Talk:Sith

Return of the Jedi events

I dispute the comment that Vader wanted to kill the Emperor and rule the Galaxy with his son. Yes, that is what he told Luke, but that was only to get Luke to go with him. When luke actually struck at the Emperor with his light sabre, Vader blocked a blow that would have otherwise killed the Emperor. When Luke was finally captured, Darth Vader told him that it was too late for him (Vader) and that he must obey his master. --Anonymous

So, Vader wanted Luke to kill him? That's the only other explanation, since there can only be two Sith. I think Palpatine wanted Luke to kill Vader and Vader wanted Luke to kill Palpatine. As for why he blocked Luke's blow... well, that's pretty difficult. Perhaps Luke hadn't been driven far enough into the Dark side yet and Vader wanted to work him up a little more. --Anonymous

Exactly. See the Return of the Jedi novelization by James Kahn. Both Vader and Palpatine were trying to use Luke to kill the other. --Anonymous

Nice you guys bring about some great points,now i will give you my feed back to it.At sometime in every lil sith lords life they just get this strong urge to rid of their master. I can only speculate about it but i guess they get off by doing so(i was just being funny) But seriously, mabey these a curse or somthing who knows. In vader case it is clear that he dose ot know what he wants to do about it. i mean here we got the emperor who vader has looked up to his whole life and has alwayz been there for him(although the emperor had alterior motives for a young vader) It is clear from episode three that once he became a sith not even what was it like a day or two that he already though to rid of the emperor. (Like i said its a anchient curse put on the sith).when he told his now deceased wife that infact he was stronger then the emperor and he could over throw him. And infact, if he was fighting at his full strength he indeed was or just about. he had the potential to become twice as powerful as the emperor, had it not ben for his defeat by obi-wan.(if u wanna read more about this go to the discussion under luke skywalker and u can read all about it. Back to the point After his defeat by his former jedi master obi-wan, he loss alot of his midi-chlorians, Which cut of alot of his connection with the force. So, instead of becomming twice as strong he only could reach about 80% of the power of his master due to his condition. With this he knew he couldnt kill his master even if he wanted to. After ep3 in the expanded univruse in the book rise of vader i belive it is. He begins to lust his master even more and send bounty hunters i think it is to discover the truth about his what happend to pademe. Even more dose the emperor begun to dicust vader for his now lack of power. He had so much high hopes for vader( he only live for the day that vader would kill him. God isnt that the dream of every sith or what)yea but the emperor begun to dispise darth vader and it was no sercret to vader to how is master felt futher leading to wanna kill him. By the time of the original trilogy the emeror had already begun to train the emperor's hand,Hands were recruited and personally trained by the Emperor himself.Mabey in hopes that one of them would become strong enough to replace vader. also he made it clear that he considerd some of the moffs to be of a high rank then vader in the eimpire beacuse he made vader(even though his a sith lord) call them 'My Lord' So when luke came along he saw it as a opportunity to finaly rid of his master. And. in gusse the emperor also saw luke as a away of riding of vader and having an apprtiance thast was worthy. Well atleast vader had felt that way at first. By return of the jedi he begun to feel that old jedi spirit i suppose and for the reason why he blocked luke from hitting the emperor, is mabey he didnt want his son to fall to the darkside and suffer the same fate as him as by this time he finaly begun to see the light to some extent.[added by user sirbizzy]

"Vader wanted to work him up a little more"- I think its more likely that that specific event was because Vader was begining to be redeemed a little, and couldn't bear to kill his son. That, and the whole 'kill the Emperor for me' as well. -- Maru Dubshinki 01:12 AM Sunday, 20 March 2005

Vader blocks the blow becuase Palpatine knew Luke would attempt it and had ordered Vader to protect him should such a thing happen. No servant of Sidious could ever disobey their master, see the case of Mara Jade who killes Lukes clone to fulfill her obligation to her master long after he is dead. I also sight evidence that Vader intented to rule the galaxy with his son, because in the recent Revenge of the Sith film he propositions Padme with a similar idea. Also it is within my opinion, that a Sith apprentice does not become the master unless he himself disposes of his master. It is a common theame among the Sith, and if Luke had struck down Siddious then he would have in one instant become his assitence then his sucessor. Of course this is just speculation and the entire scene is open to speculation. -- Iorek Brynson

that Vader intented to rule the galaxy with his son should go without saying- join me, and together, we can rule the galaxy! --maru 22:18, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In Episode III, Anakin (more Vader by that point, really) tells Padmé that he is stronger than Sidious, and that he can overthrow them, and they can rule the galaxy together. That seems to indicate that Vader did indeed want Palpatine dead so that he and Luke could rule. -- JorgeMacD

In the DVD commentaries for the original trilogy, Lucas confirms that Vader could not longer overthrow the Emperor because of his injuries, that's what he wanted Luke in The Empire Strikes Back.

I have to disagree, in one novelization of Return of the Jedi, it shows that Vader is indeed beginning to return to the Light before the final battle. I think that he knew if Luke killed the Emperor in anger then he would suffer the same fate that he had. But he also couldn't bring himself to disobey his master, which is why he still tried to lure Luke to the Dark Side. I believe that during the entire battle Vader was struggling with his love for Luke and his service to his master, he couldn't choose. This explains why Luke bested him, even though Vader was crippled, he was far more experienced than Luke was and could have easily beat him, but restrained himself because he did not want to kill Luke. It was only when Palpatine was torturing Luke that Vader realized it was time to make a choice.

It wouldn't matter whether or not Luke succeeded in his attempt with that swing at the emperor. His very choice to make the attempt sullied him. The philosophy of the Force isn't consequentialist. It deals with internal motivations and what that does to your spirit - much like the Buddhist notion of karma by which some of this is inspired.

Aside from that point, we know that Anakin/Vader's preference all along was to rule. As he told Padme, "I can destroy the emperor". At that point he told her that he and Padme could rule together and make things the way they thought they should be. As he told her in episode II, leaders should work out what's best for the people and if they can't agree then they should be MADE to agree. Throughout Vader's career, he always knew that the Emperor was less than noble, but it was his intention all along to establish order in the galaxy, at which point he would "make things right". He felt, if he could just do that, then all of the bad things he had to do to get to that point will have been justified and worth it. Like an addicted gambler, the more bad things he did, the more imperative it became for him to get the power to make things right, and through this desperation came the will to do even more bad things to make it so. Thus the cycle continued. But early on the accident happened on Mustufar and he was too weak to take on Sidious alone. When he found out about Luke, he realized that if he turned Luke to the dark side, the both of them would be powerful enough to take out Palpatine and set things right. He still believed in the power of the Dark Side all along. Lucas said, people who are evil don't think of themselves as evil. Because Vader felt the dark side was stronger than the light, he felt Luke would never be powerful enough without converting (not to mention that he wouldn't work with him until then). Vader never considered the dark side or himself to be evil at any point. He thought if he could just dominate the galaxy and "end the destructive conflict" he could bring it order. After that would follow peace and prosperity through his wise decisions. His mistake was in thinking that the ends justify the means. When he saw Luke's actions as he was being hit with force lightning he realized that the way to help the world wasn't by trying to dominate it, but through self sacrifice. In that self sacrifice he saw the power of Luke to change himself, and the power of himself to change the galaxy by taking out Palpatine - knowing it would fry his life support system. Palpatine wanted power for the sake of power and self glorification, but Vader was never like that - even in his darkest moments. In fact, one could say that when Luke heard Vader tell him they could bring order to the galaxy, he sensed that subconscious motivation - the difference between Vader and the emperor and that was the realization that there was still good in him. --Daniel 16:42, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with the ends and means comment. Vader's mistake was double: his means would never accomplish his ends - and even worse, they corrupted him so that he no longer truly desired (or was capable of) striving for his ends. Vader's appeal changed from the fairly benign one he offered Padme, in which they would rule for the good of the galaxy, to his appeal to Luke, which was merely an appeal to naked greed, no altruism at all. --maru (talk) contribs 23:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I guess that we will never know his true intentions will we?

Um, yes, we do. Try reading the above conversation. Jon Hart 18:09, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

What you folks think is completely irrelevant -- it is personal opinion and interpretation of a fictional work that have no place at Wikipedia. The only thing that matters is sourced fact. -- Jibal 21:40, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Missing Sith

Hey why didn't you mention Darth Lumiya and Flint and Karnor Jax? They were also considered Sith by the EU.

It's just Lumiya, no Darth, but yes, you're right. And they're now in the article.

They are not Sith Lords. The only one close would be Lumiya, and she never officially recieved a Sith title.

But she was trained as apprentice by Vader. Sorter by default, neh? --maru 22:18, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What about Darth Bane? I haven't read the new book on him yet, but as soon as I do, I'll add him somewhere if you like....

He's already on there. Jon Hart 18:09, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Sith Origins

Just so you know, in the New Star Wars Guide to Weapons and Technology, it is stated that the sith were an alien race enslaved by Dark Jedi. These dark ones became known as the Sith Lords. --B-101 12:41, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That is also claimed in the Knights of the Old Republic games. Not authoritative I know but... -- Maru Dubshinki 01:09 AM Sunday, 20 March 2005

Why is that not an authoritative source?

Because the games are very low in the canon hierarchy- in fact, as low as you can go and still be canon. And, mind you, the KOTORs are in the distant past. --maru 22:18, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No they're not. All C-canon is equal, except that in the case of video games you can't count gameplay mechanics. But cutscenes and storylines are 100% canon. And forgive my ignorance, but I don't see what the KOTOR games being set in the distant past has to do with them not being an authoritative source on something that took place in the slightly more distant past. --Jon Hart

The KOTORs only glancingly claim it, in minor bits of the game very easily missed. And I find it a little difficult to believe that all C-canon are totally and completely equal. I'd much rather rely on something like The Golden Age of the Sith where the enslavement is specifically claimed. --maru 01:03, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It is also stated in the book Secrets of the Sith. It says Lucas Books on the back so i asume it is "authorized". --70.105.68.30 23:17, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

There's no such thing as "authoritative source" in regard to fiction. Within the Wikipedia canon, all one can say is the fact that so-and-so states such-and-such. -- Jibal 21:48, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Cites for Sith race

Please cite anywhere where George Lucas explains what the Sith are. This articles explanation seems like pure fanfictionish/EU plothole coverups. It seems obvious to me that the title "lord of the sith" was simply given to darth vader in the novelzations to sound cool (causing fans to imagine that the sith were some kind of race or group of people), and then in the prequals he meant for the "sith" to be the "anti-jedi" and consist of "only two, master and apprentice". --Anon.

EU is a form of canon, right below the movies. Sorry if you don't like it, but it's definitely not on the same plane as fanfic. I've heard about the Sith race from various sources; unfortunately, I don't remember where. --Aidje 16:18, 2005 Mar 31 (UTC)

Most of the information on the ancient Sith can be found in these sources:

The Tales of the Jedi series:

The Golden Age of the Sith

The Fall of the Sith Empire

Knights of the Old Republic

The Freedon Nadd Uprising

Dark Lords of the Sith

The Sith War

Redemption

Knights of the Old Republic

Knights of the Old Republic II: The Sith Lords

Jedi vs. Sith

And yes, they most definitely are all canon.

Don't forget Kevin J. Anderson's "Jedi Academy" trilogy! In fact, I think that may be the original source of that info about the Sith enslaving the Sith race for their projects. --maru 22:18, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"And yes, they most definitely are all canon." Eh, only in a very loose sense of "canon until contradicted". I am almost positive this is what happened: The original Star Wars script calls Darth Vader "Lord of the Sith". EU writers think to themselves "hmm, I wonder what the sith are? If Darth Vader is the Lord of Sith then logically the Sith must be some group of people". So they came up with the idea that the Sith were an alien race enslaved by Vader. I am very sure that the fan fiction/EU books did not call anyone but vader "Lord of the Sith" at the time. Then the prequel movie comes along which makes no mention of any alien race but instead seems to use the term "Sith" as to mean the opposite of "Jedi", and "Sith Lord" exclusively instead of "Lord of the Sith". Only at this point would EU then retcon what they had said before and incorporate the idea that the "bad Jedi" are called "Sith" and attempt to make it all work. This exposes the problem with calling EU "canon", because George is apt to ignore it or contradict any particular point no matter how many previous EU works mention it.

Everything except the movies are 'canon until contradicted'. Actually, come to think of it, even the movies contradict themselves in places (does that mean they aren't canon?) so perhaps we place o'er much value on something being canon. --maru 22:18, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Er, nowhere in the EU does it say the Sith are an alien race enslaved by Vader. By the end of the Tales of the Jedi series, the Sith species is believed to be extinct, and the term "Sith" has come to mean the dark side cult Vader was a member of in the original Star Wars script, so the prequels contradict pretty much nothing in this vein. It was Lucas himself who provided the history of the Sith used in that series. "Sith Lord" and "Lord of the Sith" are the same thing, by the way.

Show me which book used the term "Sith" as an opposite of "Jedi" (essentially how the prequels use it) AND was written before the prequels came out.

The Tales of the Jedi series.

Note, the article for Dark Jedi at the present says that the eu didn't think of calling the "dark side jedi", "the sith", as is used in the prequal trilogies. But if that usage was invented somewhere later in the eu then copied into the prequal movies, it was definately in contradiction to the original usage in the eu and was only retconned later.

Could you clarify that? Jon Hart 23:31, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

"Because the term Sith was never heard from the dialogues in the original trilogy, early Expanded Universe products usually considered the "evil Jedi," those who joined the dark side of the Force, as "Dark Jedi." In his famous novel series The Thrawn Trilogy, author Timothy Zahn labeled Sith Lord Darth Vader and Emperor Palpatine as Dark Jedi, and the term "Sith" was never mentioned in the series."

This is a quote from the Dark Jedi article. This shows that the term Sith as being the label for the "Bad guys" wasn't used until Lucas used it in episode 1. --71.139.201.246 14:33, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Nope. The word "Sith" first appeared in the 1976 novelization of Episode IV, in which Vader was identified as a Dark Lord of the Sith. Jon Hart 18:11, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

This is all nonsense. For Wikipedia purposes, there's no such thing as "canon". There are simply a bunch of fictional works containing text, and real life authors who, as a matter of fact, have said this or that. -- Jibal 21:52, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Sith Code

Please note that there are two Sith codes, and you've only mentioned one of them. Please mention the "there is no fear, there is anger" - one as well as the ancient Sith code. --Anon.

Please provide a source for the second code.

I updated the article with the second sith code. Its been taken from here --aditya mukherjee 04:25, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Nothin' there, pal. If you want it to stay in, provide an official source.

That's because the link was screwed up. I fixed it. --Kross 20:28, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Still doesn't look like much of an official/canon source. --maru 21:31, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

According to this site, the purported "second" Sith Code is fan-created.

There is no fear, there is power. There is no death, there is immortality. There is no weakness, there is the Dark Side. I am the Heart of Darkness. I know no fear, But rather I instill it in my enemies. I am the destroyer of worlds. I know the power of the Dark Side. I am the fire of hate. All the Universe bows before me. I pledge myself to the Darkness. For I have found true life, In the death of the light.

No. Jon Hart 17:57, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

The KOTOR one is the official Sith Code. -Xol 22:38, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

KOTOR has the last line as "The force shall set me free" not "The force shall free me". I think this should be changed/ 157.191.14.10 15:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Someone has vandalised the page and made it "the force can't set me free". Someone please change it back. And refer the above line - "The force shall free me" or "the force shall set me free"? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 219.64.12.173 (talk) 06:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC).

It's "The Force shall free me." Jon Hart 18:11, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Bastila

"After redeeming Malak's apprentice, Bastila Shan..." In the game, there is also the opportunity to kill Bastila. That needs to be adressed. --Phoenix Hacker 04:16, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

This is true, but that option is not part of the true canonical light side ending.

Referring to Bastila as Malak's apprentice seems to be misguiding. I think it should be mentioned that she was a companion to (and friend of) Revan, and was bonded to Revan through the Force. -Xol 22:36, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually tehre is 3 sith codes....

Kyle Katarn

Why wasn't he mentioned in this article, as the renegade Jedi who falls in and out of the dark side :p . Or is it that Katarn is just a protagonist in the games and nowhere there in the SW Universe? Please clear this out for me. --aditya mukherjee 04:30, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Kyle isn't mentioned for the sole fact that he isn't, and never was, a Sith.

Correct, he never becomes a Sith, but on occasion falls to the dark side and becomes a Dark Jedi which is something else entirely. ---Iorek Brynson

Sith vs. Dark Jedi

To my knowledge, a Dark Jedi is _any_ Jedi who has turned to the dark side of the Force. But a Sith is only one who has specifically learned from the current Dark Lord of the Sith, hence being part of the Sith Order. Shouldn't 'Dark Jedi' and 'Sith' be seperate articles to represent this? —qrc 22:26, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

There is a separate article: Dark Jedi, but that article claims that Dark Jedi cannot be affiliated with the Sith. I'll put up another section on it's talk page, because as far as I know the force-using Sith are Dark Jedi. -Xol 23:35, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Sith are a subset of Dark Jedi; the article is still correct since the Sith have different philosophies from Dark Jedi, which is largely what differentiates them (the lore and abilities being bonuses). --maru (talk) Contribs 02:20, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, although it could be disputed that, as per KOTOR, Force-capable Sith can be referred to as Dark Jedi. I do understand that, especially in the New Republic times, Dark Jedi separate themselves from the Sith. It's a minor point, and I admit I'm not so well versed in ABY history. Thanks, -Xol 02:52, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Dark Jedi

I've added a paragraph about Dark Jedi. Perhaps it could be incorporated into a seperate article...

You mean like, say, Dark Jedi? :) --maru 22:18, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Grey Jedi

when and where did George Lucas describe Qui-Gon Jinn as Grey Jedi??i doubt this information. Darth Kevinmhk 2 July 2005 03:43 (UTC)

I cant give you a source but i am led to believe that he is called this because he follows the "Living Force" as opposed to the "Unifying Force" which most jedi follow. The former uses one's feelings (like anger or joy) to interact with others (either aggresivly or peacefully) and the latter relies on calm and meditation to connect you to the power of the Force. 70.105.68.30 23:26, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

The Sith'ari

• Merge. --Maru (talk) 23:51, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Why does it say Anakin is the Sith'ari? Yuthura Ban says the Sith'ari has no restrictions, has reached their full potential, achieved perfect power, and would one day lead the Sith, destroying them but making them stronger than before. Anakin had restrictions, like Sidious for instance being his master and telling him what to do. Anakin didn't reach his full potential as stated by Lucas and he didn't have perfect power since many other force users have displayed far more power than Anakin. He didn't lead the Sith, and while he may have destroyed them, he didn't make them stronger than before. Unless you're counting him helping destroy the Jedi, which the clones helped quite a bit, Sidious was the mastermind behind it all, and the Jedi have been nearly wiped out before, such as after the Jedi Civil War. Finally, can you even say Anakin destroyed the Sith when Palpatine returned more than once? --Kotor Mark 04:18, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Misread, the prophecy might have been.

Did the Jedi expect their Chosen One to lead to Order 66 and the Galactic Empire? --maru (talk) Contribs 06:01, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but the chosen one was prophesized to destroy the Sith, nothing more. So Anakin didn’t contradict this at all, very much unlike the Sith’ari. It describes Revan better than it does Anakin. Revan is pretty powerful, hasn’t been defeated, has no apparent restrictions, is described by Master Zhar as having unlimited potential, and he did lead the Sith, making them stronger than before with the knowledge of Malachor V, his own tactics, and destroying the Jedi. Then he destroys Bandon and Malak, ending the Sith, at least for the time, but Anakin only ended the Sith for a time as well. Even Dark side Revan would fit the prophecy if he succeeds in destroying the ancient Sith empire. So really it makes no sense to say Anakin is the Sith’ari since he doesn’t even come close to fitting the description. --Kotor Mark 09:12, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Guess. we'll have to wait for KOTOR III to find out for sure. --maru (talk) contribs 19:13, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Long!!

im impressed how this has sucha long space, yet mayor important historic stuff have less space than this (and all in all, this sith thing is just a commercial thing), it lacks the importance for the space it has. making it a little bit shorter wouldnt hurt. -Anon.

Well, consider, Anonymous, that these articles are written by people as a charity/hobby, so it makes sense that things that people enjoy would receive more attention. The historical articles are less interesting, so they get neglected. But take heart! One day someone who likes that stuff will come along and expand them. Heck, when all the interesting stuff is done, we'll have no choice.

And why should we make it shorter? This article being long does no harm to the other articles- Wikipedia is not paper, after all. --Maru (talk) Contribs 06:02, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

These articles are written by people who pay no attention to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. -- Jibal 21:55, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Great Sith War

I notice how the section dedicated to the Great Sith War was left blank are there any plans to add information to that section anytime in the near future?

Eurggh... >.< Let me put it this way anon- the fact that so much content was lost even with all the editors watching it and reverting it just shows you how intense the vandalism is. I'm semi-protecting it. It's a lot easier to deal with the registered user vandalism than with the multiple and concatenated anonymous users' vandalism (no offense). Incidentally, I've done a long term full revert, so all the missing content should be back. --maru (talk) Contribs 20:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Revan's Empire... now The Second Sith Empire

Shouldn't Revan's Empire be divided into his enemies + allies. I did this previously but it has been changed back. As an explanation: Revan's allies (his side) are those whom he joined with when returning to the Dark Side after his mind wipe. Using the heading "Revan's Sith Empire" sounds like they were all his allies, when he actually killed most of them. If no one disagrees, I'll split it up again in a few days. -Xol 23:24, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Your point is well taken, although since Revan did not truly return to the dark side after the Jedi Council wiped his mind, splitting up this section accordingly seems like it might be a source of confusion. The current title, "Darth Revan's Sith Empire," does seem to suggest that he ruled it for its entire duration, however, which he clearly did not. I shall change it to something more apropos. Jon Hart 01:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, it looks great now (and I understand it better). This is a much better solution. -Xol 03:14, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

About recent edits to this section: should it be noted which (many did) of those "Sith" returned to the light side? It just seems odd listing Bastila Shan and Dustil Onasi as Sith, without mentioning anything about them, when they returned to the Republic. -Xol 01:57, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

How's that? Jon Hart 02:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Someone else added a note at the top of the Lesser Sith section - an * denotes returned to light side. Take for example Dustil Onasi: he returned to the light side in the canon light-side gameplay. Same with Bastila Shan (of course, she could die too, but the * system there is now does a nice job of keeping those people in the list without making them seem quite so evil. -Xol 15:04, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that was me. I take it that's what you had in mind? Jon Hart 22:42, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Lumiya

"Following the Yuuzhan Vong War, however, Jedi Master Kyle Katarn encountered a Force-strong Yuuzhan Vong female in the mysterious Cloak of the Sith region of the galaxy, where it was rumored that post-Palpatine Sith still lived. Powerful though she was, Kyle sensed an even darker hand behind her training. Ominously, this Yuuzhan Vong had apparently had a Master."

Can that be proven? I have yet to find a source for that information. --Jedi6 02:05, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Ahem. The Dark Forces Saga, Part 2: Unsung Heroes of the Light. --maru (talk) Contribs 22:44, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Is that canon? I thought that was just a made up scenario for the role playing game? --Jedi6 05:52, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Remember your canon rules- the stats and specific D&D elements are not canon, but the backstory information is very much canon, which is a good thing else the history of lots of characters would be pretty pathetic, and the entire EU even more inconsistent than it already is. --maru (talk) Contribs 07:15, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Corniche??

"In the new Star Wars game, the main villain is known as Corniche, an alien sith of hideous appearance with tiny wrinkled hands but an aggressive streak that belys his puny, weak and child-like stature. In the game, he succumbs to some sort of infection that corrupts his hands and face, causing one character to remark, "Looks like he's been dipped in some sorta acid". Following The Wars of The Library, his passwords that allowed him to access the computerised information were changed and he was expelled from the Library. His parting shriek of "Just because I've got crusty sores all over my body..." must surely be some of the most famous in Star Wars history, even more so than Oliys denial that he had excreted urea based substances during the Mathematical Challenge in the Hall of The Queen."

Can anyone verify this? It doesn't even say what game. Jedi6-(need help?) 21:19, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Man, I couldn't believe that if it were in a real game, just for the urea comment. --maru (talk) contribs 04:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Vader's motives re: Luke?

The article reads: "Both Sith Lords [Sidious & Vader] hoped to corrupt Luke to the dark side, but each had a different motive. Vader desired to kill the Emperor and rule the galaxy with his son, but Palpatine wished to replace Vader with the boy." Does it ever actually say in the movie that Vader plans to turn against the Emperor? I don't remember that, and it kind of makes a mockery of Vader's later 'redemption'. Irrevenant 12:37, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Empire Strikes Back, Revenge of the Sith? "Join me and together we can rule the galaxy as father and son" sort of implies there is no place for Palpatine in that scheme, you know? --maru (talk) contribs 18:16, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

That's kind of a vague implication to be stated as a concrete fact, in my opinion. Vader and Palpatine could be said to be ruling the Galaxy in the original trilogy, and adding Luke to the equation doesn't diminish their power much. Irrevenant 00:07, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't thintk it is vague at all, when you combine it with Vader's thoughts in the novelizations to that effect, and to his entreat to Padme in ROTS w/r/t to overthrowing Palpatine and ruling together, or for that matter, with the general Sith modus operandi. --maru (talk) contribs 01:12, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay, fine. I've not read the novelisation. Irrevenant 08:03, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

One only has to think like the Sith and believe in the power of the Dark Side in order to fully comprehend Lord Sidious' true intentions as forseen by his undeniable power of forseeing future needs and events...(1) Having thus another possible new apprentice at his immimnent bidding, one far younger and more powerfull (Luke Skywalker), (2) with Master Sidious' forthcoming subtle anger and growing distrust of his very less human, longtime apprentice Darth Vader, and (3) given the Emperor's continued concern for the eventual disposition of a pronounced "new enemy" (the son of Skywalker not becoming a Jedi), then the proscribed events of pitting father against son were, indeed, part of the great Lord Sidious' master plan to continue solidifying his Sith hertitage by removing a doubtfull Sith apprentice and replacing him with someone (Luke Skywalker) who would complete the destiny of the "Chosen One" and serve the Sith by taking his father's place at his new Master's side!

.....so stated by One who, himself, has lived in Darkness for many years now, Darth Santanus....04.23.2006

Sith Deaths

--Three-Tail 06:38, 16 May 2006 (UTC) A number of Sith Lords make rather violent exits. Darth Sidious exploded. Darth Nihilus kind of evaporated. Any reason. Also a number of Sith ask for redemption and such at their deaths. Darth Malak, Darth Vader, Darth Sion. Darth Tyranus showed some signs of emotion in Attack of the Clones in reference to Qui-Gon and it seemed genuine. And in the Revenge of the Sith novelization he warns Anakin. Think any of this should be mentioned? One thing off topic um what exactly are Darth Nihilus, Darth Sion and Darth Traya. They aren't your normal Sith, but they aren't Dark Lords of the Sith either.

As the title of the game says, they are Sith Lords. Jon Hart 15:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The Jedi Prophecy

--user:Lord Thyronous 10:50 18, may 2006 I believe that the true chosen one is luke. he destroyed the sith. only with the help of darth vader.

You're wrong. Jon Hart 15:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Roleplaying game mechanics

It has been stated in at least one Star Wars RPG sourcebook that the provided statistics for characters are merely interpretations, and not to be taken as definitive. A prominent example is that Yoda could be statted as a Level 20 Jedi Consular, or as a Jedi Consular 15/Jedi Master 5 or any number of other combinations. The reason for this is that the classes in the books are abstractions, not necessarily reflective of any real classification in the fiction. As such, information on the various Sith prestige classes really doesn't belong in an article about the Sith. They're just different ways to represent the fictional elements. Powers 12:25, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Look, this has been gone over many times before. The prestige classes and other classes such as Sith lords and Sith acolytes are quite canon, even as the game mechanics are not canon. This is even reflected on our canon article: "Games and RPG sourcebooks are a special case; the stories and general background information are themselves fully C-canon, but the other elements such as character/item statistics and gameplay are, with few exceptions, N-canon." The classes give quite a bit of background information, and the mentioned stories tie in with the classes. This has been our and Wookieepedia's general practice. Don't lump in the general data with the statistics and game mechanics (or do you want to start purging articles like Dark Empire of sourcebook-derived data?) --maru (talk) contribs 20:12, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Please, there's no need to be condescending. I have no problem with C-canon material from the sourcebooks. Where our point of contention is is whether the names and features of specific prestige classes counts as the C-canon background information or as the N-canon statistics and gameplay. I contend it's the latter. Powers 22:34, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

The former. Supported by the modus vivendi on Wikipedia and Wookieepedia, as well as the usual reading of the canon guidelines. You haven't offered any real support against the status quo. --maru (talk) contribs 23:52, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

To be honest, I didn't realize that considering game-specific features to be C-canon was the status quo. Do you have any links that might show that this is the standard on Wikipedia? Powers 01:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

You misunderstand me. I never said game mechanical features were C-canon. --maru (talk) contribs 05:25, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Well my confusion is understandable, I think, considering the opening paragraph of the disputed section read as follows:

Note: the following text refers to the Sith class structure as presented in the Star Wars D20 RPG System; the division of classes is for gameplay purposes and does not necessarily represent the "real" structure of the Sith.

My concern is if "the division of classes is for gameplay purposes" then what is it doing in this article? Powers 13:11, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I probably should've removed that. The sourcebooks make clear that that class system is C-canon, after all. --maru (talk) contribs 14:30, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

They do? Powers 18:53, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't be arguing with you if, when I read them, they made it clear to me that the classes and other background information of that sort was C-canon. But if you don't believe me, go ask Jon Hart or someone else. --maru (talk) contribs 23:15, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Apologies for the plethora of questions -- but who is Jon Hart? Powers 00:51, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

You haven't seen Hart around here? He's one of our better SW editors, even though he doesn't do that much these days. User:Jon Hart. When it comes to canonicity and really obscure stuff, I generally leave it to him (or User:Publius, but Publius seems to spend all his time on his own little wiki writing his essays, so don't expect any quick reply there.) --maru (talk) contribs 01:02, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I've heard lots of conflicting information on this; does anyone have an official source (maybe a link) to where it says videogame classes are C-canon? That's the 2nd tier and higher than I thought they would be. If C-canon is correct, would the label in the Jedi section also be wrong? (Reproduced below). I think a large part of the confusion is that the RPG sourcebooks and games are careful to avoid stepping on toes and so make claims that they are less canonical than maybe Lucas considers them. --Solberg 06:23, 13 June 2006 (UTC)Solberg

Note: Classifications of the Jedi is from the Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic computer game and the d20-style Star Wars role playing games. The role playing game makes it clear that within the Star Wars universe these differences don't exist and they are merely a way to describe the various styles of Jedi that are depicted, i.e. some are more martially-oriented while others are more knowledge-oriented. Jedi do not refer to themselves as "Consulars" or "Guardians", but simply as 'Jedi'.

Um, I've been a way for a while and still no response, what's the deal? There is a similar question from another user on the discussion page for Jedi, as well. --Solberg 07:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)Solberg

Read Star Wars canon. --maru (talk) contribs 19:05, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for not replying earlier. I already read that page before and that's why I asked the question-- there's no mention on that page that Jedi classes are C-canon and not listed under N-canon as would be otherwise implied (since gameplay, character stats, items, etc are all listed under N-canon). Only general background info is listed as C-canon. Are you suggesting that Jedi/Sith classes fall under general background info? Is there an official source that explicitly "oks" this? -- Solberg 00:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)Solberg

Since we've chatted last, things have apparently gotten very confusing. Reading over on Wookieepedia, one sees Jedi classes convinced that Jedi classes are in general N-canon, with the exception of Consulars; but nothing is said of Jedi librarians (presumably G-canon because of Jocasta Nu in Ep II), Gate Masters and other miscellaneous ranks like that, or for that matter Jedi Guardians, which presumably were included in "Jedi classes" denunciation as N-canon, but which nevertheless are explicitly mentioned in the non-game, non-RPG C-canon work The New Essential Chronology as being two of the founders of the Jedi Temple! --maru (talk) contribs 02:34, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

"Lords of Malachor"

Why the hell does it say Visas Marr as one of the "Lords of Malechore"? I'm changing it.

• Its not Malechore, its Malachor. Jasca Ducato 20:42, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I think thats why he wanted to change it

• Where does it ever say that Visas Marr is one of the "Lords Of Malachor"? The three lords (also known as the Sith Triumvirate) are Traya, Nihilus, and Sion. Im going to change Marr back to Nihilus until any proof is offered to support Marr being one of the lords. Tysis 1:11, 06 November 2006 (UTC)
  • And that's about to be reverted. Nihilus was a DLOS, and Visas was a Lord of Malachor. if you want proof, check the articles over at wookieepedia. Jasca Ducato 12:12, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

"Etymology of the word Sith"

I don't think the original research addition to this section of the article is relevant. What does the Buddha (not buda) have to do with the sith? User:NpaK13 1:00, 11 November 2006

Nothing, just like the Celtic stuff that's there- the first paragraph of that section is the only one that isn't OR (although it could use references). --DarthBinky 07:19, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

If there is anything that George borrowed from then it's:

Seid or seiðr is an Old Norse language term for a type of sorcery or witchcraft which was practiced by the pre-Christian Norse. Sometimes anglicized as "seidhr", "seidh", "seidr", "seithr" or "seith", the term is also used to refer to modern Neopagan reconstructions or emulations of the practice. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.60.12.119 (talk) 06:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC).

The reference to Irish Fae, Sidhe is bunk. The word is in no way similar in pronunciation. In Irish Gaelic an s as the start of a word followed by a vowl takes on a an sh sound. Furthermore the dhe as the end of the word has an ee sound. Therefor the pronunciation of sidhe is SHEE not SITH. If you were to pronounce Sith with gaelic pronunciation it would sound like SHEH See: http://www.standingstones.com/gaelpron.html That being said I am removing the line. --Sorrowsfemme 18:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Sith pronounced with /t/ in German ?

The text says, sith is pronounced "sit" in German. I am from Germany and I've never heard someone saying sith without [θ].

Origin of Sith Code?

The Sith Code couldn't have appeared first in the KOTOR games, because I remember it being in the third edition of the A Guide To The Star Wars Universe, which came out a short while after The Phantom Menace. Anyone know where it originated? (DrZarkov 23:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC))

It originated in KOTOR. Jon Hart 16:16, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

anti-samurai

This article discusses how the jedi parallel the samurai, so the sith must have its roots in some sort of anti-samurai. Ronin, or masterless samurai, may represent this anti-samurai. They were expected to kill themselves, had great personal freedom, and were looked down upon or envied by samurai. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.162.241.244 (talk) 03:00, 9 April 2007 (UTC).

This article includes a bunch of fanboys' opinions and speculations about sith, jedi, and parallels. Those, like your own, have no place in Wikipedia. -- Jibal 22:14, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Galaxy-Ruling Sith

that's interesting, but why isn't Darth Sidious included in that list? also, it's really hard to say whether they were the most wise, unless you can find a quote from canon which supports that. Whateley23 21:36, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Rewrite tag

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

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

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

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

I'll go one better than that

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