Talk:Palpatine/Archive 3

Guards
Near the end of TPM, when Palpatine reveals that he has been selected as chancellor, he has a couple of (ceremonial?) guards with him. Does anyone have additional information on these guards? WebWombat


 * They are Senate Guards. Dmoon1 17:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

FYI: Senate Guards act as Imperial Royal Guards (the guys who dress in red) before the latter's creation. Wikiisawesome 15:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

War criminal
Palpatine commits atrocities during times of war (the Clone Wars and the Galactic Civil War), which makes him ideal for inclusion in the "fictional war criminals" category. Why that listing keeps getting removed is beyond me. Same deal with the Darth Vader article. Treybien 17:18 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Was he ever formally charged with war crimes and/or convicted? Same question for Vader.  If not, then they are not war criminals. --DarthBinky 01:17, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

If you check the definition criteria for the category, you'll see that there is no mention of having been convicted of war crimes, but simply having committed them. Have any of the entries in "fictional murderers" or "fictional thieves" explicitly made a point of of saying that those characters were tried and convicted of those crimes? Treybien 2:01 30 September (UTC)

--According to DarthBinky's definition above, Adolf Hitler would not have been considered a war criminal either, which I don't think anyone would agree with. It is what they DO, not what they may eventually be convicted of, that defines war crimes, and it is the judgement of history (real or fictional) that ultimately defines a war crime and a war criminal. DarthGoodGuy 0111 13 November 2006(GMT)

I would like to point out that the Jedi considered him a traitor and that the Rebellion accused him of crimes against the Republic. Emperor001 (talk) 16:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Small edits
I've edited down the Palptine article a little bit, without making any major changes; I merely condensed and restructured the writing a little. I did not erase any footnotes. However, maybe you should give some thought to editing this article further; there are way too many comments from film critics and quotations from the movies, for example. I understand the need to use ones that are key to the plot or demonstrate key concepts especially well, but this article's use of them goes overboard. Treybien 16:17 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I would hardly call this not "making any major changes". If you had a problem with the length of the article you should have brought this up at peer review or FAC. As it is, this article as it appears is the consensus version approved by the Wikipedia community. Dmoon1 01:11, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with Dmoon1; this is a tried and proven formula, and it's not going overboard, it's neutralizing the point of view and maintaining an out of universe perspective, which often requires more prose. &mdash; Deckill e r 05:49, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Not true, History is written by winers. If the Empire would have won, then Palptine and DV would not be charge with War crime. Infact, the Rebel were that Rebel. If Germany or the Axis power won WWII, trust Hilter would not be charge with any war crime. He would be a hero!
 * By having mentioned Hitler, you automatically lose the argument. No, sorry, wait, that's not how it goes... 195.197.240.134 (talk) 12:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Ian McDiarmid
This comment/question really isn't about this article, it's about the actor who played Palpatine. Could any of you check out the Ian McDiarmid article and let me know what changes should be made? I've streamlined most of the star wars information. Any other biological information about McDiarmid would be great. That or access to any interviews by him. (FYI: I'm currently working on citing the article, re-editing the intro, and working on appropriately listing the plays he's been in--most likely a link will have to satisfy the later as he's been in over 70 plays!) Thanks b_cubed 06:57, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Update of article
I have taken the liberty of editing this article to conform to Manual of Style (writing about fiction), a guideline that did not exist when this article was originally written. I also followed relevant suggestions in the article's original FAC. The purpose of this revision is to make it look less like a Wookieepedia article (here).

Notable changes:


 * Images: An attempt has been made to include only important images that enhance the articles within reasonable fair use standards. While the images in the current article are great, there are just too many to qualify as fair use. These listed below in the revised article are a sample of the most important and illustrative.
 * This image was replaced with the current image because the two are very similar, but the image of the Emperor from Return of the Jedi (Image:Palpatine Ep6 DVD 6.jpg) is how the character was originally introduced and there is no where to really put it in the article. If the previous image is left in the infobox and the ROTJ image is left in the Appearances section, someone will complain that the two images are too similar (see Jabba the Hutt's FAC).
 * Image:Palpatine1.jpg is how the character is introduced in the prequel trilogy.
 * Image:PalpatineCloneWar.JPG is an illustration of the cartoon Palpatine from Star Wars: Clone Wars.
 * Image:DarkEmpire.jpg is the cover of the comic book Dark Empire 5. It both illustrates a major Expanded Universe source that Palpatine appears as well as how he is depicted in Star Wars literature. This image meets fair use requirements. Even though this article is not about the comic book in question, the comic book is thoroughly discussed in the article.
 * Image:PalpatineConceptArt.jpg is an "out-of-universe" depiction of the character that illustrates the concept and creation of Palpatine (as well as illustrates one of his Force powers).
 * Image:The Emperor.JPG is another important image that shows the development of the character in Star Wars. This is the original Emperor from Empire Strikes Back that is replaced by McDiarmid on the DVD.
 * Image:Karl Rove Cartoon.JPG illustrates Palpatine's influence on popular culture.
 * Out-of-universe perspective: no (birth date - death date), no biography. Focus is on Palpatine as a character in film and literature.
 * Appearances in Star Wars fiction replaces a biography with an account of the major Star Wars works the character has appeared in, mainly the films, Clone Wars miniseries, and EU literature; fancruft and excessive detail is winnowed out. Development in literature and film emphasized.
 * Characteristics section describes how this character is portrayed in the fiction.
 * Concept and creation details process that created the character, including the actor's portrayal and costume design.
 * Popular culture section describes how the character has influenced popular culture outside of Star Wars.
 * The article is now well referenced with over 60 notes; external links have been limited to "official" links (no fan sites): Databanks and Wookieepedia.
 * Original research and speculation have been removed.

I used a similar approach to this article as I did when I rewrote Jabba the Hutt (which passed through the FAC process very smoothly) and Padmé Amidala. Dmoon1 21:19, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Scottish or British
McDiarmid is Scottish. True, Scotland is a part of the Great Britain, and I myself was debating what to label him. However, after reading an article from the Guardian—a British newspaper—I decided that he should be labeled as Scottish rather than British. Here's the excerpt that changed my mind:
 * "Such seasoned British - in his case Scottish - stage actors are always in demand in Hollywood to play the kind of villainous roles it's thought unseemly to cast an American in. But McDiarmid hasn't done very many."

A link for verification: http://arts.guardian.co.uk/features/story/0,,1636369,00.html b_cubed 21:26, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * My question is why should the word "Scottish" link to Scotland rather than Scottish people? These articles on ethnic groups and nationalities exist; why not use them? (I had changed it to point to Scottish people, but someone changed it back.) — Amcaja 22:39, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I changed it back to Scotland. When I first started editing at Wikipedia someone left a message that these articles should be linked to country and not ethnic group articles (evidently because some of the articles contain a racist tinge to them or something). I just linked to Scotland to play it safe, but I do know there are some ethnic groups FAs like Iranian peoples. If you think Scottish peoples is more appropriate, by all means link the article there. Dmoon1 01:50, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Scottish links to Scotland in the Ian McDiarmid article too. Dmoon1 05:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I think that was the standard when Wikipedia was first starting up: Link Fooish to Fooland as a piped link. However, there is a WikiProject working on ethnic group articles (WikiProject Ethnic Groups), so it seems a shame to bypass their work where the link would be most appropriate. I don't think the Scottish people article is racist. — Amcaja 08:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Done. Dmoon1 17:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Calm down
I'm not removing anything of consequence, I'm just condensing the writing a little. Maybe you should actually review the changes being made instead of knee-jerk reverting them. Treybien 13:53 1 September 2006.


 * You are removing content that has been formed by consensus of editors who have worked on this revised article. The article is currently under review at FAC; if you have major suggestions please make them here on this talk page or at FAC (click on the link above). Dmoon1 21:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Piping links for nationality
Hi, I notice that you have been piping nationality links to the "X people" articles, eg. Scottish. Having worked on thousands of biog articles, primarily European and North American (but also a fair few Antipodean), I can say without hesitation that the overwhelming consensus is to pipe thus: If this is doubted in any way, perhaps we could consult the good folks at WikiProject Biography? (Apart from anything else, those "X people" articles are utterly, utterly appalling rubbish in my experience: full of POV, edit warring, AFD's and many other such delights: probably because they tend to focus on pseudo-ethnicity theories, rather than civil society, which is the strength of the country articles.) --Mais oui! 10:09, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Scottish
 * French
 * American
 * Mexican
 * Swedish
 * That's silly. There's a whole WikiProject devoted to ethnicity articles, so it's nice to see all their work damned in a few short lines. Besides, a bad article should not be an argument against linking to it; it should be an argument to improve that article. — Amcaja 06:47, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, Brian, Wikipedia is under the control of Darth Mais oui! and his totalitarian ilk, with their "consensuses" that insist on articles being written poorly. Yorkshire Phoenix [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland|22px]] [[Image:Flag of Yorkshire (Flag Institute).svg|God's own county|22px]] 19:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

It's happening again
The same thing that happened with the Morgoth article is happening here. People are going over the top about how Palpatine is the ultimate evil and inserting pages of endless prattle whilst removing important details. Like his life, and his biography and his birth and his death date and the date his spirit was incarcerated. It's removed the interesting things like Palpatine going into politics as a child and coming back to life as a clone after his death [three times]. I think the article just need to be compressed and revised and toned down a little. - user: Anon September 2006 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.93.21.138 (talk • contribs)
 * Well if this was a trivia or fan site those things would be there. As it is there are dozens of those sites already. This is supposed to be encyclopedic information about a fictional character, not a living person who walked the streets somewhere. And most of the stuff you site above as missing is in there, if you had actually read the article. Dmoon1 20:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm saddened by what has happened to this article. This used to be one of the most authoritative articles on Palpatine anywhere on the web. For years it has hovered near Feature Article status, but for some reason the higher-ups in wikipedia never saw fit to make it so. Alas, good job in turning an article that was very informative on who Palpatine was, into a repository of trivial knowledge on how his character came to be.

When you look up a word in a dictionary, you do it to learn the definition of that word. NOT to learn the etymology. In essence that's what has been done here. We know the etymology, but the actual substance of Palpatine has been mainly removed. Now if someone wants to know who Palpatine is, they cannot come to wikipedia and get a summarized version. They have to seek out a more authoritative source of information. Fastastic job guys!

One day maybe someone will make an entry about wikipedia: "site that claimed encyclopedic knowledge of mankind, except it never came close to being as comprehensive as the great library of alexandria." -- Cirdan
 * Well, Palpatine is not a real person. He is a cultural construct who exists only in fiction. This page takes that view, and rightfully so. If you read the entry on Superman in, say, Encyclopedia Britannica, you will not see pages and pages of prattle about his history and what he did in every issue of the comic book, written as if it's a real biography. This page is lightyears better than it used to be, because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia about the real world, not the Star Wars one. If you want that version of the article, please be sure to stop by Wookieepedia. — Amcaja 01:51, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

There's a difference between a comprehensive biography, as wookieepedia attempts to be, and a succinct, digestible summary. Don't think it's much of a stretch to say that anyone who looks up Palpatine will primarily want a synopsis of his character and the major plot points he's associated with.

What has happened in this article is that the synopsis has been eroded, and replaced with trivial information more suited for trivial pursuit than an encyclopedia entry. Ex. "Palpatine is a central character in Genndy Tartakovsky's Star Wars: Clone Wars, an animated miniseries set between Attack of the Clones and Revenge of the Sith that aired on Cartoon Network from 2003 to 2005." How much does that actually tell anyone about Palpatine? The relevant information could have been conveyed simply by saying "Palpatine is a central character in the animated miniseries Clone Wars."

Or another example, "The first mention of Palpatine in Star Wars literature is in Alan Dean Foster's (writing as George Lucas)[15] novelization of the script of A New Hope, published as Star Wars: From the Adventures of Luke Skywalker (1976).[16]" That should start of as... "The first mention of Palpatine was in the novelization of the script of Star Wars: A New Hope." If you want to know who wrote the novelization, when it was written, etc, then you click on the link to A New Hope, that info doesn't need to be in an article about *Palpatine*.

You say the article is better. But all I see is an article choke-full of information that isn't directly about Palpatine. I find it ironic that the complaint is, the article that was here previously was so good, that you could look Palpatine up like you would Napolean and come up knowing as much about him. If anything, you *add* to an article like that by putting in the real-world info. You don't remove the synopsis under the banner that he's not a "real" character, therefore we don't need a bio on him. But I guess that's the price of being a well-known character, that everyone who isn't directly interested in the character gets to contribute to the article. I'm just glad no one has found the article on Odysseus yet and trivialized that. -- Cirdan 16:24, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I found it, let's trivialise the Odysseus article. YAY, TRIVIALIZE. Hey, just a minute, who removed Palpatine from the category of Fictional personifications of evil?

Anon

It Ataru is at a disadvantage in small places how could Darth Sidious fight Yoda on the small senate pod?

Just out of curiosity, who removed the Debate over Palpatine's appearence section? I've looked in Revenge of the Sith and it's not in there either. Palpatine's physical appearence and the debate over whether or not he looks so freaky as a result of being scarred or his true form being revealed has caused much speculation among fans and deserves a category rather than the small, vague mention it has now. That's my opinion anyway though I know you'll probably crucify me for it.

Incorrect categories
"Fictional war criminials" cannot be added because Palpatine has never broken any law, and has not been tried in court for his "crimes". "Personification of evil" is even less accurate, as Palpatine is hardly evil itself. 129.89.191.226 20:55, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I can see "Personification of evil" being argued (just not by me). EVula 21:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * "This category is for characters in literature, film, television, comics books, and video games who are incarnations of evil in their respective fictional universes." Nope. Otherwise is simply the "Fictional villains" category in another name.129.89.191.226 22:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I realise you do have to be VERY evil to be in the category of Fictional personifications of evil but might I add to the discussion saying that the article does actually refer to Palpatine as the 'personification of evil.' And he is the chief architect of evil in the Star Wars universe might I hasten to add.

Name
Palpatine has a name - Dantius. -Lone Guardian 11:45, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Dantius was made up by a guy named Supershadow, who is well-known for making up stories and passing them as canon. There is no canon first name for Palpatine, although I've seen some fans use "Cos" because in the original script for A New Hope, the Emperor's name was "Cos Dashit".  Cheers --DarthBinky 13:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks, i've realised that was fake. -213.59.170.22 02:28, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

His face...
Is there any evidence that the reflected lighting in the battle with Windu reveals Sidious' true face or was it just scarred & deformed as a result? I tend to believe the latter... Tommyt 19:07, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * There's a line in the novelization for ROTS that many have interpreted as that the lightning revealed a "true face". He says something about his face becoming a mask or something like that (I can't find my copy of the book to give a more precise quotation).  I never interpreted it that way, and still don't.  Cheers --DarthBinky 19:17, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I have a feeling we'd be outvoted if we tried to change it... Heh, heh, "Darth Binky", that's cute! Tommyt 16:13, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * It was a combination of both, according to various sources. Jon Hart 18:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It says in the commentary from "Revenge of the Sith", from McCallum and Lucas themselves...That, and I'm quoting here "the strain of all this exertion is what's transforming him into the emperor we see in Return of the Jedi" But it will probably stay like it is. It wouldn't be the first time that people here have told the creator of the entire Star Wars universe that he was wrong about his own movie just because they personally thought it happened a different way.  And I never go by the novels, they're pretty much EU. Written by EU authors. That can add whatever junk they want to give the book length, as long as they get the main story across. Abalu 08:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC) Abalu


 * The commentators on the DVD are clearly discussing the exertion of fighting with Mace Windu. A second before Lucas is talking about the deflection of the force lightning back to Palpatine. Dmoon1 16:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Lucas was talking about something he added to the scene later. He said nothing about reflected lightning scarring Palpatine. See....this is what I mean. How can someone argue with something as simple as "exertion is what's transforming him" It's pretty simple. I mean, I know some people like to even argue the interpretation...but there's nothing to interpret there....It's plain as day. With no room for misunderstanding. It was flat out said that the strain of using his powers is what's transforming him into the emperor as seen in the Return of the Jedi. Abalu 04:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)Abalu

Costume
I'm curious about the features of SIDIOUS' costume (particularly how his eyes and forehead were hidden from view in the prequels), being the namesake of the subject matter in discussion. Darth Sidious 02:15, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


 * As film critic Roger Ebert has pointed out, Darth Sidious looks uncannily like Death in The Seventh Seal. I don't know if this was done on purpose, though. Perhaps Lucas simply wanted to hide the true identity of Sidious from the audience as long as possible; this is a weak theory, though, because it's pretty obvious that Sidious is Palpatine. — Loadmaster 22:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

This article is full people opinions rather than facts about the character
Some one has deleted some of the articles I created for this character and I suggest that this article may be considered once again for cleanup. I read this article from top to bottom and is completely saturated with people's comments rather than biographical facts. DarthPlagueis, Sunday, October 29, 2006, 07:33 p.m.


 * I concur. Powers and abilities section seems to be the work of some Palpatine fan rather than an objective editor.--ScipioAfricans 08:03, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

The nature of this Character
Palpatine is a character of evil in the saga and I suggest that this article may be considered for cleanup because there is someone who is adding a lot of information that is not related to the character's biography based on what peolple says about Palpatine. --DarthPlagueis 00:26, 30 October 2006 (UTC)DarthPlaguies, 08:23, October 29, 2006 (UTC)

Isn't it more the point of the Star Wars story that Palapatine's evil develops over time, rather than just happens suddenly? One of the things that makes the Star Wars story so fascinating is its study of human nature. Palapatine is in many ways a more evolved form of Anakin Skywalker-Darth Vader. He too was drawn to the easy path that lead to evil, just as he leads Anakin to that same easy path. One of the fundamental points that the entire canon makes is that good is something that requires committment, love and selflessness, and evil is what happens when those fundamental values are ignored or taken for granted. Palapatine is the ultimate result of the the lack of these values, and thier being replaced with laziness, indifference and selfishness that develop into self agrandizement, hatred and greed. --DarthGoodGuy 0122, 13 November 2006 (GMT)DarthGoodGuy 0122, 13 November 2006 (GMT)

Fictional hermits
Could whoever keeps placing this character in said category please give a rationale as to why.

Death Star Construction
It states here that at the end of Episode III Palpatine was overseeing the Death Star in the Early stages of construction. I read somewhere, I'll need to check my sources, that this was in fact the Great Weapon, a captured CIS asset that was not completed by the war's end. Much smaller than the first Death Star would be, it nonetheless featured the first Superlaser technology in modern Star Wars time. It was from this that the technology was adapted and later implemented in the Death Star years later.

I'm not sure how this fits in with the established stories about people such as Qui Xux and Bevel Lemelisk in the Maw Installation, but this is what I read, and it did seem to be a reliable source. Again, I can't check it right now, and so I won't presume to edit the article, but it might be something worth looking into. Dark Bullet Magnet 01:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Article vandalism reference in the popular culture section of this article
I added the above said as I removed a pic of the Pope and replaced it with the original one. I've seen this happening before and I think that this wuold only add to the article. Someone(and I don't blame him, he's probably right) reverted it and said that the vandalism wasn't notable. What do you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonich03 (talk • contribs)
 * Unless the vandalism in question has been commented on by news sources, I just don't see how it is notable, which is why I reverted the addition. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 16:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The edit in question: EVula // talk //  &#9775;  // 16:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Infobox image
SS-Shatz replaced the infobox image with  for no apparent reason. I personally prefer the older image . I think it should be reverted, unless there is a good reason to prefer the new screenshot over the old one. — Loadmaster 23:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * There is no good reason to change the image to the newer version, which does not even show the character's face very well. The image from Return of the Jedi is the first main appearance of the character in the films, which is why it was chosen for the infobox when this article was updated last year. Dmoon1 01:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Succession boxes
I read the Manual of Style (writing about fiction) and I feel that the succession box I added is "in-universe information essential to understanding the entity's context in the overall fiction" as outlined in this manual and thus should be included. In fact, I don't see anything in this document that could be remotely interpreted to mean i can't add this box. Furthermore here is a list of fictional characters that have succession boxes.

Thanks.--Dr who1975 17:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Nevermind- I'm reverting it.--Dr who1975 18:07, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Stop adding sarcastic comments about this biography
A few days ago I read this article and saw in the characterization of Palpatine a commentary indicating bootlikers and lapdogs. I'm glad someone deleted this words because the subtheme is related about the character in the movies or other sources and not what people or writers think about him. They sound sarcastic for and Encyclopedia article and its not necessary to add those kinds of comments in and Ecyclopedia. If anyone see this commentary words again delete the entire chart.--DarthPlagueis 20:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * This was written by George Lucas/Alan Dean Foster in the original novelization about Palpatine, not outside commentators. Dmoon1 01:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Death of Palpatine
Am I missing something, or does it say nothing about how Palpatine died?


 * Palpatine's death is discussed in the section on "Star Wars films" and "Star Wars literature". Dmoon1 16:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Note about Sidious' identity in AofC and Phantom Menace - regarding music
Anyone noticed a recycled version of the 'Empreror' theme is used for Darth Sidious in the first two prequels? Ggctuk 13:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

More pictures
There really isn't a lot of pictures in the article. Perhaps we could add more? Suggestions? --MajinVegeta 00:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Probably not, due to fair use issues. The number of images was limited to those currently included when the article was at FAC last September. Before its revision prior to FAC it included 14 non-free images. Dmoon1 03:10, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * To be fair, though, it's almost impossible to get free use images, as it's a fictional character. That said, I think the number of images we have is ideal. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 04:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Spoiler
This article needs a spoiler warning before revealing that senator palpatine is darth sidious, and the photo must be moved accordingly.82.46.233.8 22:29, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Palpatine = Sidious
Does anyone know when, throughout the entire canon of Star Wars materials and according to the chronology of the Star Wars universe, Palpatine is first acknowledged to the viewers/readers as Darth Sidious? In the films, it's obvious - he's never positively identified until Palpatine the character reveals himself as Sidious to Annakin - but I was wondering when the identification is first made in, say, the novelisations or comics. The 'earlier' novels all stick to the kayfabed assumption that they're separate people, but the 'Revenge of the Sith' novel (on pg. 57 of the softback) identifies them as the same whilst Dooku has Palpatine in 'captivity' (when Dooku suddenly addresses the one he'd been talking to as Sidious as 'Chancellor'), and I was wondering if there was any 'earlier' revelation that they were the same ('Labrynth of Evil', which immediately precedes RotS, doesn't give it away). I just thought this might be an interesting fact to include in the article. Lordrosemount 16:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the Revenge of the Sith novelization is the first time Palpatine is revealed to be Darth Sidious in the novels as well. Dmoon1 21:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

It's pretty obvious who he is in Ep. 1 to people who've watched the Original Trilogy before.--76.203.5.45 (talk) 15:26, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Director names

 * "...Empire Strikes Back, directed by Irvin Kershner. Lucas and Kershner depict the Emperor..."

I'm not convinced Kershner had anything to do with the "depiction"; it's my understanding Lucas controls production details like that. Including Kershner (and Marquand) gives us real-world information, but none that relates to Palpatine himself, and in fact implies (or states) that they did have something to do with his depiction, which is unlikely.

I think it's sufficiently out-of-universe to say "second installment of the trilogy", "third installment", but as an alternative, you could say "second film", "third film", which better identifies them as two real-world entities.--Father Goose 19:48, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

V: The Empire Strikes Back
In particular The Emperor tells him that "there is a great disturbance in the Force." This refers to Luke Skywalker (Mark Hamill), the "offspring of Anakin Skywalker." etc.

This was never in the original script, yet it appears George Lucas has edited Wikipedia to erase any references to the OOT, SE or DVD versions of the scene. Does anyone think it would be better to quote the original 1980 version of episode V rather than the 2005 DVD version? References to the modified lines from the DVD could then be placed in parentheses. Steve hill4 15:13, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

 * Palpatine → Darth Sidious —(Discuss)— Change alias to sith name —Earthbendingmaster (talk) 23:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Why? I think he's generally known as Palpatine, unlike for example Darth Vader who is known by his sith name. Andrewa (talk) 08:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with Andrewa. The "[Emperor] Palpatine" role/persona is much more visible in the movies and thus a more likely search term than the shadowy Sidious. Sidious might make sense for an in-universe encyclopedia, but not this one. --EEMIV (talk) 12:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * You mean something like Wookiepedia? But Sidious is more of something like his actual name as Palpatine could have been just a made up name to disguise himself. Earthbendingmaster (talk) 20:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose WP:COMMONNAME, besides, ***screentime*** in the movies is mostly as "Palpatine", more so that Sidious or The Emperor. And Palpatine is his name, Darth Sidious is a title/alias. 132.205.44.5 (talk) 23:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Like I said, Palpatine could have been made up to disguise himself and he took the name Darth Sidious when he became a sith.     Earthbendingmaster (talk) 02:41, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Original research certainly is not grounds to move an article. --EEMIV (talk) 03:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, but he did take the name Darth Sidious when he became a sith.  Earthbendingmaster (talk) 04:23, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, yes. So? That has little if anything to do with what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize (Naming conventions). The name a fictitious character chooses at a particular point in the plot isn't all that relevant IMO. For real, living persons, there is more of a case, but even then it's not clearcut. This is all part of the issue I've been investigating at User talk:Andrewa/systematic names. Andrewa (talk) 22:18, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * End of discussion. Thanks everyone. Earthbendingmaster (talk) 15:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Appearances
Why are his appearances listed first by movie release order and then other media order? Wouldn't it make more sense to do it chronological orders. First, any books predating Episode I, then Episode I, then any media between Episodes I and II, then Episode II, etc. Emperor001 (talk) 16:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No, because that would give the appearance that this is some sort of biographical section, which it is not. Films are listed first because they are more prominent than the books. What you are proposing is also somewhat unorganized. Dmoon1 (talk) 16:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * What about film order? Shouldn't the prequels come before the original?  Emperor001 (talk) 02:27, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No, because the purpose of the article is to describe the character from a historical real-world perspective, not the perspective of the fictional world. Dmoon1 (talk) 09:50, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Recent edits
I don't believe there is any basis for reverting the lead of this article. Right now it's very unencyclopedic. The fact that he appears as "an aged, cowled, and pale-faced figure who walks with a cane" is very tedious physical description that is of little importance to his notablity which is what the lead is supposed to identify. The nationality of the actor who plays him is completely outside the relevance of this article, and the exact number of years before A New Hope that he was born is pure trivia and is extremely unimportant in the lead. How the character was originally written in scripts that did not make it into the film is again, completely unnotable and doesn't belong in the lead. I believe the edits I made significantly streamlined and improved the lead, outlining the bare facts of what makes Palpatine a notable character. I also properly organized it into a two-paragraph lead, with one paragraph identifying the character, and the second outlining his appearances and who portrayed him. TheHYPO (talk) 04:00, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The editors who promoted this article to featured status would disagree with your assertion. The lead you keep changing is almost identical to the consensus version promoted at FAC. Dmoon1 (talk) 15:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Did the editors also OK the version with all the line-by-line synopsis, or was that added later? Just because an article achieves FA status does not mean an edit that changes a part of it is not an improvement.


 * My personal opinion on the main issues in the lead are as follows, which I'm open to discussion on:


 * 1) I concur that the first thing to mention is the context: He is a fictional Star Wars character. The next things the lead currently mentions are: the films he was introduced in, and his physical appearance. My opinion is that the first thing that should be mentioned is his major notable aspect: He acts as the primary antagonist through the six films. The fact that he is pale and cowled are his most notable physical Original Trilogy traits. I don't think his walking with a cane is particularly important, as he isn't seen walking a whole lot.
 * 2) The actor's nationality as scottish has no relevance I can see in the character's article. I don't see any reason to include it.
 * 3) His dual identity as Darth Sidious should be identified in the first paragraph, since Darth Sidious links here, this identity is equally discussed in the article, and it's an equal part of who the character is.
 * 4) The order of the first pargraph is currently as such: He was in ESB and ROTJ. He was in the Prequel Trilogy too. He was in Clone Wars and the expanded universe. In the films he was played by Ian McDiarmid. -- This is out of order. The actor's name in his film portrayals should be mentioned in conjunction with the mentioning of the films themselves. Particularly if you're not going to add the name of the actor portraying him in the subsequently mentioned work.
 * 5) His birth 82 years pre ANH is completely trivial to almost any reader of the article, and I thought your whole point was that in-universe Bio stuff was NOT appropriate in the lead. His birthday is pretty In-universe bio.
 * 6) What is written in Lucas's original scripts is something I personally don't believe is notable. If it never translated to the screen, it's merely a footnote in Lucas's writing process and has little to do with the final character. I support a section on this topic later in the article, but it certainly isn't notable information that belongs in the lead.


 * The lead should be information that, if the reader needed to know what the topic was all about, and could only read the lead, would contain all the information that was really important about the topic. I don't think the original script's description of Palpatine (which the lead quickly argues was changed by the time he first appeared in the films) is the kind of information that a reader can't do without.


 * I would finally like to suggest that while my lead re-ordered the section, MOST of the information that was there before is still there, just in a different order.


 * Here is a copy of my lead as I wrote it so others can view and discuss the subject:


 * Palpatine is a fictional character in George Lucas' science fiction franchise Star Wars. He acts as the primary antagonist through the six films. The character was introduced in the films Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back (1980) and Star Wars Episode VI: Return of the Jedi (1983) as the Emperor: The aged and powerful leader of the Galactic Empire. Part of his history is revealed in the prequel trilogy as Senator Palpatine in the Senate of the Galactic Republic. He is also a Dark Sith Lord who operates under the alter ego Darth Sidious to manipulate people and events in order to start the Clone Wars, wipe out the Jedi, and rise to control the Republic.


 * Palpatine is portrayed in Return of the Jedi and the three prequel films by Ian McDiarmid. He was originally portrayed by an unnamed woman and voiced by Clive Revill in The Empire Strikes Back, though Lucas replaced this performace was with one provided by McDiarmid when the trilogy was modified for the 2004 Special Edition DVD release. The character is also featured in the animated miniseries Star Wars: Clone Wars (2003–2005) and in Star Wars literature. Palpatine was incorporated into the merchandising campaigns that corresponded with the theatrical releases of Return of the Jedi and the prequel films. He has since become a symbol of evil and sinister deception in popular culture, particularly in the United States.


 * I believe it contains all the important information that someone unfamiliar with the subject woudl need to know to get the context. TheHYPO (talk) 09:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Original Version
Is there any chance of getting an image of the original version of palpatine portrayed by the old woman with the chimp eyes. It's a very unsettling image and would do well to illustrate the way palpatine was originially envisaged.--Tiberius47 (talk) 12:42, 4 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm guessing one could easily be screencapped, but I believe at least one of the roadblocks in doing so would be that adding another copyrighted image under fair use in an article that has 6 is not helping the issue. Frankly I was under the impression that one of the criteria of a Featured Article was to have a minimal number of fair use images (I am quite sure I heard someone claim "no more than 2" at one point in disputing a Simpsons or Futurama article at one point, but I admit I'm not intimately familiar with the criteria.) I don't see an specific points in the Fair Use Criteria page, but the discussion page has some discussion on the issue. TheHYPO (talk) 09:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Though now that I think about it, I believe it wasn't even as severe as FA - I realize now that it's not even FA policy that prohibits this: It's general WP:Fair Use policy:
 * Significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.
 * The way I read that, I can see having one screenshot of ROTJ Palpatine and one of Prequel Palpatine, but I don't see any legitimate argument for the requirement of six Fair Use images (this article will NOT suffer if the Family Guy screenshot is removed, I would argue. The Animated image perhaps shows another character appearance, though it's drawn fairly similar to prequel palpatine's screenshot. The comic art and concept art is certainly not overly necessary to the reader's understanding of the character. I think I'm just remember Featured Articles, because someone rightfully pointed out in a FA discussion that the Fair Use policy should be abided before the article is granted FA status. I guess noone considered that when this article was approved. TheHYPO (talk) 09:54, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Naming issue?
I know that "The Emperor" was only identified as such in ROTJ. I also know that by the time I started getting into Star Wars in the 90s (pre-prequels), he was identified as "Emperor Palpatine" (I think I saw it in the SW CCG, among other places?). While this article suggests that there was some debate as to whether Sidious (clearly the pre-emperor) was the same person as Palpatine in Ep1, The fact that the Emperor was known as Emperor Palpatine before the film came out made it pretty obvious to me (and I thought most fans at least)

At what point, and in what medium was he first identified as Emperor Palpatine, and not just "The Emperor"? Am I wrong about is being obviously clear that Sidious would become the Emperor? Otherwise I think it might be something worth mentioning in that section that the Emperor had been identified by name as Palpatine in whatever media that first unveiled it. TheHYPO (talk) 10:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The novelization to Star Wars printed in 1976 identifies the emperor's name as Palpatine. See the sections on Palpatine's appearances in Star Wars literature and the creation of the character. Dmoon1 (talk) 19:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)