Encyclopedia of Speculative Fiction

Talk:Palpatine

From the Encyclopedia of Speculative Fiction - http://encyclopedia.wizards.pro

Image:Sandworm heretics.jpg

The sandworm is a native lifeform of the planet Arrakis. It lives in the vast sand dunes that stretch across the surface of the planet, and is a by-product of the same process that creates the Spice Melange.

Sandworms typically stay beneath submerged in the sand, although occasionally they will surface. They are attracted to rhythmic vibrations, including human footsteps, which perturb them and will cause them to attack the source. Archives: 1 2

Contents

[edit]

Possible Dark Empire discrepancy retcon...

Did Leland Chee actually provide a reason for this retcon? If Palpatine first died around the same time the Battle of Yavin took place, why does it matter? It doesn't contradict anything in ROTS, so why retcon this? Also, Palpatine discovered the path to immortality AFTER his speech to Anakin (lie or not) in ROTS, while the Jedi Master Ashka Boda was brought before him during the aftermath of Order 66. That explains everything, there is no need for a retcon. It explains why Palpatine was so interested in Vader succeeding him, and then seemingly decides that isn't necessary after he discovers the path to immortality. Palpatine's disfiguration is still ambiguous despite what Pablo Hidalgo or the Databank exclaims, so that doesn't factor into this at all. Besides, Palpatine looked exactly the same as his post-Mace fight self when he is introduced in Dark Empire within a clone body. Explaining away the reason why he looked similar in DE by saying it was due to the degerative affects of the Dark Side ONLY on his new bodies makes no sense. He looked EXACTLY the same, not "similar", proving that his use of Dark Side power still had something to do with the deformation and that no scarring occured. Mr. Tasty Taste is just so fanatically infatuated with retcons, that he can't help but retcon every single piece of EU literature even if these works don't warrant it. What does this retcon accomplish? Why was it made? [Unsigned comment by Exor]

  • Why does everyone always blame Leland Chee for these continuity decisions? He doesn't make them, he just puts them in the Holocron continuity database after a committee makes the decision. Hell, for all we know, the decision came from George Lucas himself. jSarek 19:55, 10 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Maybe so, but that still doesn't change the fact that we aren't given a reason as to why such a retcon is necessary. Basically, Mr. Chee just said "This is the way it is..." and thats all we get. Anyway, its inclusion into the article is a bit unexplained. As it is now, it's just there. --Exor 01:55, 11 Nov 2005 (UTC)

  • What retcon are you talking about? - Sikon [Talk] 17:49, 11 Nov 2005 (UTC)
[edit]

Seperation between Expanded and Film canon

I feel that expanded universe material in this article specifically _needs_ to be seperated because there are many Star Wars fans out there—myself among them—who believe that much of what the EU has to say about Palpatine's continuing existence after ROTJ is blasphemy. If Palpatine survives ROTJ, then the prequels and Vader's return to the Light Side are completely pointless; knowing how things turn out in the EU makes watching ROTJ completely anti-climactic. I believe that film canon is film canon and overrules all other, so in my opinion Palpatine is definitively destroyed along with the entire Dark Side (as prophesied in the prequels) when Darth Vader dies and Anakin is reborn.

This opinion does not need to be expressed in the article, but I feel that the article doesn't leave any room for that opinion because it makes no seperation between film and EU canon. —qrc

  • What fans think doesn't change the fact that Dark Empire is considered canon by LFL. It's even one of the few EU pieces that Lucas actually likes. Since no other article separates film information form EU information, there's no reason to do it here. Kuralyov 20:37, 6 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • We have already neutralized the Dark Empire part of the article with the, "Darth Sidious, once the greatest Dark Lord of the Sith, was finally dead". It is considered canon, so the best thing we could do is neutralize it more --if this is possible-- or add something Behind the Scenes. --Master Starkeiller 21:04, 6 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • Why seperate anything? Are you suggesting we should have dividers between film canon and EU canon just because some fans don't like Dark Empire? Some fans don't like the EU period, must we have dividers on every page just because of a few opinions? No thank you. Demented Smiloid 21:34, 6 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • This wiki is based on canon alone, not the whims of the fans, and more likely the fanboys. We won't change the chronological layout just because someone doesn't believe in the EU. -- Riffsyphon1024 22:10, 6 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • We should add a section to Dark Empire describing how some fans disliked it.-LtNOWIS 01:44, 7 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • If you want "seperation", then don't read the Palpatine Reborn (10 ABY to 11 ABY) section. It's already seperated into sections anyway - it's quite obvious where the film stuff ends and the EU stuff begins. --Azizlight 11:07, 7 Sep 2005 (UTC)
[edit]

Endless

Goddamn, does this never end. People, particularly an anon and Starkeiiler are adding and removing the years and the succession box. Starkeiller alone has over 30 edits on this page in the last 3 days. Must I have to reprotect this page? More so, do you need to learn how to use the preview button? -- Riffsyphon1024 18:27, 7 Sep 2005 (UTC)

  • If I have done a mistake, I come back to correct it. That's why I edit so much? Where is the problem with that? Does the number of edits affect anything? --Master Starkeiller 19:19, 7 Sep 2005 (UTC)
[edit]

Picture

This may be nitpicking, but could we get a picture of Palpatine hooded and cloaked in the character box? I mean, when you think of Emperor Palpatine, what comes to mind: Elderly, grandfather like statesman, or the Dark Lord of the Sith? -- SFH 14:14, 14 Sep 2005 (UTC)

  • But the current image does portray him as both. He is in his Supreme Chancellor clothing, but he has that sneer of evil on his face, and seeing how Episode III was his transitional phase, I think the picture suits his character well. -- Riffsyphon1024 17:58, 14 Sep 2005 (UTC)
    • I suppose you're right. Just a thought. -- SFH 18:20, 14 Sep 2005 (UTC)
      • The current one is nice, but it's not the real Palpy.

Palpy = sidious1024x7688uv.jpg. But it's not a really problem, is it? --Master Starkeiller 18:29, 14 Sep 2005 (UTC)

    • Uh, I was thinking something like Palpatine on Death Star II...and preferably one that didn't get so upclose to his scars. -- SFH 18:37, 14 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • The current main image is terrible by the way, very bad quality and lighting. I much preffered the RotS one we had before. --Azizlight 00:13, 25 Oct 2005 (UTC)
  • I kind of like this one. I always thought we should have a picture of Palpatine hooded and cloaked, but the only acceptable images would have been from Episode VI. And is it just me, or does Palpatine actually look worse in Episode III than in Episode VI? -- SFH 00:39, 25 Oct 2005 (UTC)
    • I like the actual image, i'm just complaining about the quality of that particular image uploaded. And I agree, the Emperor's make-up job in RotJ was far superior to that in RotS. --Azizlight 00:48, 25 Oct 2005 (UTC)
      • Seriously, I think someone should try to take an image from their DVD player, a jpg, and see if they could do any better (and with Palpatine, its hard to tell the quality of the image considering Palpatines skin in the first place isn't in great shape). Redemption
        • Yes I know, and that's why it's better just to stick with the promo pics, at least until we can get a really nice and clean sceenshot from RotJ somehow. --Azizlight 04:31, 25 Oct 2005 (UTC)
          • The R.o.t.S. is superior to the old one by far. It's smooth and realistic. It doesn't fall off in pieces and is nicely put together. The best Sidious pics are the promotional images from the Ep. III bunch where he holds his saber, like the two beneath.
            If anyone can find them without the fan-made backgrounds, they're perfect. --Master Starkeiller 20:05, 25 Oct 2005 (UTC)
  • I can remove the background but I still stand by that it should be a ROTJ image since the ROTS looks more like a mask and isn't his final movie appearance anyway.Redemption
    • Well, the current RotS image should stay, since it has a very good quality. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 22:15, 25 Oct 2005 (UTC)
      • Just because its good quality? What kind of logic is that? Redemption
        • Well, your picture didn't exactly have a good quality. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 22:54, 25 Oct 2005 (UTC)
          • Who cares about my picture?! It doesn't matter whos picture it is as long as its an image of him in his most recent appearance.

Image:Palpatine243154.jpg Does this show any improvement? Redemption

            • Let's keep the current one until we find one with better quality and prosthetics that actually blend with Ian's skin. --Master Starkeiller 09:57, 27 Oct 2005 (UTC)
  • Here's a good one from R.o.t.J.:

But it's neither very good quality nor good enough as the one we have now. --Master Starkeiller 12:39, 27 Oct 2005 (UTC)

  • We had an image of Palpatine smiling on the Death Star II, that i can no longer find on this wiki. It was during Luke and Vader's duel, just after Vader had thrown his saber at Luke. Does anyone remember the picture I'm talking about? If so, I think that would satisfy our lighting problem. -- SFH 21:39, 28 Oct 2005 (UTC)
[edit]

What the Holocron says

For what's it worth, from the weblog of Leland Chee, and the dates of character births in the Holocron continuity database -

(By the way - ages with fractions, you round the BBY dates up to the nearest year, and the ABY ones down to the nearest year).

Link

If this makes any difference. QuentinGeorge 10:36, 17 Sep 2005 (UTC)

  • Whatever... Let's keep it as it is and we'll be fine. --Master Starkeiller 11:09, 17 Sep 2005 (UTC)
    • Um, no. This is the statement of the official keeper of Star Wars continuity. If he says Palpatine was born in 82 BBY, then that's when he was born. If he meant that Palpatine was born circa 82 BBY, then he would have added in a "~." 82 BBY is the official date of Palpatine's birht, we finally have an incontrovertible source. Kuralyov 17:44, 20 Sep 2005 (UTC)
      • Couldn't he have said this earlier so we could have avoided this stupid edit war and all the nasty thing that were said because of it? Ah well, I might as well get used to the damn date... I might even start to like it since it seems to be final... If he was only 64 when his face was deformed by the Dark Side to the level he looked like he was a thousand years old and he had to hide his true face, he is the most powerful Force user ever... And if the official keeper of Star Wars Continuity that is responsible for so many helpful ret-cons says so, what can I say? --Master Starkeiller 15:33, 20 Sep 2005 (EDT)
        • I say who gives a damn about it anymore. Case closed. -- Riffsyphon1024 21:22, 20 Sep 2005 (EDT)
[edit]

Dantius Schmantius

  • Is there some way to stop all of these constant additions of this StuporShadow poodoo to the article? jSarek 21:39, 21 Sep 2005 (UTC)
    • Silly Dan left him a message. Lets give this user a day. After that, if he keeps it up I say we block him. --SFH 17:44, 21 Sep 2005 (EDT)
      • The thing is, it's not just one user; Looking through the edit history, at least three anons have made the change in the past two days. jSarek 21:50, 21 Sep 2005 (UTC)
    • Really? We may be experiencing a SuperShadow invasion. Meditate on this, I will... -- SFH 22:02, 21 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Thank you fellow users for backing me up. Oh and Silly Dan, Google it!

  • You should go google Supershadow, O anonymous person. — Silly Dan 23:18, 21 Sep 2005 (UTC)
    • Hopefully, this won't start another edit war. "Dantius" is not Palpatine's name, and "Khameir Sarin", although being a possible name for Maul, was never given as the official name. This is all SuperShadow crap, and, for all we know, SuperStupid himself might be the one doing all of this. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 23:29, 21 Sep 2005 (UTC)

I'M NOT SUPERSHADOW! I there is a slight possibility that Dantius isn't his name but if you google it, I have got over a hundred sites to prove it. And that is mauls name. It is in books! I will keep on puting Dantius and Khameir up there!

  • Dantius is NOT Palpatine's real name! And that is not Maul's official name! Therefore, after I revert this article, I REQUEST FOR IT TO BE LOCKED. That way, our SuperShadow follower here will not be able to post up these false facts. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 23:44, 21 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • Then you (not Cmdr. J. Nebulax, Prince Xizor) will likely be banned by one of the admins, or at least blocked from editing this page, I'm afraid. Dantius Palpatine is a fanon fabrication, and all of the websites using that name are fanfiction, unofficial message boards, or people quoting Supershadow. (As for the number of sites, "Cos Palpatine", which is equally unofficial but at least comes from conjecture from Lucas's early drafts, gets almost as many hits.) You may have a point about Khameir, but I suggest you don't add it until someone gives an English-language official source for the name. — Silly Dan 23:47, 21 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I am calm, I would gladly take Mauls real name off of there but I am sticking up for what I believe. I can fight fire with fire by here stating, I can(or get somebody to) erase everyting about Plageius becuase it was never proven to be real. The only thing there is about it is that they simply mentioned him in EP. III. They never proved it to be real.

  • Then, we revert the edit to put up all of the facts about Plageius again. Plus, that is not Maul's real name. At least we know that most of the Plageius stuff is true, unlike the false items like "Dantius" and "Khameir Sarin". Cmdr. J. Nebulax 23:55, 21 Sep 2005 (UTC)

I don't know how you can say that because it is in books. I know that it is not in American books but it is in books and I would go to Italy just to prove a point! --Prince Xizor

  • Well then go to Italy already and leave us alone. --Azizlight 00:26, 22 Sep 2005 (UTC)
    • Listen Prince Xizor, you cannot keep adding Dantius Palpatine to the article until you PROVE its OFFICIAL source, and IF you can do that, then the Wiki community will decide on whether it should be included in the article or not. For now, leave this article alone, or an Admin is likely to ban you from using the site. --Azizlight 00:38, 22 Sep 2005 (UTC)
      • Even better; if you can prove that this name is stated in an official source - an actual Lucasfilm-sanctioned publication or direct statement from George Lucas or Leland Chee quoted in a reliable source (this means, among other things, not StuporShadow) - then we will be *obligated* to include it. Until then, however, we have EVERY REASON to believe this is patently fanon, and will continue to keep it out of the article. The Plagueis stuff has such a source - the novelization of Revenge of the Sith. "Dantius" does not - as we can see in a post made on this thread at the Official Site, Leland Chee, who maintains the Holocron continuity database, states "Sometimes, aside from a title, all we have is the last name, ie Palpatine, Dooku, Panaka, Typho." Palpatine's first name is currently unknown. jSarek 01:24, 22 Sep 2005 (UTC)

OK! You won. Just keep in mind that I am NOT sorry for what I have done and hope someday in the future someone will prove it. I do request to put the name Dantius, Cos and Albert under the behind the scenes as fanon names.

  • If you check, you'll see that they're already there (at least the first two; hadn't heard of Albert before). jSarek 01:45, 22 Sep 2005 (UTC)

I am soooooo sorry. I wouldn't have even started this edit conflict if I had known that. Oh and yes, Albert is one of his fanon names.

    • I would shoot myself if his name was Albert Palpatine. -- Riffsyphon1024 02:21, 22 Sep 2005 (UTC)

What in the San Hill's been going on here today? I spent a lot of time incorporating my research into this page, I go to sleep, go to work, visit my girl, eat, and come home only to find this game of fanon badminton going on all day! "He's Dantius, he's not, he's Dantius, he's not!" And this unidentified computer-number person is running roughshod all over our work (why just single my work out when others did a lot more?). Can somebody figure it out? Is he trying to make a point? Or is he doing this just to pull our chains? I hate that.

I want to know Palpatine's first name as badly as anyone here, and possibly more than some. That he has a first name is likely, given the nature of names among the Naboo. I can even concede that Dantius sounds good as a name. But he doesn't have one that has been verified in ANY official source whatsoever. If one had appeared, I'd know about it, and others would have to race me to the keyboard to get it in here! In any case, if someone wants to make the case that Dantius IS real, can he/she show me the money? Scan your printed source and put it up here, so we can see it, agree to it, and end this absurd show! Otherwise, back off!

In any case, I'd hoped to keep on beefing up the article with VERIFIABLE facts (of which the name Dantius is not), but if he's gonna keep manifesting a stick up his heinder, I say lock it off and let him cool his heels. I can wait. It gives me more time to compose my entry words. Please let me know, Steve, if you like what I'm writing, or if you want to try some other approach. Thanks to Nebulax, Silly Dan, JSarek, SFH, Azizlight, and all the others who stuck up for common sense. And send a computer-crippling shock through to this unknown gunman's system, Steve, if you'd be so kind. Best regards. Erik Pflueger 04:22, 22 Sep 2005 (UTC)

  • I gave him a nice whack with the ban hammer; hopefully he'll have learned his lesson by the end of his twenty-four hours. – Aidje talk 05:59, 22 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • I should note the closest we've ever got to an official first name isn't "Dantius" - it's "Ethril" - which nearly made it into the Episode I VD until vetoed by GL. It's still not official, though. QuentinGeorge 06:09, 22 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • LOCK THE DAMN PAGE, BLOCK THE GUYS!!! This isn't debatable. Supers^!t are forbidden in here. I have grown to hate edit wars and this one is meaningless since there's no debate. Just crap spewed out by that retarted piece of dim-witted crap called Supershadow that some people unfortunately believe. And I hope Ethril becomes official, it sounds so cool. --Master Starkeiller 14:07, 22 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • If the user continues, I would rather block him/her/it/whatever than lock the page again. -- Riffsyphon1024 14:16, 22 Sep 2005 (UTC)
    • If he reverts again, please ban him immediately. And I suggest that someone who may know some things about the "Ethril" name replace it with the Supers^!t mention in the "Behind the Scenes" Section. --Master Starkeiller 14:33, 22 Sep 2005 (UTC)
      • We really need to leave that in, so people can know that StuporShadow's comment isn't some new information that they need to write into the article, but stupid, worthless fraud they should mock mercilessly. jSarek 14:37, 22 Sep 2005 (UTC)
        • Damn SuperStupid, the mess he has created... Okay, but let's add the Ethril name too... --Master Starkeiller 15:21, 22 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Hey, I already said that I stopped. And no you didn't ban me. I didn't know that Dantius was already there and I want all of what has been to be a thing of the past! I said I was sorry. And by the way, I don't think Supershadow created Dantius.

[edit]

Lightning at the Face

In ROTS, Palpatine tried to kill Mace with Force Lightning, but Mace blocked it with his lightsaber. So his lightning backfired, and his face deformed, so why didn't Sidious stop firing, I mean if he felt the pain of his own lightning, you'll think he would stopped firing right away. Double D 21:50, 22 Sep 2005 (UTC)

  • He did this on purpose to reveal his real face while presenting it as an injury. That's one of the theories, the one I believe. There are many others, but according to all theories, Palpatine wanted to look injured and weak in Anakin's eyes. --Master Starkeiller 22:31, 22 Sep 2005 (UTC)
    • Exactly. In order to gain Anakin, the Chosen One, as his Sith Apprentice, Palpatine had to make Anakin "save" him from Mace Windu. It was all just one big plot. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 22:37, 22 Sep 2005 (UTC)

What confuses me is Luke, Anakin, Mace and Palpatine were all shocked at sometime, but only Palpatine face deformed. Double D 01:19, 17 Oct 2005 (UTC)

  • That's why I think the deformities = effect of Force lightning theory can't be accurate. --Master Starkeiller 18:38, 17 Oct 2005 (UTC)
    • I agree. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 21:47, 17 Oct 2005 (UTC)
      • Believe it or not, it is in the Databank [1]:
      • Neither Anakin, Dooku nor Luke were hit by their own' Force lightning, however. QuentinGeorge 06:10, 18 Oct 2005 (UTC)
With Anakin Skywalker's help, Sidious was able to defeat Mace, though he was severely scarred by the reflected power of his dark side lightning. To conceal his disfigured visage, Sidious returned to his simple Sith robes.
      • Actually, it was once on the Talk page, but it got archived. And I tried adding the link to the article (with an explanation) to end the debate once and for all, but it was deleted. - Sikon [Talk] 04:25, 18 Oct 2005 (UTC)
        • I don't say the lightning had nothing to do with it... Some sources say it was the lightning, some say it was his true face. Lightning did have something to do with it... --Master Starkeiller 15:24, 18 Oct 2005 (UTC)

So what happend to his face before he became a politition? Double D 19:13, 18 Oct 2005 (UTC)

  • The other explanation is that the dark side of the Force simply deforms people with it's corrupting power. That phenomenan is shown in Dark Empire and KOTOR. I think that affected Palpatine, especially after he gets the Empire established and can focus more on the Dark Side, but it was the lightning that actually warped his face.-LtNOWIS 20:25, 19 Oct 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, 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 lightning, why did his face go from normal, to Sidious, to semi-normal, and back to Sidious again. If the lightning scarred and burned 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 regular Wikipedia article 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. Shot #1 Shot #2 Shot #3 Shot #4 All of these pictures are in chronological order. --Exor 18:10, 4 Nov 2005 (UTC)

  • Never noticed before... That's what call "evidence"... --Master Starkeiller 20:47, 4 Nov 2005 (UTC)
[edit]

Adding Palpatine's Speeches to the Article

A question for the group, since a lot of people have a stake in this particular page. I want to add, where applicable, portions of the speeches made by Palpatine. I'd do them in the way you'd expect, in italics and quotation marks, the works. Though I'd love to add the speeches in their entirety, it'd REALLY fill up the page, so I'll just stick to the passages, possibly no longer than a few sentences, tops, that are most relevant.

Why ask at all? Well, as I do my level best to beef up these pages with the G- and C-level canon, both obvious and very obscure, that I've spent a good ten years or more accumulating, I'll probably honk off at least a couple people. It's for a good cause, true, but let's face it, egos are involved, and I'd be no different. So, rather than just impose myself on the page, "Dantius-style," and get deleted, I thought I'd be considerate.

Want a sample? Well, take the biggie, the "glorious speech" we all know about. I'd use a few words to set it up, and then go:

"In order to ensure our stability and continuing security, the Republic will be reorganized into the first Galactic Empire, for a safe and secure society which I assure you, will last for ten thousand years. An empire that will continue to be ruled by this august body, and a sovereign ruler chosen for life..."

And since I quoted a passage that was longer than what Palpatine said in the film, I would like to state that on principle, if it is relevant, I will be using material from the final draft scripts to supplement the film's lines if, and ONLY if, it is not contradicted by anything else. Why? Well, mostly because it is G-level to me, and it is a published source.

I would also like to ask to be allowed to add brief quotations from in-universe text sources. For instance, if I wanted to remark on what was officially said about Palpatine's dissolution of the Senate, I'd open up the handy-dandy Imperial Sourcebook and type in:

To better protect our citizens and our member worlds, the Emperor has superseded and suspended the Imperial Senate for the duration of this emergency. The moffs and the grand moffs will now have direct control over their systems until such time as the danger has passed. We are sure who shall all do everything in your power to assist us during this time of crisis.

Notice there's no quotation marks this time around, because it comes from a printed text source rather than a person's mouth (or whatever passes for a mouth, depending on the species).

Anyway, there's my proposal. Please consider it, and let me know what you'd like to see. I hope you will agree, because I dearly wish to expand upon and enrich the Palpatine article to the best of my abilities (no fanon allowed, don't worry). He's not only my favorite character, but the one with the richest possibilities for an encyclopedic article.

Thanks for your consideration, and best regards!

Erik Pflueger 02:39, 23 Sep 2005 (UTC)

  • I think the dissolution of the Senate should probably go into the Imperial Senate article, or an actual article about the dissolution. As for the Declaration of the New Order, I think it deserves a place in here. -- SFH 02:43, 23 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • I think we could make new speech and quote pages like Wikipedia does at Wikiquot. Call it Wookieequote. -- Riffsyphon1024 03:00, 23 Sep 2005 (UTC)
[edit]

Palpatine/Bush

While I'm aware Lucas has stated that there are similarities to Emperor Palpatine and George W. Bush, I think we should not include it in the Behind the Scenes section, as it has the potential to be to politically polarizing, and I do not like speaking ill of the dead, even if they are fictitious. -- SFH 00:54, 29 Sep 2005 (UTC)

I've been thinking about this for some time, friends, and I feel I can take a crack at this and have it be factual and at the same time not so polarizing. As the article states, inspiration for Palpatine and his Empire came from sources spread across history, because the phenomenon of a state or an individual acquiring fantastic discretionary powers in a crisis is not at all unique to the present. We would be honest with the material by framing it in these terms.

We know, for instance, that the constitutional crisis ignited by President Richard M. Nixon in the early 1970s served Lucas as inspiration for the character of Palpatine. It would not be an exaggeration or a biased opinion to state that, in similar fashion, Lucas used post-9/11 events (which resulted in the overwhelming passage of new measures - like the controversial Patriot Act - and the creation of new and massive governmental security agencies - like the Department of Homeland Security) as inspiration when he wrote Episodes II and III. Other writers in the Expanded Universe followed suit, resulting in the naming of certain of Palpatine's agencies after agencies created under the Bush presidency - The Department of Homeland Security became the Department of Homeworld Security, for example. In the politically charged atmosphere of the early 2000s, these subtle satirical elements raised a debate among some Star Wars fans as to just what the saga's political underpinnings were.

Something along these lines, I feel, would get the point across without throwing language around that misdirects the issue. The purpose of the Wookieepedia, I have felt, is to relay factual information about the saga and the creative process that put it together, not to use such information to support one side or the other on any person or event. The sole exception to this would be what Lucas' own opinion on said person or event would be, and these are difficult to always determine. For one thing, Lucas tends to be private by nature, and with certain exceptions keeps his opinions close to the vest. For another, Lucas has never believed in hitting people over the heads with his opinion, since he felt this would effectively alienate half his audience, and by all accounts he believes in the Gene Roddenberry method of approaching sensitive subjects from the side rather than the front.

Hope this seems a sound suggestion that appeals to all sides. Erik Pflueger 03:06, 29 Sep 2005 (UTC)

  • This is an encyclopedia. Plapatine reflects Nixon and Bush like he reflects many other "dictators". Fact. Patriot Act = Palpatine's dictatorial Acts. The Homeworld security thing is obvious... No matter how polarising it may be, it is a fact and belongs there... --Master Starkeiller 11:20, 29 Sep 2005 (UTC)
[edit]

Informing Vader

Are we sure that Palpatine really lied to Vader about him killing Padme? I mean, maybe there was a holocam that recorded the events on the landing pad between Anakin, Obi-Wan, and Padme, and Palpatine simply thought he was telling Vader the truth. -- SFH 22:54, 14 Oct 2005 (UTC)

  • According to Leland Chee [2], Palpatine didn't know Padme's children were alive. Does it also mean he didn't know Padme was alive? - Sikon [Talk] 12:47, 16 Oct 2005 (UTC)
[edit]

This has really been bugging me...

Hopefully there's a good answer, but probably not.

Where did that shaft actually go? I mean, the DS2 was 900km wide. They were in the Emperor's observation tower, which is above the outer shell, so the main reactor was roughly 450km below them.

Was there a set of secondary reactors near the surface? Or did Darth Pruneface just hit the deck somewhere and explode on impact? —Darth Culator (talk) 18:29, 16 Oct 2005 (UTC)

I think you might as well ask why Palpatine had a pit like that in his private chamber to begin with (except maybe so he could throw other people into it). There probably is no logical explanation for it, but it makes more dramatic sense than Luke & Anakin's moment happening alongside a dead Sith Lord. :) --Schrei 19:02, 16 Oct 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, acording to the Original Trilogy locations guide, Palpatine's throne room was about 100 meters (I believe) above the second Death Star's surface. Which meant he either fell a long way in a short time to the Death Star's core, or on his way down to the core, he hit the side and detonated. The more reasonable one would probably be number two. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 19:07, 16 Oct 2005 (UTC)
  • In that case, the article is incorrect in saying that it was the heat of the reactot which caused the explosion seen on Palpatine's death. I suggest something along the lines of " So great were the energies of the Dark Side which had been imbued in the Sith Lord's body that when the fall killed him they escaped in an explosion which engulfed a great area" rather than the existing passage "The massive energies of the reactor at the bottom of the pit incinerated the tyrant's body upon collision, causing a massive explosion that engulfed the surrounding area."
    • The energy was visible. So the reactor definitely had something to do with it. The body didn't have to reach the bottom for it to explode. Perhaps the lightning ignited the energy particles or something... --Master Starkeiller 17:22, 29 Oct 2005 (UTC)
      • Then why did C'Baoth detonate just like Palpatine in the text of the Last Command? Mara Jade impaled him on her saber, than C'Baoth exploded. No reactor energy involved. Demented Smiloid 18:00, 29 Oct 2005 (UTC)
        • Definitely sounds like this is something that happens when an obscenely powerful Sith or Dark Jedi dies.
      • My whole point was, he really couldn't have reached the main reactor that quickly. The main reactor was 450,000 meters down from their location, give or take a few hundred. The distance from the Emperor's tower to the center of the main reactor is roughly 1,181 times the height of the Empire State Building, assuming my math is right (which it might not be, since contrary to my username I actually hate math). That would be a l-o-n-g fall. Either he had to hit a catwalk or outcropping or something and explode from his own dark energies, or there was some kind of energy stream coming up the shaft that he intersected with spectacular results (which makes the placement of a shaft from the reactor to the throne room even stupider), or it wasn't a shaft to the main reactor at all (which would contradict everything I've ever heard about that event). I prefer the theory that he hit the deck or wall and cracked his head open or broke his neck or something equally grisly, and the waves of power coming back up the shaft were the visible manifestation of all his dark side energy being released. But nobody has ever given us a detailed analysis of Darth Pruneface's exact cause of death, and they probably never will. —Darth Culator (talk) 00:06, 30 Oct 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, as we can see by the shaft, there were many catwalks in the shaft, so I'd have to agree with Darth Culator. He probably either hit the side or smashed against a catwalk. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 11:44, 30 Oct 2005 (UTC)
    • (gets a mental image of an unlucky stormtrooper standing on the catwalk when Palpy impacted on it)
  • I'll go with the "ignited the air" theory. --Master Starkeiller 11:49, 30 Oct 2005 (UTC)
[edit]

Eleventh picture

  • Not for the main picture, but for the eleventh one, I have three better images that can replace it.
1.
Image:VEEEERY VERY NASTY.jpg
The Supreme Chancellor shows the Jedi his true colors
2.
Image:VERY NASTY.jpg
The Supreme Chancellor shows the Jedi his true colors
3.
Image:Against Windu.jpg
The Supreme Chancellor shows the Jedi his true colors
4. (No change)
The Supreme Chancellor shows the Jedi his true colors
Enlarge
The Supreme Chancellor shows the Jedi his true colors

Which one should it be?

  • I'd still go with the one that's up there now, to tell you the truth. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 19:17, 29 Oct 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, that's an option too. But these ones have better quality and show him either feral or smug. In the current one, he looks very neutral. --Master Starkeiller 19:23, 29 Oct 2005 (UTC)
    • I still say the current one only because it clearly shows his face and shows his rage. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 19:28, 29 Oct 2005 (UTC)
[edit]

Pronunciation

Is that needed? All it does it take up space. Plus, the blocks don't give much help when saying "Palpatine". Cmdr. J. Nebulax 15:25, 6 Nov 2005 (UTC)

  • I've noticed these pop up regularly among articles now, I don't like the look of them either. And a number of times i've seen those little rectangle characters: not good. --Azizlight 21:56, 8 Nov 2005 (UTC)
    • I say that we remove them from every article they're in. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 21:58, 8 Nov 2005 (UTC)
[edit]

What's this No-POV rule?

What, I'm not supposed to say that Palpatine was bad, that his Empire was evil? I'm not supposed to say that destroying Alderaan and killing six billion people was a bad thing? Starkeiller's been removing stuff like that after me, and I'm sure he only wants to improve the article. We all do. But there's the objective historian, and then there's just going too far, if you asked me. For this reason, I'd like to appeal to the group to put some of that back in. Check the history and differences pages to see what I'm talking about, then make your decision.

And, Starkeiller, I have no resentment of you in this. As I said, we both want the same thing here, and you're good at what you do. But I genuinely challenge this decision on the grounds of honesty. And, I might add, on the perspective of the Star Wars universe. Only thirty years have passed since Palpatine fell, as the books have them, and are we not writing from that perspective? Any historian - Voren Na'al, for instance, or even Arhul Hextrophon - would be writing from the perspective of having experienced Palpatine's bloody dictatorship first-hand. They are objective historians, but they call a spade a spade.

William Shirer's biography of Hitler, which was published only fifteen years after the dictator's death, is rife with personal opinion, since Shirer was a Berlin reporter for a long time and personally witnessed the effects of Nazism. Ian Kershaw's biography is different, less opinionated, but even he says flat-out: Hitler is evil. And what about Radzinsky's and Montefiore's biographies of Stalin. They still call evil for what it is (and, in Radzinsky's case, do so with superb prose). Are we not supposed to do the same?

If we bury the effects of his villainy, or even refuse to call him a villain, does that reflect the spirit of what Lucas intended when he created the character? I think not, people.

Erik Pflueger 14:12, 11 Nov 2005 (UTC)

  • Yes, you are not supposed to say this. This is an encyclopedia, not a historical essay, and articles are supposed to be factual. You can mention the destruction of Alderaan (which was, by the way, not Palpatine's fault), but don't attempt to judge his actions. Just list the facts, and people will decide for themselves. Although the NPOV policy (which stands for "neutral point of view", not "no point of view") is enforced less strictly here than on Wikipedia, there must be a border somewhere. - Sikon [Talk] 14:18, 11 Nov 2005 (UTC)
  • I'll try it out, Sikon, but it's hard to be neutral on some things. Let's take the Alderaan example, for instance (and yes, it was more Tarkin's doing than Palpatine's - see my work on that subject in the article) I described it initially as a barbaric act, and how can the extinguishing of six billion lives not be considered barbaric? To be indifferent - or neutral - on a subject like mass murder is to say that one is indifferent to the lives lost. Did I include Tarkin's and Palpatine's points of view? Of course I did, since it was about their motives and actions. But if I include theirs, that's not a NPOV scenario. And in any case, certain things deserve a moral stance. Maybe I should be less strident about it, but the fact remains. Where's the border to be placed? Maybe we should work that out together. And we should keep in mind what all other published Star Wars material has used as descriptions (Dan Wallace's Essential Chronology comes to mind. If they're not indifferent, why should we be?
    • NPOV doesn't imply indifference. You are free to write that "the majority's opinion is that the destruction of Alderaan was a barbaric act, because: <...>". But an opinion, even overwhelming, doesn't make the matter inherently have the supposed qualities. - Sikon [Talk] 17:41, 11 Nov 2005 (UTC)
  • If I tried to reintroduce it, Sikon, I couldn't state it in that fashion, no offense intended. The fact that the "majority opinion" feels it was a barbaric act leads me as a reader only to ask, "So who the hell holds the minority opinion that says it wasn't, and what kind of raving twisties are they?" If it wasn't barbaric to them, doesn't that mean they think it was a good thing? They'd be equivalent to Holocaust deniers, if you asked me.

To use your own homeland's history as an example, it's not the same as saying "the Gulags were places of terrible human suffering, but under Lavrenti Pavlovich Beria's direction the slave laborers contributed immensely to the Soviet economy." That would be a statement that gives weight to both positive and negative aspects of a thing, especially since examination of the facts holds it to be true. But what positive aspect did the destruction of Alderaan have? None. So what minority opinion is there here?

Not to beat a dead horse, Sikon, especially since you do excellent work yourself here, and are a pleasant person. Also, the article really isn't about Alderaan, but Palpatine. I use it only to make a point. I simply hate moral relativism, and my personal opinions, as with any writer, cannot help but have some impact, however small. If someting is evil, call it so. And if someone is evil by most accepted definitions, label him as such. Say that he didn't feel that way himself, if it's true, but name something for what it is. If you don't say what you mean, you can never mean what you say. ;) Erik Pflueger 18:39, 11 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Here's a suggestion, I'm just going to throw this out here, it might help: take a deep breath and say to yourself, "It's only Star Wars, it's not real life." Kuralyov 19:01, 11 Nov 2005 (UTC)
  • ~:mumbles:~I'm having this debate again and again~:mumbles:~ Okay...

a.) This is an encyclopedia. There's no "evil" and "good" in encyclopedias, just "most people consider X evil", "most people consider Y good". b.) You can't state that killing six billion people is an evil act, you can say it's bad thing, and there's a huge difference. Most people here on Earth consider it evil—and the imaginary Star Wars galaxy follows the same rule—but the Nazis for example thought it was okay. You may call them barbaric monsters, but it was their opinion. Since they started actually killing people who obviously disagreed with them, they became harmful, bad, and had to be stopped. They didn't think it was evil. You can't possibly say it wasn't harful, but for them it wasn't evil, so you can't say it was. Let's use other terms, because "good" and "evil" depend solely on the point of view. c.) There's a rule here, and I think there actually is an award for neutrality. The crawls may be biased, but this is an encyclopedia. Oh, and I love moral relativism... --Master Starkeiller 19:45, 11 Nov 2005 (UTC)

  • OK, since I'm obviously outvoted, let's try to work around the problem. What if I said, instead of a barbaric act, I said it was an act that condemned six billion innocent beings to death? That would probably strongly say "evil" to me, and be closer to the facts but still be more objective, as it seems to be defined here. Fair enough? Please do not hesitate to offer your opinions.

As I've said earlier, we're all after the same thing here: really good articles that contain all the facts. But I respectfully ask, please, that no one imply that I don't know it's just fiction. I'm 33, I think I have a grasp of that. My real life is my grandmother having a month or less to live and my girlfriend having to have surgery to relieve terrible pain. She'll be in the hospital on our anniversary, which just happens to fall on Thanksgiving. Please forgive my shortness of temper, but I'm quite cognizant of reality today. I know no one intended any insult, but I felt I needed to give some perspective on my mood. I also know that many others have it harder, but that's my trouble for today.

I've come to like all the people here, and I feel I have something to contribute. If my mood affected my judgment, I'm sorry. There are rules for contributing articles, and I will abide by them. I should love to hear Riffsyphon's opinion on this, but I will stick with the rules, since you have all been very good to my work and to me personally. I also wanted to say to Starkeiller that he's got a great picture with McDiarmid in sunglasses. Go see his page and prepare to chuckle.

But I hate moral relativism... :))

Erik Pflueger 20:18, 11 Nov 2005 (UTC)

  • Also, just in passing, Master Starkeiller, even Palpatine was an apprentice once, and would have had to give obeisance to Plagueis as his master, even if it was through gritted teeth. If he didn't, then for all we know, Plagueis might have killed him. So, no, I wasn't there, but yes, it was likely the tradition in inducting a new apprentice, that the apprentice get down on his knees to receive his name. Maul and Vader did for Sidious, why not Sidious for Plagueis? I'm too tired to argue deeply about it today, but perhaps tomorrow...

Erik Pflueger 20:27, 11 Nov 2005 (UTC)

    • That's the encyclopedia spirit: Say "he killed half the galaxy", but not say "he's evil because he did". Let the reader judge for himself. I wish you the best with all your troubles and I understand you, because my mood has sometimes affected my work here too.

About the other thing now... We never saw Palpy do it, so let's not say he did. We only saw Anakin do it, nobody else, so we don't even know if Maul or Dooku did it. And I didn't say he didn't, just that the image strikes me as out-of-character as Palpy in sunglasses... --Master Starkeiller 20:37, 11 Nov 2005 (UTC)

      • Palpatine in sunglasses is out of character? Come on! I bet he liked to sit on the beach on Naboo or Byss and sip the GFFA equivalent of a margarita every now and then. (Occasionally I also have similar mental pictures of Saddam Hussein barbecuing and Adolf Hitler water-skiing. It's probably not healthy.) —Darth Culator (talk) 21:07, 11 Nov 2005 (UTC)
  • I was always under the opinion that Palpatine would avoid sunlight after the Clone Wars, probably because it may have done some more damage to his skin, or maybe burst into flames, I don't know. But back to the discussion at hand, does anyone here actually disagree that Palpatine was pure evil? Even that know it all Vergere couldn't explain it. Remember Obi-Wan's words, "Anakin, Chancellor Palpatine is evil!" -- SFH 21:26, 11 Nov 2005 (UTC)
    • He was evil, but that doesn't mean he didn't do anything good. From the movies and EU, we know that he restored unity to the Galaxy, was a major patron of the arts, did try to stop (at least some) organized crime and slave/drug smuggling, and instituted policies that brought a level of economic prosperity to the Galaxy not seen in centuries. Kuralyov 01:36, 12 Nov 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://encyclopedia.wizards.pro/index.php/Talk:Palpatine"