Talk:Darth Vader/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
I try to avoid super-listing in categories whenever possible. Since Darth Vader is part of Imperial characters and Sith characters, which are both sub-lists of Star Wars characters, I don't think Darth has to be listed in the Super-list. Oberiko 01:06, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
A previous version read that Vader killed Kenobi. In fact Kenobi focuses and then entirely disappears bodily, leaving Vader kicking his clothes in puzzlement. Individuals hit with light sabers in the movie series (Luke Skywalker, Darth Maul, the Tatooine bar victim) suffer searing flesh wounds, not complete disappearance. Chris Rodgers 07:02, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Thats because none of them are jedi Knights like Obi-Wan. It's mentioned in several interviews by Lucas that Kenobi learned how to preserve his identity when he died so yes no doubt he was struck down by Vader.
I think Lucas did that just to look cool, like a Wuxia kung fu movie.
Also calling "second-in-command" without qualification is retconning I think. In the Episode 4 he appeared to be under Grand Moff Tarkin.
Vader/Anakin's death
I corrected the part of Vader's biography on his death proper. Many of you have edited this to mention that when Vader dies, his body is "reincorporated into the Force and disappears". I guess those people don't see the movies enough to know that Vader/Anakin's body does not disappear in Return Of The Jedi (the way Ben did in "A New Hope" and Yoda in "Jedi"). He dies whole, and therefore he is cremated whole by Luke. Why some people don't disappear right away at the moment of death is something Lucas will have to explain himself.
Hiphats 01:13, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- It is only Vader's suit that is burned. See this for more information. Aidje 17:44, 2005 Mar 22 (UTC)
- I went ahead and edited the article to reflect the information provided in my previous comment (I used wording from an old version of the article). Before seeing that link that I gave you, I would have agreed with you that Vader did not disappear; however, in light of this information, I think that he did. If you have some source to the contrary, please provide it so that we can all groan about the discontinuity. :-) Aidje 18:06, 2005 Mar 22 (UTC)
OK. Want proof? Go back and watch the last act of "Return Of The Jedi" again and you will see that Vader/Anakin does not disappear the way Kenobi and Yoda do. He dies whole, and Lucas did not shoot any additional footage that proves Vader/Anakin disappear. When Luke cremates Vader/Anakin, it is his entire body (covered in the armor of Vader) that burns. If Vader/Anakin did indeed disappear, then there would have been no need for a cremation. Also, listen closely to Lucas' commentary on the "Jedi" DVD...he says that the cremation scene was not in the script, it was shot at the last minute to bring closure to Luke's relationship to his father.
If you can't see it, you must be seduced by the Dark Side of the Force. Hiphats 19:31, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Your "proof" is totally unfalsifiable: RotJ showed some of Vader's last moments, but it did not show the moment of death. It also did not show his body at any point after his death: only his armor. If you're thinking that it looks like there's a body in the armor, remember that Vader was "more machine than man"; probably only the organic part of him disappeared, and all of the machine parts were left. None of your quotes from Lucas say anything explicit about Vader's body being burned. My Steve Sansweet quote says very clearly, "And when Darth Vader sacrifices himself in the end to save his son, he too becomes one with the Force (it is his armor that burned in the Endor funeral pyre)." There's nothing wrong with being able to admit when you're wrong. That's a strength, not a weakness. -- Aidje 19:54, 2005 Apr 5 (UTC)
- Sorry -- but I must disagree. In that final moment at the shuttle and Luke says "Father, I won't leave you!", it is clear that he is mourning. He wouldn't mourn his father unless his father was actually dead. Anakin Skywalker was dead -- not about to die -- dead. His body did NOT do the disappearing act. Remember, when Kenobi's body vanished when he killed him, he was clearly surprised at this -- he probed the clothing with his foot. Also, look that RotS, Jedi were being killed all over the galaxy, and none of their bodies vanished. At the Senate chamber, Sidious had Troops searching for Yoda's body. The vanishing body at the moment of death must have been ht e result of the continued training Yoda and Kenobi took from Qui-Gon Jin. Vader did not receive Qui-Gon’s training, ergo, his body remained in our reality after he died. Yoda once said, “Luminous beings are we, not this crude matter!” Anakin’s spirit being with Kenobi and Yoda at the end of RotJ must have been the result of actions taken in the netherworld by Yoda and Kenobi’s spirits. Luke was cremating his father’s body; just as Qui-Gon Jin’s body was cremated at the end of TPM. Robeykr 02:59, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
I think you have the weakness and I the strength. I will soon correct it proper again, but until then please, please, go back and watch the DVD, listen to the commentary, and read the novelization. For the umpteenbillionth time, if Vader/Anakin disappeared like you insist that he did, it would have been shown in "Return Of The Jedi". Since the movies are the main canon, and it never showed the disappearance, then I am right. If you don't know your "Star Wars", then I'm afraid you're on the Dark Path. 68.105.76.236 23:56, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Aidje, ROTJ did show Vaders death. Vader looks up at look and says "tell your sister, you where right. You where right" then closes his eys and is gone. That is vaders death. It is also revealed in episode three that one's body does not have to dissapre at the moment of death to be incorparated into the force, as Qui-Gon Jin does not dissappre, but it is said that he teachs Obi-wan, and yoda this technique.
- On a deeper level, one can say that the moment that Vader decides to kill the Emperor is the death and subsequent rebirth of Vader and Anikan Skywalker. So if you look at it this way, only Anikan's death is shown in ROTJ.
- I completely agree with Robeykr. His logic seems correct. There is no evidence that Obi-Wan or Yoda came to Vader before he died in RotJ. Therefore, it is safe to assume that Yoda or Obi-Wan did something just as Robeykr said, becuase Qui-Gon learned his little be-one-with-the-Force trick AFTER he died.
Whatever!!!
No No No
This article is supposed to be under the name Anakin Skywalker. "Vader" was born Anakin, and died Anakin. So change it back! Even as a Sith, there was conflict within. Change it back! Repeat! Change it back! Now! Apologies. I am enraged. NOW!!!!! KFan II 23:43, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
I think this issue is closed. The consensus is for the Article to be under "Darth Vader". Let us now concentrate on getting the Palpatine/Sidious matter cleared up. Ace-o-aces 23:50, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
Not just consensus, also policy, as I pointed out to Ace-o-aces. Use the most common name, not the one you think is most correct. For instance, Chiang Kai-Shek (read the section on his names alone!), arguably Malcolm X (chose a new name before death when he renounced violence), etc. — Phil Welch 04:10, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
Keep in mind that Anakin Skywalker only lived for 45 years. He lived his life as Darth Vader for 23 years, so it only make sense for his article to remain at Darth Vader, since he lived his life as Darth Vader more than 50% of his 45 years.
Cultural reference
How do we link with the character of Caius Céplus from the movie Asterix & Obelix: Mission Cleopatra ? The character a roman general wearing a Darth-Vader-esque helmet and once his army is attacked says (I paraphrase a little) : When the (Roman) empire is attacked, the empire strikes back. It is followed by the keynotes of the the Imperial March.
- My suggestion is that we add a pop culture section to the Star Wars page. Cbarbry 01:14, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Too many pop culture references in this article. We can't just list every little reference to Vader 2 or three examples should be sufficient.
Combine with Anikin
Shouldn't this entry be combined with Anikin Skywalker entry, as they are the same character.
- While Vader and Anikin are the same characer, he is most identifible as Vader. ---Iorek Brynson
Replacing the Spirits picture
I propose we replace the picture of the spirits in the end of the Darth Vader section with the following, which I have added (along with the old shot) to List of changes in Star Wars re-releases:
While on a personal level, I don't have strong feelings either way about this, I think the Sebastian Shaw one should remain on Wikipedia for Wikipedia reasons, as undoubtedly that is the version of the scene that more people have seen. — Phil Welch 23:04, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
- I don't in particular either, it's more in the spirit of George Lucas constantly updating his work to suit his vision. I personally think that, if they were going to update Hayden Christensen in and revert the spirit of Anakin to his pre-Vader form, then they should have gone back and reverted the spirit of Obi-Wan to his youthful form as well. It would have been a hellacious undertaking on Lucasfilm's part, but it would have fit in a lot better. --Kitch 03:06, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
- No. Obi-Wan was always good. Anakin wasn't. Because Hayden Christensen portrayed Anakin turning into Darth Vader (and thus, Anakin on the Light Side), it was a necessary change. Like I said, no need to change Obi-Wan, because he was always good.
- Why not show both? One with the current caption, and one reading "Hayden Christensen (left) as the spirit of Anakin Skywalker in Return of the Jedi (2004 DVD revision)". Or would this be too confusing? 63.188.169.154 19:22, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
- No. Obi-Wan was always good. Anakin wasn't. Because Hayden Christensen portrayed Anakin turning into Darth Vader (and thus, Anakin on the Light Side), it was a necessary change. Like I said, no need to change Obi-Wan, because he was always good.
Actually, the redeemed Anakin was "good" at the end of Episode IV. He destroyed the evil emperor and said Luke was right about being"good." That is why the end of the new remastered episode IV with the young Anakin is confusing and and inappropriate.
Showing both would clutter the article. — Phil Welch 20:39, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
- Maybe so, to a small degree, but you might argue that about any new picture. Is it not more important to convey potentially confusing or otherwise interesting information visually, when possible? Editing any article is a struggle between cleanliness and intuitiveness. Anyway, in the absence of both, I think it may be prudent -- albeit unpopular -- to switch to the Hayden Christensen one, which is the new canon, and the one anyone who is unfamiliar with Star Wars (and hence, reading this article) would be more likely to see. 19:38, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
The clutter problem arises because both of them would have to be essentially the same place. Actually, I've added a bunch of pictures, but because they're all well-separated from each other, there's no clutter. We could create a combined image that has both images, one on top of the other, but that would be necessarily twice as big and therefore more clutterful (although not as clutterful as displaying both pictures). If there's an article on Star Wars revisionism, such an image would be *excellent* there. — Phil Welch 19:52, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
- Ask, and ye shall receieve, Mr. Welch: List of changes in Star Wars re-releases. Although, they already have both pictures there... 63.188.9.210 20:02, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
I was pretty sure there was an article, thanks. — Phil Welch 21:12, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
[[Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg -->|400px]]
Personally, I like this one better. Copperchair 12:30, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
Sections
I'm trying to keep the section headings roughly congruent with the movies, so that the prequel trilogy falls under "Anakin Skywalker" with the subsections correspending to the three films, respectively, and the sequel trilogy falling under "Darth Vader". True, he's also called Darth Vader throughout much of Episode III, but he never renounces the identity of Anakin Skywalker, and every Sith between Darth Maul and Darth Vader still use their original name (Darth Sidious still goes by Palpatine, Darth Tyrannus still goes by Dooku). True, this is because they are hiding the fact that they are Sith, but then again, so is Anakin until the end of Revenge of the Sith. — Phil Welch 14:26, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
Actually, he did renounce the name Anakin Skywalker, in a way.
Luke: I have accepted that you were once Anakin Skywalker, my father.
Vader: That name no longer has any meaning for me! — JoJoTrue
I meant that he never renounces it in Episode III, until perhaps the very end. — Phil Welch 19:54, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
Did Vader kill Padme?
There seems to be a low-intensity edit war over this question. Wikipedia policy is to follow a Neutral Point of View, and Obi-Wan teaches us that "You'll find that many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view." Point being, whether you think the injuries from the Force-choking or the strain of childbirth, (or Padme's broken heart, which we may want to blame on Anakin) or all three killed Padme, the neutral thing to do is to simply state the fact (Palpatine told Vader that Vader killed Padme) and set aside the argument over whether or not Vader truly killed Padme. — Phil Welch 14:28, 19 May 2005 (UTC), 05:20, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
-Well, if you follow the story I think you'll find the Emperor probably did it - as the medical droid tellingly said, "She appears to have lost the will to live", and given the Emperors need to undermine Vader's sense of "Good", he probably did that to her and then told Vader he killed her, with a small smile on his face when Vader goes a tad more evil. It removed the one "good" person remaining in his life whom he cared for and made him all the more scarred and evil. - AMK
- I think that's supposed to imply that she "died of a broken heart", so to speak, but this open question of interpretation should be left open. — Phil Welch 21:57, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
Mustafar picture
Does that even occur during the movie? I don't think it does but I haven't seen it yet. If it's just some stylized Photoshop rendering, well, it's cool, but it's not exactly encyclopedic. Suggestions? — Phil Welch 18:53, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
I've removed it. There's no scene in the film that it could have come from, so it's clearly misleading. Although it is a remarkably cool picture. I've added it to the talk page so you can see what I'm talking about, and also because it's so damn cool. — Phil Welch 02:27, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
Name
Darth Vader was born as Anakin Skywalker and died as Anakin Skywalker. - 68.72.133.233 20:40, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
This has been discussed and decided upon, anon. We're keeping it at "Darth Vader" because that's the best known name. Read Talk:Anakin Skywalker if you want to know more. — Phil Welch 20:42, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
- One can also eaisly argue that, that the persona of Vader and The Persona of Anakin Skywalker where two people sharing the same body, but id rather not get into that right now. Iorek 19:10, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
- They may be different, but that doesn't mean that they should be in separate articles, and since "Darth Vader" is the most common name, then that's the title of the article. Nohat 04:59, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
Darth Vader Inspiration
I've seen numerous sources stating that George Lucas was inspired to create Darth Vader after either watching the anime or reading the manga of Android Kikaider (searching Kikaider and Darth Vader together shows several sources). Vader is supposedly modeled on Hakaider, the evil counter-part to Kikaider (note, this is the Hakaider from the Kikaider series, not from the later movie Mechanical Violator Hakaider). Shouldn't this fact be represented in this article? --Paul Morrill
Anakin's Near-Immolation
If you look really closely at the scenes after Anakin gets his limbs and his left arm cut off by Obi-Wan "Ben" Kenobi, you will see that if you are paying attention to the final trash-talk Obi-Wan is performing, Anakin's eyes turn Sith Yellow before he gets burned. As Anakin screams out the words, "I HATE YOU!!" (This should be capitalized), and after Obi-Wan said that he loved Anakin, watch very carefully because there had to be a reason why Anakin's body burned. Should Anakin have been afar from the lava shore, his body wouldn't be engulfed in flames. Anakin was too close to the shore and after Obi-Wan said the life after Anakin screamed "I HATE YOU!!!", a flow of lava touched Anakin's damaged limbs--That's how Anakin started burning and screaming. The ground can't burn Anakin naturally--it had to be lava contact through his damaged limbs that caused Anakin to ignite in fire.
Watch the movie about 3 times and you'll see how Anakin REALLY got nearly immolated. Unless lava touched Anakin, then Anakin wouldn't be burned.
This is actually incorrect; the heat coming off the ground around Anakin would have definitely been enough to set him on fire. The ground by the lava flow is essentially like hot coals, and as anyone can experiment at home, when you put something on hot coals it has a tendency to burst into flame.
Name 2
Shouldn't he assumes the name in the first paragraph be changed to he is given the name since it's given to him by Darth Sidious in EP III, the current version implies that he chose it for himself. —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 20:35, 2005 May 30 (UTC)
23 Years Anakin was Vader
An edit was necessary because Anakin was encased in Vader's mask for 23 years, and Anakin was not exposed to sunlight also for 23 years. If you add up the BBY Years and add the ABY Years (Anakin died at the age of 45), you will realize that Anakin Skywalker was Darth Vader for 23 Years. In his dying breaths, Anakin abandoned his Darth Vader identity at the last minute, saving himself from damnation.
Furthermore, Vader, after he donned the cybernetic costume, decided not to use Anakin Skywalker afterwards, for which during ROTJ which he tells Luke that "That name has no meaning to me", since Vader abandoned use of his given name (Anakin Skywalker) during his Sith Lord Tenure.
Stunt double Bob Anderson
Someone keeps adding Bob Anderson (David Prowse's stunt double for Darth Vader) as an actor who played Vader. Stunt doubles are never credited this way. I've mentioned in "Behind the Scenes" that Bob Anderson was the stunt double in Episodes V and VI, where the information belongs, but stunt doubles do not qualify as actors to have played the role. They are not listed as such in the credits of *any* film that I have *ever* seen, nor on IMDB, nor on Wikipedia.
The information is already present in the article; I'm not removing it. I'm just keeping it in its proper place as dictated by decades of convention. — Phil Welch 04:48, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
- During the shooting on Return of the Jedi there was a interview with David Prowse in which a quote was twisted, making George Lucas think that Prowse had revealed the secret that Vader died in the third movie. After this Prowse was essentially fired from the film and Bob Anderson took over. For example, All of the footage of Vader with the Emporer is Anderson not prowse (except for when Palpitine is thrown down the reactor shaft which is prowse throwing a stunt double. Due to this Prowse has never met Ian McDiarmid. Although he is not credited, It could be stated that "Anderson was in the costume during a bulk of shooting on Return of the Jedi". Dowew 21:31, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Interesting. Good way of covering the information. — Phil Welch 00:08, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Recent edits
I've been reverting virtually all of the recent edits after spending several days reviewing and repairing them. I'm not going to bother justifying any single edit unless I'm specifically asked to, but here's some rationale for most of my reversions:
First, I've pretty much removed all interpretation from the article. There are two big reasons for this. One is NPOV. Wikipedia is written according to a Neutral Point of View. Providing interpretations in the article the way they've been written so far is biased and doesn't conform. The proper way to address the issue is to attribute all interpretive or POV remarks to someone as long as those interpretations are notable. But as far as I can tell, the interpretations offered are the personal interpretations of those editing the article, which constitutes original research, which is disallowed.
Secondly, summaries are just that--summaries. The small bits at the beginning of a section or at the beginning of an article are supposed to give a general sense of the topic, not provide detailed information. Detailed information goes down below.
Thirdly, factual information. I have the DVD's of the original trilogy, and all of the quotes from the original trilogy I have either put there or verified. Recently people have been changing them incorrectly.
Finally, copyediting. Wikipedia is written in standard written English, not casual internet English. Anakin's line, written in standard written English, is "I hate you!", not "I HATE YOU!", because all-capital-letters is not a valid feature of standard written English. (There may be exceptions, but this isn't one of them). Similarly, "No" has one O, not eight. I've allowed "Nooo!" as a compromise because it expresses the meaning and sound without taking up a third of the page.
This article is pretty much near perfection, and if it wasn't for everyone's help it wouldn't be. The problem with perfection is that if you change perfection, you make it worse. In other words, any given edit to this article has a bigger chance of making it worse than improving it, just because we don't have as much room left for improvement (and a lot of room left for making it worse).
— Phil Welch 00:56, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
- I don't know why my edits keep getting revised, but it's annoying. All I did was to add a few images; they kept getting removed! I also added Luke's line in his conversation with Vader, which comes after Vader reveals to Luke that he is his father. "It can't be! It's impossible! Nooo!" But it was removed! Why? Scorpionman 6 July 2005 02:09 (UTC)
You don't want to clutter the page with images, and Luke's line didn't seem particularly important or relevant to the article. As I've said, the article is already close enough to perfection that most changes will be harmful, not helpful. — Phil Welch 6 July 2005 03:00 (UTC)
When did Vader first know Leia is his daughter
Return of the Jedi gives the impression that Luke betrays his sister's existence to their father, but this is hardly necessarily so. Vader's "gotcha" could be a ruse to raise Luke's emotions (especially fear), which, of course, it does very well. Vader may have felt his daughter and realized who she was before the Cloud City carbon-freezing chamber. -Acjelen 01:50, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Return of the Jedi almost certainly is the first time Vader new that Leia is his daughter. If Vader would have know about Leia, he would have turned her to the Dark Side and trained her in the ways of the Sith. Together, they would have overthrown Palpitine and become Emperor and Empress. Together they would rule the Galaxy as father and daughter. Treachery is the way of the Sith. Besides, we only know what is in movies and books. According to the books, Vader does not learn about Leia until he Return of the Jedi. --— Ŭalabio 02:34, 2005 Jun 8 (UTC)
- Isn't that a plot of an alternative-storyline comic book series? Anyway, I have no need to feel limited in my analysis of the Star Wars movies by novelizations. -Acjelen 04:11, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- The comic is called Star Wars - Infinities and was published by Dark Horse Comics. The series was anagous to Marvel Comics series "Wahat If?" In Infinities - A New Hope Luke's attack failed to destroy the Death Star; instead it tempoarily disabled the Death Star's prime weapon giving the rebels time to get off the moon before it is destroyed. Meanwhile, all of the Death Star's fighters are deployed and Vader forces the Rebel ship to divert to Death Star. Luke and Han escape into Hyperspace. Vader takes Leia to Coruscant where he begins to subtly influence her. Though he is aware (possibly from his earlier sessions with her) of her strength with the Force, he is completly unaware of the fact that she is his daughter until the Emperor reveals this to him in the end. Robeykr 06:57, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I shall add this information to the article.
--
— Ŭalabio 01:36, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC)
- I must have missed that comic. By all means, add it to the appropriate section . Just remember to cite your sources. In the primary timeline, Unless George Lucas says otherwise, we have no reason to believe Vader knew about his daughter.
--
— Ŭalabio 02:14, 2005 Jun 9 (UTC)
The moment after Anakin loses his limbs and left arm to Obi-Wan...
Take note that Anakin's eyes turned yellow during the moments before he got burned, and his skin started turning pale, though not as severe as Palpatine's. If you look closely, you will see that Anakin's eyes stayed Sith Yellow during the moments of his enstrandment and his near-immolation. This should be noted, since we see Anakin's anger reaching its peak.
- But they were yellow before that. When he's killing everyone on the Sepratist council, his eyes are yellow in the shot before he goes through the door into the room. Dismas 19:06, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Errors found
The battle concludes on the banks of the lava river, where Anakin force-leaps toward Obi-Wan, who defends by severing Anakin's left arm and both of his lower legs. This results in Anakin becoming immobilised on the embankment.
I need to point out that Anakin slides closer to the Lava Shore.
- I don't think that's a particularly necessary detail. Detail is good, minutae is not. He slides down closer, but I don't see how it's important. — Phil Welch 12:37, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
His clothing then ignites, causing him to receive severe burn injuries.
No, Anakin does not get burned until after Obi-Wan and himself finishes talking.
Obi-Wan: "You were the chosen one! It was said that you would destroy the Sith, not join them! It was you who would bring balance to the Force, not leave it in darkness! Anakin: "I hate you!" Obi-Wan: "You were my brother, Anakin. I loved you."
I also need to point out that after Obi-Wan says "not leave it in darkness!", he picks up Anakin's lightsaber.
- Yeah, I added in that he left with the lightsaber, but the specific timing of when he picked it up is minutae. — Phil Welch 12:37, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Following this, Obi-Wan leaves, rescuing Padme and departing the planet.
Obi-Wan did witness Anakin's near-immolation before he had to leave. Obi-Wan looked at disbelief as he saw the horror of Anakin's near-incineration, and before the flames stopped burning Anakin, Obi-Wan then left Mustafar, refusing to watch any further.
- I guess it could be made more clear that Obi-Wan watched. I'll try and edit that. — Phil Welch 12:37, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Darth Vader: "I couldn't have! She was alive! I felt her! She was alive! It's impossible! No!"
Vader does a Force Scream before he says "No!". The medical rehab starts trembling before Vader says "No!" with a Force Scream.
He also damaged some of the nearby droids with said scream PlatinumTracks 16:44, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
I needed to state some discrepancies here. Anakin only got burned after he talked to Obi-Wan for the final time, with Obi-Wan taking Anakin's lightsaber before Anakin said "I hate you!".
Featured Article
I think this is getting close to FA status (criteria are available at Wikipedia:What is a featured article). What does everyone else think? I'm really pleased with how everyone has been working on the article and improving it, so I think I'm going to list at Wikipedia:Peer review and see what everyone thinks before submitting it. — Phil Welch 04:26, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Incinerated or Immolated?
I think "Immolated" made more sense than "Incinerated" IMO. Incinerate means when you die because you were immensed to the lava. Immolate means you die because you were endlessly burned. I don't think "Incinerated" makes any sense--if any of you have the Star Wars Episode III Motion Picture Soundtrack, one of the tracks is called "The Immolation Scene"--that is, that Anakin Skywalker is nearly immolated NOT nearly incinerated.
I would say Anakin was actually immolated, and nearly incinerated, for much the same reasons mentioned above.
Not before Obi-Wan warned Anakin
The battle ends on the banks of the lava river, where Anakin, overconfident, leaps to strike his former master, only to lose his left arm and both legs to Obi-Wan's blade. Anakin is stranded on the embankment, desparately trying to claw his way up the scree with his remaining arm, as Obi-Wan watches from above.
An overconfident Anakin leaped to strike his former master, but not before Obi-Wan leaped to the slope of the hillside, trying to warn Anakin to stop attacking. Actually, Anakin ignored Obi-Wan's warning--that's how Obi-Wan managed to cut Anakin's legs and left arm off. Obi-Wan would not attack unless he actually warns, sometimes violence does not solve things.
- Obi-Wan: I have the high ground!
- Anakin: You underestimate my power!!!
Obi-Wan's warning of having the high ground means that Obi-Wan tried to prevent Anakin from receiving his "Darth Vader Injuries" but Anakin just totally ignored Obi-Wan's warnings. I think the fact Obi-Wan tried to warn Anakin to stop attacking should be added to this article, knowing that Obi-Wan does not believe in violence. Obi-Wan didn't cut Anakin's legs and left arm before he warned Anakin.
Under Anakin!
You must put this artilce under Anakin Skywalker. The character was born and died Anakin Skywalker. Darth Vader is an AKA. Also, "the community" did not decide to put it under Darth Vader! I'm a member of "the community", and I don't want to put it under Vader! Wait! I know how to settle this! Ahem, obvserve, this is what the New Essential Guide to Characters did: Anakin Skywalker/Darth Vader
- I don't care either way, but your move was reverted because it was improper in two ways: it was undiscussed, and it was a copy/paste move, which had the effect of destroying the page histories of both articles. Please do not do this again. -- Hadal 02:36, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
"Darth Vader" is the name that's known better. Under Wikipedia standards, any biography article goes under the best-known name. See Chiang Kai-Shek for another example of this, or also Malcolm X. — Phil Welch 17:44, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Also, "Anakin Skywalker/Darth Vader", with Mediawiki, is a subpage, and not an article. Slashes cannot be used in Wikipedia article titles for that reason. — Phil Welch 17:47, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- No it isn't, slashes in the main namespace do not create subpages, and articles can contain slashes in their titles. —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 17:56, 2005 Jun 14 (UTC)
- Care to show an example? The standard copyvio subpage (for rewriting an article that's flagged as a copyvio) is located at %foo/temp with %foo being the article title, so at most it's a "not necessarily" instead of a "no". — Phil Welch 18:11, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- You're misunderstanding what a sub-page is, just because you have one page named foo and another named foo/bar it doesn't automatically mean that foo/bar is a subpage of foo, (no more than foozbar is a subpage of foo), slashes (or any other string) don't delimit subpages in the main namespace.
- If you're still in doubt as to what a subpage in MediaWiki is I suggest you read the appropriate code, I have. —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 18:30, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)
- I never was "in doubt as to what a subpage in MediaWiki is". Could you try to not be so condescending? — Phil Welch 20:48, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Well you thought that "Anakin Skywalker/Darth Vader" would be a subpage (it's not), and that slashes could not be used in article titles (they can). I was merely trying to help by explaining that, I didn't mean to sound condescending. —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 13:08, 2005 Jun 17 (UTC)
- I never was "in doubt as to what a subpage in MediaWiki is". Could you try to not be so condescending? — Phil Welch 20:48, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Care to show an example? The standard copyvio subpage (for rewriting an article that's flagged as a copyvio) is located at %foo/temp with %foo being the article title, so at most it's a "not necessarily" instead of a "no". — Phil Welch 18:11, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Additionally, I might add that with a merged article at all, we have an inherent spoiler problem with the fact that Anakin Skywalker is Darth Vader. Having an article titled Anakin Skywalker/Darth Vader is a big problem for that reason. (Admittedly, so is a redirect from Anakin Skywalker to Darth Vader). — Phil Welch 18:14, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Spoilers? Who on earth DOESN'T know Anakin is Darth Vader? Ace-o-aces 19:14, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Anyone who doesn't know this probably isn't using the internet anyway. As for being ethnocentric, this is the ENGLISH wikipedia, written for ENGLISH speaking peoples. I doubt there are 2 Billion english speakers who don't know Darth Vader = anakin. Ace-o-aces 14:38, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Time to straighten things out. Anakin lived 23 years of his life as Sith Lord Darth Vader. This warrants the article to be named under Darth Vader. Anakin lived as Anakin for only 22 years. 23 vs 22. Darth Vader wins. (anonymous edit)
Biography articles go under the best-known name, which pretty much outweighs any longevity argument. Chiang Kai-Shek is a prime example of that. — Phil Welch 04:40, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
George Lucas's point of view over the Star Wars universe is law, and should we not follow his feelings about Anakin and Vader being two people. go to the star wars: databank, on the Starwars.com web site it states:
"As turmoil engulfed the galaxy during the transition from Republic to Empire, Anakin fell to the dark side of the Force. Consumed by evil, Anakin abandoned his past and his humanity. He became Darth Vader, Dark Lord of the Sith, apprentice to the evil Emperor Palpatine."
it also lists Anakin being in Episodes 1,2,3,and 6, if Lucas wanted them to be one person then it would have said Episodes 1,2,3,4,5,6
under the Darth Vader link on the Starwars.com site it clearly states:
" Anakin was grievously wounded in the fight. His burning anger kept him alive, and he was forever scarred not only by his wounds but also by betrayal. He abandoned his former identity. When metal coupled with flesh in the form of cyborg implants and enhancements required to sustain him, Skywalker's transformation was complete. He was no longer Anakin. He was Darth Vader."
it also lists Vader being in Episodes 4,5,and 6, if Lucas wanted them to be one person then Vader would be called Anakin Skywalker in 4,5,6 not Darth Vader.
Plus you "Philwelch" stated the point about Anakin and Vader:
Your Words about the Bio box for Vader/Anakin to Be separate:
"Enough of the information changes during the transition from Anakin to Vader that having two separate boxes makes sense. The story seems to make a big point of the two being two different sides, two different personas inside the same person, so I think the separation makes sense."
the two being two different sides, two different personas sounds like two different minds in one body so Anakin should be listed as a separate person !!!!!!
(Sithlord)
Trivia Section
I'm not sure if you are aware of this, but some parts of this Darth Vader article can actually be placed under a Trivia section, which outlines some things you usually don't know (i.e. Anakin's eyes turned yellow just before he got immolated, during his pre-immolation speech with Obi-Wan Kenobi, Anakin would've been incinerated if Obi-Wan slashed all of Anakin's limbs). — Vesther 0:12 hours CDT, 18 June 2005
- I don't think so. That's not "trivia" per se, just trivial details. — Phil Welch 08:44, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
New Section Header
Should the "anakin skywalker" and "darth vader" sections be under a unified "History" section header (or "bio" or something along those lines) to make the article a little more readable? --InShaneee 22:39, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Retrieval or Confiscation?
I attempted to say that "Obi-Wan confiscated Anakin's Lightsaber", but since "confiscate" has something more to do with governmental affairs, I had to change it back to "retrieved" since confiscation has to do something with the Galactic Government as opposed to a Jedi taking a lightsaber away.
I think what should be addressed when Anakin's lightsaber became Obi-Wan's possession is kind of debatable, since confiscation is more of governmental and retrieval is more personal.
One Character Box!
I've been looking at the article, and I've noticed that there are two character boxes - one for Vader when he was a Jedi and one when he was in his armor. Should we not have one that fuses the two character boxes together. Please consider it. KFan II 12:11, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
- Enough of the information changes during the transition from Anakin to Vader that having two separate boxes makes sense. The story seems to make a big point of the two being two different sides, two different personas inside the same person, so I think the separation makes sense. — Phil Welch 19:13, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
Dying Anakin image
When he killed the Emperor, Anakin Skywalker returned (thus the name "Return of the Jedi"), so when he was dying, he was Anakin again, not Darth Vader. Copperchair 06:10, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
- George Lucas disagrees. Listen to the DVD commentaries. Also read my response on my talk page. — Phil Welch 06:19, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
And you read mine. Copperchair 06:29, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
- Furthermore, only changing the image caption makes it entirely inconsistent with the article text, namely the dialogue. — Phil Welch 06:20, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
I think the paragraph I added actually addresses the issue instead of speaking around it. Anyway, at least for the caption, "Vader" is shorter, and I prefer concise captions, for what it's worth. — Phil Welch 06:52, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
But you don't own the page, so the fact that YOU prefer concise captions is irrelevant. Copperchair 22:18, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
- We've resolved this issue. What possible reason did you have to add a snarky comment like that? Trust me, getting upset at me doesn't help anything. — Phil Welch 22:21, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
Please check out the last paragragh of [1] to see that it should say "Sebastian Shaw as the dying ANAKIN." Copperchair 11:53, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
- We already resolved this issue with a compromise. Let it sit. — Phil Welch 13:57, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
Image caption dispute
If you're willing, we can discuss our content disputes in a mature manner here. Or, you could continue to refer to my good-faith edits as "vandalism" and refuse to discuss them. Your call.
As for the image caption, reproduced below was my preferred version, in the context of the article section. I've emphasized certain parts to point them out--these aren't emphasized in the actual article text.
As you can plainly see, both the full name "Sebastian Shaw" and a link to his article are present within very close proximity to the second caption. It's standard practice on Wikipedia not to place the same link twice in the same section, and aesthetically, I think that the link makes more sense in main article text than in a caption.
As for the first name, it's an issue of having a concise caption that doesn't have a line break. Now, if you have some reason you think the caption is better *your* way, I invite you to provide it.
As to the naming issue, I'll give you the opportunity to be the first to talk about it.
— Phil Welch 02:42, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
I'd be happy if it read: Shaw (left) as the spirit of Anakin Skywalker in Return of the Jedi There are people who read the captions and not necessarily the whole article, and I think the links are useful for that reason. Copperchair 10:45, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
- Fair enough, although if we were to do that, why don't we link the first Sebastian Shaw image caption instead, like I've done above? — Phil Welch 17:09, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
Its OK with me. Copperchair 10:36, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
I have kept my word and changed the caption to the way we agreed to. Copperchair 05:26, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
Check out the last paragragh of [2] to see that the other caption should say "Sebastian Shaw as the dying ANAKIN." Copperchair 17:01, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
Naming dispute
As for the naming issue, I already told you what I have to say. I'll say it again: Didn't Palpatine name him Darth Vader? Hadn't he turned to the Dark Side and slaughtered fellow Jedi and even children? Didn't Palpatine tell the Separatists that he had a new apprentice, Darth Vader? Copperchair 03:02, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
- All of those are true. However, simply because he has taken the name Darth Vader does not mean that the name Anakin Skywalker no longer applies to him. (Killing children doesn't make him Darth Vader either--he killed the Sand People, including women and children, in Attack of the Clones and yet avoided being Darth Vader for the entirety of the Clone Wars). Most Sith lords in the prequel trilogy, in fact, continue to use their birth names as well as their Sith names, including both Darth Sidious (Palpatine) and Darth Tyrannus (Dooku). (You may point out that at least Palpatine uses his birth name to hide the fact that he is a Sith lord, but then again, so does Anakin, in order to gain entrance to the Jedi Temple.) There's also the dramatic issue--Revenge of the Sith (and the prequels in general) are about Anakin Skywalker's transformation into Darth Vader. His fall arguably begins as soon as he slaughters the Sand People, but it is only complete at the end, when he is encased in the iconic cybernetic armor. Also, there is the visual aspect--while Anakin Skywalker is a man of flesh and blood, a man with a face, Darth Vader is more machine than man, a horrific obsidian spectre, etc.
- And perhaps most importantly, the original proponent of your "he's no longer Anakin Skywalker as soon as he turns to the Dark Side" interpretation is Obi-Wan, who in Return of the Jedi characterizes that interpretation as "a certain point of view", and not necessarily the objective truth. So it's pretty clear that this question is not one of literal black-and-white absolute truth, nor is it presented as one by the characters in the film itself. It's a question of point of view. — Phil Welch 03:27, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
He is Darth Vader then because Palpatine already has given him that name, not just because he has turned to the Dark Side. Copperchair 10:39, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, but Palpatine didn't tell him to renounce the name "Anakin Skywalker". You're calling him Palpatine even though *his* Sith master already gave him the name Darth Sidious, why can't it be the same for Anakin at this point? You also didn't quite respond to my other points. — Phil Welch 17:09, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
That's because nobody, even in Episode VI, was supposed to know his alter ego, unlike Vader. Vader is always referred to as Darth Vader, but Palpatine is never referred to as Darth Sidious in the original Trilogy. What other points I didn't respond to? The whole issue comes down to Palpatine granting him a new name, and him turning completely to the Dark Side (which isn't the case with the Sand People incident). Copperchair 10:43, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
- Palpatine is referred to as Sidious several times in the original trilogy--in his holographic communications with the Separatists, and when confronted by Yoda. While it's true that no one was supposed to know Vader's alter ego in the original trilogy, that's only after he was encased in the armor. Before that, he couldn't exactly hide the fact that he was Anakin Skywalker (he WAS a legendary war hero who people would have recognized). Of course, the only people other than Obi-Wan and Yoda who knew that Darth Vader was Anakin Skywalker were the Separatist leaders on Mustafar who Vader killed. The points you haven't responded to are the dramatic and visual points above. — Phil Welch 14:01, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
You are confusing "original" Trilogy with "prequel" trilogy ("Palpatine is referred to as Sidious several times in the original trilogy"). Anyway, that is irrelevant, since once Anakin took the name Darth Vader he WAS Darth Vader. Is it that hard to understand?! And what "dramatic and visual points above" didn't I answer? Give me a direct question and I'll answer it. Copperchair 03:52, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
- You're right, I typed the wrong word. Sorry about that. The point I was making is that (quoting myself), "However, simply because he has taken the name Darth Vader does not mean that the name Anakin Skywalker no longer applies to him." You haven't presented your arguments in the form of questions, so I see no reason why I should, but you have yet to provide any counterargument to what I said above. Reread it if you must. — Phil Welch 04:02, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Of course it doesn't apply, as he is Darth Vader until Anakin comes back to the light in "Return of the Jedi", which is the underlying theme of the whole series. Copperchair 04:09, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
- Or that Darth Vader was always Anakin Skywalker the whole time. You seem to miss the point that saying "Anakin died when he fell to the Dark Side" is meant metaphorically, not literally, and is supposed to be "a certain point of view". — Phil Welch 04:14, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Of course, but that does not eliminate the fact that all the time he was an agent of evil he was Darth Vader, not Anakin Skywalker. Copperchair 04:21, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
See [3] to see I'm right about the naming issue (starting with the paragragh beginning with "With the death of Mace Windu..."). Copperchair 11:31, 30 July 2005 (UTC) Also check out the last paragragh of [4] to see that it should say "Sebastian Shaw as the dying ANAKIN." Copperchair 11:54, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
OFFICIAL site means anything to you? I'll have to copy-paste the information:
"With the death of Mace Windu, Anakin had committed himself to the dark path. He knelt before Darth Sidious, proclaiming himself to be a servant of the Sith. Pleased, Sidious granted Anakin a Sith name: Darth Vader. With the promise of newfound powers, Sidious dispatched Vader to destroy the Jedi Temple.
On that terrible night on Coruscant, Darth Vader became the scourge of the Jedi. He led a column of clone troopers into the heart of the Jedi Temple. They killed all those within. His eyes burning with Sith intensity, it became clear that Anakin was no longer the same hero he once was. He was firmly entrenched in darkness, even bringing his blade to snuff out the bright lives of the Jedi younglings.
Skywalker was no more. He could not hear the entreaties of his friends and loved ones to return from the darkness. As Darth Vader, he killed the leadership of the Separatists, bringing an end to the Clone Wars. In his rage, he would bring about the death of his wife, fulfilling the terrifying vision that prompted his turn to forbidden knowledge. When his former mentor tried to stop his spree of destruction, Vader suffered grievous injuries in the lightsaber duel on Mustafar that followed."
and
"Luke Skywalker scored numerous major victories against the Empire, and was able to lure Darth Vader from the grip of the dark side. Vader, once again Anakin Skywalker, defeated Emperor Palpatine, bringing an end to the Sith reign of terror that had seized the galaxy."
I have backed my arguments with proofs, you have just given a misplaced opinion. Copperchair 01:04, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
- A misplaced opinion? Not at all. Remember, the "Anakin Skywalker died when he turned to the Dark Side" interpretation comes exactly from a speech by Obi-Wan which ends with the phrase, "from a certain point of view". A certain point of view that Luke proceeded to disprove by turning Anakin Skywalker back from the Dark Side, proving that he was not dead after all.
- By the way, from Starwars.com: "When metal coupled with flesh in the form of cyborg implants and enhancements required to sustain him, Skywalker's transformation was complete. He was no longer Anakin. He was Darth Vader." [5]. Your own source states that ceased to be Anakin Skywalker *at the point when he was* placed into the armor. You may point out that this contradicts the excerpts you have provided above: I assert that this only proves the official website to be an unreliable source. — Phil Welch 03:28, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
No, it doesn't. It says the transformation was complete, not that that was the moment when it happened (began). Besides, that page hasn't been updated since before Episode III was released, so that information was just speculation, but the other two I gave you links to were updated yesterday. Copperchair 03:45, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
- Which goes toward my point--if they couldn't bother to update it to account for a movie that was released two and half months ago, the databank isn't a high priority for Lucasfilm, so what are the chances that they actually make sure the articles are in line with George Lucas's intended interpretation? — Phil Welch 03:57, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
The fact that the pages have changed as the new movies were released, although it obviously takes time. Copperchair 04:06, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
- Copperchair, ultimately my point is that well-meaning people can have differing interpretations here. It's not a matter of fact, it's a matter of interpretation and a matter of point-of-view, which is why the article cannot definitively state it as if it were a fact while maintaining NPOV. The interpretation of some copywriter at Lucasfilm is not fact nor is it, strictly speaking, canon. If you actually read the article I've added an entire paragraph explaining why it's an issue for open interpretation. I'm sorry you're unable to understand the idea that other people may interpret a movie differently than you do, but it's something you'll have to deal with on Wikipedia. I might add that your failure to convince someone is not their failure to understand, but that's something that sort of goes along with understanding that other people have different points of view than you do. — Phil Welch 03:48, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
You can't interpret what has been officially interpreted. There are undeniable facts, because what you call "the interpretation of some copywriter at Lucasfilm" is the official point of view. Everything in a debate always comes down to facts, if not, no one could ever be wrong. And it's not my interpretation; it's the movie's storyline. And only YOU can't be convinced, because you are just too proud to accept your mistakes. In the Episode III article, ever since Anakin takes the name "Darth Vader", he is mentioned as such. So it is only you who can't accept what to everyone else is evident. Copperchair 04:02, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
- That's not the case. Both Padme and Obi-Wan refer to him as "Anakin" after he takes the name Darth Vader. And once again, it's not a matter of right and wrong; interpretation of this sort never is. It's not a matter of fact, to say nothing of "undeniable" fact. — Phil Welch 04:08, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Because they hoped to bring him back to the light. Why would do something as stupid as reinforcing in him the fact the he no longer was Anakin by calling him "Darth Vader"? And it IS a fact, for Anakin/before turning to the Dark Side and after coming back to the light : Darth Vader/after turning to the Dark Side. There is no place for interpretation on this matter. Copperchair 04:26, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
- Why do you say that? In the films themselves, the idea that Darth Vader was no longer Anakin Skywalker is presented by Obi-Wan as "a certain point of view", not as a fact. — Phil Welch 04:29, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
What was said "from a certain point of view" was that Vader betrayed and murdered Anakin, in order to avoid telling Luke the truth until he was ready. I.e. a lie. Copperchair 04:36, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
- The entire "the good man who was your father was destroyed" speech was Obi-Wan's explanation of that "white" lie and the point of view from which it is true. — Phil Welch 04:42, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Which further backs my argument that once he "was seduced by the Dark Side of the Force... (h)e ceased to be Anakin Skywalker and became Darth Vader". Copperchair 04:46, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
- My point is that Obi-Wan's explaining his point of view in that line. He isn't presenting it as fact. — Phil Welch 04:49, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
For the reason I told you four paragraphs above, but he is only explaining why he said it HOW ha said it, not WHY he said it (which is, because it was a fact). Copperchair 04:53, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
I understand you, but you are not answering anything by bringing it up. Obi-Wan thinks he said the truth "from a certain point of view", which he did, by saying "Darth Vader... betrayed and murdered" Anakin. What does that have to do with him becoming Darth Vader when he pledged alliance to Palpatine? Copperchair 05:04, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
- My point is as follows: We are discussing the proposition that "The individual in question ceased to be Anakin Skywalker when he fell to the dark side and became Darth Vader." You assert that that proposition is fact. My response is that the proposition was presented by Obi-Wan not as fact, but as an explanation of his point of view, and that from that point of view, Darth Vader did betray and murdered Anakin Skywalker. In other words, "Vader betrayed and murdered Anakin" is not Obi-Wan's point of view, it is a statement that is true from Obi-Wan's point of view, a point of view that Obi-Wan explains by asserting that he "ceased to be Anakin Skywalker and became Darth Vader". — Phil Welch 05:08, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
No, no, no, what was said from a certain point of view was that Darth Vader killed Anakin, not that Anakin ceased to be when he turned to the Dark Side, which IS a fact. Copperchair 05:16, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
- "What was said from a certain point of view was that Vader killed Anakin". Yes, I said that: "'Vader betrayed and murdered Anakin' ... is a statement that is true from Obi-Wan's point of view." My point is that Obi-Wan tells Luke "he ceased to be Anakin Skywalker and became Darth Vader" *as an explanation of his own point of view*. You are saying that the statement "he ceased to be Anakin and became Vader" is a fact, and not an explanation of Obi-Wan's point of view. That seems to be our immediate disagreement; am I correct? — Phil Welch 05:21, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Yes. Obi-Wan said "from a certain point of view" that Vader betrayed and murdered Anakin, so as not to tell Luke at this moment about his father's destiny, but he knew for a fact that once Anakin had been seduced by the Dark Side of the Force he had become Darth Vader. And WE now know that happened when he pledged alliance to Palpatine at his office just after Palpatine killed Windu. Copperchair 06:33, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
- Incidentally, it seems this discussion is going well now. I'm going to take a break now; when I come back I'm going to refactor the discussion to make sure we understand one another's points so that we can hopefully resolve this. (I'll leave the source material in place though.) — Phil Welch 05:28, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
I have protected the page until you two wort out your dispute here.--nixie 03:42, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
I am impressed at the absurdity of this debate. --Vyran 04:02, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
God, you two gotta stop acting like children. Just put him down as Anakin Skywalker/Darth Vader, and no matter what name is put in, it'll still direct to the same Star Wars person. This is ridiculous. --Jedi Striker 12:49, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
Third opinion from Parker Whittle
Pretty silly debate, IMO, but I have the following suggestion: since the debate is over the name of the character, which arguably appeared in a number of films, then why not simply go with the name of the character as referenced in the actual credits? In episodes I, II, and III, the character is listed as Anakin Skywalker. In episodes IV, V, and VI, the character is listed as Darth Vader. There are two characters, or at least two names for the same character. The credits are rather unambiguous. Parker Whittle 21:19, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
- I'm going to concur with this third opinion (with the possible exception of the ending sequence of Revenge of the Sith when the suited Darth Vader returns to the screen) and mention this rationale in the notes. — Phil Welch 00:25, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
I will follow this third opinion. Thank you for resolving this dispute. Copperchair 04:57, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
- Copperchair, try reading the third opinion before you try following it. You just violated it and changed it to your preferred version. — Phil Welch 06:26, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
Then he is still Anakin at the end when he is in the suit? Because he is only credited as "Anakin Skywalker". That appears to be what must be understood if we follow blindly Parker Whittle's opinion. Copperchair 03:52, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
- We can write off the suited Darth Vader as a minor role, perhaps. James Earl Jones isn't credited either. But we can't write off Anakin post-death-of-Windu as a minor role—the intention must have been that the role of Anakin Skywalker *included* the post-Windu scenes. Anyway, between you and me, I'm leaving the suited parts to refer to "Vader" because it's too freaking weird to see the big black armored suit and *not* call him Darth Vader. — Phil Welch 05:43, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
Phil had the right idea. I'm washing my hands of this one—it's just too much. One of you hard core fans must have the script on hand. Run with that. Parker Whittle 04:08, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
Again: he ceased to be Anakin Skywalker when he became a Sith, and that happened when Palpatine granted him the name "Darth Vader", NOT after he was rebuilt in the suit. Copperchair 01:20, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
- Whatever. You've given your word that you'll abide by the third opinion, so I'll trust you to do that. — Phil Welch 01:42, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
- Incidentally, as a sign of good faith I've made a compromise edit. I suggest you leave this ridiculous dispute where it sits. — Phil Welch 02:23, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
I welcome that, but it still isn't entirely correct. Copperchair 19:14, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
- I remind you that you've given your word to accept a third opinion when it was given, and to follow this one when Parker provided it. I am going to hold you to it. — Phil Welch 21:05, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
- It's entirely academic at this point because you've already agreed to my version (your inability to keep your word regardless), I thought I might add that the track listing for the official soundtrack lists the music for the duel with Obi-Wan as "Anakin vs. Obi-Wan". Obviously, if your interpretation was correct, the title would be "Vader vs. Obi-Wan", but clearly, TPTB think differently. — Phil Welch 04:31, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
- Oh, yeah. Not to mention the shooting scripts that I've linked to in the endnotes. And right now I'm finding out about the novelization. — Phil Welch 04:35, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
- The novelization refers to him as Anakin, even as late as the point he's inside the suit. It goes into a lengthy diversion about how he feels at that moment that ends with, "This is what it is like to be Anakin Skywalker...forever." I invite anyone to fact-check this if they can get a copy of the novelization. — Phil Welch 04:43, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
So what you are saying is that Sony Classical and Del Rey are reliable sources, but the OFFICIAL site isn't? Copperchair 21:11, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
Kenobi clinched the duel non-violently
About the results of the Mustafar duel, Kenobi actually won the duel because he jumped into the black sand and into the higher ground, putting Vader at a massive disadvantage. Kenobi told Vader to give up since Vader has no chance of catching up, therefore, Kenobi actually told Vader to admit defeat and stop the violence. Kenobi didn't maime Vader--it was Vader who did it himself--morally. Remember Sith believes in Violence and Jedi does not. Kenobi tried to tell Vader to return back to the Light Side as Anakin and to stand up for what he had done. Vader, though, showed hatred of the Jedi and his words provoked violence alone, it wasn't the fact that Kenobi ignited his lightsaber saying that he had to do whatever he must, it was Anakin's/Vader's words that provoked the violence. If Vader just listened to Kenobi and just admit defeat, then he wouldn't have been maimed and charred at Mustafar. Instead, Vader ignored Kenobi and just tried to strike at Kenobi, getting maimed and charred through the process. The real reason why Vader got maimed, charred, and transformed into his fearsome appearance in A New Hope was not because of Obi-Wan gaining the high ground and did a deft defensive flash to severly immobilize Vader, it was the weight of Vader's words and Vader's refusal to concede that got Vader maimed and charred. — Vesther 18:34, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
- That's a fair interpretation, but I've been avoiding letting interpretation seep into the article for reasons of NPOV and keeping out original research. Nonetheless, it was Obi-Wan who moved his blade across Anakin's legs, so from a purely factual basis (not an interpretive/moral/metaphorical basis), the article is still correct. — Phil Welch 19:00, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
- Also, if Jedi do not believe in violence, why did they serve as Generals in the Clone Wars? Why do we see them consistently (albeit justifiably) engaging in acts of physical force? Why do they carry lightsabers? You may say that the Jedi do not believe in unprovoked or unjustified violence, but they are more than willing to engage in violence when it is morally legitimate, in both "self-defense" and "just war" situations. — Phil Welch 19:03, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
Voice Talent
I just learned that Anakin was voiced by Matt Lucas, Lucas' son for the Revenge of the Sith game, and want to add it.
- If you can find a source, sure, I'll be sure to add it when it's unprotected unless someone else gets to it first. — Phil Welch 06:04, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
George Lucas's son's name is Jett Lucas, not "Matt".
Huh, weird, it might've been another Lucas not related to George. I'll recheck. What do you want as proof? I found out in the video game.
Someone must review the article and rewrite all related to Anakin's life as a young adult. We already know that Anakin's turn to the Dark Side was because the Jedi were running him down all the time. So he used the Dark Side as a way to advance his training the best way he did. DarthPlaegis, 5:10, August 7, 2005
What happened to this article?
...it's pretty much gone. Is this vandalism, or was it taken off for some reason? There's a single line of text. That's it.
Woah. Nevermind. I typed in the name, properly capitalizing it..."Darth Vader" yielded an article with one sentence on it, saying that he was the villain in star wars. Then, I typed "darth vader", without capitalizing, and I got the complete article.
- That wasn't what it was. It was just momentary vandalism that was quickly reverted. Here's to RC Patrol. — Phil Welch 03:36, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
Anakin vs. Darth Vader
Has a consensus been reached on whether to refer to the character as Anakin or Darth Vader in this article? Copperchair recently switched everything from "Anakin" to "Darth Vader" and deleted the reference note at the bottom of the page that seems to specify that the character should be referred to as "Anakin" up through Episode III; his edit was marked with this note: "Fixed article to be consistent on the Anakin/Vader matter." However, I see no discussion and cannot find a place where a consensus was reached. Am I just blind and missing something here? (Possibly this is due to Copperchair's erasing of his talk page, I don't know.) – Mipadi 20:33, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
Actually, it is some lines above, under "Naming dispute". Copperchair 02:40, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
When you read above, be sure to see the lines where Copperchair agrees with that third opinion and then proceeds to violate that agreement every day since then, and then the part where I note that I've found shooting scripts and posted links (in the article itself), which Copperchair keeps removing. While there's no specific policy that says you have to actually follow your agreements, I think it falls under m:Don't be a dick to give your word and then go back on it within the space of six hours. Unfortunately, no one cares about this stupid dispute other than Copperchair (who has nothing better to do than POV-push on Wikipedia for Star Wars interpretations, of all things), and me (who's been trying to bring this to Featured Article status and is being somewhat of a perfectionist at this point.) Still, I've had a third opinion given in my favor and if you want to give a fourth I'd appreciate that. — Phil Welch 03:04, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
- Well, the reason I brought up the point was that the footnote seemed to make a good point: I think the character should be named according to the script, which specifies his name as "Anakin" up through Episode III, not "Darth Vader". It seems to make sense that he would be called "Anakin" up through Episode III. – Mipadi 17:23, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
But YOU didn't want a third opinion to begin with. Also, attacking me only rests you credibility. And I am also a perfectionist, and I will do whatever I think is correct. And you have not followed you agreement regarding the Episode VI images captions, so don't come telling me how I have to keep my word. You have no authority whatsoever on that matter. Even the script you linked here refers to him as Anakin at that point. Finally, I proposed to end the edit war by keeping my word if you keep yours, but you refused, so the edit war will continue. Copperchair 06:56, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
- I never opposed asking for a third opinion, I believe I said that it was your prerogative to ask for one. I have never attacked you, only told the truth: you have acted in continually bad faith, making agreements and breaking them at the same time. If you point out to me where I have broken any agreements I have made I will rectify my error. — Phil Welch 18:50, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
How about the caption on Episode VI end celebration? And you do keep attacking me ("don't be a dick" and "assholery"?) Copperchair 04:49, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
- "Assholery" is a characterization of behavior and not you as a person. "Don't be a dick" is the title of a Meta article that I believe applies to your behavior. Finally, how have I violated any regarding the spirits image? I've taken the effort to produce direct quotes and diff links regarding your behavior and I think it's only fair I request the same from you. — Phil Welch 04:52, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
You keep removing the link to Episode VI. Copperchair 05:39, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
- When? And when have I ever agreed not to remove that link? Provide diffs, please. — Phil Welch 05:48, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
See the second and third posts in the "Image caption dispute" discussion. Copperchair 06:14, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
- Furthermore, it's useless to negotiate with someone who refuses to keep his word, Copperchair. Had you done as I requested and keep your word on the agreements you've already made for a 72-hour period, I would have considered your offer. But given your repeated refusal to show any good faith at all, I'm not going to waste time making more agreements for you to break. — Phil Welch 19:11, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
See the paragraph above. Copperchair 04:49, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
Possible Edit War again
I've recently viewed the history only to know that Darth Vader has been edited too many times (I, for one, had to edit just to explain the pictures). I didn't bother editing the page since then.
When Anakin kneeled towards Sidious/Palpatine, he ceased to be Anakin for 99.8% of the time (He would only be addressed as Anakin by Obi-Wan and Padme only), becoming Darth Vader.
At the end of The Empire Strikes Back, it should be noted that Anakin Skywalker was far more powerful than Darth Vader. Vader starts to have conflicts as the sanity left inside him starts showing from the outside.
He ceased to be Vader after realizing that the Emperor continues to electrify Luke. Becoming Anakin again and knowing the error of his ways, he killed the Emperor with great risk. — Vesther 15:01, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
- That's a pretty fair interpretation, but I think the reality here is that there are many different good interpretations. I think the best policy is to say that in the article and to sort of go by the script. — Phil Welch 15:35, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
I now have a third opinion on my favor, too. Copperchair 03:37, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
- Looking at this page for the first time, I am absolutely floored that this kind of issue has persisted. Stop pushing POV. Acknowledge the controversy and move on. Bulwark 04:14, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
- Who cares, Copperchair? First off the third opinion isn't entirely in your favor, second off I have a fourth AND fifth opinion in my favor, and third off, you've already accepted the *first* third opinion anyway. Give up already. — Phil Welch 06:08, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
All right, then I'll change Darth Vader to Anakin in ALL of Episode III, following your precious third opinion, which you didn't want me to ask for in the first place. Does that make sense to you? Copperchair 06:49, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
- The third opinion suggested going by the scripts, which I have done. Please cease your blatant assholery. As for the Return of the Jedi captions, it is here that I edit to the compromise version, and it is here that you agree to the compromise version and call a truce, a truce that you have continually violated with regards to that caption. Between that and your blatant violation of the third opinion you have agreed to, you have no credibility. If you continue your aggressive actions, I will pursue a request for comment against your conduct. — Phil Welch 18:57, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
Bring it on, name-caller! Copperchair 04:45, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
- I never called you any names, I'm simply characterizing your behavior. As you may recall you have made the majority of the personal attacks. — Phil Welch 04:47, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
I always took it back, and even deleted those posts. On the other hand, since then you have increaseingly insulted me. Copperchair 04:58, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
- How? Where? I've criticized your behavior (because it needs criticism) but I don't believe I've ever attacked you as a person. — Phil Welch 05:01, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
By calling my conduct "assholery" you are calling me an asshole. Copperchair 05:39, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
- No, I'm saying that certain actions you are taking are characteristic of the behavior of an asshole. If I said you made an "idiotic edit" I wouldn't be calling you an idiot, this is the same. — Phil Welch 05:48, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
Of course you would. Are you familiar with "deduction"? Copperchair 05:58, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
- This debate is useless. Suffice it to say that it was never my intent to make a statement about anything other than your behavior. Arguing with you has ceased to be a useful enterprise--I will allow your version of the dying Anakin caption to stand so long as you agree, once and for all, without any further violations, that this dispute ends here and now. — Phil Welch 06:00, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
That was my offer in the first place. Of course I'll keep my word. Copperchair 06:11, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
Darth Vader's Intellect
Anakin is the "son" of the Force, thus, he is gifted with a brilliant mind (just as the gods of ancient mythology). During his service to Watto, he learned vital technical and mechanical skills. While the Force may aid him in the construction of devices and machines, it is notewothy that Anakin is an engineering prodigy without the powers. -- User:24.253.120.206
- Yeah. I tried to leave it unstated in the article whether all his talents were due to the Force, other than specifically quoting Obi-Wan about his piloting skills. I think it works best to put it that way. — Phil Welch 00:45, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
"I Need Him! or Nooo!!!"?
There is a debate on whether "I Need Him!!!" or "NOOO!!!" warranted Anakin to simultaneously ignite his lightsaber and carve off Mace Windu's offenses. I don't think that "I Need Him" warranted Anakin to ignite his lightsaber and cut Windu's offenses off. My views is that Anakin didn't say that "he needs Palpatine" for a reason, but he tries to convince Windu to have Palpatine stand trial. Don't you guys think that Anakin was supposed to shout out "Nooo!!!" as he tries to cut off Windu's offenses to defend Palpatine?
I don't think "I need him!" warranted Anakin to defend Palpatine, I think Anakin wanted Palpatine to stand trial, but Windu chose to ignore Anakin's request, so that's why Anakin sliced Windu's hand off. I think it should be "NOOO!!!" instead of "I need him!" that caused Anakin to slice Windu's hand off. — Vesther 03:14, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Section divisions
If you haven't noticed I'm trying to keep the sections so that they correspond to the films, with "Anakin Skywalker" covering the prequels and "Darth Vader" covering the original trilogy. Also the use of numbering in listing the actors is amateurish, the publicity shot is a better picture, and Ben Burtt was the special effects supervisor—not in any universe would he be credited with playing the role. — Phil Welch 17:36, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
Anakin Skywlker/Darth Vader at the end of Episode III discussion update
The official site has updated the databank entry for Darth Vader. I suggest you take a look at it. Copperchair 06:50, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
- "His wife, Padmé Amidala, followed Anakin to Mustafar", "Despite his newfound power bestowed by the dark side of the Force, Anakin was grievously wounded in the fight", and it was only after Mustafar that "He abandoned his former identity". Alright. Thanks for pointing that out. The databank follows the practice we established for the article—namely, to use both names throughout most of Revenge of the Sith. It appears Copperchair's favorite source seems to agree with our consensus. — Phil Welch 09:03, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
1. "When it came time to make the fateful decision, he agreed to follow Sidious' teachings and knelt before the dark master.
Anakin was renamed Darth Vader".
2."His wife, Padmé Amidala, followed Anakin to Mustafar, to plead for him to return from the dark side. When Obi-Wan Kenobi emerged from Amidala's ship, Vader was consumed with rage. He saw betrayal at every corner. Distraught, he reached out with his hand and began to telekinetically throttle Padmé. She gasped for air before collapsing, unconscious, on the Mustafar landing platform. Shocked at how far his apprentice had fallen, Kenobi vowed to stop Vader and the two entered into a fierce lightsaber duel that traversed the burning Mustafar landscape."
It says "Anakin" because that is who Padmé was looking for. She didn't know his new name. You invented the "and it was only after Mustafar that" part. As for "He abandoned his former identity.", it refers to the fact that he no longer had a wife (or nobody of his loved ones, to be precise), which was the cause for his turn to the dark side, so he began a new life. Copperchair 20:58, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
- You're forgetting "Despite his newfound power bestowed by the dark side of the Force, Anakin was grievously wounded in the fight," and also "When metal coupled with flesh in the form of cyborg implants and enhancements required to sustain him, Skywalker's transformation was complete." Copperchair, it's a completely moot point anyway. We made an agreement, and you promised not to break it. I am going to hold you to it. Don't waste our time on this yet again. — Phil Welch 22:44, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
Yes, but you know that was left from the older version of the page, since you pointed that out too the last time. And even though I will keep my word, I want the issue to be clear at least in the talk page, so I do not feel I am "wasting my time". Copperchair 22:58, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
- They would have changed that part if it was wrong, Copperchair. We decided to go by the scripts, and as far as we know that's what happened. As long as you keep your word, I have no further complaints. — Phil Welch 23:13, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
You don't have to keep reminding my of our agreement. I gave you my word, and I will keep it. But I am not satisfied with the current version of the article, and will continue to support my position on this page. Copperchair 04:24, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
Hayden Christensen in Jedi - huh?
According to the caption below the photo; "Hayden Christensen as the spirit of Anakin Skywalker (left) in Return of the Jedi." - is this a photoshopped photo?? because at the time Jedi was made he was about 2 years old. Astrokey44 13:08, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
- Check the 2004 DVD set. Lucas replaced the the old guy with Hayden. The Wookieepedian 13:25, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
- oh ok, should that be noted on the picture caption? - something like "On the 2004 DVD cover, HC replaced SS from the original movie" - well I cant think of the right wording but you see what i mean. Astrokey44 13:39, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
- Well, Lucas considers that the only' version of that films, sort of his updated one, and claims that's how Anakin should look. I guess I could mention that, though The Wookieepedian 13:43, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
- I see that its been removed, which makes sense since it was not in the original movie - just to put it up so people know what we're talking about Astrokey44 22:40, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
- Well, Lucas considers that the only' version of that films, sort of his updated one, and claims that's how Anakin should look. I guess I could mention that, though The Wookieepedian 13:43, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
- oh ok, should that be noted on the picture caption? - something like "On the 2004 DVD cover, HC replaced SS from the original movie" - well I cant think of the right wording but you see what i mean. Astrokey44 13:39, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
Read the archives, this has been discussed. — Phil Welch 22:46, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
And the same goes for the Palpatine article. Copperchair 23:18, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
User:Obi-Wan keeps reverting back to DVD-version captures. While these are the most up to date and I would like to change to them eventually, I do think that at this point in time the earlier captures are more appropriate just because they're the version that's the most familiar to the most people. We can feel safe changing it over after the theatric re-release in 3D, or perhaps later on, but right now I think it's premature. After all, Lucas might make yet another change between now and then. — Phil Welch 19:00, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
- I think the new versions should be used, they're higher in quality and the latest official version of the film. —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 19:48, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
- I just reverted another of his reverts. I agree with Phil. The Wookieepedian 19:50, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
Fine, they're the latest official version. It's also a version that's only existed for just over a year now and that comparatively few people have seen. The fact is, the story of Darth Vader and the cultural phenomenon of Star Wars is more than George Lucas's latest revision. As an encyclopedia it's our job to reflect reality, and reality is, far, far more people saw Sebastian Shaw as the Force ghost. Until the latest revision gains enough cultural currency to overturn the scene that's existed for over 20 years--not just among fanboys but among the public in general--then it's premature to change it. — Phil Welch 20:10, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
- Why shouldn't we then as an encyclopedia have both versions and explain the difference in Vaders portraial between the two versions of the movies. —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 22:15, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
We do--in List of changes in Star Wars re-releases. — Phil Welch 22:23, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
- Plus the fact that Lucas changed the scene is in the Vader article. The Wookieepedian 23:32, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
- Since when is Wikipedia not supposed to have the latest information? We shouldn't stay purposefully outdated just so some people can catch up. There isn't going to be panic in the streets if we post a screenshot from a DVD that millions of people have bought over the past year or so. Just have a caption that says "from the 2004 DVD release". That's all. The more you show these shots, the quicker they'll be accepted. Besides, I'm sure that more people nowadays would recognize Hayden Christensen over Sebastian Shaw. You know, I sense an undercurrent of dislike against this change, or Christensen, or the Prequels in general... you shouldn't be making excuses to keep the old picture. --Marcg106 05:00, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Assume good faith. I'm not "making excuses", I'm just looking beyond the impulse, of some, to treat Lucas's latest revisions as the only consideration to be made. If we're supposed to present a truly representative picture of what Star Wars is, we should present a generally broader picture than simply what Lucas's latest revision is. There won't be "panic in the streets" if we don't—we'd just be failing our job as an encyclopedia, not to make Lucas's tinkering with his old films more quickly accepted, but to catalogue the cultural phenomena of our civilization. — Phil Welch 13:15, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
- You say to assume good faith, yet your reply seems to have a condecending attitude toward's Lucas "tinkering". Every other page on Wikipedia is always updated with the latest information as soon as it's available. I fail to see how this page is different. "Cataloguing cultural phenomena" does not take precedent over providing accurate, up-to-date details.
- This flippant attitude toward's Lucas' updates is not appropriate. The idea that, "oh, he'll make more revisions in the future, so why bother displaying them now?" is completely against what Wikipedia's about. If he does make those changes, then we'll update the pages accordingly. But for now, the images should reflect the most current version.
- I'd really like to see some other pages where up-to-date information is sacrificed for the sake of "preserving culture".
- It would be interesting to see arguments against this change that aren't based in a fundamental dissaproval of Lucas' prerogative to change his films. --Marcg106 15:52, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with Lucas changing his films. I just don't think Wikipedia should be activist about promoting the acceptance of those changes: that's called maintaining the Neutral point of view. Once again, this page notes that Christiansen appears in the latest version of Return of the Jedi--no "accurate, up-to-date details" are sacrificed. If you want to see arguments that "aren't based in a fundamental dissaproval of Lucas' prerogative to change his films", I suggest you reread my arguments because you obviously failed to comprehend them the first time. — Phil Welch 18:25, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Again, I suggest that we display images from both versions of the films and explain the differences, there's no need to pick one version, and no, having it at List of changes in Star Wars re-releases is not enough. —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 23:46, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
- Why? That's the article that's actually *about* differences between various versions of the films. It's at best a tangential issue in this article. — Phil Welch 01:11, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
- Well in my opionion if the portrayal of this character changes through different versions of the movies we should explain that in this article as well as the list of .. article. —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 04:40, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
As currently written, the article clearly states that the portrayal does change. We just haven't cluttered the article with two pictures of the same scene. — Phil Welch 15:07, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
From my point of view, I felt that I'd rather see Sebastian Shaw as the forgiven Anakin, IMO Anakin "secretly" aged while he was encaged in his "original trilogy damnation", as his burning healed up though not completely. So, I'd say if people has the courage, the forgiven Anakin image should be reverted back to Sebastian, who represented the forgiven Anakin more closely. — Vesther 21:39, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
"where both Kenobi and a dying Yoda" vs. "where both a dying Yoda and Kenobi"
I really hope there's not some stupid edit war brewing over this, but I see that Copperchair has reverted this edit several times, and I really, really just want to ask: um, why does such a small word choice even matter? – Mipadi 07:01, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
- "Kenobi and a dying Yoda" flows better, even though it's not chronologically accurate. But there's no representation or expectation that it would be, either. — Phil Welch 07:44, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
Category:Star Wars Naberrie family
Does Anakin really belong in this category? He married Padme and that might be considered marrying into the Naberrie family, but usually we see it as the woman marrying into the man's family and not the other way around. If there's something definite about the way this is seen in the Star Wars universe, I'd like to see it. — Phil Welch 07:12, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
- Well, the way it is in the real world is quite the double standard, so I would think that the Star Wars world, as advanced as they seem in all aspects, would see it both ways. As far as in-universe aspects go, I'm quite surprised that they would still expect women to take the last name of the person they marry. But of course, since those stories were written by earthly humans, it's not all that surprising. Let's leave it at that, as there's really no established custom as far as "marrying into" in Star Wars fiction yet.The Wookieepedian 08:19, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
One thing i've always found notable in the Star Wars canon is the vast array of different customs in different cultures, even within a given species. I think a little delving could probably be done and see what the custom is on Naboo, because with all of the source material a precedent has probably been established somewhere in the EU TastemyHouse 23:20, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
"widely considered one of the most iconic movie villains of all time"
I've attempted to replace this weasel statement in the lead section with a factual statement that conveys approximately the same message. It may be less dramatic, but the original statement is still an opinion without references, even if it is not a widely disputed statement. --Poiuyt Man talk 03:56, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
- How about we just leave it the way I had it, but.. give a reference to your specific fact, wherever it is on the net. The Wookieepedian 03:57, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
- I've reworded it to keep the notion that he's an iconic figure (without the opinionated "one of the most"), while mentioning his pop culture significance and AFI to back it up. It easily summarizes and leads the reader into the "cultural figure" section. --Poiuyt Man talk 04:08, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
- Good. I agree with your style of wording. The Wookieepedian 04:10, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
- I've reworded it to keep the notion that he's an iconic figure (without the opinionated "one of the most"), while mentioning his pop culture significance and AFI to back it up. It easily summarizes and leads the reader into the "cultural figure" section. --Poiuyt Man talk 04:08, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
- He's been featured on some sci-fi presentation as the #1 greatest villian of all time, unlike his #3 ranking in the reference used in the article. Vader is rather iconic; though we'd need significant backup to state here that he's the most iconic villan ever. Stepping back from wikidom a bit, he may very well be.
"Appearance" image
The image of Darth Vader by the "Appereance" section is there for a very simple reason—so we get to see what he looks like in a section discussing what he looks like. It's an illustration. While I'm not opposed to a caption necessarily, it would have to be a caption that is useful to the purpose of illustrating what Lord Vader looks like, or else it's a distraction from the meaning and flow of the page. By the way, formatting the image as a thumbnail without a caption is quite silly as well. — Phil Welch 19:26, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
- The caption goes along with the discussion of his appearance. Furthermore, the image is a thumbnail, so it should be formatted as such.
- Wikipedia even specifies a standard format for adding images: 1 2 – Mipadi 19:27, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
Stop the petty reverting.
This is directed towards Copperchair and The Wookieepedian, who keep reverting Hayden's episode VI appearance in the infobox. Regardless of which version of the film you consider the "true" version, all versions of the movie need to be acknowledged to avoid POV. I've place a footnote to clarify which version of ROTJ Hayden appears in. Hopefully this is a satisfactory solution for both of you. --Poiuyt Man talk 16:44, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
- Trust me, Copperchair cannot accept any type of compromise. For him, all Star Wars articles must be based only on the '97 Speial Editions. I was not trying to promote my version as he was. He was attempting to remove information from other versions. I left everything in from the other versions. If I acted like him, I would have removed the fact that Sebastian Shaw originally played him. Yep, that's how silly Copperchair's actions are, when looked at from a different point of view! Even when I have given him this comparison, he merely avoids it, and continues reverting. And the guy claims he studied law! The Wookieepedian 02:27, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
Inexplicably removing factually correct and referenced information, as Copperchair is doing, arguably constitutes vandalism. I'm conservative when it comes to defining vandalism but I think this qualifies, if barely. — Phil Welch 03:01, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
It is NOT vandalism, as that information is already in the article (Sebastian Shaw portrayed the dying, middle-aged (and redeemed) man behind the mask in the theatrical release of Return of the Jedi and shortly after, as his ghost; however, in the most recent DVD release, Christensen is digitally inserted in Shaw's place.) Thus, Poiuyt Man's footnote is redundant. Copperchair 07:03, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
- And so is the fact that Shaw played him. Should we remove that from the info box as well? The Wookieepedian 07:07, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
- By that logic, the whole infobox is redundant, as all the information within it is mirrored in prose within the article. The infobox is meant to summarize various crucial details, and the footnote is used to prevent bloating the infobox by inserting the entire explanation into it. --Poiuyt Man talk 09:21, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
No, because he, unlike Hayden, appears in the end credits. Copperchair 07:22, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
- But face reality; Hayden played him in the DVD of ROTJ. That is a FACT. End credits or not, Hayden played him in the DVD. That doesn't seem too hard to understand, unless YOU HAPPEN TO REFUSE TO BECUASE YOU ARE A 97' PURIST. The Wookieepedian 07:40, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
I GO BY THE END CREDITS. If someone is not credited, he/she should not be listed as if he/she was. Copperchair 08:18, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
- Well, I don't. End credits can be in error. In all cases, despite end credits, if an actor was in a movie, THEN AN ACTOR WAS IN A MOVIE. People make mistakes in credits, you know. For instance, with ROTS, Aiden Barton portrayed Luke and Leia, but they were left out of the credits. Did they play Luke and Leia? Yes. Also take the 2004 DVD. In that case, the editors apparently forgot to change or add the credits. The Wookieepedian 08:25, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
They didn't forget; they decided not to include them in the end credits, and I will respect that decision. Copperchair 09:01, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
- Then who are you to say that Lucas purposely didn't include Hayden in the credits? Regardless of whether or not he is credited, he is in the movie. The infobox box field is labeled "Portrayer", which includes all actors that have portrayed the character. It is not labeled "Actors credited". --Poiuyt Man talk 09:29, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
- Copperchair will say anything just to reduce the information from the 2004 versions in articles. The Wookieepedian 09:44, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
I say Lucas purposely didn't include Hayden in the credits because he didn't. Or did he? Copperchair 09:48, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
- I was referring to excuses. The Wookieepedian 09:51, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
As usual, myself and the others agree and Copperchair disagrees. The civil, good-faith decision would be to respect the rough consensus that's beginning to emerge. Copperchair's decision is to not respect the rough consensus that's beginning to emerge. The conclusion of this modus tollens is left as an exercise for the reader. — Phil Welch 18:21, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
Edits by 67.171.237.88
This anonymous user has made a number of good edits and a number of ones that I personally disagree with, so I think this would be a good place to discuss them. Below are the differences that seem to be cropping up (add others if you wish):
My "The iconic villain has appeared throughout pop culture" vs. 67's "Considered one of the most iconic villains in movie history has become a staple of pop culture "—despite the bad grammar in 67's version that we would presumably want to fix, I think a rough consensus to my version is visible above. If 67 wants to try and persuade us in the relevant section above why his version is better he's free to, but this one seems settled for the time being.
"Mark Hamill noted in a 1983 interview, "Bob Anderson was the man who actually did Vader’s fighting. It was always supposed to be a secret, but I finally told George I didn’t think it was fair any more. Bob worked so bloody hard that he deserves some recognition. It’s ridiculous to preserve the myth that it’s all done by one man."". He wants it removed. Why?
"It is interesting to note that "Vader" is the Dutch word for "father" and that the German word for "father" (Vater) is similar. Thus, it may be tempting to read the character name "Darth Vader" as "Dark Father," a word-play that may well be the root of the Sith title. However, judging by the origin of the other Sith names, Vader may also possibly be a derivative of the word "invader." It is worth noting that in the original scripts for Star Wars, the name "Darth Vader" was given to a normal Imperial general. The title "Darth" may also come from "Dark Lord of the Sith." In the French translation of the movies, his name is translated as "Dark Vador", which means nothing in French." He wants it removed. Why?
If there are any other disputes feel free to bring them up. — Phil Welch 00:23, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
I'd like to see whoever keeps making these anonymous changes answer for himself. On Wikipedia we resolve issues through discussion, not continual reversion. — Phil Welch 01:56, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
Edits by Wookieepedian
Wookiee, if you want to go ahead and argue for some of your recent changes to the article (some of which I've reverted, some of which I've kept and altered a bit) feel free to. I'm letting you provide opening arguments this time :) — Phil Welch 18:59, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
- The primary change I wanted to make was to move the EU section directly below the sections on "Anakin Skywalker" and "Darth Vader," as it is, of course, a direct continuation and expansion of the story in the first two sections. Yeah, it's not as notable, but it brings the story parts of the page together, before bringing in non-story details, such as appearance and things. The Wookieepedian 23:44, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
- Phil, glad to see you reworked the opening wording. I made the initial change becuase it seems this article lean more toward the classic idea of Vader as a pure villain, and didn't seem to touch as much on, or make it a blatant point that he was the tragic hero, and main focus of the series. The Wookieepedian 07:55, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, moving the EU section makes sense from a certain perspective, but on the other hand, I want to sort of work away from the current bias of lumping EU in together with the rest of the films, because in terms of cultural impact and currency there's a vast, vast gulf (the films having significant impact while the EU having next to none). Think of it as a work against the geek fanboy systematic bias. :) If it's a big deal to you we can discuss it in greater detail, I'm just trying to summarize my rationale here. By the way, thanks for being such a great editor to work with lately! — Phil Welch 08:11, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
- Yeah, I understand that there is a HUGE difference in impact and familiarity between the films and the EU. My complaint, however, is that the sections on "appearance," "talents," etc. separate the "story" aspects of the character's life, familiarity or not. It makes it look as though that, rather than looking at it as part of his complete life, makes it into a more minor detail, while some of the events in the EU clearly are major (for example: Luke's first battle with him in Splinter of the Mind's Eye, his involvement in Shadows of the Empire, the hunting down of the rebels responsible for the first death star's destruction in the holiday special). It's really an issue of order and completeness that I have with it. I think it's important, however, to distinguish what is in the films, and what isn't. For instance, typically, edotors will not distinguish what's part of the films, but will the EU, as it in in the Vader article. I think we can move up the EU section on Vader and elsewhere, if a disticion is made, so that readers themselves will be able to make a clear distiction, and can skip over EU material that they may not find too interesting. So, if we make clear disticions, it would work well for the people of both worlds: the fanboys, who want to see the films and EU lumped together, and everyone else, who may not be as interested, and will want to see the difference so that they can skip over it (for an example of an article that does make such a clear distinction, see Obi-Wan Kenobi). Now, I do think that it would be very fanboyish to not separate the two, and merely name the events, and not distinguish films and EU (Cough, Star Wars Wiki, Cough). The Wookieepedian 09:45, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
Were Darth Vader a real person, I'd certainly agree his EU exploits would be far more important to him than a simple minor detail. However, Darth Vader is a fictional character, and in that respect, little-known exploits that are almost unknown outside serious fandom are minor details, especially compared to the distinctive appearance and cultural impact of the character. The criterion here is "important to the reader", and by "the reader" I mean the aggregate of all readers. The average reader would be interested to learn what Vader's done in the expanded universe, but I think he would care a bit more about what he did in the actual movies and about how he's the quintessential pop-culture villain. — Phil Welch 02:11, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
Edits by Copperchair
Aside from the bizarre "let's not mention Hayden's appearance in ROTJ" thing (which I didn't bother reverting Copperchair on), the three main things Copperchair changed in his latest uncivilly-summarized edit are as follows:
- In the summary, "In later films, his redemption, as well as his initial fall from grace, are explored in greater depth." is changed to "In the third film released in the series we see his redemption, and in later films his initial fall from grace is explored in greater depth." I personally think the former version is far better-phrased within the context of a summary section.
- "Vader gets a lock on Luke's X-wing, noting that "the Force is strong with this one."" is changed to "Vader gets a lock on Luke's X-wing, noting that "The Force is strong with this one."" The former is capitalized correctly—even when quoting a complete sentence within a sentence, my understanding is that the quote does not begin with a capital letter.
- "That night, Luke burns his father's Sith armor (and whatever remains inside) in the manner of a Jedi's funeral." is changed to "That night, Vader's body disappears as he becomes one with the Force. Luke burns his father's Sith armor in the manner of a Jedi's funeral.". A lot of editors other than Copperchair have been making a wide variety of edits stating either that Anakin didn't disappear and Luke burned his body, or that Anakin did disappear and Luke burned his armor. It isn't shown in the film, and the way I have it stated here is more neutral. That said, a better addressing of this issue may be in order.
I hope this is informative. — Phil Welch 02:05, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
- I reverted his removal of the Hayden appearance, AGAIN. The Wookieepedian 07:59, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
I've reincorporated old material as a footnote linked from the disappearing-body issue. That should settle that issue. The capitalization and summary style issues, of course, Copperchair continues reverting on without explanation. — Phil Welch 19:08, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, he continues that with several articles, just as always. The Wookieepedian 19:15, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
darth vader translation
i would just like to suggest, although i know that it has been mentioned here to some degree, that the "darth," as originally conceived, was not a title.
the name "vader" back in 77, or whenever lucas was writing his original screenplay, actually could have been inspired by the german or dutch pronunciation of the word for father; i see the argument for why not on this page, but would like to submit that people have been looking at the "darth" meaning "dark" incorrectly, and that lucas really was making an allusion.
i think darth in this case is actually closer to the word "dearth" which means missing or lost. in this case, if vader means father, then the translation would be "missing father."
using the pronunciation of old english (which is very similar to dutch and german) and spelling it phonetically, dearth would become darth. vader would have to be pronounced as we do now in order to make it a degree away from the german, which is too similar to its meaning (and would therefore clue the viewer into the secret.) using the two seperate pronunciations, he creates a mysterious name with a secret meaning.
noting also that this site is dedicated to keeping things most up-to-date, this argument may not mean much, since it is obvious that the darth appellation has become a title and not an actual name as of episode one. regardless, this may be an interesting point to add to the article, or at least a bit of new trivia for those who are editing this board.
i leave it to your judgement for whether or not it should be included.
Tense
I don't understand why the biography is in the present tense. Shouldn't it be in the past (as well as the minor villians page) with the exception of the image captions?- JustPhil 20:44, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
- Present tense is apparently standard on Wikipedia for fictional events. — Phil Welch 20:48, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
Minor Edits by Vesther
Now possessing the ROTS DVD, I watched the Immolation Scene very closely. I think everybody agrees that Anakin's eyes turn yellow before he gets toasted up, but before his immolation, isn't Obi-Wan supposed to be in a state of grief? Like Obi-Wan knew that Anakin broke his mission as the Chosen One? Obi-Wan, after maiming and immobilizing Anakin, started to be in a state of grief since Anakin apparently joined the Sith instead of destroying the Sith. — Vesther 21:32, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
Making succession box more accurate
How is Jon Hart's version more accurate? Please explain, Jon Hart, how the previous version was inaccurate. — Phil Welch 23:10, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
- Because Lumiya and Flint did succeed Vader? Because after Bane it's a good idea to list both extant Sith? --Maru (talk) Contribs 23:41, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
- The previous box said "apprentice to Darth Sidious". Sidious was *the* Dark Lord of the Sith and presumably has his own succession series. Also, Vader was Sidious's last apprentice. So the previous version was completely accurate, and far less confusing/misleading. — Phil Welch 00:09, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
The Clones Wars
Shouldn't the information on his involvement with the clone wars (the part on the animated series) go under the expanded universe section? The Wookieepedian 00:14, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Anakin or Vader?
Phil, I've read your conversations with Copperchair. But, why must you strickly follow the shooting script? He is clearly designated Darth Vader halfway trogh ROTS. It doesn't have anything to do with the fact that he is culturally synonomous with the suit does it? The Wookieepedian 00:17, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
- That's part of it. You'll notice that during the ROTS sections we do use the name "Vader" sometimes. For instance, "In order to increase Lord Vader's power with the dark side...". The agreement seems to be: dialogue should be quoted from the shooting script as much as possible, but exposition can use either name depending on flow, redundancy, and which aspect we want to discuss. This will lead us to use "Anakin" a lot simply because "Anakin vs. Obi-Wan" is more the concept of that sequence than "Vader vs. Obi-Wan". — Phil Welch 00:36, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
- In some sections, however, it is factually incorrect to use "Anakin" (ex. the caption of him with the yellow eyes). I think "Vader" should be used as much as possible, while using "Anakin" when discussing his former self in the film, prior to being declared "Lord Vader." For instance, "Anakin's lightsaber," or "Anakin's wife." The Wookieepedian 00:43, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
The shooting script, novelization, and multiple other sources refer to him as "Anakin" even after he'd fallen to the Dark Side. If you have the soundtrack, for instance, the music for the duel is titled "Anakin vs. Obi-Wan". Anakin and Vader are just different names for the same person, the only reason to use exclusively one name is in situations where the other name didn't apply (i.e. most of the prequels) and in situations where it was a galaxy-wide secret that Darth Vader was Anakin Skywalker (i.e. most of the original trilogy). But when he's fighting Obi-Wan, choking Padme, or killing the Separatist leaders and Jedi younglings, everyone who was there knew he was Anakin Skywalker. It's just that for most of the original trilogy, Padme's dead, Obi-Wan's keeping secrets, and everyone else Anakin killed in ROTS aren't telling secrets either. — Phil Welch 00:54, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
There's another issue: does this page go here or at Anakin Skywalker. Yes, people spent a lot of time moving things around, but if we consider Vader a seperate person, he was niether born nor did he die. In the end, he was still Anakin. --HereToHelp|talk 23:42, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
- Darth Vader is the better known name—that trumps other considerations. Check the talk archives. There is PLENTY of precedent for this. — Phil Welch 00:37, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Article size
My God! This article is getting really full. Whenever I tried to edit or add information to this page nowadays, sometimes it just doesn't work. It also says that this article is already 54 kilobytes long, meaning that it has already exceeded its page limit. Shouldn't we do something about it before anything goes wrong? --Anon.
- There is no limit. That is merely the suggested size. --Maru (talk) Contribs 21:39, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Anakins Birth
Who thinks Anakin was created by Palpatine's so called master and why? Does anyone have ideas on my question?
i did but i wanted results on my thoughts so i began to ask around
This thing you are saying is incorrect. Anakin's mother says that he was born from unknown causes (I think is the force). But that theory with Sidious master is wierd. And anyway , who's Darth Sidious's Master. I think his master is Darth Plageious, the sith master that could cheat death (Palpatine has talked about him in episode 3 with Anakin, in the Senate)
- I believe in the Novelisation, Sidious says that Plagieus was his master... until he killed him. Emmanovi 06:26, 26 April 2006 (UTC)