Talk:Sith

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Film Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Films. This project is a central gathering of editors working to build comprehensive and detailed articles for film topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B
This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
???
This article has not yet received a rating on the priority scale.
Star Wars Portal
This article is part of WikiProject Star Wars, which aims to build an encyclopedic guide to the Star Wars saga on Wikipedia. To participate, you can improve this article or visit the project page for more information.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. Please rate the article and leave a message on the talk page to explain the ratings and to identify possible improvements to the article.
Archive
Archives
Archive 1
Archive 2


Contents

[edit] Rewrite tag

I've added the rewrite tag and taken away two of the unreferenced tags for a number of reasons.

  1. The article obviously uses references, but most of them are not readily apparent. They need to be teased out and cited properly.
  2. Too much of the article is written from an in-universe perspective, treating these as real people (well, Sith). I know it's difficult to write out-of-universe perspective, but there are areas where it should be easier than others; the development that Lucas put into them, the cultural influence the Sith have had, etc.
  3. Excessive use of quoted material. The Philosophy section is a good example of this. While it may make a nice impact to start with a recitation of the tenets, it's not very encyclopedic.
  4. Too many lists. This is most obvious in the timeline and the Ancient Sith sections. Any dates of importance should really be in the text of the article, and I'd suggest spinning off the members of the Sith into a "List of..." article (properly sourced, of course).
  5. Tone. There's quite a bit of personal commentary worked into the wording that needs to be expunged.

That should take care of most of it - have fun. :) 24.6.65.83 05:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

It's hopeless. The hordes of fanboys who edit these articles have no knowledge of or concern for Wikipedia policies and guidelines. -- Jibal 22:12, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I'll go one better than that

This article needs citation, and badly. I would hate to have to begin removing unreferenced statements, as I think it would leave the article an essentially empty page. Therefore, we should wait about a week, to see if some citation work (remember, reliable, verifiable, non-OR references, please) begins making its way into the article. If the article doesn't get more citable, we will have to start removing uncited statements. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:19, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Last chance

In the previous section, I noted that I agreed that the article needed re-writing badly. I also said that if statemetns weren't cited, they would be removed. Since that date, a half-dozen edits were performed, none of them addign a single citation. Since no one has commented about the call for citations, i must presume that a desire for citation appears to be secondary to explaining the psychologu of a fictional order.
At midnight CST, uncited information will be removed. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 19:50, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

As promised, the enormous amount of uncited material from the article was removed to here. It cannot return to the article without significant clean up to remove in-universe references and solid, reliably sourced, noteworthy citation. We can discuss bits that may have been inadvertantly removed in the clean-up, but nothing is going back into the article without citation. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:31, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reverted

You can't delete the entire article - even if it contains uncited material. Add a rewrite tag and a citations needed tag and eventually an 'expert' might sort it out. Don't delete half the article and just leave a few disjointed paragraphs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.137.90.10 (talk) 16:31, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I would entreat you to please cite the material removed and re-add it with reliable, noteworthy and verifiable citation. It isn't going back into the article without it. It would be unencyclopedic to do so. Remember, this isn't Wookiepedia. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 03:18, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Expanded Universe

Since Star Wars is composed of multiple media (films, novels, video games, newspaper comics, comic books), it might be helpful to distinguish the contributions of each of these media to the understanding, development and evolution of the Sith. I am aware that canonicity is going to color these views, and we should probably note that outside of the films, nothing is canon (which certainly affects its notability). Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arcayne (talk • contribs) 10:03, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Actually, everything outside the films is canon, unless it contradicts a point made in the films. Jasca Ducato 09:44, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This Article Is Not About The Sith.

If you are going to write about the "Star Wars universe", and not just the filmed trilogies, show some background. This article should be completely rewritten.

The Sith are not counterparts of the Jedi nor are they Dark Jedi, but are of a far older order, and I don't think they can be described as a cult being that there are always only two: the Master and the Student. They are the Sith; not Jedi.

For a long time they were assumed to have been abolished, but the story I read revealed the Sith Temple.

"Star Wars: Darth Bane: Path of Destruction" "Star Wars: Darth Bane: Rule of Two" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xetheare (talk • contribs) 16:19, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an ubergeek here that has loads of references that can be used about the Sith, but I would have to agree here that this article needs a major rewrite.... nearly to the point that I might even support a VfD on the grounds that this article should simply be rewritten from scratch. Note I'm not saying that this article shouldn't exist in Wikipedia, but this isn't the article it could be. More to the point, I don't see the basic "5 w's" questions being answered in this current version of this article. Who are the Sith? What exactly do they do...especially in contrast to the Jedi? When (in the Star Wars Universe) did the Sith start and what is their history? Where are the Sith found? Why are the Sith motivated to destroy the Jedi, and why would the Sith seek to take over the Galaxy (as in the head of the Sith becoming the "emperor of the Galaxy")? How did the Sith achieve their goals and accomplish the task of galactic conquest?
You can argue a bit that George Lucas didn't leave much in terms of content to answer all of these questions to any great depth, but between the six films and the substantial body of literature in the "Star Wars Universe" you can find answers to a great many of them. What I read in this article is not answering these questions, but it is a movie review (a lousy one at that) of Episodes I-III, emphasizing the Sith perspective.
Unlike many fictional universe topics, the topic of the Jedi and Sith are something that has invaded mainstream culture. Not only can you find in universe content that describes these two topics in some considerable depth, but you can find commentary, books, and articles about the Sith/Jedi relationship that are of a non-fiction orientation as well, not to mention going into depth from what notes George Lucas has mentioned about these two fictional religions and their relationship to real-life religions. When census workers have to come up with codes to record people who have declared the Jedi/Sith theology as their professed religious belief, it certainly it a topic to explain in terms that go well outside the "in universe" dimension. --Robert Horning (talk) 15:10, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Hmmmm. This article used to be much longer. The sith is a philosophy, not just the actions of its followers. And there have been much more sith lords than the onces menchened here.
Is it a way to bring the old article back? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.242.98.174 (talk) 10:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
What about going back to this older version?
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sith&oldid=10644725
I havnt read through it all, so I dont know exaxtly when the old article was on its best - ore exactly when the article was sabotaged. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.242.98.174 (talk) 12:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
There haven't been any sith lords -- they are fictional. The only legitimate way to mention them in a WP article is refer to the real life work, by some real human being, that mentions them. Likewise, there is no sith philosophy, there are only real human beings who have written about the fictional philosophy of these fictional characters. -- Jibal (talk) 09:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, the article used to be longer - full of uncited and speculative cruft. I am the one who removed the majority of it was utterly unencyclopedic. However, as there was a lot of it, I put it into archive 2, with the idea that once it was better written and notably, verifiably, neutrally and reliably cited, it could be added back to the article. Without those things, I am afraid the info has to remain in the archive. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 19:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pronunciation

Hi, everybody! I need some help. Please, would you tell me, what is the correct pronunciation of Sith: [sɪθ] or [sɪt]? Or anything else? Thank you! - Gaja from Hungarian Wikipedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.134.59.200 (talk) 15:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sith

Well a good cite for that is the official star wars databank: Little did anyone suspect how Palpatine had engineered his own rise to power. Hidden beneath a façade of wan smiles and smooth political speeches was a Sith Lord. Q T C 05:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but tell me more about who writes the entries for those? Does Lucas do it? Do the authors of the books? Not bloody likely. Perhaps something a tad more reliable is called for. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 05:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Erm, considering you can't get much more official than the Databanks when it comes to Star War, that'll do fine for a source. Jasca Ducato (talk) 09:47, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
'Official' is something of a generic term. Could I trouble you to answer my question as to who actually fills in these "databanks"? It seems like chunky-monkey fanboy cruft to me, akin to forums discussing who would win in a fight between Superman and Darth Maul. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 16:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
What about the people who decide what is and isn't canon? In fact, the main author of the Databank is Pablo Hidalgo ( a well known Star Wars author) whilst others like Leland Chee (the man who maintains the Holocron continuity database) also contribute; you don't get much more official then that. Might I suggest you head over to Wookieepedia and brush up on your Star Wars knowledge, alot.Jasca Ducato (talk) 20:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestion, but I am an editor in Wikipedia, not Wookieepedia. We don't write articles for fanboys, but for the newcomers to the subject. I don't have to know all about Star Wars; I just have to make sure that what is included is allowable and not likely to be challenged (info challenged requires good citation). As for who determines what is and isn't canon - I think you are missing a key element of the issue, which is that here at Wikipedia, we don't give a rat's ass what is considered canon; the requirements of inclusion are reliable, notable citation, and not canon or truth.
Another problem presented by the citation is that of all those folk you mentioned, not one of them has their name on the info you cited. Without identification, notability is not there, and reliability is not there. Hope that explains where I am coming from. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arcayne (talk • contribs) 22:47, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
No need for rudeness, Arcayne; everyone knows what serious business Wikipedia is. Besides, you're being unfair. Q offered a legitimate source for citation in this article. It is not "chunky-monkey fanboy cruft," but officially sanctioned information, regardless of its notability. You call "official" a generic term, but there is a noted difference between a Web site that can print "© Lucasfilm 2008. All rights reserved." on the bottom of its homepage and fora where fans who are not affiliated with Lucasfilm, the people who actually make Star Wars, discuss who would win in a fight between Superman and Darth Maul.
As for who determines what is and isn't canon, you asked who these people are and Jasca Ducato answered you. If you're so adamant about not applying it to your edits on Wikipedia, why did you ask in the first place and then vulgarly dismiss the answer once it was given? Regardless, canon [i]is[/i] important when writing about published fiction. What else is keeping fanon, fanfic, fancruft, etc. from infecting legitimate articles? Surely there is nothing notable about Xetheare's Anakin/Ki-Adi-Mundi slash. Jon Hart (talk) 21:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Might I press you to point out where I was rude? Not for nothing, but I didn't recommend that someone needed to learn more before editing. Being flippant is not the same as being rude, Jon. I meant no slam towards Jasca.
As for the citation, I agree that the sourcing is better than a fanboy forum, but that's like saying a glass full of poop is better than a glass with only a little bit of poop in it is better. It's still sewage. I think there is a major difference between the site in question and something like Leaky Cauldron (a website specifically-endorsed by JK Rowling for info on all things Harry Potter). One is personally endorsed by the creator whilst the other is not. The difference is that one can specifically be said to be following the specific vision of the creator. A corporate logo - not specifically ensconced within the subject material (Lucasfilm does a lot more than Star Wars stuff) - cannot be legitimately be said to be doing the same. As well, the anonymous nature of the entries leave a great deal open as to the credibility of the information presented.
While I don't recall asking what is canon, you asked a question about how we determine what is canon and what is not and its legitimacy within Wikipedia. Canon is indeed important when writing about fiction, but that importance takes a back seat to notability, reliability and verifiability. If the aforementioned slash fiction is notably, reliably and verifiably cited, we can include it. This keeps out a lot of the wacky Darth Maul/Padme sex stories because they fail on every level: the info, uploaded by someone non-notable (notability issue), can pull the story at any time (verifiability issue) and is not reliably a description of events within the universe. Notability is determined a great many times by consensus. If a lot of people (and not just the fanboy-types) editing the article decide that the weekend getaway, shopping spree and bathroom habits of Darth Dookie isn't notable, then it isn't.
Understand that I am not claiming that the cite in question is utter cruft. I just think we should limit the information we take from it to those bits with an actual author's name attached to it. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 22:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
The site that Jasca Ducato referred to, and specifically the page referred to, is itself fiction, and thus is not a reference for anything. The subject of this article is a fictional sect or group of characters; what the article must be about is the real-life context of those characters -- who originated them and what role -- in general terms -- they played in his work, as well as major additional influences on other authors and works. Appropriate references are reliable sources about the works of fiction, not the works of fiction themselves. The bottom line is that WP contains fact, not fiction (although it can contain facts about fiction). -- Jibal (talk) 09:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Splendidly put, Jibal. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 16:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Images

Both the images have sources attached. So please stop removing them Jasca Ducato (talk) 18:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but those sources do not actually have the images you keep insisting are vital to the article. Please, find a well-cited image (maybe Dooku or Vader or Maul) to add along with a really good rationale and summary, and then we can talk about it. As it is, the Sith flag seems...amateurish. Next, folk will be wanting to color the infoboxes. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] In-universe material

I have just had to re-edit this article again to remove in universe material. Please stop writing about this subject as if it were something that existed in the real world. (Ex: "fictional dark side Force users". What the hell is that supposed to mean?) That kind of stuff is what Wookiepedia is for. Treybien 12:53 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! I was wondering who I was going to have to put through Shaken Baby Syndrome to get them to listen. Your edits are pretty good, btw - even though that whole Sith code thing from the video game stanks to high heaven of fanboy cruftiness - Arcayne (cast a spell) 13:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism in article?

> The predations of Gay Sidious <

I don't think there was that much political correctness stuffed into the SW saga! 91.83.15.125 (talk) 21:39, 29 May 2008 (UTC)