goes like this: for Vader:

a) as Anakin - by Dooku in SW1 - right arm. b) as Vader - by Luke on Mimban - right arm. c) as Vader - by Luke in SW6 (on the bridge) - right arm again or left this time? (no wonder Vader could get pissed at Luke ;) ).

for Luke:. a) by Vader in SW4.

Anymore - for either? I seem to recall reading some other times but I can't remember. --Chovynz 13:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)Chovynz

[edit] Nooooooooooo!!!!

I've noticed someone has created an article called Nooooooooooo!!!!, which redirects to Darth Vader. This seems frivolous to say the least. Is it usual practice? Mark H Wilkinson 07:23, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Redirects are cheap, and if someone has been living under a rock and has no idea what that refers to, it'll take them to the right place. Yes, it is silly, but it isn't hurting anything. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:32, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
I highly doubt anybody is goign to type in the correct amount of o's and exclimation points to arrive at this page. hbdragon88 16:55, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
That was swift. Hurray for R3! hbdragon88 17:29, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Plot summary

I see that someone has tagged the article as having a too-long plot summary. Personally, I think the length is about right, especially considering the substantial cultural significance of this character. We were recently discussing plot summary at the talkpage of WP:FICTION, and the consensus there was that it's not the total number of words that's important, it's the relative percentage of plot summary as compared to the rest of the article. So, with that in mind, is it alright if I remove the "plot" tag? Or what do other editors think? --Elonka 22:13, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

For a character that spans four films (or six + a TV series if you count Anakin) and is such a juggernaut of a cultural icon, I think the length of the plot section is just fine. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree. The article's balance is decent. — Deckiller 00:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I added that tag when the article had 30+ K of plot summary of the movies alone. It's much better now. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The SkyOne Program Orginally Aired On Bravo in the US?

Didn't it?

Wha?--Jakezing (talk) 23:43, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wait! Don't Delete that Quotes Section!

Please, can someone help clean it up? Though I've been using Wikipedia for a long time (I know how to link!) that's prettymuch all I can do. Except be very clever, which I am (and so modest, too). I don't think iMacs are optomised for Wikipediaing very much, and a lot of the tools on the top of the edit page don't work. So, can someone help me look good? Thanks.

The tools work fine in Safari for me.
As for "cleaning up" the quotes section, this actually isn't the project for quotations. There's actually a whole different project for that, called Wikiquote. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 12:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

They don't seem to work on mine. Curse this infernal consruct! I actually have to copy and paste the tildes so I can timestamp. Racooon 12:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Uh, I edit from a G5 iMac at home... unless you're still running OS9 (and therefore using IE 5), there shouldn't be an issue (and you can just type four ~s). EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Parodies / Cultural Figure

Issue #1: Surely the Chad Vader series should be mentioned? If someone with good Wikipedia skills doesn't feel like adding it, I'll get around to it eventually. Issue #2: Can we get a cite on the "Ned's Declassied School" thing?Ball of pain 19:21, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Chad Vader is mentioned under Cultural Figure, as are many other parodies. To that end, I deleted the parodies section and rolled its spaceballs paragraph into the Cultural figure section. I also deleted the Gonzo reference (since it already existed under that section) and the Ned's Declassified School reference (since it lacked a citation). Ned's can easily be added back to that section, with a citation. I also deleted the Trivia section - both per WP:Trivia and because it was redundant to the discussion of his name. I went to be WP:Bold, and got a little carried away, perhaps. Best, ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 21:18, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Orson Wells - Vader

I took out the following sentence from the first paragraph in the Portrayals section.

Orson Welles was originally considered for the role, but Jones was cast instead.

I just couldn't think of a way to keep it in there without breaking the continuity. But if someone can come up with a good way, please feel free. Also though, it could probably use the help of a citation as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WDavis1911 (talk • contribs) 06:46, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Vader picture

I really think the main picture of Vader is terrible. Its nowhere near powerful enough. Hes looking upwards/we are looking down on him which suggests weakness. Suggest new pic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.149.77.174 (talk) 07:05, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Freak Collision?

I'll need other people to back me on this, but at the end of A New Hope, it isn't a freak collision that sends Vader flying into space. When the Millennium Falcon shows up, he shoots down Darth Vader's right wingman, then when the left wingman looks up to see where the fire came from, he collides with Darth Vader. To call this a "freak collision" is inaccurate, especially when dealing with Star Wars, where that might be construed as the force made them collide. —Comment added by Sourberville 11:01, 5 December 2007(UTC)

i reverted the edit made yesterday because to say that fire from the MF caused him to spin-off is also slightly inaccurate. I agree with what you're written entirely, edit the article. And the preview button is your friend :) Thedarxide (talk) 16:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit]  ??

Who plays him when he finally sees Luke eye to eye? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.70.75.92 (talk) 10:11, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] To be a playable character in Soulcalibur IV?

Yes you heard me right. Both him and Yoda are to appear in the forth installment to the Soul-series. Source # one & # two. FaithLehaneTheVampireSlayer 00:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

More official news from star wars.com and a trailer from Namco. FaithLehaneTheVampireSlayer 02:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC) P.S. I am trying to open a discussion to see if I can add this to said article.

[edit] Cultural Figure

I think it needs some triming and attention. It's the type of section that can grow out of dontrol quickly. Ridernyc (talk) 04:27, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "First appearance" image

The description of this image is "The first appearance of Darth Vader in Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope.". He also appeared in episode 3. If the chronological appearance is wanted, and not the 'timeline' one, I think it should be mentioned. diego_pmc (talk) 15:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

That is the first time he sohwed up EVER, were not in universe on this, were out of universe therfor, its the FIRST time he shows up, is tantive 4 on IV--Jakezing (talk) 23:43, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ep.III

There is nothing under the apperiances for episodeIII, someone should add it asap.--Sonicobbsessed (talk) 00:12, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Fix the bump. RC-0722 communicator/kills 01:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Darth Stewie Picture

Could we add a picture of Stewie Vader from Blue Harvest to the section of the article that mentions the episode?--172.134.203.34 (talk) 00:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Problems with three sources

  • Two assertions are cited to TheForce.net editorials, which in turn cite printed material. Can anyone perchance provide citation material for those printed items, which would be much more reliable -- and a necessary step toward FA status -- than the fansite editorial.
  • An assertion about JEJ lack of credit in RotS is cited to IMDb, which I don't think is generally considered a reliable source.

My two credits. --EEMIV (talk) 01:42, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

When it comes to the credits from a film IMDb is a totally reliable source, especially when noting actors, voice or otherwise, who are uncredited. Crew credits are also reliable. It is trivia and goofs where they need to be taken with a grain of salt. Yes we did somehow cross in our editing. I was trying to remove the reference to Ray Milland as the face under the mask in RotJ. My apologies for messing up the info that you were putting in. MarnetteD | Talk 01:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


Yeah TheForce.net is a fan site. But next to the main Star Wars site and the movies it's the best source of info. Ever thing that is said in the movies part is true. All you have to do is watch the movies. Look it up at Star Wars.com or TheForce.net. --98.224.211.86 (talk) 02:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't doubt it's true, and I like at TFN all the time -- but, the site doesn't meet Wikipedia's WP:V standards. --EEMIV (talk) 02:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding IMDb

Wikipedia: Reliable sources - Are wikis reliable sources specifies that wikis are not allowed as reference sources. IMDb falls under that definition as it has solely user-generated content, and, as noted elsewhere at Wikipedia:Reliable sources, IMDb does not "have adequate levels of editorial oversight or author credibility and lack assured persistence."

Newsday is a major newspaper with a direct quote from Jones. There's no justification for removing a reliable, direct citation with IMDb rumors. Where did IMDb get that information? IT IS UNSOURCED.--24.215.162.198 (talk) 16:54, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

My summer 2005 Starlog magazine quote from Star Wars EP3 producer Rick MCcallum quote is missing, he stated James Earl Jones worked on EP3 for a day and was great to work with. I gave the source, yet it was still removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.158.61.140 (talk) 01:38, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Possible original research

"Perhaps non-coincidentally, his name sounds very similar to that of one of the central protagonists of the Russian writer and paleontologist Ivan Efremov's 1957 science fiction novel Andromeda Nebula, Dar Veter (sounds similar to better), an retiring Director of the Outer Stations, the near-Earth satellites. The name in Russian means Gift Wind. The novel was made into a film in 1967, as The Andromeda Nebula."

Not referenced at all. I'll remove if nobody objects. Superstarwarsfan (talk) 22:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, let's remove it. Dorftrottel (ask) 03:02, May 7, 2008


Agreed. Just the fact it begins with "Perhaps, non-coincidentally" means it is original research. Azn Clayjar (talk) 20:55, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

When it was there, it was jargon that made no sense anyways. 76.105.204.255 (talk) 22:09, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Breathing

Why is there absolutely nothing on his iconic breathing disorder due to his prothstetic suit. It should say something on this, it's cultural signifigance, and maybe even a audio clip of Vader's breathing. 76.105.204.255 (talk) 22:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Go ahead. Imperial Star Destroyer (talk) 06:30, 22 May 2008 (UTC)