Talk:Palpatine/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 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.

DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.

This archive page covers approximately the dates between 28 September 2004 and 29 November 2005.

Post replies to the main talk page, copying or summarizing the section you are replying to if necessary.

Please add new archivals to Talk:Palpatine/Archive02. (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.) Thank you. Jedi6 05:43, 29 November 2005 (UTC)User:Jedi6 29 November 2005

Contents

'Name of State'

"Of course, Palpatine might be a Name of State, as the name Amidala is, so it may mean that neither Palpatine's given nor family name is known."

Wouldn't this imply that Senator/Chancellor Valorum's name would also have to be assumed to be his Name of State, which, seeing as how his name actually is Finis Valorum, would be incorrect?

Edit war between The Wookieepedian and Copperchair

You know, guys, you've been editing and re-editing each other's revisions on this page, but for the life of me I still can't figure out what you're arguing over. I'd be overjoyed if you could explain to me—and each other—what the deal is. --Jon Hart 17:30, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Here's the deal, becuase Copperchair never shows up to explain himself: We are in an edit war over whether or not to include the credit for Ian McDiarmid as Palpatine in The Empire Strikes Back and whther or not to denote in the picture of the clive reville emperor that he was the original one. Copperchair wants all references to DVD changes out of the page, and I want them in. He does this, not only to this page, but to Boba Fett, and Darth Vader. I've explained to him many times why I add back in what I do, and he simply continues to ignore what I tell him and remove what I add. He's been causing problems on all the main star wars pages, and refusing to explain his actions. When I asked him why, all he said was "I base my edits only on the facts." --The Wookieepedian 19:47, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
I side with you. Even if it isn't canon, the fact that they redid Palpatine talking to Vader in ESB or knowing that Hayden Christen now plays Anakin's ghost in the end of ROTJ (instead of some random guy) is interesting. I say put it in because Wikipedia is NOT a paper encyclopedia. Put it in, it sure is facts! HereToHelp (talk) 02:03, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

"Dantius" - Palpatine's first name?

I read somewhere that Dantius was Palpatine's first name. What was that source and could you consider that canon? "Dantius" has a nice ring to it! If you find more info pertaining to this, please give me a holler on my Talk Page. --Shultz 18:56, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

I recall that around the time of ESB, there was an apocryphal name for Palpatine. Perhaps that was it. --Maru (talk) 19:57, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
It's just a name made up by SuperShadow, pay no attention to it. The Wookieepedian 19:48, 16 October 2005 (UTC)


Palpatine's Appearance

I know the what the official Star Wars databank says, and it can still be left open to interpretation. Just because the lightning caused his face to change doesn't mean it physically deformed his facial tissue. I also don't care about what Pablo Hidalgo says, as this is still a secondary source. Rick McCallum said a few years back that Boba Fett was not going to be in Episode II, and was he correct? No. The lightning burning his tissue theory doesn't make any sense in accordance to the behavior previously exhibited by Force Lightning interacting with the human body. We've seen Palpatine use equally powerful Force Lightning on Luke, did that deform Luke? No. Dooku used Force Lightning on Anakin, did that deform Anakin? No. Just because the lightning was deflected doesn't make its effects on the human body any different. Seriously, why do you think his Sith eyes appeared along with the changes? Don't tell me the lightning caused those too... you're smarter than that. And does Force Lightning make your fingernails grow and ALL of your skin turn pale? It seems like Force Lightning is magical and can even give you a perm.

This is the official explanation from starwars.com
"Palpatine unleashed a torrent of Sith lightning at the Jedi Master, but Windu was able to deflect it back at the Chancellor. The evil energies twisted Palpatine's face as they flowed through him, scarring and disfiguring his once handsome features. His eyes burned yellow, his voice grew ragged and deep, and he became a well of dark side energies." --Skeeter08865 15:29, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
Believe me, I read this particular excerpt many times. Did it ever occur to anyone that these statements can still be interpreted as figurative? His eyes couldn't possibly have literally burned permanently yellow, as both Anakin and Darth Maul would have had to have fallen victim to Force Lightning as well. Those eyes are definitely trademark Sith eyes. And the perfectly symmetrical face? Once again, unaccounted for. The explanation likening the emergence of the eyes with Anakin's on Mustafar could make sense, but extreme anger and hatred can't make your fingernails suddenly enlongate and turn grey. Unless, of course, you're admitting that Palpatine is so powerful that his ablities in conjunction with his unmatched hate would have those changes occur instantaneously rather than over time. That makes sense. And what about his skin? All of his skin turned pale and ancient, not just his face. Intense anger might have caused that too, and again instead of this happening over a long period of time, Palpatine's use of the Dark Side was so great that these things happened immediately. Alright, that's all well and good. So to a witness viewing this event it looks like Palpatine was disfigured by lightning, and he was disfigured by lightning. However, was it the actual lightning itself that physically caused his skin to melt and contort symmetrically? That isn't literally clarified. In conclusion, there is no way, absolutely NO way the lightning could have cause his voice to grow "ragged and deep" when he could speak like that before the incident. Remember all of the Sidious scenes prior to the Mace/Palpatine "duel"? Remember "I AM the Senate."? That line wasn't spoken in his regular voice, indeed, his voice was "ragged and deep" when he delivered his words. When his features already changed, and he began his little "I'm too weak..." routine, what voice did he use (remember, after the changes have already happened)? Normal Palpatine voice. What say you to that? Additionally, Palpatine's strange, almost synthesized voice contortions after rising is also still a complete mystery.
Dude, it’s fiction, make-believe, science fiction fantasy… everything is not going to make exact perfect sense. You can write volumes containing worse contradictions concerning the Star Wars movies and novels. Tell yourself weird and unexplained things happen with dark side energies. As far as the voice I think Palpatine can change manipulate it as his command. “I’m too weak” was just a ploy to get Anakin to help. Maybe you should hire some voice analysts and linguists to investigate and examine that scene. Let me know that the conclusions are. (Skeeter08865)
Those who claim that Sidious had used the Force to alter his twisted appearance say the following: "Nobody was scarred and deformed by the lightning like Sidious was, so it's not the lightning". They all fail to consider the unique position he was in. The difference is that Palpatine started shooting lightning, which was reflected by Mace' lightsabre back to him. Palpatine didn't stop the attack, but went even further, which created a closed loop. The energy of lightning was not only being recycled along the loop, it was being increasingly amplified by Sidious' continuous barrage. The ever-growing dark energies (you can think of it as either just physical effects or anger, hatred, etc.) flowing through him seem to be responsible for the deformation. This is not unlike an audio feedback, where a microphone and a loudspeaker create the familiar noise, which may result in a damaged loudspeaker. Palpidious is in the position of the loudspeaker and no other victim of Sith lightning was. --Pipifax 21:29, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
Dark Empire was supposedly retconned to explain away Palpatine's appearance as the degenerative effects of the Dark Side of the Force only on clones. Remember though, he looks EXACTLY the same as he does when he is "deformed" by Mace "I'm a sucker" Windu. Now, isn't that an extroadinary coincidence? The retcon says he looked "similar", but that statement is incorrect and is a falsification of facts to justify a hollow argument. The retcon makes no sense, and what motivation would he have to lie to Luke about it? And stop editing the article to make your opinion dominate the other. The passage compromising the two opposing viewpoints did fine.
Why would Palpatine propagate his deformation by continuing to generate Force lightning? Some argue that he purposely disfigured himself to use as evidence against the Jedi in the Senate, and that given his personality, he wouldn't really mind the changes. How can one make such a presumption though? He's pure evil, we really don't know much else about him character wise. That's also part of what makes him so great, he's little more than evil personified... the Dark Side of the Force incarnate. Its far more likely that he looked like that before, the Dark Side corrupting his features over time. That would explain why his face looks perfectly symmetrical as a side effect of Dark Side abuse, rather than truely "warped" all in one shot. Remember, Lucas didn't create Palpatine in ROTJ thinking, "He's human, and he looks so hideous because Mace Windu played by Samuel L. Jackson in Revenge of the Sith demanded a larger role and wanted to claim responsibility for something important." When approached with a question asking him why the Emperor looks the way he does sometime after the release of ROTJ, Lucas answered that it was a side-effect of utilizing the Dark Side for so long over one's lifetime. He specifically likened it to cancer. They were originally going to make the change gradual over the course of the prequal trilogy, as exemplified by AOTC. As you can see, all of the makeup that made him look older in AOTC was not present in ROTS. Reason? Samuel L. Jackson. He had to whine and complain about having an impact and not getting killed by Clone Troopers like all of the other Jedi. George got him to shut up by having a not-so-noble death, and having it look like he beat Palpatine in a duel (specific quotes from Nick Gillard in the Making Of Revenge of the Sith book indicate that Palpatine acted the whole thing out, PERIOD. He even stressed it to the point where he suggested Ian add, "SUCKER!" to his dialogue) Yeah right, all of the smart fans know better. Alright so Mace was duped, but Samuel was obviously pacified. Did Mace still make an impact? In a way, he did. He revealed to the galaxy the true face of Lord Sidious, but he did not create it. The change in his skin color and fingernails, plus the perfectly symmetrical "deformation" is still not accounted for either.

You wanna know the REAL reason? Lucas needed some plot device to change his appearence and his was all he could come up with. HereToHelp (talk) 02:07, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't want to go about beating around a dead Bantha, but after reviewing the sequence of the transformation on DVD I discovered something interesting when viewing the scene in slow motion within chronological order. In one shot, we see Palpatine's face becoming the Sidious of the OT, followed by more lightning to the face. After a few close-ups on a conflicted Anakin, the camera focuses back on Palpatine, who is still in a transitional state but is lacking the details present in the previous shot. It is as if the Sidious face is showing through once as the lightning is interacting with the skin, and then fading away, and then finally breaking through again as the Palpatine face melts away and Sidious says he's too weak to continue. If Palpatine was indeed literally deformed by the lighting, why did his face go from normal, to Sidious, to semi-normal, and back to Sidious again. If the lightning wounded him, wouldn't the wounds stay instead of suddenly disappearing and re-appearing? Watch your DVDs, you'll see it. I have a few screen shots that I can provide to show you what I am referring to. By the way, both this and the Wookieepedia article (which has been vandalized by SuperShadow) fail to make any mention of Sidious' strange voice after he rises from the window sill and before he puts on his hood. In the commentary, Lucas said he added synthesized effects to the voice to make the "true Sidious" drip a bit more menace. That's all well and good, but there must be a within-universe explanation for it.


Power Over Life and Death

Of course, one of the reasons Anakin turns to the Dark Side (among other reasons) is that Palpatine allegedly knows how to use the Force to stop other people from dying. But how do we know Palpatine's telling the truth about that? Indeed, he later seems to contradict himself when he says, "Together we might be able to discover this power." I certainly wouldn't put it past Palpatine to lie about this, to say the least. Thoughts? --ekedolphin 09:44, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

In episode 2, Yoda said that lies and deceit are the ways of the Sith. I also commented about this further down the page.
See my coments under the section -- "Palpatine's plans with regard to Anakin." -- Jason Palpatine 13:37, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC) 07:00, 27 May 2005 (UTC) (Talk)


Title

What makes you think Palpatine's title is "Your Majesty?" Didn't Luke call him "Your Highness." Of course, Luke may have simply been acting facetiously- he sounded a little sarcastic. Just thought I'd bring this up.

This is true. See here.
Palpatine is the emperor of a vast and powerful empire. Titles such as "majesty", and "highness" are implied.
He's addressed by the title of 'Your Majesty' in Revenge of the Sith by his stormtroopers near the end of the film. Additionally, West End Games's Imperial Sourcebook and Death Star Technical Companion feature in-universe documents and letters that address him as 'Your Majesty' and 'His Imperial Majesty the Galactic Emperor'.


The Empire Strikes Back

The Emperor that briefly appeared in "The Empire Strikes Back" was played by an unnamed actor (rumored to be a woman) and was voiced by Clive Revill.

The Emperor first appeared on film in The Empire Strikes Back. In the original 1980 release, he was played by an old woman wearing prosthetic makeup, with chimpanzee eyes superimposed in post-production into darkened eye sockets in order to create a truly unsettling image. As stated above,Palpatine's voice was provided by Clive Revill for Empire. For Jedi and all subsequent films (including current releases of ESB), Palpatine is played by actor Ian McDiarmid. --Robeykr (Talk) 16:05, 8 May 2005 (UTC)


Preceded by/ Succeeded by

Should we have one of those "preceded by, succeeded by" tables for him, like we do for other monarchs? We would need one for the Supreme Chancellory and the de facto ruler of the Empire. Just an idea. --LtNOWIS 05:50, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've written a draft NPOV version of Palpatine's biography: Palpatine/Temp. --Mackensen (talk) 04:10, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I find the table very informative -- like the highlight table at the start of the article. I say yes to having/keeping/including a "preceded by, succeeded by" tables for him, like we do for other monarchs. --Robeykr (Talk) 19:42, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
Succeeded as Emperor by himself as Emperor? A little bit more explanation like e.g. himself(clone) (if a clone is meant) would be nice. Right now it's only confusing. --Nevfennas 20:05, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
I'd like to suggest the creation of a table of being the "Dark Lord of the Sith" by Darth Sidious. I would like to comment about the "succeded by" on the "Emperor of the Galactic Empire". I think there should be a clarification or something about it. --Tabris 08:58, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
It would be most appropriate to have his title in this section be listed as 'Galactic Emperor' rather than merely 'Emperor', especially if the formal title of 'Supreme Chancellor' is used for his previous position. In addition, it is important to note that the Imperial Remnant and the Council of Moffs does NOT, in fact, succeed Palpatine. The Interim Ruling Council succeeded his final death, and Grand Vizier Sate Pestage succeeded the Emperor before his return as regent and steward of the Empire. The Remnant is an organization formed from the guts of warlord regimes, as outlined in Daala's takeover during the novel Darksaber --Pellæon received his authority from her. The Galactic Empire as a legal institution died with the Interim Ruling Council. --Jello 15:39, 2 June 2005 (PST)
Excellent analysis, save for the fact that Palpatine and all of his clones are the same entity. Also, there are no true Sith succeeding Sidious. Lady Lumiya is a self-proclaimed Sith, she did not officially receive the title of Sith Lord. Parallels can be drawn with what Dark Jedi Asajj Ventress thought herself to be before meeting Darth Tyranus.
People just do not get it do they?


Successor To Palpatine As Senator?

I don't think that Padme directly succeeded Palpatine as senator. Here's why. In 32 BBY, Palpatine was elected to the supreme chancellorship and ended his role as senator. Padme Amidala was still queen at the time. It's extremely doubtful that Padme immediately succeeded Palpatine, because according to Episode II she finished out her last term as queen. Therefore, it's most likely that there was at least one person between Palpatine and Padme Amidala in the succession of senators.


Fuse together with Darth Sidious

Fuse this article with Darth Sidious's. It is proven in the novelization of The Revenge of the Sith (in stores now) that Palpatine is truly a Dark Lord of the Sith. Why whould you have seperate articles for it? --KFan II, April 19th, 9:57 PM

I recall that we also have separate articles for Vader and Anakin Skywalker too so why can't the same be applied to Palpatine and Sidious? --Timon
The Darth Vader and Anakin Skywalker articles have been merged. If it is revealed (As it most likely will be) that Palpatine and Sidious are the same person, shouldn't we merge them as well? It makes even more sense than with Vader and Anakin since Palpatine was really Sidious all along, There is no issue of changing personalities. I do think that a merger should wait for the "official" reveal on May 19th. Comments?
Yeah, let's wait till May 19 until those articles are merged. --Old Right 00:20, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
OK, but when we combine the two articles, should they go under "Palpatine" or "Darth Sidious"? I'm trying to avoid some of the problem's we've been having with the Vader/Anakin merger. Some input and discussion would be appreciated. My opinion, to keep things consistant the article should be under "Palpatine". --Ace-o-aces 16:52, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
Palpatine is far more important than "Sidious," and the situation with Vader/Anakin isn't even comparable, as Sidious is merely a mask, not a discrete part of someone's life. The Sidious material should be merged here. --Mackensen (talk) 20:09, 7 May 2005 (UTC)


Darth Sidious or Palpatine

OK, should this article be under "Darth Sidious" or "Palpatine"?

He is openly known by the name PALPATINE. This name was first used in the publication of Star Wars, Episode IV - A New Hope in 1976 (ghost written by Alan Dean Foster). The name PALPATINE was used only in the novels; in the movies he was referred to only as "the Emperor." Much like the Republic/Empire capitol world was first given its name, Coruscant, in an expanded universe novel. The original name Lucas considered for the character was Cos Dashit, but when it came time to make the prequels and the character would take the center ring, he opted for the name given to him by ALAN DEAN FOSTER. The name was posted in references both electronic and paper. Always, his name was PALPATINE!

His plans to unleash the Sith upon the galaxy and do away with the Jedi had been in development for decades. So complex were his plans that he could not allow unwitting agents to stumble upon them or otherwise interfere. This is one of the reasons he had a dual persona -- he wanted his Sith background concealed until the time came for him to openly show his hand. Those who dealt with him as Darth Sidious, clearly did not know about him being PALPATINE.

He is openly known as PALPATINE. The primary entry should be under PALPATINE. Darth Sidious is only an a.k.a. --Robeykr (Talk) 16:05, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Important: Because of a recent merge war, I have listed this issue on Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Article content disputes. Please do not unilaterally merge the articles until others have made comments. Thanks. --Zzyzx11 (Talk) 15:44, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
These two articles should be merged under PALPATINE. That's the name he is more commonly known under. In fact, I remember people refering to him as Emperor Palpatine years before the prequels came out. Sidious was never used untill 1999 and Ep I. thus, since the name is more common and predates the other by two decades, the article should be merged under Palpatine. --Ace-o-aces 17:09, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
I agree absolutely with what's been said above (see also my comment further up). No need for a separate Darth Sidious article. --Mackensen (talk) 17:28, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
This article should be merged with Darth Sidious. Darth Sidious was his first name, not Palpatine. He first appeared in episodes 5 and 6, which came out before 1, 2, and 3. Anyway, Palpatine is just an alias of Darth Sidious. --→ JarlaxleArtemis 23:07, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
reply from Robeykr: WHY ARE YOU SHOUTING? -- you're steaming up my glasses! As I pointed out above -- in eps 5 and 6 he was referred to only as "the Emperor." But his name of Palpatine had/was known before then. It was revealed in the opening introduction of the novelization of STAR WARS. He has been known by this name for more than 2 decades. His name of Sidious was revealed 23 years after the publication of his name as Palpatine.
Of course- I have said this before. I'm just rambling here. My point is the question I raised in the begining- WHY ARE YOU SHOUTING? This is an open forum, and everyone is heard here. The sytem administrators are not deaf. I am not deaf -- I just don't agree with what you're saying. An ancestor of mine once said: "I may not agree with what you say. But I will fight for your right to say it!" Say what you want -- please, I wouldn't have it any other way.
BUT THERE IS NO NEED FOR YOU TO SHOUT AT ANY OF US! OK? --Robeykr (Talk) 22:41, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
Enough shouting. Wikipedia naming convention dictates that since Palpatine is the better known and more widely used name, the articles should be merged into the Palpatine article. --M412k 22:08, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
Just FYI, 3 more votes for Palpatine can be found lower down in this page. --ElKabong

IT SHOULD REMAIN PALPATINE. Go with the FIRST name for the character; The name for the article should be PALPATINE, just as Anakin Skywalker redirects to Darth Vader. --KaintheScion

KaintheScion, even though it is the first name for the character, Darth Sidious is his true name. Palpatine is like our usernames, kind of. So please call it DARTH SIDIOUS. --KFan II 01:18, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
No, Kfan II, Darth Sidious is NOT his true name.
He is, in order of appearance:
  • - Senator Palpatine
  • - Darth Sidious
  • - EMPEROR Palpatine
Therefore, the name PALPATINE should be used. --KaintheScion
This article should be merged with Darth Sidious. Darth Sidious was his first name, not Palpatine. He first appeared in episodes 5 and 6, which came out before 1, 2, and 3. Anyway, Palpatine is just an alias of Darth Sidious. --→ JarlaxleArtemis 23:07, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
First of all dingus egg, making your text bigger is no way to help your point. Second of all, in his appearances in Episode 5 and 6, he is NOT referred to as "Darth Sidious" but as "The Emperor" and "Emperor Palpatine." So it should still be under Palpatine. --ElKabong
Second of all User:JarlaxleArtemis why are you voting twice? --Robeykr 06:47, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
I'm not shouting, retard. In fact, I'm not saying anything at all. I'm just typing in big letters. --→ JarlaxleArtemis 23:48, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
I'm not voting twice. I'm just stating my opinion twice so that it is not ignored. → JarlaxleArtemis 23:50, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps both articles be merged into an article titled Palpatine/Sidious? --→ JarlaxleArtemis 23:52, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

Actually, Voltaire said "I may not agree with a word that you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." --→ JarlaxleArtemis 23:57, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
A quick note: Sith titles such as 'Darth Sidious', or 'Darth Vader', are assumed at the begining of the person's apprenticeship. Palpatine appears to be the name Palpatine was born with. --maru 18:12, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
OK people, can we please now settle on this as the articles final name, and work on fixing up the text now? --Ace-o-aces 05:00, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
Is this whole discussion really important? I mean, what's the difference?

After all, you search for "Palpatine", you end up in an article about Palpatine; you search for "Darth Sidious", you end up in an article about Darth Sidious. Does it matter what the title of the article is? Does it matter if you get information about both on the same article (specially since both are one and the same person)? Suporting Ace-o-aces, the important thing is the text inside! --BlackBaron33 03:55, 26 May 2005 (UTC)


Since it's obviously already been decided, this is just FYI but Darth Sidious is Palpatines Sith name. Palpatine is his REAL name. --70.105.68.30 23:27, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

When you are given a Sith name, your real name is no longer truly valid. Anakin Skywalker ceases to be Anakin Skywalker when he becomes Darth Vader, according to the gospel of Obi-Wan Kenobi. Darth Sidious became Palpatine's real name when his master named him Sidious, but he obviously can't do much of a job pretending not to be a Sith Lord in front of the Jedi Council if he calls himself "Darth Sidious," so he went under the alias of his old name, "Palpatine." —qrc 03:57, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
Uh-huh. Got a reference for the Sith name being the true name, and the former true name becoming an alias? --Maru (talk) 04:10, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't see what the problem is. Sideous is a soft redirect, and it serves it's purpose well. HereToHelp (talk) 02:11, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Palpatine does not look like the Pope

"Several fans have noted how similar his appearance in the original trilogy is to Pope Benedict XVI."

They look nothing alike, besides being old and white. This is a politically-motivated cheap shot on the pope due to the proximity of his election to the EPIII release. This is like saying C3PO looks like Tony Blair and Ariel Sharon looks like R2D2. They don't either. This topic doesn't need a silly essay on how the Empire is modeled on various bugaboos of the left. Keep politics out of Star Wars.

Benedict looks more like Yoda, anyway.

I don't care if you don't think he looks like the Pope. The fact is, I stated there that "some fans" have made the connection. If you don't believe me, a five-minute search led me to this picture.
I don't care if you don't agree with it, it doesn't change the fact that other people do, and thus it belongs here. --Kuralyov 10:05, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
While some people do believe that there is a similarity in their appearance, it is not germane. I have removed it from the aricle on those grounds. In fact, much of the "Behind the Scenes" section should be cut. --SparqMan 07:48, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Why? Does it or does it not have stuff to do with Palpatine? --Kuralyov 16:59, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
No, it doesn't. Palpatine and Benedict have nothing to do with each other because Benedict didn't become the pope until about 6 years after Phantom Menace was created. This argument is like saying that the new Prime Minister of the Ukraine looks like Goldfinger. It has nothing to do with anything. --Kakashi-sensei 02:14, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
I agree that Palpatine doesn't look that much like the pope, but he looks alot like the 'bad-guy' cardinal from 'The Three Musketeers' because of his hair style. It's irrevelent that he looks like Pope Benedict anyway, his character is not based on the Pope because of the reason above but also their personalities are completely different.
I've fused this article with Darth Sidious's. You can edit that if you want to. --67.172.18.154 15:07, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
Yes he does, watch this. Anyway, typing "pope palpatine" or "palpatine ratzinger" will give you a pretty amount of google hits, so there are lots of people who have recognized this coincidence. Should be mentioned somewhere. (No question it's a coincidence and it's mostly used by anti-catholics. Nevertheless, the fact that the similarity is becoming popular should be mentioned.) --80.144.116.171 19:57, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I think Palpatine reminds me more of Emperor Constantine the Great.. Read the story about the Council of Nicaea and compare it to Palpatine's order #66.


Items to Add

  • Darth Maul - relationship, history
  • Darth Tyranus - relationship, history
  • Greater depth of detail on EPI-EPIII

--SparqMan 07:51, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Empire Strikes Back DVD image

I know this is probably a bad time to propose adding a new image to the site from The Empire Strikes Back DVD because of the merge dispute, but it seems an appropriate image to add if someone else seconds the idea. Here's the image if anyone wants to, or just tell me and I can figure out where to put it in. Thanks, and I agree that Palpatine/Sidious should all be under Palpatine, if another vote for Palpatine helps! --PlasticBeat 04:51, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Good idea. However -- I think it would be better to post corresponding images of the DVD Palpatine and the original release version. --Robeykr (Talk) 14:46, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
Image:The Emperor.jpg
I think the original Emperor's image should be posted instead of the DVD one. --Copperchair 29 June 2005 01:36 (UTC)
I disagree, who needs the original? Show what he actually looks like in the latest edition rather than the prototype version.


Fuse names?

Because of all the debate over whether we call it Palpatine or Sidious, why don't call it Palpatine/Darth Sidious? It makes sense. --KFan II 22:56, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

They would probably argue about naming it Darth Sidious/Palpatine instead. --→ JarlaxleArtemis 02:30, May 18, 2005 (UTC)


Age

I had always had the impression that Darth Sidious was actually older than Yoda. After all, how could such a being with such a strong connection to the Force be born in Naboo and not be noticed?

He trained Darth Maul from earliest infancy. It's possible that he was not born on Naboo and was in the outer sytems in his youth. If his parents were also in the Senate, then his family could have been off Naboo for long periods. It's likely Darth Plagueis took him from his parents against their will. And the Sith are always endeavouring to go unnoticed. --Robeykr (Talk) 06:53, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure I buy that explanation at all. When his true face was revealed during the struggle with Mace Windu, it is clear Palpatine was ancient. And possibly not even human. --pickle
"Possibly not even human"? Except he is always referred to as human by everyone, and what is more, his Empire was marked by broadspread, well-known anti-alien bias- which started with the Emperor himself. 'Sides, he was a Senator for Naboo- surely you do not mean to suggest he was a Gungan (appropriate as it may seem) :) ? --maru 14:24, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

If Palpatine was no older in "Revenge of the Sith" than McDiarmid was when filming, wouldn't his birthyear be 79 BBY, since McDiarmid turned 60 on August 11, 2004 and the film takes place in 19 BBY? --Palpatine

Oh come now, you of all people should know! --maru 16:02, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
Do you actually have anything to add to this conversation or not? Your user page says that you clean up clutter in Talk pages, not add to it.
From the Palpatine's appearance section as of 01:50, 30 May 2005 (UTC): "Representatives of George Lucas, however, have since claimed that he is no older than McDiarmid himself by the time Revenge of the Sith takes place."
If anyone has the source of this, I'd like to see it, if possible. If it doesn't even have a source, then it's one more thing we can delete from the page. Otherwise, it just contradicts his birthyear at the top of the page. --Palpatine 01:55, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
My User pages says I 'edit and clean up'- you apparently have digested entirely too much deletionist swill, and took my words in a sense I never intended; check out some of my cleanups, and you'll quickly see that when I delete, the deleted is put into archives. And do you have anything to add to this discussion, or no? If not, there are some people over at Talk:Yoda who appear to be a smidgen less than deadly dull and serious. --maru 19:52, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
Oh, I'm far from deadly dull and serious. I find Palpatine infinitely more interesting than Yoda, as my name might infer. Besides, I haven't digested too much "deletionist swill" yet. A deletionist would probably protest the very existence of Star Wars character articles. --the "rather snide" Palpatine 02:44, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Why did Palpatine want Amidala dead? - Ep 1 question

"As Palpatine had intended, the Jedi rescued Amidala and brought her to the Senate on Coruscant. There, she testified to what the Federation had done and pleaded for help. Amidala's reputation and testimony were enough to convince the Senate to take action. Since the then Chancellor Valorum was unwilling to act; Amidala asked for a vote of no confidence. The Senate agreed."

Why did Palpatine send Maul to kill Queen Amidala? Did he intentionally sacrifice Maul to Qui-Jon and Obi-Wan? --Anonymous

You are mistaken. Palpatine/Darth Sidious did not, at any time order Amidala's death in episode 1. He had sent Darth Maul to retrieve her and force her to return to Naboo to sign the treaty with the Trade Federation. The Jedi were in the way and therefore, logically, had to be eliminated. The Jedi were targeted for death -- along with anyone else who stood in the way -- but not Amidala; she was to be taken alive. --Robeykr (Talk) 06:08, 23 May 2005 (UTC)


Darth Sidious relation to Darth Plagueis

"No one is quite sure how Palpatine was first introduced to the power of the dark side. He is the most powerful practitioner of the Sith ways in modern times. He studied the ancient ruins on the Sith mausoleum world of Korriban. He unlocked secrets of the Force from a captured Jedi Holocron. The dark side energies flowing through Palpatine's body were so intense, that they ravaged his mortal frame. The very source of Palpatine's strength was killing him." --Starwars Databank [1].

In no point of the films it is clear that Darth Plagueis was Darth Sidious' master. He could have only cited the story as an example of what powers the dark side could bring. Besides the movie indicates that Darth Sidious does not know the way to create life as Darth Plagueis, since he tells Vader that together they could discover a way. His technique of keeping himself alive is probably not what Plagueis used. --nihil 04:36, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

In Episode III, Palpatine said that the secrets were taught to him by Darth Plagueis. Why would Darth Plagueis teach him unless Palpatine was his apprentice? Therefore Darth Sidious' master was Darth Plagueis. --pickle
You are assuming Palpatine did indeed know Plagueis' techniques. We have absolutely no evidence to prove that, and a fair bit which suggests against it. And furthermore, couldn't Plagueis' apprentice have been Palpatine

s master? Or his master's master? or... etc. After all, we have no way to date Plagueis, and it is unlikely that the Sith Lords would have let such knowledge die out. --maru 20:47, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Of course Darth Sidious did not know how to create life. I may have mistakeningly heard but in the movie Darth Plagueis knew how to preserve life not create it. And Darth Sidious was simply trying to lure Anakin to the dark side with false promises. Secondly there is only one master and one apprentice; so Sith knowledge could easily die out.
Article states that it is unknown when or how Palpatine became Darth Sidious. BUT, in that scene where he tells Anakin the story of Darth Plagueis, he refers that Darth Plagueis taught everything he knew to "his apprentice" (thus, Palpatine; highly unlikely to be someone else, since "two Sith must there be, no more no less, master and apprentice, yada yoda"), which killed him in his sleep. Shouldn't we consider that to be the "moment" when he rises to Dark Lord of the Sith (or at least, it's what led to it)?
But I think you're forgetting that apprentices also get the title Dark Lord of the Sith just for being the apprentice, and that the Darth prefix to a name selected is already added. Darth Vader was just an apprentice, but he was still Darth Vader, Dark Lord of the Sith; same with Darth Maul: Darth Maul, Dark Lord of the Sith. So when Palpatine was Plagueis's apprentice, he was still probably Darth Sidious, Dark Lord of the Sith. We don't know the circumstances under which Palpatine became Plagueis's apprentice, so we can't determine that. Cornince 04:26, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Well, again, that is assuming that Plaguesis (How I hate that name! I keep thinking I am misspelling it every time, even when I'm not.) was indeed Sidious' master. As I said earlier, we know Plag. preceded Sidious, but not how many Siths were in between. Usually a Sith Lord's ascension is marked when they slay or escape their master, you are correct. --maru 14:24, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
In the Revenge of the Sith novelization, Palpatine explicitly states that Plagueis was his Master. --Jon Hart
Can anyone confirm that? (Don't have the novel :( ) --maru 14:12, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
The latest update to the databank (as of July 30 2005) explicitly names Plagueis as Sidious' master.
Hidden beneath a façade of wan smiles and smooth political speeches was a Sith Lord. In truth, Palpatine was well versed in the ways of the Force, having been apprentice to Darth Plageuis the Wise, a Sith Lord who was a master of arcane and unnatural knowledge. In true Sith tradition, Palpatine murdered his Master upon achieving the skill and ability to do so. He then took an apprentice himself, continuing the Sith order in absolute secrecy, right under the noses of the Republic and the Jedi. [2]

---

In Episode III Palpatine opens the story about Darth Plagueis by asking Anakin if he had heard the story. He then says that it is a Sith legend. This implies that Plagueis lived long ago, especially since the Sith were not even believed to be alive until Maul's appearance.

That's only while Palpatine and Anakin are at the opera. Once Palpatine reveals his true identity as Darth Sidious he comes right out and says "Darth Plagueis was my Master." --Jon Hart
What is the page number? --Robeykr 00:14, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I don't know if the book can be considered legitimate. It was, after all, written by someone after seeing the movie. The same thing about his "mask." Personally, I believe that he actually was honest about this and his scars.


Darth Plagueis

Where exactly is it said that Plagueis was Sidious' master? He never says so in Episode 3, I was just curious. The way he speaks of him as "Darth Plagueis the wise" seem to indicate Plagueis was well before his time.

In the Return of the Sith novel, Palpatine admits as such right before Anakin discovers he is Darth Sidious:
"Do you remember the myth I told you of, The tragedy of Darth Plagueis the Wise?" the shadow whispered.
The myth-
...directly influence the midi-chorians to create life; with such knowledge, to maintain life in someone already living would seem a small matter ...
"Yes," Anakin said. "Yes, I remember."
The shadow leaned so close that it seemed to fill the world.
"Anakin, it's no mere myth."
Anakin swallowed.
"Darth Plagueis was real."
Anakin could force out only a strangled whisper. "Real...?
"Darth Plagueis was my Master. He taught me the key to his power," the shadow said dryly matter-of-fact, "before I killed him."
Now whether or not Palpatine was telling the truth is another matter. I have always said that the story of Plagueis was meant to be facetious. Nevertheless, Palpatine does tell Anakin that Plagueis was his master.
The novels of the films are considered G-canon; so you can treat any scene in the Revenge of the Sith novel as though it had been shown in the film. --Cirdan 13:10, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Comparison To Hitler, Belongs In Hitler Article?

Earlier, 207.200.116.132 restuctured the article and removed the comparison to Hitler paragraphs, because he belives that the material belongs under the Hitler article.

People- I think a vote is necessary here. I AM NOT GOING TO START ANOTHER EDIT WAR! I did not enter that section of the article, but I was impressed by whoever did. The comparison to Hitler, I have always considered to be more apropriate than the comparison Lucas used with Richard Nixon. Nixon was deceptive, dishonest, and misleading, true; but he was not in any way evil. He did not orchestrate atocities the way Palpatine did. He was not a murderer. His support of Joeseph Mcarthy's policys might be considered, by some, justification for such a comparison; but I don't think it's enough.

It has become common practice to compare all megalomaniac, villains in popular culture to Hitler. Among others, he has been compared to Saruman in the book Lord of the Rings and Dr. Doom in the Marvel universe.

Hitler was, undoubtedly, the most evil man in the 20th century.

evil adj
  • 1. profoundly immoral or wrong
  • 2. deliberately causing great harm, pain, or upset
  • 3. characterized by a desire to cause hurt or harm
n
  • 1. the quality of being profoundly immoral or wrong
  • 2. Evil -- the force held to bring about harmful, painful, or unpleasant events

The racial policies that Hitler directed culminated in the systematic extermination of over 11 million people, including millions of Jews, in a genocide now known as THE HOLOCAUST. Palpatine’s Jedi Purge clearly harkens back to this. They even murdered children, just as the Nazis did.

I belive the comparison to Hitler section is apropriate and correct for this entry and should be restored.

What do you think? --Robeykr (Talk) 13:28, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

It should be on Palpatine's page. It's Palpatine who's being compared to Hitler, not vice versa. --A Link to the Past 04:41, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
It should be on Palpatine's page. The comparison to Hitler is important for people wanting to know about Palpatine. It is completely irrelevant for people wanting to know about Hitler. A list of people who have been compared to Hitler would drown out the rest of the article, and there's nothing particularly special about Palpatine to limit the list to him. --Carnildo 05:26, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
1) While there may be similarities between Hitler and Palpatine, this is an article on Palpatine. You don't see a lion section in the tiger article, you don't see a Bill Clinton section in the George W Bush article; in depth-comparisons between two different subjects don't belong in the same article unless that's what the whole article is about. People come to this article to read about Palpatine, no one else. The only thing that belongs here about Hitler is a simple link, and a sentence saying that some fans have compared the two.
2) If you want to specify the comparisons, it can be done like this.
a) make a section titled "Palpatine's evil" or whathaveyou.
b) list the evil characteristics and actions he's done
c) then, put a sentence that says, "Some believe palpatine's acts of evil closely parallel those of Adolf Hitler" or something like that. --207.200.116.132 07:21, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
Of course not. One is fictional and one is real. (Try to guess which one is which! XD) It makes no sense to relate this to Hitler in any way. --A.J. 22:14, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
17000 hits when you google "Palpatine Hitler" suggests that the comparison is frequent enough in critical assessment of the films as to warrant inclusion. --Nunh-huh 07:24, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
2,020,000 hits when you google "Lions Tigers" if even 1% of those articles refers to sites about cats, does that mean there should be a subsection in the Tiger article comparing it to a different species of Panthera? If you want to make an article on megalomaniacs or villains go ahead. Then you can link Palpatine's article to it. --207.200.116.132 07:38, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for your advice, but I think instead I'll just make certain that the article mentions that the similarities of Palpatine to Hitler are certainly intentional. --Nunh-huh 07:40, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
If Lucas said as such you can quote him. What Palpatine's creator says about the character would certainly be appropriate for a Palpatine article. But what I, or you think, is irrelevant. You can't speculate that the comparisons are intentional based on your observations that the two are similar.
In fact, Lucas has said he drew from Richard Nixon; he hasn't said he drew from Hitler, even though he could have said that a long time ago. Looking at the character of Palpatine, you can see that Palpatine is in fact a cross between Nixon and Julius Ceasar, with a healthy dose of the darkside of the force thrown in there; as in fact, Lucas has said. So if any comparison would be appropriate, it would be to compare Palpatine to that. Hitler has absolutely nothing directly to do with Palpatine, other than they are both evil rulers and it's become rather cliché to compare every evil ruler to Hitler. As if writers can't help themselves but write about the Fuhrer --207.200.116.198 07:56, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
Of course, he has said he drew from Hitler: "Why did the senate after killing Caesar turn around and give the government to his nephew?” Lucas said. “Why did France after they got rid of the king and that whole system turn around and give it to Napoleon? It's the same thing with Germany and Hitler.
“You sort of see these recurring themes where a democracy turns itself into a dictatorship, and it always seems to happen kind of in the same way, with the same kinds of issues, and threats from the outside, needing more control. A democratic body, a senate, not being able to function properly because everybody's squabbling, there's corruption.” --Nunh-huh 09:55, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
Hey, was that from the NY Times interview? On a side note, I always saw Palpatine as way closer to Hitler in tactics- Hindenburg and Valorum were very similar, Palpatine was machinating behind the scenes to produce the Separatist war, just as Hitler machinated to produce the Reichstag fire, both were voted in and took dictatorial power, both had "stormtrooper", both purged their ranks and the ranks of their country (Jedi purge, anyone?). Really, the parallels are exhausting. --maru 13:44, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
You're taking that out of context. He doesn't say he used Hitler as a source for Palpatine. He was describing the normal transition from a state of freedom to a state of autocracy. This was in response to him being asked whether Episode 3 has anything to do with Bush and the war on terrorism. His response basically was: no, these are just recurring themes you find throughout history. Palpatine is a statement about powerful men in general; how they become corrupt. But yet for some reason you feel compelled to turn Palpatine into a statement about World War 2; and perticularly into a statement about Hitler.
Perhaps you want to find a quote where Lucas says, "I used Hitler as a model for writing Palpatine" or something similar, rather than trying to infer the author's intentions from a causal indirect, mention. --207.200.116.132
There are many direct details that could only have come from Germany and Hitler. Ex: 'Stormtroopers.' How could that possibly be borrowed from Nixon, or any American, and not from Germany? --maru 18:12, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
You are correct that Stormtroopers are meant to have an association with Nazi Germany. But Stormtroopers are not Palpatine. In fact, Stormtroopers don't exist in episodes 1-3; the episodes where Palpatine is a character of most prominence in the story. And in episodes 4-6, stormtroopers are Darth Vader's forces, not the Emperor's. You never see the Emperor with stormtroopers except for that one scene where he gets off the shuttle to board the Death Star. They are not meant to be associated with him. He even has special "crimson" men that explicitly act to set him apart from the men in white; which in fact are "royal" guards that precisely mimic the function of the Praetorian Guard from ancient Rome. Palpatine is intended to be viewed as an Emperor. He is not intended to be viewed as a Nazi.
To be honest, it's convenient to compare every tyrant, fictional or otherwise, to Hitler because that's who everyone remembers. The evil of Hitler is fresh in everyone's mind. But as every fan knows, Star Wars is based in mythology. Palpatine's evil is one that you find in all villains dating back thousands of years. In fact, one could effectively argue that Darth Sidious has more in common with the Devil than he has in common with any one historical figure. And to be honest, dedicating an entire section in this article to describing how Palpatine's evil is like any one historical figure demonstrates an incomplete understanding of Palpatine as a character. --207.200.116.132
For people interested in Palpatine, a comparison with Hitler might be interesting. For people going to an article to read about Hitler, finding a paragraph about a character in some science fiction movie would make them think we were crazy. --DJ Clayworth 14:25, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

I think the comparison to Hitler was not so much about both being evil, but more about both using democracy to destroy itself. That's why Napoleon and Caesar were named in the same breath, all started inside the system (Chancellor, Consul, Dictator for six months), expanded that position (extra powers, longer Term in office as Dictator for 10 years) and finally abolishing it with consent of the public (Hitler Fuehrer, Napoleon Emperor with a Referendum, Caesar Dictator for life).

Specific Parallels Hitler/Palpatine would be:

  • -becoming Chancellor in a crisis(Hitler Depression/ Palpatine blockade of Naboo)
  • -receiving extra powers (Hitler "Reichsermächtigungsgesetz" January 30 1933/ Palpatine Emergency Powers in Episode 2)
  • -creating an all-powerful post with consent of parliament/senate (Hitler "Fuehrer" by merging Chancellor with President 1934, Palpatine Emperor in Episode 3). --Nevfennas 17:42, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
I'm glad we're getting to the point where people acknowledge that there's more to Palpatine than just pure evil :) As far as his rise to power, I know what you're saying in terms of similarities. But as you say, similar parallels can be drawn between Palpatine and Napoleon; and Palpatine and Ceasar. In fact, the comparisons are even more striking...
  • -Napoleon became First Consul over the French Republic, after a set of military crisis had threatened the state, and the governing body had proven inadequate to deal with them. This compounded by the fact the French Republic was bankrupt, and the then governing body was perceived as corrupt and inefficient. Palpatine becomes leader of the Galactic Senate directly as a result of the blockade and subsequent military action by the trade federation. Which not only proved just how ineffective and corrupt the Republic had become, but this, at a time when the entire economic well being of the galaxy was at stake.
  • -Napoleon's rise to power was a coup d'état, where he actually seized control of the Republic. Palpatine's rise to power was also a seizure of power, although nobody realized that in fact that's what had happened. In contrast, Hitler only seized power after it had already been given to him.
  • -Once in power, Napoleon ennacted a series of reforms that helped alleviate the previous government's excesses. Palpatine does so as well. Both men earn respect in their respective nations, while at the same time carefully consolidating more power for themselves.
  • -During this intermediary period, both Napoleon and Palpatine face active military threats to their state. Napoleon faces the members of the Second Coalition and Palpatine faces the seperatists.
  • -Napoleon becomes Emperor after an assassination attempt is discovered against him from within his own state. He uses that to justify his coronation. Palpatine uses a similar assassination attempt against him to justify his becoming Emperor.
  • -Napoleon, as emperor, then acts as supreme ruler of Europe for more than 10 years. He is eventually defeated in a final battle; after his many years of power and decadence have eroded his once unmatched strategic prowess. Palpatine rules as Emperor for a similar length of time, then is defeated in a similarly decisive battle; one which he should not have lost; but which he does nonetheless because his once unmatched strategic prowess has also been eroded.
You can draw a similar list of parallels to Julius/Augustus Ceasar :) As I said before, it's convenient to compare Palpatine to Hitler because that's what people remember. But to make that comparison the prime focus of who Palpatine is like, is to give Hitler an inordinate amount of emphasis. Palpatine, as politician and statesman, has more in common with Napoleon I and the ceasars of ancient Rome. --207.200.116.198 05:24, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
Um, okay. Clone Troopers were named by the cloners or the Jedis or whoever, and are not Storm Troopers. Storm Troopers were named by Palpatine. Why would he have the Storm Troopers represent Hitler's army, but not have their leader represent Hitler himself? --A Link to the Past 00:53, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
Because the story is more complex than that :) Especially as it relates to Palpatine. --207.200.116.198 05:24, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
These discussions of similarities to historical figures are interesting, but they should not be included in the articles on those figures. They belong in this article and other articles on the film series. --Willmcw 22:10, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
I agree. Besides, why must we draw a strict parallel? Why can't we simply say "Palpatine in his rise to power resembles Napoleon's historical rise to power, but there are many other elements, like the 'Stormtroopers' which reference other, similar leaders such as Hitler or Julius Caesar" or something to that effect? --maru 14:24, 29 May 2005 (UTC)


Palpatine's plans with regard to Anakin

It is possible, however, that Palpatine was aware of the boy from conception. Tatooine, where Skywalker was born and raised, happened to be beyond the Republic's border and therefore he would be untested and unrecruited by the Jedi.

Neither Sidious nor Vader could sense neither Luke's nor Obi Wan's presence in Tatooine in the time between episodes III and IV. I wander if it was really posible that Sidious could have sensed Anakin's presence before Episode I.

I suggest two possibilities:

  • It was either Darth Sidious or Darth Plagueis who "created" Anakin using Sith powers in the first place. I don't agree much with this version because, as nihil points in Darth Sidious relation to Darth Plagueis, it seems Plagueis wasn't really Sidious' master and Sidious didn't know how to create life using the force.
  • Darth Sidious realised about Anakin's existence during Episode I when Darth Maul was chasing the Jedis in Tatooine. It was then when Palpatine started planning how he could turn Anakin to the dark side.

What do you people think? --BlackBaron33 18:16, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't seem at all possible, and more importantly, there is no reason to believe it. Nothing in the films or the expanded universe implies such a thing. As for your suggestions - the first possibility was actually an original script concept of Lucas's - but as it was dropped, I don't think it should be in this article. I vote for the second. --RW 04:08, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
Although there is, as you say, "Nothing in the films or the expanded universe implies such a thing," I must disagree.
1) Lucas has used the concept of recurring themes throughout the Star Wars saga. This was brought to the fore in AotC. Many people criticized the movie for actions and choreography that paralleled events in earlier SW films.
For example:
  • the sports bar sequence were Kenobi cuts off an assailant’s arm -- he did that before in the cantina in ANH.
  • The fighter pursuit sequence in the asteroid ring around Geonosis -- paralleling the pursuit of the Millennium Falcon though the asteroid field.
  • Then there was the scene where Kenobi and company depart from Mustafar – the choreography is almost identical to Dooku’s departure from Geonosis.
  • The line “I have a very bad feeling about this” appears in every episode.
In ESB, Darth Vader tells Luke “I am your father.” In the early preproduction drafts of RotS, during the scene where Palpatine openly reveals to Anakin that he is a Sith Lord, he was originally also going to drop that line on Anakin. Whether it would have been the truth or not is moot.
2) The most important thing was Palpatine’s discussion at the ballet. When he tells Anakin about how Darth Plagueis could create life using Sith powers. In episode 1, Shimi told Qui-Gon Jin that “there was no father.” Anakin was an unexplained, spontaneous, no-father birth like the children in the movie “Village of the Damned.” Palpatine’s comments about this were intended to be a hint that he (or someone else versed in the Sith arts) may have been responsible for Anakin’s existence.
3) There is no actual evidence that Palpatine was Darth Plagueis’ apprentice. Palpatine did say it was a legend.
This is, of course, mere speculation. However, the circumstances of Anakin’s birth and the parallel with Palpatine’s comments – well, in my experience, there’s no such thing as a coincidence.
Perhaps we should say- "Nothing in the films or the expanded universe implies such a thing, yet". --Robeykr (Talk) 06:10, 24 May 2005 (UTC)


Turning

I would also like to discuss about a different point regarding this subject: Did Sidious have a clear plan on how to turn Anakin into the dark side from the very beginning?

This seems hardly possible to me, since Anakin's fate is severely linked to the fact that he fell in love with Padme, something Sidious could hardly have controlled. In other words, Sidious's plans ended up depending to much on Anakin's love for Padme and I think that's something very difficult to predict or control (can the force actually predcit how someone will feel about someone else???).

To me, it seems more plausible that Palpatine didn't have a clear plan, but after he realised Anakin's love for Padme, he saw there his big chance: someone desperate to do anything for his loved one is easily manipulated. Which, by the way, also makes me wander if the whole subject of Siths manipulating life was nothing but a big and really well crafted lie after all!

Even if it is not directly implied, I think all this points in favor of the theory that Sidious did not "create" Anakin (I mean, if he didn't know exactly how to turn him into the dark side, he could have created his worst enemy!).

What do you people think? --BlackBaron33 03:36, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

My impression was that Sidious initially intended to simply sow anger into Anakin, and as Yoda says, lead him to the Dark side that way- many other Jedi have turned for lesser reasons. Incidentally, if indeed Sidious created Anakin, making sure he was a slave with a rather nasty master would fit neatly into this theory. But when Sidious realized the Padme link, he simply used it to his own advantage. (Whether he sent the dreams himself is an intriguing possibility, but alas, evidence is not there for or against it.) --maru 14:24, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
It has been speculated that Palpatine actually ORDERED his mother's murder -- the debate on that one still continues. But there are a couple of facts that should be considered.
1) Palpatine meticulously plan’s ahead. Consider the Separatist Crisis; it took 10 years to bring about. The amount of planning and maneuvering necessary to bring such a social calamity about across THOUSANDS of planetary systems and cultures would be beyond the capacity of most men. He would need to anticipate and deal with and instigate millions of events simultaneously of a period of years to bring such a thing about.
2) He indicated at the end of episode one that he would be keeping an eye on Anakin – an indication of their protracted friendship that would play a critical role in the second and third episodes. Anakin spoke of his guidance and the relationship’s significance was pointed out by Kenobi.
3) Their long association enabled him through their many conversations to influence his emotions. Consider his comment: “I forsee you becoming the greatest of all Jedi.” That was clearly ment to bolster Anakin’s pride – and pride goes before a fall.
4) Palpatine pushed the Jedi Council in to moving Anakin forward in his training and actions. It was on his insistence that Anakin was given command of the space fighter wings during the battle of Muunilinst. Afterward, for months, he insisted on the Jedi Council making him a full Jedi Knight – which was done.
5) The Sith rely mostly on passion over reason. Palpatine’s repeated comments to Anakin were clearly intended to appeal to Anakin’s ego.
6) This went on for 13 years – so it’s no wonder Palpatine was able to, in the end, push him over the edge.
7) This points to one of the reasons he failed in turning Luke as he did Anakin. He had been influencing Anakin for half the Jedi’s life -- this was not the case with Luke. When he attempted to turn Luke, he tried to do it all in one shot. --Robeykr 07:39, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Thanks

To all the users who made this look like the way I wanted it to...except for the title, but that's okay. I'm now gonna add pictures. --KFan II 22:23, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

You're welcome :-) --(Talk) Robeykr 06:13, 26 May 2005 (UTC)


Cheapening his fight with Mace

Across the board people choose to cheapen Master Mace Windu. "Arguably Palpatine let him win." is everywhere. While Mace is a well-known lightsaber duelist, Palpatine is only known for force lightning if anything. The other three Jedi died so fast because if you check their site they weren't Masters known for their dueling skills. I believe Kit Fisto only mastered the younglings level of lightsaber form and that would indicate he shouldn't have even been there anyway. They also weren't high caliber council members. Also by making it seem like Palpatine was only toying with Mace would mean Anakin really didn't kill anyone of value to become who he became. Also comparing Yoda to Mace just doesn't work cause Yoda isn't know for being a Jedi of action. His green saber would indicate that if anything he was a counselor not a normal fighter. --Anonymous

"Arguably Palpatine let him win." Is something I have never encountered. Where have you seen it? --Robeykr 22:33, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
Another thing- AFAIK, green sabers being aligned with counselors is derived entirely from KOTOR I, which is not an especially reliable source, as it took place so very long ago w/r/t Ep. III. --maru 23:17, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
One example is the poll on boards.theforce.net --Zzyzx11 (Talk) 22:11, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
And I believe this isn't canon and shouldn't be added. Fact is, he lost. Adding arguments to a article as such is out of place. This isn't a discussion board, it's a informative article. If you have questions as to the truth of the battle you make them mentally. In the movie there was no indication that Palpatine let him win. He didn't glance over to see Anakin coming and throw his lightsaber out the window and start crying. They were fighting and he was bested. This also makes Anakin weaker in my view if he didn't kill anybody of worth. Sure, it was a cheap shot but he still killed the only person to out duel his future master. Yoda let his fight become more about force mastery not saber combat.
But since this is an informative NPOV article, we should mention that many viewers do interpret that scene differently, just like this article mentions the debate on whether the force lightning caused Palpatine's appearence to change or was that really his true appearance. --Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:54, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The very idea of Jedi Consulars and Guardians comes from the Roleplaying Game by Wizards of the Coast, which borrowed much of its rules for KOTOR (then added a 3rd category). Consular and Guardian are just game mechanics, in the RPG materials they even make it clear that within the Star Wars universe the distinction doesn't exist (since character classes are just an abstraction), it just delinates Jedi who focus more on spiritual and diplomatic pursuits as opposed to those who focus on the more martial aspects of being a Jedi. Also, "Green = Consular" is explicitly contradicted by the movies. Remember that the saber that Luke built for himself between Ep. V and Ep. VI was green, and to the best of my knoweldge nobody ever claimed Luke was a Consular. --Wingsandsword 03:29, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Luke wouldnt have known that saber color indicated speciality, seeing how no one ever told him. This is a moot point though, considering i agree with you in every other way. 70.105.68.30 01:06, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

There is much proof to support that Palpatine did indeed allow Mace to win. Vaapad or no Vaapad, Mace Windu is less powerful than Master Yoda. Palpatine bests Yoda, you do the math. The argument that people are cheapening Mace can be countered by simply stating that you are cheapening Palpatine. Only known for Force lightning at best? That statement would be false, perhaps you should do a bit more research on the Sith Master. Palpatine apparently loses to Mace Windu, yet manages to best the more potent Yoda. (Yoda runs=Sidious' victory) Why? The answer is simple. He feigned weakness to gain Anakin's sympathy, in effect forcing his potential apprentice into a position where Anakin would have to choose between either the Jedi order... or the Sith. He obviously foresaw this event, that Mace would try to kill him. Therefore he knew Anakin wouldn't allow the Jedi Master to carry through, as that would doom any chance of "saving" the young man's beloved Padme (Which we all know Sidious had no intention of doing even if the power to prevent individuals from dying through use of the Dark Side of the Force was possible. Advanced Sith Alchemy (manipulating midichlorians to create life) however, can be performed. Sidious is more than capable of it.) If Palpatine was truly weakened and defeated, he wouldn't have perked up and fried Windu like a beef patty on a griddle. The phony way in which he cries for help is enough of an indicator. Do you really believe Palpatine would jeopardize all of his plans just like that? In a battle with a trivial Jedi Master he knew was going to confront him? And who are you to judge Kit Fisto's fighting ability? All of those Jedi duly achieved the rank of Master. Yoda is not known as a Jedi of action? Watch the movie again.

If you wish to debate the interpretation of that particular scene, please express your views on forums such as boards.theforce.net and not here. --Zzyzx11 (Talk) 03:09, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Show me the article from Lucas with Yoda is this strong and Mace is strong in the force. There is no evidence of there "force levels" or what have you. They were two different types of fights. He threw lightening and things Yoda. He chose to only fight Mace with sabers. That's on screen. -- Anonymous
  • Herein shall be an analysis of Yoda, Palpatine, Mace Windu, Vader, and Kenobi (the latter two for comparison purposes) based only on the films and a George Lucas quote. It has been stated that Vader had about 80% of the power of the Emperor in his mostly mechanized form and that in his near-pure flesh embodiment he could potentially tap his 20,000+ midi-chlorians. As Skywalker he would possess double the power of Lord Vader. Taking this into account, Palpatine would have approximately 12,500 midi-chlorians, which is very powerful; he is the one underestimated, not Windu. During Episode III, Anakin was a legendary figure, but probably not as powerful as Vader, for he would not defeat Kenobi until Episode IV. If Anakin could kill Windu, it is unlikely that Mace could defeat Lord Sidious. Anakin had much to learn from Palpatine. Palpatine did have a phony look on his face, and the Sith are known for treachery and deceit, especially this insidious one. Windu easily kills Jango Fett, "fights worthy of recognition in the Jedi Archives," and does very well against Sidious, but he is not the most definitive fighter in the films. Yoda is the one praised for his lightsaber prowess by Anakin and Obi-Wan in Episode II during their chase with Zam Wessel. Windu is made to be nearly on par with Yoda, as Kenobi confers with both of them on several occassions, but remember that Windu is over eight centuries Yoda's junior. Windu is killed by Palpatine, while Yoda survives and has the more climactic battle. Both conflicts have about just as much lightsaber duelling in them, so their Force struggles do not really interfere with the melee.
Note: Master Windu is a very wise, powerful, and talented Jedi. Palpatine's feigns are not to lessen Windu, but show a hint of the power of Sidious, the sinister genius. --24.253.120.206 21:33, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
You guys like arguments so much, how about the one that Vader didn't beat Obi-Wan ever. Obi-Wan gave up so he could go ghost and help Luke become who he was meant to be. Obi-Wan's form of fighting was all about defense. And he killed the dude while he was was still engaged with Palpatine. Yoda's form had a element of flash, where as Mace's pulled from all the other forms. (San Antonio is not a exciting team to watch but they win games) Palpatine's lightsaber form is a sith variation on the same style as Yoda's Form IV. Yoda didn't defeat Dooku which Anakin did, so factor that into your equation. Windu's midi count was never discussed. I'm not say Mace won so Yoda is weaker. Mace only had to fight with sabers. Yoda and Palpatine fought with sabers somewhat breifly before Palpatine had an enviroment of things to hurl to keep Yoda away. Yoda never did get the ground he needed to beat Palpatine.
Although Kenobi let Vader destroy him, Vader would have the upper hand against Obi-Wan, as he had in Episode III. The difference this time is that he would not lose. Also, Form III does not make one truly invincible. Yoda seemingly overpowered Dooku, so the Sith Lord created a diversion to escape. Anakin killed Dooku quickly, as he used the aggressive power of the dark side. It is clear that Windu’s midi-chlorian count is unknown; the emphasis was that Palpatine had many midi-chlorians, as 20,000 is a record number and he has about 63% the power indicated by that reading. It should not be considered that Sidious could not have set up the outcome of the battle. Observe that Yoda and Sidious fought primarily in the chaotic senate chamber (even with their lightsabers), hence, neither could really subdue the other; Windu duelled Sidious entirely in the tidied Chancellor’s office. --24.253.120.206 22:53, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Yoda did lose to Palpatine... :/ or >:) depending on how you see it. Lucas probably just didn't want to make it too obvious because of how much reverence people have for Yoda. But the fact of the matter is, if Yoda had not lost; do you think he would have left a Sith lord in charge of the galaxy? Of course not. Yoda left, because he knew he wasn't going to beat Palpatine.
You're right about Vader never beating Obi-Wan however :) That's a different article though. -- Cirdan 05:46, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Light Side fanboys, can you please just accept that Palpatine beat Yoda already? Villains are supposed to be more powerful than the heroes, that is what makes them dangerous and worthy of challenge. To say that Palpatine is weak would cheapen not only Palpatine's character but also the entire premise of Star Wars.
I am seeing it as Mace beat Palpatine, but lost to the dark side. At the end of the fight everyone was on the darkside somewhat. Mace could of let Anakin help conclude the arrest but he wanted to slay Palpatine. Anakin and Palpatine took him out. Mace had only a lightsaber fight on flat ground. Yoda lost to Palpatine. He fought in too dynamic a setting and he never got the higher ground. They managed to have somewhat short lightsaber fight but then they started including force powers. Palpatine just threw things at him to keep Yoda away. He lost only cause he had to retreat. He lost his saber and he just suffered a major fall. Palpatine had the minimum of damage. Like the last guy said the bad guys one. It's the story of the movie. Good guys don't win until Ep 6.
Yoda didn't retreat for nothing you know... he was going to lose. He was tired and wearing down, while Sidious was still cackling away and seething with power. Get over it Light Side lovers.
In my opinion, Palpatine didn't let Windu win. Even if he did, it is POV speculation and shouldn't be in the article. The "Green = Consular" link in KOTOR is a part of game stats, and, as mentioned in Star Wars canon, game stats are never considered canon. This also explains the lack of Sentinels (yellow lightsabers) in the movies. --Sikon 04:11, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Then no opinion should be in the article. Only a statement that leaves room for both sides of the debate to make their interpretations. For example: "After appearing to best Palpatine in a lightsaber duel... etc"

I have three trains of thought on this matter: First, the Jedi accompanying Mace were expert fighters in their own right, including Fisto. This is practically "canon" according to Expanded Universe material and as shown through fight sequences in the previous film.

Second, Palpatine may be a favorite character, but he lost in terms of saber combat against Windu.

Third, Yoda is meant to be a master swordsman as well, as evidenced by dialogue in Attack of the Clones.

- Anon

I appreciate there is quite a bit of debate on this matter and good arguments on both sides. Nonetheless, there are three simple arguments that I believe have not been overcome.
  1. The article on Palpatine on www.starwars.com (an offical source) specically says "The two dueled, transforming the office of politics into an arena of lightsaber combat. Windu overpowered Palpatine the instant Anakin Skywalker came running into the offices." [3]. This is an offical source and should be respected.
  1. The principal of Occam's razor should apply. Is everything that happened with the fight an elabourate ruse to convince Anakin to kill Windu that depended not only on Anakin choosing to aid Palpatine, but that he would arrive precisly at the correct time? Or did Windu just beat Palpatine?
Occam's razor would not apply here due to the satistical anomalies the Force enables, and the simple explanation that Palpatine could simply have sensed Anakin's approach, enabling him to time it. --Maru (talk) Contribs 04:43, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
  1. Regardlesss of how interesting arguments in favour of Palpatine's deception may be, Wikipedia is not the place to advance them. Wikipedia should rely upon offical sources and the most straight-forward descriptions of events (or fictional events, such as this topic). I am not trying to malign fan speculation, I am just saying Wikipedia is not the place for it. Martin-C 06:43, 18 November 2005 (UTC)


"Dark Side" or "dark side"?

Ok people -- here's one that comes unexpectedly. I've noted that there have been edits to the article by people changing the character case of the term DARK SIDE. All small letters then over to capitalized proper noun then back and forth. I think an opinion poll is needed here. What do you all think?

Is the term a proper noun -- deserving first letter capitalization as per the rules of English grammar -- or not?

My opinion is that it is USED as a proper noun and should be capitalized as such. --Robeykr 18:51, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. --maru 19:42, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
Disagree. It's never used as a proper noun in official Star Wars literature unless it's part of the name of a rank or organization, e.g. Prophets of the Dark Side. --Jon Hart
Though I agree, it is USED as a proper noun in a lot of cases, Hart is right; it is not capitalized. --70.105.106.147 02:34, 18 September 2005 (UTC)


Palpatine's empire

FYI: I have just tagged this section as {{Sectfact}} because some of the recent edits and reverts to that section reflect the current ongoing debates between Star Wars fans regarding:

  1. Whether the deflected force lightning caused Palpatine's appearance to change or if that was really his true face.
  2. Whether or not Palpatine allowed Mace Windu to win the lightsaber duel. --Zzyzx11 (Talk) 06:19, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I actually like the ongoing debate on how Palpatine really looked. It gives him an aura of mystery :)
As far as Windu, of course Palpatine let him win. Look at the film again: Palpatine and Windu are fighting in a seemingly evenly matched way... up until Anakin gets there... then suddenly, "You got me. I'm old. I'm weak." -- It's clearly an act :)
Palpatine didn't want to kill Windu; he wanted Anakin to do it. Palpatine was just holding him off until Anakin got there. --Cirdan 13:27, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Affirmative, it is pretty clear that Palpatine foresaw, planned, and performed this event and knew it would turn young Skywalker to his side. --Anonymous
Disagree. Palpatine manipulated Anakin, yes -- but after killing three of his friends, Mace could only be expected to kill him if he got the upper hand. The police will, when a suspect they attempt to arrest kills one of them, kill the person. How could it be any different with this? Palpatine would be taking too much of a risk to make such a gamble -- Mace could have finished him off just before Anakin would have arrived. Then what would have happened? No, I don't belive Palpatine planned on Anakin attacking Mace, but rather wanted tol prove to him his lies about the order were true. What is more likely is that he planned on killing them all and then would tell Anakin that they attempted to assasinate him -- as he did to the senate. --Robeykr 05:06, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Anakin would not show sympathy for his friend and mentor, Palpatine, if he addressed the situation in the same manner he did the senate; the other way is more cathartic. --24.253.120.206 18:52, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Palpatine doesn't gamble; he forsees, and he plans. He knew Anakin was going to tell Windu that he was Darth Sidious. That is undeniable. Even presuming that Palpatine hadn't been planning this moment years in advance (which is highly doubtful given his nature) does anyone really think that Palpatine didn't immediately go do his farseeing thing as soon as Anakin left his office? By the time Mace got there, Palpatine would have gone over that fight a dozen times; and he would have seen exactly what we saw, that Mace wouldn't kill him while Anakin was there. --Cirdan 00:05, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I've edited the disputed sections to be more factual. For example: stating that Palpatine's appearance transformed, without saying whether that was his true face or whether this was caused directly by the lightning. I also edited the fight to be a little more factual, people can draw their own conclusions as to whether Mace won; or Palpatine just wanted him to think he won ;)
I believe all the speculation about his appearance should go in the Palpatine's appearance section. That way we can keep the Palpatine's empire section clean; yet still cover all the different "disputed" theories in the "appearance" section. --Cirdan 01:58, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Labyrinth of Evil: Hunting Darth Sidious down

Ironically in the novel, Labyrinth of Evil, Palpatine orders the Jedi to hunt Darth Sidious down. --UnknownJohn 16:38, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Sidious' voice?

I believe this topic should be addressed, as it is prevalent to not only the character but the events depicted in Revenge of the Sith. It also happens to be another in a chain of unresolved mysteries concerning Palpatine and the perplexing revelations revolving around him in Episode III. One particular item worthy of notice would be the strange synthesized effects utilized on his speech during the scene where Sidious bestows upon Anakin the title of Darth Vader.


Cleanup

Looks like this article is full of POV stuff. Also, is the "Secret de facto leader of the Separatists" worth mentioning in the succession box? It's not a title, after all. --Sikon

We could simply just not know what the Separatists call their leader; but it is definitely a position of importance, no? --maru 14:49, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
There are debates all over the Starwars articles about trying to keep NPOV. I would suggest that since these are movies then the view that roll of the character is portraying should have the POV by the audience. Perfect no - compromise not really but it would portray the character as it is supposed to be. This brings up a question of who decides what POV is correct or better yet, is the written POV correct? --Supercoop 16:09, 2005 Jun 13 (UTC)
Also, regarding the Senator Palpatine backstory, where did all this info come from? He suffered an early string of defeats early in politics and wrote books on politics and power? Where did this info come from? I think I have a better post for that, taking information from [i]Cloak of Deception[/i], which says that Palpatine chose to stay in politics at age 20 (suggesting that he was in much the same program as a child as Padme Amidala was as a child as well). Also, isn't the Naboo senator appointed by the Naboo monarch, not elected?


Palpatine was Anakin's Father

This is taken from one of the last draft's of the script, but was cut because it was too similar to Empire.

DARTH SIDIOUS-- "I have waited all these years for you to fulfill your destiny... I arranged for your conception. I used the power of the Force to will the midichlorians to start the cell divisions that created you."
ANAKIN-- "I don't believe you."
DARTH SIDIOUS-- "Ahhh, but you know it's true. When you clear your mind, you will sense the truth. you could almost think of me as your father."
ANAKIN-- "That's impossible!"
DARTH SIDIOUS-- "Nevertheless, you must decide."

Confirmation can be found in 'The Making of Revenge of the Sith' on page 42, and on page 64 of the same book the text "The dialogue indicating that PALPATINE is responsible for ANAKIN'S creation has been cut." appears.

Should it be added?


NO NO NO NO NO NO NO! (to the tune of the "Nos" from Bohemian Rhapsody). That is not from a real draft of EpIII. That is from SuperShadow.com which is full of blatant lies, propaganda, and self-promotion! A lot of his junk information is getting around the Internet. (For example, he is a personal friend of GL and is going to be in charge of making the last trilogy of Star Wars movies 20 years from now.) --Tmorrisey 06:15, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
The Making of Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith indeed had a page of early draft script which features Sidious = Anakin's father. Nevertheless it was removed and was no longer canon.


For what it's worth. Although it doesn't explicitly make the analogy of Palpatine being Anakins father, "Star Wars The New Essential Chronology (Star Wars Library)" ISBN: 0345449010 does imply that he did arrange for Anakin to be born without a father. --Rick 02:31, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

End of Empire and Palpatine's death

Palpatine and his First Galactic Empire were destroyed in 10 ABY, not 11 ABY (unless you want to change the date on the Dates in Star Wars article). --Ed Telerionus 7 July 2005 20:37 (UTC)

Official timelines place Dark Empire and Dark Empire II at 10 ABY and Empire's End at 11 ABY. --Jon Hart 17:04, 16 October 2005 (UTC)


Spoiler bump proposal

The Anakin Skywalker article was redirected to Darth Vader until it was decided that was a spoiler, so now Anakin Skywalker is in a separate article with a link to Darth Vader in the end. Mayhap the same should be done for Darth Sidious and Palpatine? Viewers only suspect, but never know for sure, that Darth Sidious and Palpatine are the same person until ROTS. --212.179.195.183 11:43, 21 July 2005 (UTC)


Personal weapon: Hunting rifle?

Where does the "fact" that Palpatine's weapon is a hunting rifle? Until someone can prove otherwise, I will delete it. --Heddfones 15:37, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Am I the only person with Palpatine's weapon as a hunting rifle on my computer? Because when you try to edit the Palpatine page, it's the original article in the edit page. But the article stays the same. --65.33.92.91 15:46, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
The problem is with your browser's cache. Flush it, and get the latest version of the page straight from the Wikipedia servers. --Maru 21:44, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
I'm fairly certain "hunting rifle" originated as a poor attempt at humor. --Anon.
Yeah. Everyone knows his weapons are the Dark side of the Force and his lightsaber, anyways. --Maru (talk) Contribs 04:43, 25 November 2005 (UTC)


Feature Page?

This seems like a pretty big article full of nice tidbits about Palpatine. Is there someone to propose this as a feature page? --Cornince 04:41, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

IMHO, this would be an excellent article to be a candidate to be featured. The guys who have contributed have done a great job covering the entire character of Palpatine, better than most I've seen. However, I doubt with its star wars association it would have much of a chance in the community. --The Wookieepedian 05:34, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
Don't be too sure. This is a very good article, one of the best SW articles. I don't think they could ignore it. But if someone were to seriously consider it, they might want to first go through and add footnotes for various assertions. WP:CITE. --Maru (talk) 16:17, 17 September 2005 (UTC)


Life Saving Powers

In one of the star wars books you read about Vader trying to keep himself alive without his equipment,"as the emperor does." It says his record is about 2 minutes. I cant for the life (lol) of me think of the book but im pretty sure its out there. (if im wrong someone PLEASE TELL ME) --70.105.68.30 23:47, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Shadows of the Empire. From the description, it is simply continuous healing using the Dark side; it does not seem to have anything to do with Plagueis' techniques (in my reading of the text anyways; YMMV). --Maru (talk) 00:11, 14 September 2005 (UTC)


Position

I just noticed this but chancelor of the republic senate is not listed as one of palpatines positions. That might need to be changed. --70.105.106.147 03:19, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Poor picture quality

Most of the photo shots are fine, but the image depicting his blast against Windu is a little off (brightness and contrast in particular). If you want an idea of how it should appear, look no further:

http://www.starwars.com/databank/character/darthsidious/img/movie2_bg.jpg


Proposed Addition: Political Controversy

With the debut of the Revenge of the Sith, popular allegations held that Palpatine's evolution from Chancellor to Emperor was a directly stated parallel to the current American president, George W. Bush. Despite the number of allegations (some of which denied by Lucas himself), the political affiliations of Palpatine are seemingly mixed. In applying modern conservative or liberal ideologies to the Star Wars universe, Palpatine seems to be more centrist/liberal than his other colleagues, including the majority of the Loyalist Committee who fervently back the Military Creation Act. It should be noted that, to Palpatine specifically such political labels are irrelevant due to his Machiavellian approach to attain power. However, it does provide additional context to his rise of power, and the political spectrum of the Star Wars universe.

His politics regarding the Trade Federation and corporate interests reveal him to be a demogogue in a populist sense. His desire to allow the Trade Federation and the Banking Clan to build a mining facility directly below Theed would reveal favoritism, however his advice to then Supreme Chancellor Valorum to tax intergalactic trade routes would seem to be contrary to those politics. His later policies within the Empire are undoubtedly fascist, with many corporations being totally or partially nationalized, with few exceptions (such as Kaut Drive Yards and Siennar Fleet Systems). It is also known that as Emperor, his continued taxation of trade routes reveals a decidedly anti-corporate slant.

Despite the fact that Palpatine appears to have had indirect involvement in the creation of a clone army on Kamino, his politics regarding the Military Creation Act appear to be undefined. His initial distrust of the act appear to be consistent with other Republic senators, such as Bail Organa and Padme Amidala.

Sorry, but this looks to be original research. --The Wookieepedian 20:42, 3 November 2005 (UTC)


Correction...

The current article states:

"Palpatine then persuaded Chancellor Finis Valorum to request the Jedi Council's assistance in mediating the dispute on Naboo. The Council dispatched Qui-Gon Jinn and his padawan, Obi-Wan Kenobi. The Jedi attempted to meet with Nute Gunray, viceroy of the Federation, aboard his flagship. When it seemed the Trade Federation would be forced to end the blockade, Sidious ordered them to kill the Jedi and invade Naboo instead. He assured them that it would be over before the Senate could respond, as he would keep it occupied with other matters. Sidious's goals were apparently to weaken the power of the Trade Federation (one of the key galactic power blocs at the time), and to leverage sympathy from the invasion of his homeworld into political power."

However in the opening crawl of Phantom Menace it states that the Jedi was sent secretly. In addition, Sidious is dismayed that they were brought into this, so it would be odd that Palpatine was the one behind the Jedi being sent to mediate the dispute. --Ramsquire 21:05, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

My guess is that this is either wrong, or Palpatine was acting for the benefit of the Trade Federation- it was in Palpatine's benefit that the Jedi aid the Naboo, keeping Amidala alive, ensuring her escape, frightening the Trade Federation into invading &etc. (I lean towards the latter, but possibly I give Palpatine too much credit.) --Maru (talk) Contribs 04:19, 5 November 2005 (UTC)


New photo: Why?

The last one was much better for the head of the article, though the current one would look cool elsewhere. --Fergananim 22:04, 3 November 2005 (UTC) (or, Fer gan Anim, which looks AND sounds like a Jedi name).

The new photo was definitely a poor choice for the opening segment. On a related note, someone also seems to be adding captions to these stills that are completely irrelevant to the subject matter. The most prominent example was a screenshot from The Empire Strikes Back whose caption featured a detailed account from Expanded Universe material. - Anonymous Wiki Fan
I really like the new picture. It shows that he is a sith lord right off. An I added the caption you are referring to, since the EU is considered on the level of the films, and what I wrote in the caption is said top occur at that moment, so it is truthful, and relevant. --The Wookieepedian
The EU is a lower level of canon than the movies, wookiepedian. You of all people should know that. And I liked the old picture because it simply looked better, and it really revealed the sinister manipulative politician part of him. --Maru (talk) Contribs 19:18, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
The deal with canon is this: the films do in fact take precedence over the EU when continuity issues arise, but that's really the only purpose for distinctions in canon (See: Expanded Universe (Star Wars)). However, both are considered one continuous story. So for instance something revealed in the EU "happened" just the same as an event in one of the films. Shadows of the Empire says that Prince Xizor was standing beside Palpatine at that point, so, according to canon, he was. I was not factually wrong in putting that in the caption. OK, enough of the EU lecture. (I think I need to get out more.) The top image, to me, shows that he truly is a sith lord, wielding the lightsaber with a serious look. That particular point was, as you know, where he revealed his true colors that he wasn't some kind old man. The senate picture that was there before was OK, and I can see what you mean, but it also works well representing him where it is now, under the section on when he was Senator. It represents his "sinister manipulative politician part of him" there under the Senator section, as well. In fact it is probably more effective where it is, becuase, even as a senator, you can see in his face what he has in mind. --The Wookieepedian 20:37, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
Well, if you want a Sith Lord pic, just go for the ones of him on the Death Star mk. II Those are even more Sith-y, and probably even more iconic. --Maru (talk) Contribs 20:47, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
Well, to be honest, that one I've got up there now just looks too cool to remove, IMHO. I mean, he's got his lightsaber out and everything. That was a cool moment for him. The Wookieepedian 21:20, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
I deleted the "Prince Xizor" caption because it was too large and irrelevant to the matter at hand. We understand why it was put there and most of us are already familiar with Shadows of the Empire. The point being that a caption is a caption, not an additional piece for the article (though this information can certainly be added elsewhere). All the caption for a photo needs to have is a brief one or two-line piece about what it is and where it came from (subject and source). - Anon
Two new photo suggestions added to peer review. They may be good alternatives for the header. - Anon


Re: Qui-Gon Jinn

I read somewhere that some people believe Qui-Gon Jinn was specifically targeted by Darth Sidious, as Qui-Gon was apparently the complete antithesis of Sidious. Is this true? --82.92.119.11 5 November 2005 12:34 (UTC)

I know of no basis for this belief. --Maru (talk) Contribs 04:15, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
You might've read it in the article on Qui-Gon Jinn (see the "Overview" section). --Mrwojo 19:19, 6 November 2005 (UTC)


Spoiler warning

I'm not sure how you would fix this, but the spoiler warning is too late, considering that there is a spoiler in the infobox. Possibly only by the Anakin Skywalker/Darth Vader -> Palpatine/Darth Sidious "Spoiler Bump" proposal mentioned above.PRB 10:44, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree. I'm going to be bold and add it in; if anyone has an issue, tell me here. --HereToHelp (talk) 22:21, 21 November 2005 (UTC)


When good wiki's go bad

Has Wikipedia gone mad? This article is longer (and contains far more photographs) than the article on the United States. You fans should really show some restraint and common sense: I thought there was already a Star Wars Wiki for all of this to begin with. -Jleon 16:46, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

There is. But, last time I checked, Palpatine is one of the major characters from the series, and one of the best-known villains of all time, thus, he deserves a place here. And it doesn't matter how large the article on the US is. If those editors want it long, then they make it long, no big deal. The Star Wars Wiki is for very very minor details, and I don't think you could consider Palpatine that minor. --The Wookieepedian 16:57, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not paper- the effort that went into this article would not necessarily have otherwise gone to improving more worthwhile articles. --Maru (talk) Contribs 17:45, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
Yes, but many sections, such as most of the "Dark Empire" material, clearly cross the boundary into fancruft (not to mention the absurdity of "Palpatine on Writing"). I think if you look at most of the material written by your Star Trek counterparts, you'll see the appropriate level of information on topics such as these. --Jleon 15:09, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
The "Dark Empire" section, along with those you mention such as "Palpatine as a writer," are all based off of official sources. That is what the article is based solely on, official sources. --The Wookieepedian 18:41, 23 November 2005 (UTC)


Quotations request

For those who haven't noticed, someone has seen fit to continually add new (and inaccurate) quotations to the list. To give you an idea of what I'm talking about, I checked in this evening to find close to thirty of these "quotes," several of which were full paragraphs that were not remotely close to being verbatim. The rest were so pointless that it was astounding. In the latter category, keep in mind these are examples of actual submissions that a user has been adding (grammatical errors left intact):

"Yes"
"Rise my friend"
"I told you to Wait on the command ship"
"ARGH!"

I'm not sure whether this is a failed attempt at humor or if someone is desperately trying to manipulate a computer for the first time. In any event, I think I speak for everyone when I say "Act your age, not your shoe size." - Anon Wiki Fan


Should the Palpatine vs. Mace duel be reedited?

I would like to talk about the Mace vs. Palpatine piece in this Article. In this article it states:

"Palpatine kept Windu on the defensive until he sensed Anakin arriving at his office and allowed Mace to disarm and disable him."

In audio commentary Lucas says Mace overpowers Palpatine and Palpatine fakes weakness with his lightning. So what I'm saying is shouldn't this be edited?

I'll agree to that. There's been an unfortunate "edit war" going on between fanboys on both sides of the fence and I really wish it would just end. Stick to the facts of the matter, not conjecture. - AWF


Seperating Pages

I've seperated some of the topics into seperate pages to shorten the length. I will finish cleaning up tomorrow. --User:Jedi6 November 26, 2005


Article is too long

To keep this article from being ridiculously overlong (anything over 60 kilobytes is pushing it, don't you think?) extraneous information, i.e. side stories to basic plot points, can be put into a details page. That way, all the information can be detailed, without turning the entry into a behemoth.--Mike Munkvold 22:05, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you. But erasing everything is pointless. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. Try making seperate pages and put the info. there or wait until myself or someone else does. --User:Jedi6 November 27, 2005
Also why don't you make a Wikipedia account instead of using an IP address. --User:Jedi6 November 27, 2005