Talk:Darth Vader/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Portrayals

In this section, there is no mention of Jake Lloyd who played him as a child in Ep1 TPM, and of Sabastian Shaw who played him when Vader's helmet is removed in Episode VI RotJ. I'm not positive of these names and spellings, but if no one else ads these two actors, I will come back and do it once I've had a chance to research this.

No those two actors portrayed Anakin Skywalker not Darth Vade. Jedi6-(need help?) 02:59, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, but it seems weird that both actors are shown in this very article.--72.20.146.98 21:49, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Rank

Is it worth mentioning that he is the (at least according to "The Book of Useless Information [in my house somewhere!]) only character in Star Wars not to have a rank? --Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 22:02, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Wasn't he Military Executor? --maru (talk) contribs 03:43, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

after ANH, he became supreme commander of the navy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thefourdotelipsis (talk • contribs)

Source? I don't think anyone ever called him anything other than Lord Vader. EVula 07:21, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Eh? What does what they call have much to do with anything? That's his Sith title. Anyway, Wookieepedia also backs up the Executor and Supreme Commander ranks, and I believe they are sourced from the novelizations, and the Imperial Sourcebook. --maru (talk) contribs 07:35, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

No real point other than that I didn't recall anyone calling him anything else. :)

As long as there's a solid source for it, hey, add it in. I was just asking. --EVula 07:42, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I don't really feel like adding it in because I don't remember exactly where that's said, I just have a vague memory that that was his rank, and those books are associated with that memory. So I'm fairly sure it's right, but I can't really reference it. --maru (talk) contribs 04:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I think my question fits best under this category: I thought that in any regard, Darth Vaders is second in command of the entire Empire, right underneath Palpatine. In the Episode III novel, Palpatine definately seems willing enough to make him second in command.

Loss to Obi-Wan

The "loss to Obi-Wan" section seems to be comprised mostly of original research. It seems to be merely to expand the paragraph summarizing the Mustafar duel with no new information and tiresome dimestore psychology. That, and it's pretty poorly written ("The fault was not in his training, but in his mind"?) I would recommend shortening it or taking it out. Kiddre 20:23 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Images

There are lots, and lots, and lots of extra images, mostly of the same thing. I'm pruning some. _-M ^o P-_ 21:27, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

The top image has got to change. It's not representative of Vader at all. Anybody got a more characteristic one? Bcarlson33 02:04, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

An unregistered user has made numerous edits to the article, increasing the displayed sizes of pretty much all the articles, as well as changing the header image (I agree, the picture of Vader marching on the Jedi Temple isn't especially effective). I've reverted the article now. EVula 04:26, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Nice work. Bcarlson33 11:44, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I rather liked that picture and thought it represented Vader much better than the mechanical man with the head bowed so publicly displayed. Sorry if it offended you, but I'm putting it back up again. Any input would be valuable. Thank you.

When people think of Darth Vader they think of teh suited one not his Anakin form. Also he wasn't even completely transformed into Darth Vader, that didn't happen until Dark Lord: The Rise of Darth Vader Jedi6-(need help?) 00:49, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I thought it looked nice up there, seeing as most pictures of the Sith on this site depict them with hoods and as rather menacing. With your permission, could it be allowed to stay? If you don't like it, I'll replace it with something more suitable. Personally, I've been attempting to copy some good pictures of the suited Vader off of Wookiepedia. However, they wouldn't show up, so I decided to go with this one. Looks rather menacing and hooded, don't you think? (No offense on that last comment.)

Yes but thats not Darth Vader, thats Anakin. That picture should be of the Darth Vader everyone thinks of, the suited one in the classical trilogy. Remember, technically the fact that Vader is Anakin is a spoiler. Jedi6-(need help?) 02:52, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree, wasn't the moment he was renamed by Palpatine as Darth Vader, the moment that Anakin Skywalker died? We all know that throughout the original trilogy there was still some part of Anakin Skywalker left, so do we still call him Anakin? Furthermore when he marched onto destroy the Jedi Temple, that was after he was renamed Darth Vader. Even the pictures state that. What about some form of split picture, depicting him in his non-suited and suited form? Mista Tee001 16:03, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Darth Vader is far more well-known as the armored version (though I do think there should be a better image than the current armored one). --DrBat 17:36, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct; technically, that is Darth Vader marching on the Jedi Temple, not Anakin. That doesn't change the fact that Vader looked like that (hood at al) for about one day, as opposed to the twenty-plus years he was in the black suit. The current picture does a far better job of illustrating the character. EVula 17:40, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

What does everyone think of Image:Darthv.jpg for the image?--DrBat 18:40, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I was about to post about the image in the infobox, Is this the right discussion? Anyway, Image:Darthv.jpg should go in the infbox in my opinion. What is the point of the main image just showing his head, when the rest of his body is just as important. Cvene64 16:10, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm opposed to it because... uh, I don't have a particularly good reason. I just think its a weak picture (for the infobox). I don't think it's especially important to show a person's body (in this case, just their upper torso) in the infobox picture, especially since we've already got two full body shots in Image:Vadertantive.jpg and Image:Vader complete.jpg.

However, I'm adding it under the "Armor and cybernetic enhancements" heading (albeit with a weak-ass caption; I couldn't think of anything better). It's not a bad picture, I just feel it doesn't make for a good infobox picture. EVula 16:28, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree; that's why I put the picture up in the first place. Please don't block me again. I've been attempting to improve the picture quality of this website. If you want me to deal with the text only, then that would be fine with me. I'm just warning you... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.14.154.242 (talk • contribs)

Don't threaten me. If your edits are worthwhile, they won't be reverted. However, when you make significant edits without any discussion, expect to be overruled. EVula 19:10, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Merge

This page should be merged with Anakin Skywalker,there is no need for 2 pages about the same person. 4/13/06 8:22 PM EST

Read the archives. This topic has been brought up before. The Wookieepedian 00:27, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

While I agree they are the same person, the article was too long; hence why it was divided into two. --DrBat 22:45, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I believe the pages of Anakin and Vader must remain separated. They are physically, mentally and emotionally different, making them two diiferent people. Leader Vladimir — Preceding undated comment added 18:28, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Vader was still phsically the same as Anakin Skywalker before he was in the suit,you have ot remember that Vader is still Vader with or without the suit. Anakin clearly had Vader like emotions in AOTC. Dudtz 4/30/06 3:14 PM EST

As Obi-Wan said, when young Skywalker became Lord Vader, he killed Anakin. They deserve two separate articles. It's better for spoiler reasons as well (though who doesn't know they're the same?).

Physically: Vader "is more machine than man, now".

Mentally: Vader says he isn't Anakin anymore.

Emotionally: Anakin is a loyal servant to the light, Vader is loyal to the dark side.

They thus are two different people, from a certain point of view. So two articles. -Xol 21:42, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

• DON'T merge per Dudtz's comments. The Wookieepedian 21:44, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
• DON'T merge per my comments above. -Xol 22:33, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
• DON'T merge. We have distinct articles for Superman and Clark Kent not because they're different people, but because Superman's a goddamn huge article and we need more room to write about such massive pop-culture fixations. -Silence 23:04, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
• This is moot - a lengthy vote transpired four months ago that, for various reasons, clearly favoured two articles over a solitary one. And, given the development of each article since then, there's even less reason now to forego that decision. Let's get on with it ... E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 00:32, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

If you look at the articles, they are nearly identicle. This gives us a clear path to differentiate them from each other, without protests to recreate one article. The last lengthy vote didn't win my that much of a majority, either.

I'm unsure what the point of the above is, but the results of the prior vote were clear and also affirmed by a Wp bureaucrat. If Wikipedians would spend more time editing and differentiating and less time treading over old ground yet again, we'd all be better off. And, regarding this, I can't comment further. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 23:30, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Palpatine's Face

"The Jedi Master deflects the lightning with his lightsaber,scarring and deforming Palpatine's face into a wizened mask of wrinkled skin."

Palpatine could have chenged his face on purpose to help convince Anakin and the senate that the Jedi were plotting to take over. dudtz 4/30/06 #:19 PM EST

Wasn't it really the Dark Side energies he used that scarred him? This could be supported by the Knights of the Old Republic video games, or the SW RPG, were "Darkness" has this sort of effect. It is also said in the novel "The Courtship of princess Leia" that excessive use of the Dark Side deforms the face. Or does this just apply to Nightsisters?

I was under the impression that Siddious's dark powers drained his youth. Wrinkles maybe? Not scars? -Shadow the Edge-hog 05:37, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Dooku a Sith apprentice??

Under the section talking about the transformation into vader it states the following line:

"Anakin neatly sears off both of the Sith apprentice's hands"

I was not aware that Dooku was actually a Sith apprentice, and in fact he was around during the time that Darth Maul was around as well. While it is common for there to only ever be 2 Sith (A Lord and their apprentice), it does not exclude there ever existing other Sith. I was under the impression that Dooku was an old Jedi who turned to the dark side of the force and while he may have some connection is definately not a Sith apprentice. --Enigmatical 00:50, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

No, Dooku was definitely Palpatine's Sith Lord (note: not "Dark Lord") apprentice. The sequence as I understand it is Dooku leaves the Order, Maul dies on Naboo, and then Palpatine contacts Dooku. The lightsaber and novelizations alone confirm this. --maru (talk) contribs 01:03, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Darth Vader's Head was made off of an ancient sith droid?

Does anyone have a source for this? I would be interested to find out more.

-Admiral Chamrajnagar

I'm not sure if it was actually made off of onw...I know it is loosely referred to as what one would look like.

Darth Vader vs. Anakin Skywalker

Before I say anything I'll begin with the fact that I actually support two articles for Vader/Anakin. But my problem at the moment is that this article and Anakin Skywalker recount the same events. My proposal is that the Anakin Skywalker article be rewritten to focus only on Anakin, with a short paragraph discussing the events of Darth Vader. And this article be rewritten to focus only on the life of Vader, with two short paragraphs on Anakin, one focusing on his life before Vader and one focusing on his short time after his redemption. Thoughts? The Filmaker 20:37, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm in favor of editing the articles to eliminate most of the overlap; I think this will help eliminate the constant calls for the two articles to be merged. EVula 20:45, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Well I was hoping to get more supports in the last couple days, but I haven't gotten any objections either so I am going to go ahead and start the revmap here and then I'm going to revamp Anakin Skywalker. The Filmaker 20:26, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

They probably saw the "Darth Vader vs. Anakin Skywalker" line, figured it was another damn attempt to merge the two articles, and promptly ignored it. ;) EVula 21:01, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I know I almost did ;-) Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 03:10, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. And thanks, EVula, I didn't see it, as I just copied what I typed on the Anakin Skywalker talk page. Thanks :). – Xolatron 15:38, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Call, schmall, I've been doing just that. I've trimmed the history, shortened the prequel plot summary, and am still working on Anakin-specific stuff. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:26, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

As definitively stated by George Lucas in his featurette, "The Chosen One", the personae of Vader-Skywalker should not be parsed separately. The SW saga is in essence the story of his metamorphosis, redemption (by his son), and ultimate fulfillment of the prophesy. The "rebellion" and backstory, while packed with Sci-Fi eye candy, function only as the backdrop for this classical drama. Much credit goes to Irvin Kirshner who "rehabilitated" V-S as a tragic hero of Oedipal dimensions. In ESB the awe and majesty of his slow pan over the Imperial Feet (deployed in orbit around Hoth) is cast into relief by the line of shadow transiting the fleet. CUT to the bridge where Vader paces the catwalk. At that instant we glimpse the complexities and subtleties of his character, a far cry from Governor Tarkin's enforcer of "A New Hope" --OmarFirestone 14:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)--OmarFirestone 14:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

While I understand the merit of this argument... I disagree. Each character (for lack of a better word) can easily have FA-amounts of content in them; to have them both combined into a single article would push the bounds of what is generally acceptable in article size. I know there's some WP policy on splitting articles along clear breaks to avoid having mega-articles (I'll trust that someone else can find the link; I'm feeling lazy), and Skywalker/Vader is one of those breaks, hence the cut. And unless Lucas specifically stated in the featurette that "the Anakin Skywalker and Darth Vader Wikipedia articles should not be separated," his opinion on the matter doesn't much matter (hell, even if he did, it wouldn't). EVula 15:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

If Lucas wants these articles merged, he can merge them his own self, frankly. These articles are separate not because anyone is alleging that Anakin and Vader are separate characters, but because there's more than one article's worth of things to say and this is one reasonable way to split them. A similar case is how the Superman and Clark Kent articles are separate: nobody is claiming that they're separate characters, but there's a great deal you can say about one that doesn't generally apply to the other. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:31, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Archetypes and role models for Darth Vader

This section has become a list of characters or historical figures which resemble Darth Vader, and is more or less original research.

Removed text:

In the German Nibelungenlied that is also considered an inspiration for J.R.R. Tolkien's Lord of the Rings, the evil hero is Hagen von Tronje, a vassal that serves his king faithfully and cruelly, killing friend and foe alike for the sake of the empire, e.g. the hero Siegfried, or the son of Attila the Hun, by decapitation with the sword. According to Thidreks saga, he had no human father, and fathers a son on the last occasion to do so. In Richard Wagner's Götterdämmerung, Hagen eventually turns against his king, killing him. In movies, theater, opera and sculptures, Hagen is often portrayed as tall, menacing, battle-scarred, with a blind eye, dressed in black with a distinctive helmet. Also, Hagen is considered as one of the last representatives of the "old religion".

The old myths inspired many authors, and also the Nazi propaganda. The faithful and fatal Nibelungentreue, associated with Hagen, also was part of the SS ideology, quoting the Treue on their belt. The sight of a member of the SS, wearing their black uniform, the German World War II-era Stahlhelm helmet painted in black, and possibly a gas mask, certainly was a very real menace, even without additional Stormtroopers dressed in regular grey or white (winter) uniforms.

A resemblance has also been noted to the Lord of the Nazgûl, also called the Witch-King of Angmar, from J.R.R. Tolkien's Lord of the Rings; both Vader and the Witch-King were formerly good men who were corrupted by evil, dress in black, have a supernaturally fearsome presence and a hidden, pale form, are kept alive unnaturally, and serve at the hands of Dark Lords.

The scene in which Vader is surgically fitted with cyborg limbs resembles the creation of the monster in the 1931 film Frankenstein; like Frankenstein's monster, Vader lies on a table to be rebuilt, the table is tilted vertically (as in Bride of Frankenstein) to allow the creature to arise and, as in numerous later Frankenstein movies, the monster breaks free of its bonds by force. The spectacular destruction of various equipment at the end of the scene, also recalls the impressive storms that usually accompany Frankenstein 'creation' scenes as well as the other cliché of the Monster destroying the laboratory (Bride of Frankenstein, Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man etc.)

Unless someone can offer a reliable source indicating that any of these inspired or were inspired by Darth Vader, they don't belong in the article. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:26, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Hebrew featured article

Could someone who speaks Hebrew take a look at the Hebrew version of this article and see if there are any good ideas there that could improve this article? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:26, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Vader Killed Anakin

The artial states: "In A New Hope and Empire Strikes Back, Vader is the epitome of pure evil - a mass murderer and war criminal who holds an entire galaxy under the sway of an evil empire, and, on a more personal scale, the killer of Luke Skywalker's father, Anakin Skywalker." I don't want to start a Anakin vs Vader fight but I think this should be cut out. As we all know Vader told Luke "I am your Father!" - LCpl 16:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Right. This fact is mentioned below, under the {{spoiler}} tag. I've been trying to rewrite this so that there aren't any untagged spoilers, and part of that includes not giving away the dramatic revelation in ESB. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Un - Cited

There are two many uncited statements on this article now so unless something is done by say a weeks time it will have its GA status removed. --Childzy ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 18:38, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm working on it, I'm working on it. Right now, I'm busy working on redundant material and lousy prose first. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

K --Childzy ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 15:46, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Disagreement with A Man In Black (two items)

I'm not trying to get bitchy, but I disagree with a couple of A Man In Black's recent edits.

1. He has repeatedly removed the succession box from the article, stating that it is for real people only. I looked at the talk page and saw absolutely nothing that states the limitations of the template; I have posed a question to the people who manage the template, asking them what they think of it. I see no reason why it should keep getting removed, especially since it is used elsewhere on Wikipedia for fictional characters (for example, Palpatine).

After all:

1. Death is a concept
2. Stockholm is a location
3. Greek drachma is an object
4. Frodo Baggins is a fictional character
5. Helsinki is a location
6. Freyr is a mythical character
7. Sandinista National Liberation Front is a political party
8. Bologna is a location
9. King Arthur is a fictional character
10. Reykjavík is a location
11. 2008 is a year
12. Kraków is a location
13. Lugh is a deity
14. Graz is a location
15. Baby boomer is a... uh, concept, I guess. Not a real individual, though.
16. Madrid is a location
17. Scrooge McDuck is a fictional character
18. Rotterdam is a location
19. Odin is a deity
20. Jean-Luc Picard is a fictional character
21. West Berlin is a location
22. Jack Ryan (fictional character) is a fictional character (go figure!)
23. Turin is a location
24. Hulk (comics) is a fictional character
25. Embryo is a stage of life
26. Cork is a location
27. Lille is a location
28. James T. Kirk is a fictional character
29. Éire is a location
30. Canadian Alliance is a political party

I think that's enough evidence that the succession box is not restricted to real people.

2. Why can't we have EU references in the article? Specifically, he seems to be opposed to mentioning that the group of stormtroopers that board the Tantive IV with Vader is the 501st. Why shouldn't it be mentioned there? Its easily verifiable (I've got the evidence sitting on a bookshelf in my living room), and would be a bit out-of-place to mention in passing in the article body, but works well enough as a caption.

So... yeah, that's about it. EVula 02:54, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Two thirds of those things are real things; I didn't mean to imply that sboxes are limited to people, just nonfictional things. I've been cleaning up sboxes in articles about fictional people/places/things as I come to them; I just can't be in every place at once, and it's not something that has been particularly strongly enforced. (I was just doing it now since I was working on this article.) It particularly irks me that there's an sbox for a fact that isn't mentioned once anywhere in the article (and, as such, is wholly unsourced).

The reason I keep removing the reference to the 501st Legion in that screenshot of A New Hope is that it isn't once mentioned in ANH. EU references are fine and dandy, but we have a whole section of the article devoted to EU references. I was planning to even make a subsection of EU retcons/backfills of the events in the movies; this is exactly the sort of thing that would go there. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm still not sure what the problem is with fictional characters using the succession box; its purpose is to show transition from one thing to another, which is utilized in fiction, just as it is in the real world. You've got me on the unreferenced bit; I know that Vader had a high-ass rank (official term) in the Empire, but I don't know what it is. After some research, it looks like his title is Executor (source). If I added the comment to the main body of the article, does that mean you wouldn't object to the succession box anymore?

If the information is going to appear elsewhere, great! At this time, the caption seemed like the only place for that info to go, so I objected to it being removed. Complaint withdrawn.

One issue down, one to go. ;) EVula 05:16, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Nyerk. If the ONLY reference for Vader being the "Military Executor" is the fact that a character in Dark Empire picks up this previously unreferenced (and subsequently-ignored) title, then I don't think that there needs to be a succession box anyway. That neatly bypasses the point of contention about sboxes in fictional contexts, assuming there are no objections.

Hey, what WAS the source on that 501st Legion thing, anyway? I don't see where you mentioned what it was, merely that you knew of it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:25, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry 'bout that. In Star Wars: Battlefront II, it is revealed that the 501st was in charge of, among other things, raiding the Tantive IV (I'm really familiar with this fact, since I'm still stuck on the bloody mission...); basically, anywhere that Vader went, they went. Their Databank entry covers the entire single-player aspect of the game. EVula 15:03, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

It's a retcon in Battlefront II? That's...um. Why are we mentioning this in this article at all, instead of 501st Legion (Star Wars) (which should be linked here in the EU section, at least in pasing). - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 15:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, the 501st is Vader's personal group of stormtroopers. I think that deserves a mention, at least in passing (which is all I'm going for; I think it would be downright silly for them to have their own heading in this article). EVula 15:25, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

The interest in the military executor title is that it formalizes and names Darth Vader's well-known high position in the military establishment. --maru (talk) contribs 05:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Hm. Why not just mention that he's the Emperor's right hand man (instead of using some obscure title mentioned in one comic series to refer to an entirely different character), and recieves orders directly from the Emperor? (In fact, that should be mentioned right in the intro. I'll do that.) There's no need to give undue weight to obscure EU works. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

But it's such a neat title! And it's easier to say "Military Executor (supreme military commander) of Imperial forces" (or whatever) than to hem and haw and say that various sources are unclear and he's really important but nevertheless can still be overruled by the likes of Tarkin (but only 'cause Palpatine really liked Tarkin!) and Emperor's Hands and... see where I'm going? --maru (talk) contribs 03:49, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I added a bit to the intro stating that Vader serves at the direct order of the Emperor. I don't think that's controversial, and I still don't think a sbox for a fact mentioned in passing in one single comic book is appropriate. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:51, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Reverts

To whoever keeps reverting my changes to the Darth Vader article: KNOCK IT OFF!! You are of course welcome to make changes, but undoing someone's work wholesale just because you can is, frankly, petty and immature. Treybien 19:07 18 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not just being I can, it's because you're reordering the article again without comment, reinstating a lot of plot summary about and references to Anakin Skywalker, and undoing some discussed edits without discussion. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Anakin

I understand that you want this article to be more about Darth Vader than his former persona of Anakin Skywalker, but I think the "Prequel trilogy" section needs more detailed biographical information and better editing. For example, more information on his relationships with Palpatine, Obi-Wan, and Padmé would, I think, make it a better article. Treybien 18:37 19 June 2006 (UTC)

This article is over 40K, and we already have an Anakin Skywalker article, as well as individual articles for each of these movies. How many times do we have to duplicate the same plot summaries? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:16, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Name

There is a germanic/nordic language (the name eludes me at the moment) but it may be worth noting that in this language the word "vader" translates to "father."

• Yes, "Vader" is Dutch for father. It is already in the "Behind the Scenes" Section. Aericanwizard 22:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Infobox images

Both of the images that have been in the infobox lately suck, but for different reasons. Image:DVader.jpeg is high-quality, but not terribly illustrative; it doesn't show chest detail at all, conceals a third of the face, and is photographed at an angle that without being obviously so unless you already know what Vader looks like. On the other hand, Image:VaderESB.jpg is a better illustration, with a straight-on view of the face and a view of the shoulders and chest detail, but it's obviously cropped from a not-so-great DVD screenshot.

Can someone come up with a better-quality image that is at least as illustrative as VaderESB? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:00, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind. I found one. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:34, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

"Possible interpretations of the Jedi prophecy" section

The Jedi Prophecy is a frequent source of debate among fans. In particular, Anakin's status as the Chosen One is regularly disputed. His role in the destruction of the Jedi was an ancillary one, as much of the plan was already underway long before his fall from grace. Still, Anakin's pivotal role is indisputable, ranging from his intervention in Windu and Sidious' duel in the Chancellor's office to the enormous influence that his progeny wield in the original trilogy as well as the Expanded Universe.

Many fans argue that Anakin fulfilled the Jedi Prophecy by bringing a new "balance" to the Force by nearly eliminating the Jedi. In this viewpoint, the Jedi and the Sith metaphorically represent two opposing weights on a scale, with an excess of either disrupting the balance of the Force. Adherents of this view find it particularly noteworthy that, by the end of Episode III, there is a precisely equal number of Jedi and Sith: Yoda and Obi-Wan, Sidious and Vader. Frequently cited as evidence for this interpretation is Yoda's warning to Obi-Wan that the prophecy "misread, could have been." In the Episode III DVD featurette "The Chosen One," Lucas summarizes as follows: "The Prophecy is that Anakin will bring balance to the Force and destroy the Sith. He becomes Darth Vader; Darth Vader does become the hero, Darth Vader does destroy the Sith; meaning himself and the Emperor. He does it because he is redeemed by his son." Lucas gave a similar explanation in the final VHS release of the original trilogy in November 2000: "[In] Episodes IV, V and VI,...Anakin's offspring redeem him, and allow him to fulfill the Prophecy, and bring balance to the Force by doing away with the Sith, and getting rid of evil in the universe."

It is presumed that the Chosen One of the Jedi prophecy must be of virgin birth (as Anakin was), since Yoda for instance, despite his historical number of midi-chlorians, is never regarded as a candidate for the prophecy. However, the exact text of the prophecy is never revealed in the films, so it may not be possible to conclude that the Chosen One must be born of a virgin. One possible piece of evidence supporting this theory comes from an early draft of A New Hope. A quote was originally to precede the "A Long Time Ago" text:

...and in a time of greatest despair,

there shall come a savior, and he shall

be known as the Son of the Suns.

Journal of the Whills 3:127

This gives a clue to Anakin's residence on Tatooine, which has twin suns. Indeed, at the conclusion of Episode I and Episode VI, a voice in the cheering crowd can be heard to cry out "The Son of Suns!", thus giving weight to this being a possible portion of the prophecy.

Also, Vader's story goes hand in hand with the old "Sithari" prophecy, which was briefly mentioned in the video game Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic, in which it is said that one Sith would destroy the Jedi, then lead the Sith to greatness, but, at the same time, ensure their utter destruction.

---

Nearly none of this is sourced, and I can't imagine how it could be encyclopedic even if it were. Does anyone want to redeem this mess, or just leave it out of the article? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 14:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

About Vader killing/being Anakin Skywalker

The other side of the argument is misrepresented here. The Behind the Scenes heading only talks about how some people don't think Vader was meant to be Luke's father in ANH. However, if you look at Sir Alec Guiness's acting when he explains his relationship to Luke's father, he's being evasive and it's obvious he's hiding something.

I think there's a difference between what a character says and what's going on in his head. Maybe Lucas didn't really know at that point where that would go, but the fact he directed Guiness to act that way means that he was at least considering something other than the letter of what Obi-Wan says. We should give him the benefit of the doubt. Jean seb 19:47, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

More unsourced junk

Lucas claims that, as a masked and suited Darth Vader, Anakin has roughly 80% of the power of the Emperor, making him still incredibly powerful. Had he sustained none of his injuries on Mustafar, he would have been about twice as powerful as the Emperor. That means that he has achieved just 40% of his full potential during his lifetime.

Please don't add this to the article unless you can source it. In fact, don't put it back in the article at all, please, as it's inane cruft. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:48, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Succession box (again)

So, why is the succession box being removed now? It keeps getting removed and added. A recent edit summary claims that it is "still unsourced, and still in-universe".

I'm not sure how exactly it qualifies as "unsourced", since the Star Wars films make it abundantly clear that Darth Vader was a Lord of the Sith, following Count Dooku. The Lumiya/Flint thing is perhaps what is raising peoples' ire, but even if that's the case, it doesn't justify removing the entire section (especially since a source is found as easily as reading the Lumiya article's "External links" [1]).

I also don't feel that it is particularly "in-universe"; we're addressing a fictional position ("Dark Lord of the Sith"), and Vader's placement in relation to other characters that have held that position in an out-of-universe perspective (which is in-line with the Manual of Style). I don't think anyone is claiming that the position of "Sith Lord" is real, and a simple succession box is not enough to suggest that either. EVula 15:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any source for Dooku being a Dark Lord of the Sith (Sith, sure), let along Lumiya/Flint. The years are blatantly in-universe. It places undue influence on the "in-universe" succession of Lumiya and Flint (a fact only ever mentioned in the Marvel Star Wars comic, I believe). It implies that Dark Lord of the Sith is a position, rather than a somewhat vaguely-defined title.

That's how it's unsourced, in-universe cruft. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Darth Sidious is one of the two active Sith Lords; whoever his apprentice is is the "lesser" (my term, not official) Lord (making the order Maul, Dooku, Vader). Her Wookipedia article outlines her transition into a Sith Lord.

However, I'm not sure why the years is such an issue. It is merely a frame of reference for occurrences in relation to other fictional events. "ABY" and "BBY" stand for "After the Battle of Yavin" and "Before the Battle of Yavin", respectively (sorry that I'm talking down to you; I'm sure you knew this, but I'm trying to illustrate a point), and giving event markers like that gives a frame of reference that is a lot more precise than "This happened between Episode 4 and Episode 5. The Dates in Star Wars article specifically states that, while ABY and BBY are used in-universe, the are also used for out-of-universe time demarcations. In that case, having the years in the succession box is not necessarily in-universe.

There is a precedent that a) succession boxes are acceptable in Star Wars articles, and b) ABY/BBY is an accepted method of marking in-universe events from an out-of-universe perspective. With that in mind, I'm restoring the succession box, (though I'm removing Flint; the precedent does not call for multiple people assuming the same position, and her pupil doesn't deserve a mention in the succession box) EVula 16:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Dark Lord of the Sith draws a distinction between "Sith lord" and "Dark Lord of the Sith". There's still no source for calling Dooku (or Maul, WTF?) or Lumiya a "Dark Lord of the Sith."

I don't see any claim that "Dark Lord of the Sith" is a position instead of a vague title.

As for the years, if all the other issues are dealt with, can we please replace the years (which are gibberish to anyone who isn't steeped in the fandom) with fictional works? It would help with the sourcing issue, and the years are wholly meaningless to anyone who isn't really, really steeped in the fandom (keep in mind, most of the fictional works themselves don't even use these dates). - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 16:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Short on time, so I'm just responding to the years: I've made the years a link to Dates in Star Wars. I think this goes a ways towards explaining a potentially unfamiliar concept to people who are new to the Star Wars timeline. Your argument is valid, and I think this addresses it well.

As for the "Dark Lord of the Sith" position vs. title argument, I'll get back to you on that one. I'm comfortable with "Dark Lord of the Sith" being interchangeable with "Sith Lord", but I obviously need to drum up some evidence first (and "I'm comfortable with" obviously shouldn't equate into "valid content for a Wikipedia article", although that would certainly make my editing much, much easier). EVula 16:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm the one who most recently restored the succession box, unaware that it had become contested. Keep in mind that Darth Vader is far from the only Star Wars character article to contain a succession box using a fictional dating system, and Dark Lord of the Sith is not the only title to be found in those myriad boxes, so the precedent exists.

If I understand this dispute correctly, issue is taken with the use of fictional dates (BBY/ABY) in the succession boxes. I myself have no problem with this, for the reasons stated above by EVula.

The other half of the perceived problem seems to be with the position of Dark Lord of the Sith itself, as well as for whom it can be applied. Simply put, and as I believe is stated in the articles for both Sith and Dark Lord of the Sith, the Dark Lord of the Sith is the leader of the entire Sith Order. As seen in such sources as the Tales of the Jedi series and the Knights of the Old Republic video game, there can be potentially limitless numbers of Sith Lords (or lesser types of Sith) but only one Dark Lord.

When we get into the Sith of the movie era, however, things change, as we know there can be only two Sith at a time now instead of the limitless number from before. This order of Sith was begun by a Sith Lord named Darth Bane, who was created by George Lucas in his backstory for The Phantom Menace. After the "limitless" Sith were destroyed 1,000 years before the movies (hence the lines "The Sith have been extinct for a millennium," "I will not let this Republic which has stood for a thousand years be split in two," and "There hasn't been a full-scale war since the formation of the Republic"), Darth Bane reformed the Sith and made the rule stating that there could only be two Sith at a time, a Master and an apprentice. Both Sith Lords--Master and apprentice--were, according to Bane's rules, to hold the position of Dark Lord of the Sith. This was a holdover from the Sith prior to Bane's new order, where every Sith Lord and his Ewok was a Dark Lord (see The New Essential Chronology and the Jedi vs. Sith comic, among other sources). Hence, both Sidious and Vader were Dark Lords of the Sith, as were both of Sidious's previous apprentices, Maul and Dooku.

The final point of contention I would like to touch on is Lumiya, whom, it was claimed above, is said to be a Dark Lord (Lady, in this case) of the Sith in any source. This is simply not true. Lumiya originated in the old Marvel Star Wars comics from the '70s and '80s, in which it was stated that she had been trained by Darth Vader and, after his death, had taken up the mantle of Dark Lord of the Sith. I will admit that there is a grey area of uncertainty where her two apprentices, Flint and Carnor Jax, are concerned. Lumiya's Sith are separate and distinct from Darth Bane's Sith (which included Palpatine, Vader, etc.), but Lumiya, at least at first, seems to have adhered to the Rule of Two. That is, she only took one apprentice (Flint), and didn't take another until Luke Skywalker had returned Flint to the light side. Jax's apprenticeship lasted seven years (from Flint's betrayal in the Marvel comics to Jax's death in Crimson Empire), yet Lumiya never took another apprentice in that time, meaning that there were still only ever two Sith at a time. Furthermore, Flint is identified addressed as "Dark Lord" twice in the Marvel comic issue "The Dream," so it is apparent that Lumiya continued the old tradition of two Sith at a time, both of whom were Dark Lords of the Sith.

I hope I have been of help in this debacle. Jon Hart 02:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. EVula 17:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I smell a ton of original research/fanon here. While Lumiya is indeed called a Dark Lady of the Sith (I broke out my Marvel Star Wars collection to check), I have a problem with this fanon-ish sucession of Dark Lords, where anyone who is the leader of the Sith being called a Dark Lord of the Sith (was Darth Maul ever called that? Dooku? The Emperor? Can we have sources?) Was Flint or Jax ever called a Dark Lord of the Sith? (I'm thinking no on this one.)

Part of the problem is that these titles are being offered in apparent retcons, with no source. We're deciding that "it is apparent that Lumiya continued the old tradition" when that tradition didn't exist when that book was written. Do we have any source stating that it's appropriate to call her apprentices Dark Lords of the Sith?

This is all way too fanon-ish for me. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Darth Vader, Dark Lord of the Sith. Darth Sidious' article doesn't state that he was a Dark Lord of the Sith (but does call him a Sith Lord), which lends credence to the theory that the two terms can be used interchangeably (in my opinion, at least). Further evidence is provided that Darth Plagueis was a Dark Lord of the Sith (as called by Palpatine himself), lending further credence that the title can be held by either a Master or Apprentice.

If "Dark Lord of the Sith" and "Sith Lord" are interchangeable, that also covers Dooku, as Palpatine calls him a Sith Lord at the beginning of Episode 3. No clue about Maul, but that's mainly because I'm not at home right now. EVula 18:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• This is a vaguely-defined title...
  • ...and it's an honorific only, as opposed to some sort of position with duties and responsibilities and powers and privileges.
• Sourcing is always going to be difficult, and is going to involve primary sources and fan-oriented (albeit occasionally "official") sites only.
  • It's a pain just establishing that Sith Lord and DLotS are or aren't synonyms!
• This is going to always be describing an in-universe timeline, which is less than ideal.
  • There's no mention in this article that Darth Vader is the first character to ever be described as Dark Lord of the Sith, and this sbox, which describes other characters created after Vader as coming before Vader, doesn't help.
• Oftentimes this involves linking essentially unrelated characters (saying that Lumiya, a villain in one comic, is somehow the successor to Darth Vader in the universe in which I keep my stuff is inaccurate).
  • And when the characters are releated (Dooku -> Vader), they're already mentioned elsewhere in the article.

As for the other articles, I'm aware of them; let's start with this one article with the most potential to become encyclopedic in the near future, then go from there. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Palpatine is called a Dark Lord in several sources, such as the Revenge of the Sith novelization. As mentioned above, Dark Lord and Sith Lord aren't synonyms, at least not in the stories that take place before 1,000 BBY and after Legacy of the Force. The Dark Side Sourcebook lists the ranking system of the Sith in these time periods: Sith Minion, Sith Acolyte, Sith Warrior, Sith Lord, Dark Lord of the Sith. The sources for Dark Lords being the leaders of the Sith are multiple, but examples include the Tales of the Jedi comics, most notably The Golden Age of the Sith and Dark Lords of the Sith. There are also several sources that reference both the Masters and the apprentices of Darth Bane's order as being called Dark Lords of the Sith, including The New Essential Guide to Characters, the Revenge of the Sith novelization, and the Databank on starwars.com. All of these refer to either the Emperor or one of his apprentices as Dark Lord of the Sith. Flint being referred to as a Dark Lord in "The Dream" is good enough to prove to me that he and Carnor Jax should be referred to as Dark Lords as well, but I personally don't know of any other sources that address them as such, though there may be some in an old issue of Gamer or an RPG supplement or Hyperspace-exclusive or something. But since it's ambiguous, I can understand the argument for omitting the two of them from the succession. I also don't think it's inaccurate to say that Lumiya is the successor to Darth Vader. She was his apprentice and succeeded him as Dark Lord of the Sith, after all. Jon Hart 01:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

In the universe in which you and I live and where we keep our stuff (as opposed to any fictional universe), it's inaccurate to call Lumiya the successor to Darth Vader. Darth Vader is an iconic part of American pop culture. Lumiya is a character in an obscure, defunct, highly-underrated comic series. Does that help make my point clearer?

We're citing RPG books, third-party universe guidebooks, and various older magazines for off-hand comments that might imply that these characters are Dark Lords of the Sith instead of Sith Lords or whatever. Isn't that prime evidence that this is a poorly-defined honorific and that collating this trivia isn't within Wikipedia's purview? Seems to me that this is something we should leave to Wookieepedia, and this project should concentrate on characters' roles in the universe in which I keep my stuff. We even have a guideline stating as much. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of that guideline, you may be interested to see what it says about infoboxes and succession boxes. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Temporary place the box until final decision is made.

It is decided. WP:WAF specifically states that you shouldn't use sboxes in fictional character articles. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:36, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, as much as I'd like to see it stay in there, the rationale behind leaving sboxes out is pretty sound. A few people (myself included) are starting to remove them from articles. EVula 19:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Revert quest (for AMiB)

In a recent revert, you removed a bit about Vader dueling Fett. Why did this get removed? I have the comic that it happened in; if the lack of a source is why it was removed, I can remedy that.

If it's another reason, I'm fine with it being removed (uh, well, as long as the reason isn't something like "I just felt like it"); I'm just making sure that it isn't something I could help with. EVula 15:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Sauce plz ;D (Yeah, because it was unsourced.) - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I found the source. I knew it was in one of the Tales compilations, and of course it was the last one I looked at... I added the section back in, while rewording the intro a bit to actually mention (and link to) the source. EVula 02:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know, that particular Tales story is still entirely Infinities, and thus shouldn't be mentioned in the article except possibly as a "behind the scenes" tidbit or some such. Unless you can provide proof of its canonization? I admit I'm know expert at which bits of Tales comics have been inserted into mainstream continuity. Jon Hart 21:39, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Canon doesn't matter; this article describes Darth Vader in the real world, not a fictional one. I was pondering a rewrite of the EU section, and it would start with the largely-non-canon Splinter of the Mind's Eye, since it was the first appearance of Darth Vader outside of the movies.

That said, do we need to list every single comic short story Darth Vader has appeared in? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I should think that canon would matter insofar as the article is concerned with relating to readers the story arc and included exploits of the fictional character. Even fictional worlds have their own rules and laws, and if events in stories that are not a part of the official continuity are to be mentioned, the article should qualify them as such. Splinter of the Mind's Eye would not need such a disclaimer, for example, as it remains canon, unlike Vader's lightsaber duel with Boba Fett. Jon Hart 02:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Canonicity isn't something that really concerns non-SW-fan readers, and we're not here to tell a fictional biography but instead give an overview of Vader's use in fiction. I think we could probably summarize all of the comic appearances in a single paragraph. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Just a quick comment, I feel that noting a story's canonicity (or lack thereof) is perfectly in-line with writing about fiction in an out-of-universe way (I'm sure there is plenty of stuff here that doesn't concern non-SW-fan readers; it doesn't mean we should remove it). As for summarizing the comic appearances, I don't think that we should condense them all. The bit about him dueling with Fett is a very minor bit of information, whereas the section about Vader's Quest is fairly major (in regards to the character, and neverminding the fact that that article is slim). Just consolidate the barely notable stuff (similar to how Vader's appearances in Star Wars: Empire are mentioned in passing). EVula 14:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Darth's age?

I quote: ...revealing a scarred, sad man in his 40's, who,... Is Darth Vader really in his 40's at the time of his death? or at least, can this be cited in some way? Teh tennisman 23:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, he was roughly about twenty when he fell to the Dark Side, and Luke was roughly about twenty when the second Death Star blew... that said, it is entirely speculation. Changing it to "middle-aged man" was a good call. EVula 02:02, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Anakin was 23 in Episode III and Luke was 19 in Episode IV. Vader was 46 when he died, so he would indeed have been in his forties at the time. That's just FYI, though, the article reads fine as it is. Jon Hart 21:36, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Cruft

Hopefully I won't upset the person who wrote this, but the following is much too crufty and as such I have removed it from the article.

Darth Vader is a brilliant strategist and one of the greatest pilots in the galaxy. Vader still possesses his former persona's amazing engineering skills, having overseen the design of the TIE/Advanced fighter and the construction of the second Death Star. His talent with the lightsaber is legendary. All of these skills, however, are secondary to his incredible mastery of the Force. He was born with the highest known midi-chlorian count in the history of the galaxy, surpassing that of both Yoda and the Emperor. However, Lucas states that his injuries on Mustafar cost Vader much of his Force potential. Even after his injuries on Mustafar cost him a measure of Force-aptitude, he remains incredibly powerful. The loss of his natural hands are the reason he cannot create Force lightning, as Dooku and Palpatine could. (Note: In the Star Wars comic book Splinter of the Mind's Eye, Darth Vader can be seen using Force lightning. )

His signature method of imposing terror is using the Force to choke people. This may echo Vader's own frustration at his injuries.

Vader also has great physical strength in his cybernetic limbs, which he demonstrates in his first and last appearances in the original trilogy: lifting a Rebel captain by the throat with one hand in A New Hope, and picking up the Emperor and hurling him to his death in Return of the Jedi. The Expanded Universe has shown him punching through the skulls of savage animals and bludgeoning opposing Jedi to their knees with one blow.

Anakin was trained in Form III lightsaber combat by Obi-Wan, one of the greatest swordsmen in the galaxy, and quickly developed incredible skill in the form. Despite this Anakin never really mastered Form III. Due to his aggressive nature his lightsaber skills took him torwards Form V lightsaber combat. However, his fighting style retained some elements of Form III lightsaber combat even after his fall to the dark side.

In battle, Darth Vader lacked the mobility and ease he once had, but his bionic suit gave him great strength. His blows were forceful even when using only one arm to fight. He was calm when fighting, rarely using acrobatics. He struck to kill and used psychology and his appearance to intimidate his foes. When striking with both hands on the grip of his lightsaber, he was able to pound his enemies with an onslaught of strong but somewhat slow strikes. This fighting style contrasted with Anakin's style before his disfigurement, which utilized more speed and acrobatics.

All of this information is already in the main article, and if there is any sourced material that isn't, then it should be merged into the relevant section of the article. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:16, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Criticism

Please don't remove legitimate edits like the Criticism section. It seems like this page is a battleground for people who live in their parents' basement to argue over Darth Vader's superpowers. Darth Vader is a fictional character whose characterization has attracted criticism over the years. This page shouldn't just be a wank-off for fans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MattChaput (talk • contribs)

New Lede

I'm going to try a new lede on this article that strikes a better balance of alluding to the full depth of the Vader character, before the spoiler warning. Ivymike21 04:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Brand New Photos of Vader

I am not really sure as to why people removed brand new photos of Vader that I put here inside of this article
www.geocities.com/berniethomas68 06:02, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Sith title

Quote from the article:Position Dark Lord of the Sith, Imperial Commander-in-Chief (Military Executor)

I do not belive Vader is a 'Dark Lord of the Sith'. He is just a Sith Lord, am I correct? Does this need to be changed? Superstarwarsfan 03:10, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Funny -- I'm more curious as to where this "commander-in-chief" stuff comes from. --EEMeltonIV 03:22, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

• No, your not correct. He is a Dark Lord of the Sith and it shouldn't be removed. Commander-in-chief is his position as Commander of the Imperial Fleet. I don't know the source for that bit of info. Jasca Ducato 09:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

More pictures for the article / Any objections

I was going to add some more additional pictures of Vader to the article if no one has a problem or any objections with that
www.geocities.com/berniethomas68 01:57, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Vader

Vader in dutch means father in english. This should be put in the main article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.182.131 (talk) 04:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Spoiler

Isn't saying that Darth Vader is Anakin Skywalker in the Intro a spoiler? If you haven't seen any of the movies it would be giving away a major plot point and twist. dark567

well it has grown very popular in everday life.Lokon40 03:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Clarification

It might be easier to edit this article if it were made clear what parts of it were overlong, confusing, or ambiguous. Treybien 19:36, 26 September (UTC)

Vader vs Ben Kenobi

If Obi -Wan were actually trying to fight Vader in Episode 4, would he have won? They are both old but I'm pretty sure Obi-Wan could have won.--suit-n-tie 06:59, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Ben knew he would lose. McDonaldsGuy 14:17, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

That makes sense.--Atomic-Super-Suit^{What Have I Done?!} 19:20, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Although not stated, it's implied that Kenobi 'knew' that he would lose. "He's not dead... not yet."

Yoda921 06:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Yoda I think Obi Wan is more powerful as for he was Vader's former master. By the way, if Obi Wan hadn't decided to sacrifice himself, I think he would have killed Vader.LearnguyLearnguy (talk) 00:22, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Why would Vader be old? He'd be in his thirties, early forties at least.

-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.158.83 (talk) 09:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Darth Vadar should be around 50. He was around 18-21 when he became Darth Vadar and the Empire ruled the galaxy for 30 years until the events of Return of the Jedi. Azn Clayjar (talk) 20:29, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Do you have some sort of canonical evidence that the empire ruled for that long? I don't think that Luke Skywalker was supposed to be in his 30's. Luke was more like late teens early 20's. -Scarlocke —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.48.250.215 (talk) 13:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

GA Re-Review and In-line citations

Note: This article has a small number of in-line citations for an article of its size and subject content. Currently it would not pass criteria 2b.
Members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles are in the process of doing a re-review of current Good Article listings to ensure compliance with the standards of the Good Article Criteria. (Discussion of the changes and re-review can be found here). A significant change to the GA criteria is the mandatory use of some sort of in-line citation (In accordance to WP:CITE) to be used in order for an article to pass the verification and reference criteria. It is recommended that the article's editors take a look at the inclusion of in-line citations as well as how the article stacks up against the rest of the Good Article criteria. GA reviewers will give you at least a week's time from the date of this notice to work on the in-line citations before doing a full re-review and deciding if the article still merits being considered a Good Article or would need to be de-listed. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us on the Good Article project talk page or you may contact me personally. On behalf of the Good Articles Project, I want to thank you for all the time and effort that you have put into working on this article and improving the overall quality of the Wikipedia project. Agne 04:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Personification of evil

There have been several reverts over the last week or so about this appellation. I think the difficulty stems from the difference in viewing individual films (such as ANH), and watching them as a series.

The Anakin Skywalker of the prequels, has developed a three dimensional quality, which can make him seem, "understandable", the tragic character, such as one might find in King Lear, or Hamlet.

However, the Darth Vader of the first movie, was very clearly designed as a personification of evil. See: Star Wars sources and analogues, for examples. The design of the character's look, including the use of WWII paraphernalia, and the "not-quite-human" sense to the character, shows this rather clearly. Some citations from both sides of the debate would obviously be helpful.

For now, I'm putting the category back on the page, but commenting it out, until we have more direct citations of this (which is directly related to the request above). - jc37 22:00, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Devil's Advocate- if he's the "personification of evil" in Episode IV, then why is he taking orders from Tarkin? In every film in which he appears, Vader takes orders from others- hardly seems like a "personification of evil" to me. Also, that "Sources and Analogues" page doesn't cite a single reference- it smells strongly of OR--DarthBinky 22:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

What does being evil have to do with being under someone else's thumb? : )

Vader isn't "vile", he's "evil". - jc37

Because he's not really a "personification of evil" if there's someone more eviler than he. You could even take the "he's just following orders" defense (not that I subscribe to that...). Also, several of the villains in that "category" I would argue don't belong there. Sauron wasn't the personfication of evil in Middle Earth- Morgoth is (and he is, in fact, in that list). Arawn isn't even considered evil, yet he's on the list. I suppose it depends on exactly what is meant by "personification of evil"- when i think of it, I think of it in the sense of being the embodiment/incarnation of evil, like Satan or Morgoth. --DarthBinky 18:39, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Not every evil person is a personification of evil. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:07, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

True enough, but neither is Vader "every evil person". Check out the category. Vader is on equal or greater standing with several of them. But that aside, we're looking for citations at this point : ) - jc37 18:26, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

The characters in that category are actual personifications of evil in their respective fictional universes. Being designed to represent evil and being designed to be evil itself are two different things. If we went with the former interpretation, we might as well save the time and merge the category with Category:Fictional villains. Interrobamf 02:00, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Vader was the first Sith Lord introduced into the Star Wars storyline (if you consider EP IV the first story). He was designed to personify evil, whilst Luke personified good over-coming evil. By the beginning of Ep VI it has become Sidious who personifies evil, Vader/Anakin Skywalker symbolises a corrupted being. Jasca Ducato 18:34, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:NOR. -Silence 21:06, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Silence has a good point. Please come up with reliable sources describing Vader as a "personification of evil" (or a "war criminal," since user:Treybien keeps sticking that cat on this category for some reason). - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:50, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed (especially since I mentioned it above : )
I think it might be a good idea for us to go through the categories on this page and have citations for them all. I know on CfD, that's one of the things we look for is whether an article has an explanation/citation for category placemement. - jc37 06:44, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe it is mentioned by GL on one of the DVD documentaries that Vader was orignally meant to personify evil. i'll check tonight to see which one exactely. Jasca Ducato 11:01, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I think he's hot. He's not evil. He's misunderstood.

I am your father

There is no mention of the ominous "I am your father" line, surprisingly. JaderVason 21:05, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I've always thought Vader's response "Luke, I am your father" was a rather too simple way of replying to Luke's comment "Obi-Wan said you killed my father". He should have said something like "I thought about it, but then I reasoned suicide wasn't the answer" and left Luke to figure it out on his own. JIP | Talk 19:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

he could have said "I was going to but I realised there where laws against suicide" ♥Eternal Pink-Ready to fight for love and grace♥ 22:28, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

That wasn't his reponse...

LUKE: He told me enough. He told me you killed him!

VADER: No - I am your father.

@ Trivia (?) Vader =~= Vater (german 4 father)

Yoda921 06:45, 25 December 2006 (UTC)Yoda

I think it's wonderful the way George Lucas did it. The story goes that the original shooting had actor David Prowse as Darth Vader say "Obi-Wan killed your father" and then Lucas dubbed it with "I am your father" by actor James Earl Jones. This allowed it to remain a complete surprise until it's actual viewing. -Scarlocke

Is Vader the ultimate Sith?

This one always bothered me. I know that Palpatine is considered the greatest Sith ever, but, Darth Vader seems to be the one doing all of the lightsaber fighting, while the Emperor just sits and watches. So, basically Darth Vader is one of the main reasons Palpatine is feared. Does anyone else agree? sean7gordon@epix.net 11/8/06

This isn't a messageboard to discuss things like that. This is meant to be used to discuss how to make the article better. Cheers --DarthBinky 02:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

it can bring a good discussion paragraph in like: the greatest sith?

Pece Kocovski 06:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Am pretty sure that Luke Skywalker is the greatest Sith Lord: he worsted Darth Vader in their second duel. Theavatar3 17:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Darth Vader had the POTENTIAL to become the "ultimate sith" due to his sky-high midichlorian count. However losing the duel to Obi-wan cut his abilities considerably. Consequently, Palps was left to be the "ultimate Sith".

Palpatine admitted this himself. "Darth Vader shall become more powerful than either of us"

Yoda921 11:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)Yoda

The "greatest Sith Lord"? That's a rather arbitrary, video-gameish concept. It's not like they have character levels or "Awesomeness Meter" readings. For example, I notice people talking about "who could beat who in a duel". But any fight or combat is inherently random and situational, outside of video games. I'd refrain from including such speculation here - it's kind of fanboy(/girl)-ish, in a painfully DBZ sort of way, and outside the interest of most people. --GenkiNeko 15:40, 2 February 2007 (UTC) just to clean up you're thinking theavatar, luke was never a sith and never "roasted" darth vader.george himself said that when vader nearly died on mustafar, he was 80% as powerful as palps,but if he hadnt burned alive he would have been twice as powerful.also the ep 111 game shows that if vader had won on mustafar he would have killed palps and became emporer.he killed him anyway in ROTJ. vader was not just the superior sith but the superior force user.

The greatest Sith lord in the Star Wars universe is definitely Palpatine. He's the smartest, he's the most powerful and he actually succeeded in taking over the galaxy and ruling it quite well for a long while. Even if Vader had eventually surpassed him in power (which he never did) Palpatine would still be the greater Sith Lord because he was the more intelligent of the two and the better Force user. He's like the Dark Side personified. Although he admits that Vader had potential to become more powerful than him he still refers to himself as "the greatest Sith lord the galaxy had ever known" in the novelisation of Revenge of the Sith. Vader only killed him in Return Of The Jedi because he was physically stronger than Palpatine and besides he was fatally injured by Palapatine's Force lightening in the process. --Illustrious One (talk) 14:58, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

All sith call themselvs the greatest though.--Jakezing (talk) 20:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

You are all referring only to sith shown in the movies. There were plenty of powerful sith before and after the movies in other expanded universe material. Some of them were very powerful among the sith, such as Darth Bane or Darth Nihilus. Take into account that Vader needed the Death Star to destroy a planet. Darth Nihilus ended all life on Katarr with nothing more than the force. Orcahuman (talk) 00:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

*Grumble* bureaucratic Morons

I can't believe that wookiepedia merged the Anakin Skywalker article with the Darth vader article. In terms of size, it would explode (believe me the content on wookiepedian articles like that are huge). Also, it is clear that Darth vader is different from Anakin Skywalker with or without the suit. Either way, HE said it himself that he is not Anakin Skywalker at anymore.

What i'm trying to say is, please, do not change the Wiki articles on the two articles that wookie merged. Probably some do****** did it for some reason to fit himself. Hmph, ever since they started removing the special articles links (in the from of like eg: this place is just a big desert. With some really unfriendly inhabitants] (i just made this up.), and now they removed this links, which not only do leaves people asking, "what is this referring to" But it makes them seem just lazy, unlike before. And to think they say it "clutters it up", Well, isn't the point of wookiepedia to be the most detailed and elaborate star wars wiki ever??

all I'm saying is, wookiepedia has changed man. it should go back into its original glory, to the time where the order and archives were completely detailed and elaborate, where the quotes linked to many articles themselves, and the links to there articles, where in sentences and simple words like "this". _{Traitors!!!! (supporters of the merge)}

Pece Kocovski 08:54, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Go voice your complaints on wookiepedia.Darth Anzeruthi 18:30, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I mentioned this on the Anakin talk page but I think it's worth repeating why it shouldn't be two seperate articles. This is what I put in the Anakin page: We might as well make seperate articles for all aliases of other characters. We could make two for Obi-Wan Kenobi and Ben Kenobi, or four for Senator Palpatine, Chancellor Palpatine, Emporer Palpatine and finally Darth Sideous. Seriously people get rid of this article. -Scarlocke —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.48.250.215 (talk) 13:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Category: Villains

There has been revert removing Darth Vader from the Star Wars villains list. I disagree with this, redeemed or not, he's still a villain. People are acting like "Oh, he's redeemed, now all those villainous things he did are poof!" Villains are villains. George Lucas intended for Darth Vader to be a villain (who was redeemed, but still). He is not a good guy, so he must be a bad guy. I am discussing this here because it currently says in the category section <Do not add this category!> by a person who has failed to explain why he does not qualify as a a villain. It even says in the second paragraph "Vader is one of the most iconic villains in movie history", so he IS a villain. Anakin isn't, but Vader is.

So he should qualify for the Star Wars Villains category. But some say he doesn't. Why not?--DeadGuy 00:11, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

He's already in Category:Star Wars Sith characters, which is a sub-category of Star Wars villains (and is also a sub-cat of Category:Dark Lords). - jc37 00:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Yet Darth Maul, Count Dooku, and Palpatine are all in those categories and in the villain category. Darth Vader is both a dark lord, villain, and sith (as is Palpatine, who seems to not apply to this logic).--DeadGuy 01:20, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

If they are, it means that, while I'm sure well-meaning editors added them, they too should be removed. - jc37 02:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes he is a villian. For the better part of his career he was a villian. If Hitler decided at the last moment that he was sorry for all that he did would we simply say oh okay no problem then, you are no longer a villian. Give me a break, this guy didn't simply have a moment of darkness his entire jedi career and subsequent job as as sith lord are mired in evil acts, do I need to remind us of his slaughter of the sandpeople. -Scarlocke

The Empire Strikes Back section

I added a citation needed to that section (and it was removed without really explaining it other than a weak claim that "is made clear in the film itself").

The issue is that the TESB section claims that Vader tortured Han because he knew that Luke would sense it through the Force and would come rescue Han. I believe this to be spurious, considering Vader tortures Han after Luke is already en route to Bespin. Second, the film isn't clear on it- I got the impression Vader was torturing Han because Vader was angry about the Death Star (they found out Luke blew it up, I'm sure they could find out that Han helped) and having had to chase Han all over since Hoth. Third, how could Vader possibly know what Luke could and couldn't do with regards to the Force? During the battle in the carbon freezing chamber, he makes a bunch of observations as he learns firsthand what Luke is capable of doing ("Obi-Wan has taught you well" and all that).

So that claim needs a citation. Stating that the film "is clear" or linking to a copy of the script is simply not enough. --DarthBinky 13:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

---

Would this rewrite work? (I'm new and don't feel comfortable editing the actual article yet.)

Through the aid of a bounty hunter, Boba Fett, Vader finds and captures the Millenium Falcon. He tortures Luke's friends. Luke, training on Dagoba with Yoda, senses their suffering. Fearing for his friends, he abandons his training to save them. Doodit 19:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's better IMO, but that particular version brings up two new issues- 1. Vader/the Empire didn't actually capture the Falcon (nitpicky, yes, but true) and 2. Solo is apparently the only one tortured (Chewie was in prison and fixing C3PO; and Leia doesn't appear to be tortured when she shows up). Also, as mentioned, Luke is already leaving (or left, I forget exactly which) by the time Han and the gang get captured- so it should reflect that Luke had already pre-sensed their suffering.--DarthBinky 19:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm the one who removed the request for the citation originally because I felt this was clear in the films. Here's my reasoning:

• From the opening crawl, we're told Vader is obsessed with one goal: finding Luke Skywalker.
• Leia asks rhetorically why they're being put through their suffering. Han states he was never even asked any questions.
• To back this up, Lando enters their cell and corrects Leia's belief that Vader wants them dead.

  LANDO: He doesn't want you at all. He's after somebody called Skywalker.

  HAN: Luke?

  LANDO: Lord Vader has set a trap for him.

  LEIA: And we're the bait.

Luke has left Dagobah before the Falcon has touched down at Cloud City because he foresaw their suffering. As the characters disclose that this was all to entice Luke to Bespin, Vader must already suspect that Luke could sense their suffering and come to their aid.

Perhaps there's an audio commentary track on the ESB DVDs that mentions this... I could check later, if I remember. --Recurring 12:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

This is actually "sourced" in the discussion(s) Luke has with Yoda, including "always in motion the future is...". The point was that Vader knew Luke could sense his friends in future danger. That is the trap that Lando mentions above. - jc37 13:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

But that doesn't mean that Vader knew that Luke would sense it through the force. Like I siad, I never took Han's torture to mean it was some sort of homing beacon for Luke, I thought it was just Vader being angry about what Han had put him through (the Death Star, the asteroid chase). Like I said, notice that he singles out Han for torture. If it were such a homing beacon, then why didn't he torture all of them? Lando's prison discourse doesn't prove anything- do you really believe there's an unspoken "oh, yeah, that's right, because Luke can sense our 'suffering' and he'll come save us"? They probably figured that he'd find out where they were through conventional means (just my speculation, but no less likely). --DarthBinky 14:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I checked the audio commentary on the DVD to find out if it's mentioned and Lucas provides the material. Citation is now added. Took me a few shots to get the link to look right! --Recurring 21:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• I can't believe I'm correcting a Star Wars geek, but Chewbacca was tortured in The Empire Strikes Back. He's tortured with sonics. It's right in the movie and it's blatant. Clashwho 05:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Does Darth Vader really need a motive to torture someone...maybe he was just bored...-Scarlock —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.48.250.215 (talk) 13:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

a few notes on semantics

i'm very sorry for all the hassle, but it does need to be said that i made two very significant and indisputable changes to this page which stood for months and now have been amended back to what can only be described as 'garbage'. for a start, darth vader / anakin is not A pricipal character in star wars but THE principal character of ALL SIX FILMS WITHOUT EXCEPTION!!!!!! this is corroborated by lucas himself and if anyone can claim legitimacy of argument in this case over george lucas they are, actually, just daft. also, i made an amendment to this article which included the fact that vader is not to be seen as the villain of the saga, but the shakespearian 'tragic hero' of the series, manipulated by the true villain, palpatine. these are two very important notes on star wars semantics, however pedantic, and they have to be included else the entire article is just inaccurate. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Darth Toxic (talk • contribs) 04:48, 24 December 2006 (UTC).

As long as these contentions can be sourced, I've no real argument. In addition, if it were not for the retention of spoiler warnings in the article (necessary), the dual identity and personas of this entity would appear upfront in this article and that of his former self; as such, and per the Manual of Style, I've bolded these instances in the introduction. Psychlopaedist 10:25, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

And been reverted by two different people. Only bold alternate terms for this article, not alternate terms for subjects in this article. Basically, don't bold it unless it's a term that redirects to the article in question. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 10:29, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

And how is this/your argumentation consistent with the Manual of Style? Erroneous groupthink. No thanks; I think I'll pass. Psychlopaedist 10:31, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

You bold alternate names of the article to reduce confusion when the user is redirected. For example, if someone clicks U.S.A., "USA" is bolded in United States of America to draw attention to the explanation of the acronym. Likewise, if "Lord Vader" were in the intro of the article, it would be bolded. While one could make an argument that Anakin Skywalker is an alternate name for this character, there's no possibility of making the argument that Anakin Skywalker is an alternate name for this article: Anakin Skywalker is another article entirely.

You're conflating the article itself and the subject of the article. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 10:35, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me but before my edition, the connection between the 'two' wasn't even clear in the introduction or the article, so I hardly see how this conflates anything. If anything: Edit. Summaries. With. Horrid. Or. Overemphatic. Punctuation. Do. Fix. Attitude. Psychlopaedist 11:05, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This is one of those oft mentioned moments in which a person may suggest to others: "Please assume good faith : ) - As for the issue of "bolding": Wikipedia:Manual of Style (text formatting)#Boldface suggests that it's to be used for synonyms. It's been previously determined that there is a difference between the persona of Darth Vader, and the persona of Anakin Skywalker (even if they may be the same person), therefore the two terms are not synoyms. Hope that helps : ) - jc37 10:40, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks; some would argue that the two are synonyms for one another, with Vader merely being the later phase or chapter of Anakin's life; I observe a lengthy vote transpiring about whether these should be one and the same article. In any event, I will defer regarding at least this aspect. Psychlopaedist 11:05, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

These two sentences seem to imply that Prince Xizor wishes to return to his former self. I think (though am not 100% sure) that it is Vader that wishes this. Can he knows be changed to Vader knows...

In the story, Prince Xizor, leader of the crime organization Black Sun, plots to overthrow Vader and take his place as the Emperor's second in command. The story also reveals that he knows there is some good left in him, and that he wishes to use the Force to return his physical appearance to that of his former self.

I seriously fail to see why we need two articles for the same character? It makes no sense. He is the central character in all six films he is the same person, he doesn't become a different person literally, even as Darth Vader he aknowledges Luke as his son, he "redeems" himself in the end and goes back to the light side and becomes anakin again. He IS NOT two different people he is one person, if I put on a helmet I do not become someone else I am still me in a helmet. Wikipedia should go ahead make seperate articles for Bruce Wayne/Batman, Clark Kent/Superman, Tony Stark/Ironman. Where does it end? PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF ALL, REMERGE THEM AS ONE ARTICLE! It's way more confusing to have two articles on the same frickin character! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.48.250.215 (talk) 13:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Merge

Even on Wookipedia there's only one article for Skywalker. They are one character. Regardless of the two being different personas, identities or even personalities.--Gonzalo84 02:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

It's been discussed to death. Basically they're two separate articles because otherwise we'd have one really huge article. This way it's two large articles instead- it's easier to manage. Cheers --DarthBinky 02:15, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

There are other reasons as well - See also Clark Kent and Superman. - jc37 07:24, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

And you don't know how split the decision about the merge was on Wookieepedia. The article only merged due to policy, there was no consensus otherwise. Jasca Ducato 09:59, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps if someone drastically slashed the amount of plot synopsis in this bloated article, a merge would be more feasible. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 10:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

As Darth Binky already indicated, this was already discussed to death and decided -- two articles (vote summary) Psychlopaedist 10:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Um...hello? CLARK KENT IS SUPERMAN! THOSE IN FAVOR OF KEEPING THEM SEPERATE ARTICLES CONTINUE WITH YOUR FAULTY LOGIC. THERE IS A GREAT DEAL OF REPETITION BETWEEN THE TWO ARTICLES. ISN'T THERE ANYONE ASSOCIATED WITH WIKIPEDIA WHO CAN FINALLY DETERMINE THAT THIS IS THE CASE AND FINALLY GET RID OF REDUNDANT ARTICLES? -Scarlocke —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.48.250.215 (talk) 14:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC) As far as I can tell, Anakin Skywalker and Darth Vader are completely different entities. Episodes IV-VI and Episodes I-III are completely different movie trilogies. They aren't even in the same fictional universe. This has something to do with the quality of writing when George Lucas was a young man, and when he was an older man. Things just don't add up. Vranak 01:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I also believe the articles Anakin Skywalker and Darth Vadar should be merged, as they are infact the same person. 80.229.169.189 17:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

For all I know, this was split once already. Please keep it that way... --Addict 2006 23:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

How much bigger would the article be? There's a fair amount of repetition between the two. 140.247.147.88 05:56, 25 May 2007 (UTC) Yeah but thats like having Hulk Hogan and Terry Bollea as two seperate articles. Anakin IS Darth, therefore the articles should be merged. Jay316 12:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

The articles shouldn't be merged, as they are completely different entities, as already stated. Merging this would be like merging Clark Kent into Superman. RC-0722 ^247.5/1 17:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Height

How come Vader was 6'1" when he was a Jedi, but 6'7" as a Sith. -- Tim, 3 February, 2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.109.130.11 (talk) 22:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC).

In case you didn't know, the armor made him look taller and intimidating, and he was about 2 metres. --Addict 2006 23:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Why does it say that he is 1.35 Meters that's like 4'8?!

Picture

I think there should be a new picture of vader. That one at the top has been on for ages.Lokon40 02:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

"Anakin Skywalker" in the intro

There is currently a link to an Anakin Skywalker page in the intro, but said Anakin Skywalker page redirects back to Darth Vader, so it is pointless. I would fix the problem myself, but I cannot edit this page, so I must resort to pointing it out here. 69.246.150.153 02:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Done. Onikage725 00:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Anakin's name as the title of the article

Since the character was born and died as Anakin Skywalker, why not make that the name of the article, with "Darth Vader" redirecting to the point of Skywalker's fall from grace? Lucas himself has stated that the movies are Anakin's story, why unify the article under the umbrella of his alternate identity? --CmdrClow 08:23, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I assume its a common name thing, for familiarity and whatnot. You do bring up a good point, though. By the same token, Palpatines article isn't "Darth Sidious," and one can't really argue familiarity there as he was previously known as simply the emperor (likewise the article on Count Dooku rather than Darth Tyranus). Onikage725 19:53, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Protect

Please do not protect the main page of this article because there are errors what need to be corrected. Grumpanelli 12:55, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Bold Merger of Darth Vader and Anakin Skywalker articles

It would seem that over the last two months, Anakin Skywalker is slowly being merged to this page, contrary to prior discussions. However, rather than just cite the previous discussions again, I would like to start a new discussion about whether the pages should be kept separate or not. Please give reasons why you are for or against the merging of the page. (Something more than just comments of "I want!", which will be removed as unhelpful to the discussion.) - jc37 16:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Support the articles on Darth Vader and Anakin Skywalker being merged

• Support - The sad fact is that the articles were redundant. If they could be sectioned off, then maybe I could see the point. But wanting to keep the Anakin article as-is smacks of fanboyism. I don't mean that as an insult, but the two articles' "History" sections are nearly identical. Remove the redundant portions from the Anakin article and you are literally left with the first half of the opening paragraph... and that's about it. Onikage725 14:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support - Lucas considers them to be the same person and the entire saga had been reworked basically to underline that point. Both articles are far too heavy in plot summary and with a decent amount of editing, a single article would suffice. And as it is his natural state, that article should be Anakin Skywalker. 128.151.71.16 15:38, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support - Someone has given an example of Superman/Clark Kent. I have examples of Spider-man/Peter Parker, Robocop/Alex J. Murphy (Why? Robocop is completely difference from Alex Murphy), Hulk/Bruce Banner (Why? Bruce Banner is not the only Hulk. Why Bruce Banner directs to Hulk, huh?) Pmuean 11:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support - There is a distinction that needs to be made between alter egos like Superman/Clark Kent and different periods in a person's life (even that of a fictional person's). Does John Newton need separate articles for his time as a slave trader and that as an evangelist? It's an easy call. Gabrielthursday (talk) 04:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support - If this is one person we're talking about why shouldn't there be one article on him? Superstarwarsfan (talk) 21:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support - For all the reasons given before, and what I mentioned below. The Clark Kent/Superman precedent isn't a standard, it's an abnormality (that quite frankly I think is incorrect as well, but that's not the issue here). The two articles have become redundant, and other iconic characters such as Spider-Man, Batman, etc etc don't have separate articles for their aliases, nor should they. The separatist movement (ha, irony) for the two articles is a classic case of irate fans wanting to keep peanut butter out of their chocolate, new out of their old. --Venomaru 2.0 (talk) 18:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support Merge Same character and shouldn't have two different articles for same character,plus the Anakin article is 20Kb and this is like 36kb so that would only make it 56kb long and that is not long for an article. Gman124 ^talk 09:36, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • also violation of the Wikipedia Manual of Style., since there's nothing but plot on the Anakin page. Gman124 ^talk 15:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support Merge I seriously fail to see why we need two articles for the same character? It makes no sense. He is the central character in all six films he is the same person, he doesn't become a different person literally, even as Darth Vader he aknowledges Luke as his son, he "redeems" himself in the end and goes back to the light side and becomes anakin again. He IS NOT two different people he is one person, if I put on a helmet I do not become someone else I am still me in a helmet. Wikipedia should go ahead make seperate articles for Bruce Wayne/Batman, Clark Kent/Superman, Tony Stark/Ironman. Where does it end? PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF ALL, REMERGE THEM AS ONE ARTICLE! It's way more confusing to have two articles on the same frickin character! I have to add that in the opposition it states that Vader does things that Anakin wouldn't. Do we not recall his slaughter of the sandpeople, or the slaughter of the jedi? Those were done before any helmet was put on...-Scarlocke —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.48.250.215 (talk) 14:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support Merge I agree, especially with the last one - Anakin murders sand people, Darth Vader talks of Luke as his son. And really, if they deserve separate articles, I want my favourite rock star to have separate articles for every haircut he's had - I mean, it's illogical. In Star Wars, the focus is on Anakin shifting from good to bad. But shouldn't we then also have articles BOTH on Dooku AND Tyranus, seeing as Dooku probably was different before turning to the dark side... NO, and why not? Because it's the same person in a different colour - it's mr. Hyde and not Dr. Jekyll, but it's still the same person... Historical characters have changed behaviour also when struck fx by accidents. If we have an article for Anakin before fear of Padme's death corrupted him AND one of him afterwards, why not have one for Caligula before he became ill (and insane), and another for afterwards? There have been kings, whose bad luck in war or loss of family have changed them from dutiful, merciful leaders, to raging tyrants, should their articles be split up as well? One for Saruman before the temptation of Sauron, AND one afterward? Only thing that differs from such examples and the Anakin/Darth Vader one is that Anakin CHANGED HIS NAME!!!! - and you can't seriously argue that changing one's name allows one to have another article on wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.107.24.213 (talk) 16:04, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppose the articles on Darth Vader and Anakin Skywalker being merged

• Oppose - Not only due to the previous discussions, but for the reasons of those discussions. One of the best examples I can think of is Superman and Clark Kent. Each article deals directly with each persona of the character, even though each persona is a single person. Also, there are length concerns. See also: Wikipedia:Featured article criteria. - jc37 16:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose - It makes more sense to me to keep the two articles separate. Different people, same body. Vader does things that Anakin does not, or wouldn't want to and vice versa. Even the movies suggest and symbolise this separation with the taking off of Vaders helmet & mask at the end of Return of the Jedi. (That is one interpretation of the helmet/mask scene.)Chovynz 13:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose - Let's keep them seperate. Darth Vader and Anakin Skywalker are quite different, especially if you look at it from a monomyth point of view. Plus, Darth Vader as an entity has solidified in culture in a way that Anakin Hasn't. Stargate70 02:25, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

• It also seems preferable from a "subject" point of view. Darth Vader really is different to Anakin Skywalker. I suggest we clean both up, remove the totally identical bits and put in cross references to each other. There's no harm (IMHO) in having one article on one point of view of this particular subject, and referencing to the other POV in a different article. It would allows us to focus on the strengths and differences of each persona. I reckon. :)Chovynz 13:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose - I know it's been said, but that'd be like merging Clark Kent with Superman. RC-0722 ^247.5/1 18:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• Absolutely not. Usually, I'm all for avoiding unnecessary inflation of the number of articles, but Darth Vader and Anakin Skywalker are best handled in different articles imho. Dorftrottel (ask) 10:06, April 24, 2008

• Oppose These should absolutely not be merged. They both need there own article becuase they are difffent characters in Star Wars. Same person but different characters. If anything thing it should be focused on improving both articles and not merging them into one bad one. --Vertigo315 (talk) 14:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose - Distinct characters for 1/3+ of the movie series, not to mention EU. Granted, we're not interested in plot summary and there will be overlap between the articles, but I think it helps to have distinct articles on each. --EEMIV (talk) 15:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose - For the same reasons I opposed on Wookieepedia. Jasca Ducato (talk) 18:54, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

General discussion

I also want to add that what another set of articles does should not set a precedent for what we should here. Superman has pretty much been synonymous American super heroes and comic books since the 30's. Hardly the same set of circumstances. Likewise, I could throw any number of other influential (and older) characters than Vader who don't get multiple articles. Batman and Cpt. Marvel (1939, 1940 respectively), Spiderman (the 60's) just off the top of my head. If it is simply concerns of length, I've noticed that many articles on characters from long-running series' (like comics and novels) will have a general bio and leave in-depth stuff to specific articles on those titles. The Vader/Anakin articles have a rundown of his involvement in each film, and the Vader article goes into the EU. Maybe that could be trimmed and generalized, with links to the appropriate articles on each title. It would help with the very in-universe style it is written in, if nothing else. Onikage725 14:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll just reiterate the conversation I had on this issue in the Anakin Skywalker article:

---

Neither article is particularly large, it wouldn't hurt to merge the two. The question of title, however, is tricky. Is it against wikipedia policy to create a title such as Anakin Skywalker/Darth Vader, or perhaps Darth Vader (Anakin Skywalker)? --Venomaru 2.0 (talk) 20:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

This has been debated time and time again here. There needs to be 2 articles as they are essentially 2 different characters and there is a need for 2 articles to explain them. Instead of wanting to merge them if you think the articles are to small then expand them.Vertigo315 (talk) 20:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

How exactly are they two different characters? Are Spider-Man and Peter Parker two different characters? After all, he wasn't Spider-Man until he was bitten by the radioactive spider. Just as Anakin wasn't Vader until he turned to the dark side. By that logic all characters who have an alter ego or an assumed identity should have separate articles for both sides of the coin. If I decide to change my job and name, am I not still the same person in every other respect?

The only precedent set for this particular issue is Clark Kent/Superman, and I disagree even more strongly on that distinction than I do on this one. As stated before, I'm for the merger, and as far as I can tell the only reason (if you can call it that) for people to disagree is that they have some sort of vendetta against the prequel trilogy. Anakin Skywalker and Darth Vader are one and the same, as such they should have the same article. --Venomaru 2.0 (talk) 06:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

---

My opinion hasn't changed. Vertigo315 replied with a follow up comment, lamenting about how this has been discussed before. Well, I still disagree and I think it needs to be discussed again. The articles should be merged, and the main name on the article should be Darth Vader. Personally, I think Darth Vader (Anakin Skywalker) works. The articles share a lot of similar and/or identical material and could be easily merged without bloating. Point being: I say merge. --Venomaru 2.0 (talk) 18:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• The Anakin article fails WP:N anyway, since it doesn't have any sources and is nothing but plot. Gman124 ^talk 04:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

French pronunciation

I remove these lines :

"In France, Vader is known as Dark Vador (and, therefore, Dark replaces Darth for the French names of all other Sith Lords). One explanation could be that the French use le water-closet as slang for "toilet", and aller aux waters for "going to the toilet". Since the French pronunciation of "water" sounds somewhat similar to "Vader", the name was changed to avoid puns. However, Quebec French does not use the aforementioned slang terms, and so Vader keeps his original name in French Canada."

The firt part is true: Darth Vader is known as "Dark Vador" in France but the alleged explanation looks like a joke. Actually, "darth" was replaced by "dark" because the sound "th-" doesnt exist in french and is quite impossible to pronunce for a french speaker (particularly in that case where "th" is following a consonant). Same thing for "vador" : it sounds better in french and is closer from the original word than the french pronunciation of "vader".

Why is this relevant.Darth Anzeruthi 18:32, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank goodness they stopped dubbing Family Guy into French, otherwise we'd have "Dark Stevie"--172.134.203.34 (talk) 00:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Arms/Prosthetics

Last Sentence, Fourth Paragraph under "Expanded Universe" states "...On Mimban, Luke nearly defeats Vader, severing his right arm, and Vader suffers massive injuries when he falls into a pit." Whos arm is this refering to? Luke's or Vader's? With the inclusion of this sentence there are now at least 3 times one of these two peoples arms get sabered. Could we have some clarification on the "timeline of the arms"?

As far as I know it goes like this: for Vader:

a) as Anakin - by Dooku in SW1 - right arm. b) as Vader - by Luke on Mimban - right arm. c) as Vader - by Luke in SW6 (on the bridge) - right arm again or left this time? (no wonder Vader could get pissed at Luke ;) ).

for Luke:. a) by Vader in SW4.

Anymore - for either? I seem to recall reading some other times but I can't remember. --Chovynz 13:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)Chovynz

Nooooooooooo!!!!

I've noticed someone has created an article called Nooooooooooo!!!!, which redirects to Darth Vader. This seems frivolous to say the least. Is it usual practice? Mark H Wilkinson 07:23, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Redirects are cheap, and if someone has been living under a rock and has no idea what that refers to, it'll take them to the right place. Yes, it is silly, but it isn't hurting anything. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:32, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I highly doubt anybody is goign to type in the correct amount of o's and exclimation points to arrive at this page. hbdragon88 16:55, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

That was swift. Hurray for R3! hbdragon88 17:29, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Plot summary

I see that someone has tagged the article as having a too-long plot summary. Personally, I think the length is about right, especially considering the substantial cultural significance of this character. We were recently discussing plot summary at the talkpage of WP:FICTION, and the consensus there was that it's not the total number of words that's important, it's the relative percentage of plot summary as compared to the rest of the article. So, with that in mind, is it alright if I remove the "plot" tag? Or what do other editors think? --Elonka 22:13, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

For a character that spans four films (or six + a TV series if you count Anakin) and is such a juggernaut of a cultural icon, I think the length of the plot section is just fine. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The article's balance is decent. — Deckiller 00:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I added that tag when the article had 30+ K of plot summary of the movies alone. It's much better now. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The SkyOne Program Orginally Aired On Bravo in the US?

Didn't it?

Wha?--Jakezing (talk) 23:43, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Wait! Don't Delete that Quotes Section!

Please, can someone help clean it up? Though I've been using Wikipedia for a long time (I know how to link!) that's prettymuch all I can do. Except be very clever, which I am (and so modest, too). I don't think iMacs are optomised for Wikipediaing very much, and a lot of the tools on the top of the edit page don't work. So, can someone help me look good? Thanks.

The tools work fine in Safari for me.

As for "cleaning up" the quotes section, this actually isn't the project for quotations. There's actually a whole different project for that, called Wikiquote. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 12:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

They don't seem to work on mine. Curse this infernal consruct! I actually have to copy and paste the tildes so I can timestamp. Racooon 12:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Uh, I edit from a G5 iMac at home... unless you're still running OS9 (and therefore using IE 5), there shouldn't be an issue (and you can just type four ~s). EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Parodies / Cultural Figure

Issue #1: Surely the Chad Vader series should be mentioned? If someone with good Wikipedia skills doesn't feel like adding it, I'll get around to it eventually. Issue #2: Can we get a cite on the "Ned's Declassied School" thing?Ball of pain 19:21, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Chad Vader is mentioned under Cultural Figure, as are many other parodies. To that end, I deleted the parodies section and rolled its spaceballs paragraph into the Cultural figure section. I also deleted the Gonzo reference (since it already existed under that section) and the Ned's Declassified School reference (since it lacked a citation). Ned's can easily be added back to that section, with a citation. I also deleted the Trivia section - both per WP:Trivia and because it was redundant to the discussion of his name. I went to be WP:Bold, and got a little carried away, perhaps. Best, ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 21:18, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Orson Wells - Vader

I took out the following sentence from the first paragraph in the Portrayals section.

Orson Welles was originally considered for the role, but Jones was cast instead.

I just couldn't think of a way to keep it in there without breaking the continuity. But if someone can come up with a good way, please feel free. Also though, it could probably use the help of a citation as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WDavis1911 (talk • contribs) 06:46, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Vader picture

I really think the main picture of Vader is terrible. Its nowhere near powerful enough. Hes looking upwards/we are looking down on him which suggests weakness. Suggest new pic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.149.77.174 (talk) 07:05, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Freak Collision?

I'll need other people to back me on this, but at the end of A New Hope, it isn't a freak collision that sends Vader flying into space. When the Millennium Falcon shows up, he shoots down Darth Vader's right wingman, then when the left wingman looks up to see where the fire came from, he collides with Darth Vader. To call this a "freak collision" is inaccurate, especially when dealing with Star Wars, where that might be construed as the force made them collide. —Comment added by Sourberville 11:01, 5 December 2007(UTC)

i reverted the edit made yesterday because to say that fire from the MF caused him to spin-off is also slightly inaccurate. I agree with what you're written entirely, edit the article. And the preview button is your friend :) Thedarxide (talk) 16:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

??

Who plays him when he finally sees Luke eye to eye? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.70.75.92 (talk) 10:11, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

To be a playable character in Soulcalibur IV?

Yes you heard me right. Both him and Yoda are to appear in the forth installment to the Soul-series. Source # one & # two. FaithLehaneTheVampireSlayer 00:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

More official news from star wars.com and a trailer from Namco. FaithLehaneTheVampireSlayer 02:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC) P.S. I am trying to open a discussion to see if I can add this to said article.

Cultural Figure

I think it needs some triming and attention. It's the type of section that can grow out of dontrol quickly. Ridernyc (talk) 04:27, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

"First appearance" image

The description of this image is "The first appearance of Darth Vader in Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope.". He also appeared in episode 3. If the chronological appearance is wanted, and not the 'timeline' one, I think it should be mentioned. diego_pmc (talk) 15:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

That is the first time he sohwed up EVER, were not in universe on this, were out of universe therfor, its the FIRST time he shows up, is tantive 4 on IV--Jakezing (talk) 23:43, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Ep.III

There is nothing under the apperiances for episodeIII, someone should add it asap.--Sonicobbsessed (talk) 00:12, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Fix the bump. RC-0722 ^communicator/_kills 01:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Darth Stewie Picture

Could we add a picture of Stewie Vader from Blue Harvest to the section of the article that mentions the episode?--172.134.203.34 (talk) 00:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Problems with three sources

• Two assertions are cited to TheForce.net editorials, which in turn cite printed material. Can anyone perchance provide citation material for those printed items, which would be much more reliable -- and a necessary step toward FA status -- than the fansite editorial.
• An assertion about JEJ lack of credit in RotS is cited to IMDb, which I don't think is generally considered a reliable source.

My two credits. --EEMIV (talk) 01:42, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

When it comes to the credits from a film IMDb is a totally reliable source, especially when noting actors, voice or otherwise, who are uncredited. Crew credits are also reliable. It is trivia and goofs where they need to be taken with a grain of salt. Yes we did somehow cross in our editing. I was trying to remove the reference to Ray Milland as the face under the mask in RotJ. My apologies for messing up the info that you were putting in. MarnetteD | Talk 01:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah TheForce.net is a fan site. But next to the main Star Wars site and the movies it's the best source of info. Ever thing that is said in the movies part is true. All you have to do is watch the movies. Look it up at Star Wars.com or TheForce.net. --98.224.211.86 (talk) 02:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't doubt it's true, and I like at TFN all the time -- but, the site doesn't meet Wikipedia's WP:V standards. --EEMIV (talk) 02:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Regarding IMDb

Wikipedia: Reliable sources - Are wikis reliable sources specifies that wikis are not allowed as reference sources. IMDb falls under that definition as it has solely user-generated content, and, as noted elsewhere at Wikipedia:Reliable sources, IMDb does not "have adequate levels of editorial oversight or author credibility and lack assured persistence."

Newsday is a major newspaper with a direct quote from Jones. There's no justification for removing a reliable, direct citation with IMDb rumors. Where did IMDb get that information? IT IS UNSOURCED.--24.215.162.198 (talk) 16:54, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

My summer 2005 Starlog magazine quote from Star Wars EP3 producer Rick MCcallum quote is missing, he stated James Earl Jones worked on EP3 for a day and was great to work with. I gave the source, yet it was still removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.158.61.140 (talk) 01:38, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Possible original research

"Perhaps non-coincidentally, his name sounds very similar to that of one of the central protagonists of the Russian writer and paleontologist Ivan Efremov's 1957 science fiction novel Andromeda Nebula, Dar Veter (sounds similar to better), an retiring Director of the Outer Stations, the near-Earth satellites. The name in Russian means Gift Wind. The novel was made into a film in 1967, as The Andromeda Nebula."

Not referenced at all. I'll remove if nobody objects. Superstarwarsfan (talk) 22:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, let's remove it. Dorftrottel (ask) 03:02, May 7, 2008

Agreed. Just the fact it begins with "Perhaps, non-coincidentally" means it is original research. Azn Clayjar (talk) 20:55, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

When it was there, it was jargon that made no sense anyways. 76.105.204.255 (talk) 22:09, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Breathing

Why is there absolutely nothing on his iconic breathing disorder due to his prothstetic suit. It should say something on this, it's cultural signifigance, and maybe even a audio clip of Vader's breathing. 76.105.204.255 (talk) 22:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Go ahead. Imperial Star Destroyer (talk) 06:30, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Why the heck did he need the freaky mask in the first place? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.40.41.109 (talk) 19:02, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

if you have to ask you shouldn't be on this article.--Jakezing (talk) 20:31, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Anakin and Darth

Do they really need to be seperated? Darth Vader is still Anakin, albeit a life-support suit and a deeper voice. ----- 70.130.33.241 (talk) 22:44, 20 July 2008 (UTC)Hyuuga-sama

• No, Darth Vader and Anakin Skywalker are fundamentally two different for people for multiple reasons. Jasca Ducato (talk) 22:46, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Nope, they're the same person. He might have changed his name but he's still the same person. He was never turned, he was always evil from day one. 64.231.12.166 (talk) 15:13, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how you came to that conclusion, methinks you should watch the films. Jasca Ducato (talk) 15:20, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I did watch them, I suggest you do the same. They are one and the same person. You can't really be this stupid, it must be an act. 64.231.12.166 (talk) 01:23, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I can't remember them installing mirrors in computer screens, its the only way you could see an idiot. Regardless, PA's are not appreciated. Jasca Ducato (talk) 18:28, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

"Evil from day one"? Are you kidding? How is the 9-year old Anakin evil? → C Teng ^[talk] 12:56, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Augh, I hate these arguements. It's the same person, Vader just has a different name and suit. And dont tell me they're different because ones good and ones evil, evil or not, he's still the same! --Harvey "Two-Face" Dent (Muhaha!!) 01:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Uh huh. "He ceased to be Anakin Skywalker and *became* Darth Vader. When that happened, the good man who was your father was destroyed"

They dont mean it literaly, isnt that obvious? --Harvey "Two-Face" Dent (Muhaha!!) 13:40, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, they do. In the metaphorical sense that they were talking in. Jasca Ducato (talk) 20:10, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I feel like pointing out how hilarious this conversation about duel personalities is, given that one of the participants is named after Two-Face. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:34, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeahhh....anyways, its the same person, just with a disfigured body and a body suit. I dont see how any of you can imply that he's two different people, remember "I am your father"? He was admitting that he was Anakin Skywalker, so there you have it. MERGE! --Harvey "Two-Face" Dent (Muhaha!!) 13:02, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Try looking at it this way....the Emperors master manipulated the midichlorians and caused Shmi Skywalker to become pregnant. therefore, anakin was created to become darth vader. it was his destiny, from the day he was conceived, to become darth vader. he may not have been evil when he was a child, but he was ALWAYS going to become darth vader, or he would never have been conceived. he fulfilled his destiny. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.241.143.189 (talk) 14:24, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Does that mean they're the same person? I believe I was right. Vader admitted he was anakin by saying "I am your father". --Harvey "Two-Face" Dent (Muhaha!!) 15:14, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Jesus, is it really worth arguing about? Darth Vader is a cultural icon. Anakin and Vader may be the same person, but they're not interchangable the way the Emperor and Palpatine are. Just ask anyone who Darth Vader is, and they'll tell you he's a big scary guy in black armor who flies a TIE Fighter and fights for the Empire. Ask those same people who Anakin Skywalker is, and the response is different because he's a whiny little bitch. Plus, merging the two might work for now, but given how much EU stuff is coming down the pipe for Anakin, it'd be ineffective in the long run to merge them. Let's just leave them be, yes? Howa0082 (talk) 00:42, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

No --Harvey "Two-Face" Dent (Muhaha!!) 01:33, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Actions as Vader

Anakin didn't become Darth Vader when he donned the suit. He became Darth Vader when he pledged his allegiance to the Emperor. Should rework the article, because his assault on Corusant was as Darth Vader, so it shouldn't be on Anakin's page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.232.11.15 (talk) 19:36, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Merge the articles

I think darth vader and anakin can be merged

This topic has been done to death. Care to share what new viewpoint you can bring? Thedarxide (talk) 08:22, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Who knew he was Luke's father

Can anyone confirm (and include it in the article) that none of the cast really knew that Darth Vader WAS Luke's father. Someone told me, that the script originally said "I killed your father", and nobody knew until the scene was shot. Harry2o (talk) 19:43, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

• It's in the BtS for the special edition OT DVDs. GL said to James Earl Jones and Mark Hamill just moments before they filmed the scene what was happening. Everyone else, David Prowse included, didn't find out for a fair while later. Jasca Ducato (talk) 18:42, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Death Star

There is this line in the article:

"Aboard the second Death Star, which is being constructed in orbit"

Correct me if I am wrong, but I seem to recall that it was the original Death Star, being repaired.

There is a scene shot, as it is approached, of a half blown-up Death Star, not a new one constructed from scratch.

Hence the comment: "yes, it is fully operational"... GW-Dragonrider (talk) 05:24, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

It's a new one. Thedarxide (talk) 17:59, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Is "partially human cyborg" a species?

The "Species" section of the infobox seems to be more complicated than necessary. Surely his species is simply human. The cybernetic modifications have no bearing on this. If nobody objects then I will change it. 86.7.31.118 (talk) 17:17, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Change it, he's human. Thedarxide (talk) 17:58, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Done. Labalius (talk) 20:00, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Starred Article?

I propose this page become a starred article. Discuss? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.165.9.28 (talk) 00:49, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

It needs some significant stylistic improvements first.Ekwos (talk) 22:32, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Too many lists

Too much of this article is in the form of random lists. Whether or not the information is "valid" this is bad style. The lists should be tied together in a coherent narrative form or eliminated as bad style.Ekwos (talk) 22:28, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Vader's suit

I am (relatively) new to Wikipedia and still learning the ropes, but I remember seeing something from LuscasArts about the fact that the breathscreeen from the original trilogy was not symmetrical and that they fixed it with Episode III. Can someone locate a picture of the two screens for a "Behind the Scenes" section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.62.47.83 (talk) 00:59, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Vader as Anakin's enemy

Can Vader be considered as Anakin's archenemy? Because the prequel trilogy follows Anakin's struggle with his dark side, which can be portayed by Vader. What do you say? Leader Vladimir — Preceding undated comment added 00:00, 27 November 2008 (UTC) Mario: (turns around) NO.76.167.244.204 (talk) 20:27, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

No.--Imagine Wizard (talk • contribs • count) Iway amway Imagineway Izardway. 03:43, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Height

Can someone fix the height.? It says 1.35 meters but thats was when he was a child (1.35 meters is a little over 3 and a half feet)

Two articles question

Do they both need FULL bios for him? The Anakin article covers straight through. The Vader article covers the OT then doubles back to the PT. If we're to have two articles, there really shouldn't be so much double coverage. And considering that aside from the introduction, the Anakin article is nothing BUT said bio, I fail to see the overwhelming need for two. I know "its been discussed to death" but I just want a logical answer to that question. If we remove all content from the Anakin article that is covered on the Vader article, we are left with enough information to, say, put on a character list. If we keep two articles, I STRONGLY feel we should treat them as two seperate entities. Cover the Jedi Anakin's info on that page and the Sith Lord Vader's info here.

I don't know if this helps or not, but Wookieepeida conciders them as one article. --Imagine Wizard (talk • contribs • count) Iway amway Imagineway Izardway. 03:43, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Merge merge merge merge merge merge merge merge merge merge merge merge merge —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.130.8.135 (talk) 06:33, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

• Or not. Jasca Ducato (talk) 23:31, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Merge. I see no reason not to. 66.167.233.60 (talk) 11:57, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

dart vader

kot zanimivost naj povem da je imel rad hrcke na raznju! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.37.30.219 (talk) 19:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Overthrowing the Emperor

From the article: "Vader wasn't planning to overthrow the emperor at all, and that he was just using him to expose the enemies of the empire."

Not true. While Vader disrupts the meeting of the rebels, Starkiller asks Vader if he never wanted to overthrow the emperor, he replies "Yes, but not with you". Probably referring to his son, Luke. (But that is OR) Robin.lemstra (talk) 13:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I took that to mean in the context of TFU. Vader's goal in the story arc was never to overthrow the Emperor.66.167.233.60 (talk) 11:59, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Who portrayed Vader

Seth MacFarlane provided the voice of Vader in the episode. He is refered to as vader throughout. This was approved by Lucas. It is the same.--Jojhutton (talk) 23:33, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

As I posted on your talk page, regardless of whether he was referred to as Vader, it was Stewie. However, that's all beside the point, as the section is for canonical portrayals of Vader, which this is not. You don't seen listings for Vader in various fanfilms or other parodies, do you? Also, you should take a look at the (oftentimes heated) discussions on the James T. Kirk talk page - consensus seems to be limiting portrayals to canonical/licensed dramatic presentations - which the Family Guy episodes most certainly are not. Do not add this back in, as it does not belong in the article. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 23:38, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

While I understand he may have been referred to as Vader throughout (I've never seen the episode) you a) need to prove that Lucas approved him as a Darth Vader character as you just claimed, and b) provide a cast listing or similar reliable source that credits MacFarlane as Darth Vader or even Vader, not just Stewie. While TheRealFenn may argue that it needs to be canonical too, you need to cover those other points before any editor should approve. I'm tempted to agree with TheRealFenn, though, that it needs to be at least a licensed dramatic representation, which I highly doubt. KhalfaniKhaldun 23:47, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

According to the credits posted on IMDB, I see no listing for Seth McFarland playing Darth Vader - Stewie, yes; Vader, no. Case closed, IMHO. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 23:51, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

When did using one wiki to support an argumant on this wiki become common practice?--Jojhutton (talk) 01:28, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

IMDB is a rather limited wiki. Cast listing is one of those things that - as far as I know - can't be edited by most users. However, even if he didn't prove anything, the burden of proof is on you. KhalfaniKhaldun 01:41, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Technically, I wouldn't even call the IMDB a wiki, since (as the editor above points out) it is not open to anyone to edit it freely. And from the looks of it, Jojhutton, consensus went against you last night on the Vader issue, so hopefully you'll see the error of your ways, since this has been argued and decided on other pages with similar circumstances. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 15:24, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

"Darth" origin?

I noticed that "Darth" might be a portmanteau of "dark" and "death", anyone else notice that? --172.163.44.226 (talk) 04:07, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

In this interview with Rolling Stone, George Lucas says that "'Darth' is a variation of dark. And 'Vader' is a variation of father. So it's basically Dark Father." Ella Vader (talk) 22:57, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

More on Vader in Family Guy

Here are citations that support the fact that Lucas approved the episode. [[2]], [[3]], [[4]], and [[5]]. It is no differant than the Clone Wars cgi movie, that Lucas also approved.--Jojhutton (talk) 01:51, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, so you've proven that's a Lucas-endorsed parody. Now you have to prove that MacFarlane was credited as Darth Vader. Then the discussion will be back to whether we include parodies in the portrayals section or not. It should be noted that the Family Guy parody is already discussed in sufficient depth in Darth Vader#Cultural figure. KhalfaniKhaldun 02:25, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

What we include are Lucas approved projects. Same as Clone Wars. If Clone Wars is included, than so should this.--Jojhutton (talk) 02:34, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

It is included, just in a different section that the one you wanted to add it to. As for your example: Clone Wars isn't just Lucas-approved. It's supposed to actually be part of the Star Wars Expanded Universe. Those (for the most part) are what is included in the Portrayal section. Family Guy isn't part of the canonical story, so it goes in the cultural section. KhalfaniKhaldun 02:47, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

What we include are Lucas-produced projects, Jojhutton. The Family Guy episodes do not meet that criteria. And as KhalfaniKhaldun has already stated, the information is aleady in the article in a more appropriate place. And while your citations do show that Lucasfilm approved the parody, they do not support your claim that McFarland played Vader - and for the record, your fourth source fails the verifiability test, as it just repurposes unsourced text from another Wikipedia page. MikeWazowski (talk) 02:56, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

The Family Guy episode is considered a remake. Remakes count.

See this for MacFarlane as Vader [[6]], and [[7]]--Jojhutton (talk) 02:59, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

No, it does not count as a remake. Not by any logical definition. It is a parody. And both the references you cite show that Stewie (voiced by McFarland) does Vader. It's an important distinction - but ultimately irrelevant, as Lucasfilm did not produce the episode, so it's not official, it doesn't count, and it should not be added under actual portrayals. MikeWazowski (talk) 03:05, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

What wikipedia policy says that Lucas has to produce it? If a remake is made after an original producer dies (ie:The new Star Trek remake), it would fail your criteria, wouldn't it? You are only arguing because you don't like it, not because it violates wikipedia policy.--Jojhutton (talk) 03:10, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Your analogy is flawed, since the original producer of Star Trek (Paramount) is producing the new film. I have no problem with Chris Pine being listed as playing Kirk, since he is doing so, in an authorized production. As TheRealFennShysa pointed out above in regards to the arguments on the Kirk page, the consensus here on Wikipedia seems to favor only listing authorized performances. This has been applied to several other fictional characters, as well. I could say the same thing about your arguments for inclusion - but in this case, you do not have Wikipedia policy to back up your argument, and the consensus is against you. And besides, as (bolded for emphasis) KhalfaniKhaldun has already stated, the information is aleady in the article in a more appropriate place. Let it drop, dude - you're in the wrong here. MikeWazowski (talk) 03:20, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes I saw it in the article. You don't need to bring it up again. Also, remember, that 20th Century Fox also does Family Guy, so the Paramount example doesn't work for you in this case. I get it though, consensus rather than policy has decided this discussion. Just remember that There is no policy that prohibites the information, though some of you tried to use policy against me, but I was able to find reliable sources to support my argument. I also understand that perhaps some of you may not be fans of Family Guy. Thats fine, but don't let your biases get in the way of improving the encyclopedia.--Jojhutton (talk) 03:33, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Um, what does 20th Century Fox have to do with Darth Vader? They don't own the Vader character, or the series. Lucas has owned the sequels since Empire, and got the rights to Star Wars back in the deal for the Special Editions. Fox only distributed the films, and Warner Bros. is the distributor for new SW projects, now. Fox also has never had anything to do with Trek, so I'm not sure what you're trying to say when you claim the Paramount example "doesn't work" for me. It's not a matter of being fans of the show or not - consensus drives policy. No one is prohibiting the information - you're just adding it in the wrong location, and duplicating information already in the article. You're not improving anything by your actions - you're making a mess, and we're trying to show you the error of your ways. Not my fault is you can't understand that. MikeWazowski (talk) 03:40, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

What you just did there, Jojhutton, is a prime example of not assuming good faith. Please do not repeat such statements again.

The new Star Trek remake is a remake, and would easily fall under the portrayals category. The family guy version is clearly a parody. Read the definition on the page I linked. [Author removed irritating comment.] "A parody (pronounced [ˈpɛɹədiː] US, [ˈpaɹədiː] UK, also called send-up or spoof), in contemporary usage, is a work created to mock, comment on, or poke fun at an original work, its subject, or author, or some other target, by means of humorous, satiric or ironic imitation." The Family Guy "remake" clearly falls under this definition. Because it is a parody, it should remain in the "cultural figure" section, rather than the Portrayals section. KhalfaniKhaldun 03:26, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

As for you, I don't like your tone.--Jojhutton (talk) 03:33, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Be nice children, share and be polite. Queen Padmé Amidala (talk) 14:26, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for spoiling The Force Unleashed

You should have put some spoiler warnings, silly mongrels. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.82.40.185 (talk) 17:38, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia contains spoilers. ;) KhalfaniKhaldun 18:05, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

And the game has been out long enough. Jasca Ducato (talk) 19:15, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree. It's a big and unexpected spoiler (in some contexts, it's predicable, but not here). Even though wikipedia contains spoilers, there's no harn in adding the warning. 190.177.140.147 (talk) 15:51, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Grammatical error in article?

From the second paragraph

"Darth Vader right arm is to deflect blaster shots from any type of gun."

Besides not really fitting in with that paragraph, there is clearly a word missing from the sentence.

--24.228.20.12 (talk) 17:07, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

• Well, why don't you go ahead and change it? Jasca Ducato (talk) 18:11, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Vader Band

There's a polish death metal band named after Darth Vader. Just wondering if it's notable or not. FailureAtDeath (talk) 02:42, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Not really :) Thedarxide (talk) 07:08, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Expanded Universe literature

The information about Vader in the book The Glove of Darth Vader is gone. Can someone please explain why and also can restore that? --Victory93 (talk) 23:24, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Merger

This character has been proven to be the same thing as Anakin Skywalker, so in that light I suggest it be merged into said page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sirius85 (talk • contribs) 20:15, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Lengthy debate has led to a concensus with the current siutation Thedarxide (talk) 20:19, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

--75.91.103.63 (talk) 23:17, 14 April 2010 (UTC) I agree with him, they should be merged.

Archiving speed

However fast this talk page archives should be cut down now; there is currently nothing in archives 4, 5, 6, or 7. Flyer22 (talk) 21:14, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Cause of Death

Darth Vader was killed because Palpatine's Force lightning short circuited his life-support systems. The expanded universe makes that clear. 75.157.120.15 (talk) 04:28, 2 July 2010 (UTC)