Talk:Darth Vader

Archives
Archive 1 (October 2004 - May 2005) Archive 2 (May 2005 - July 2005) Archive 3 (July 2005 - August 2005) Archive 4 (August 2005 - April 2006) Archive 5 (February - March 2006) Archive 6 (March 2006 - August 2006)

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

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

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)

You nerds haven't the slightest clue how to write do you?

The first paragraph is most crucial to an article. It should be concise, interesting, and a good read.

Instead, you tell people what they already know: Darth Vader is a character in Star Wars. Duh!

And then you go on to list, monotonously, all the films he's a big part of. It's an orgy of nerdy blue text.

If you want to improve this article, start from the very beginning and work your way down.

I'm not getting involved, because I know what vicious little peckerwoods Star Wars geeks can be.

Chris 22:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• Well your the one complaining, you "vicious little peckerwood[…]geek"! The whole point of this wiki is to inform and explain. Some people might not actually know that Vader is from Star Wars, he could easily be a Star Trek character or even a cartoon character. The fact that he's from Star Wars needs to be shown!! Jasca Ducato 07:50, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. Since you've presumed to judge the rest of us in our writing ability, I thought I would take a moment to look over yours. I think I'll limit direct analysis to just the opening header (between the equal signs), since you seem interested in introductions. And I'll presume you don't mind since you've already set the standard for mutual analysis : )

• First, "Your nerds" - Should I presume that the "r" is a typo? Or is it that you don't know your possessives? (If "your" is correct then it should be "do they", else "you" and "do you".) I suppose I'll consider it a typo, since I presume that you weren't suggesting that anyone here has their own supply of nerds : )
• Oh, and you should have placed a comma after "write".

Besides that...

Your sentence structure is choppy to say the least. Normally I would understand this as most people are unaccustomed to the professional written word (as most on Wikipedia are), but since you've proclaimed yourself an expert, I really might have expected better.

I also might add, after you've vented your opinion upon us (us, in this case, includes all Wikipedians who are editors of this article, of which, I am one), you decided to "ring and run" (to quote the character C. J. Cregg), through this sentence: "I'm not getting involved, because..." I didn't include your reasoning behind the statement because, after reading the initial statement of the sentence (that you refuse to help), I lost interest.

Part of assuming good faith of an editor is presuming that they will be able to accept constructive criticism. I hope you will. And I do hope you change your mind and join us in the attempt to improve this article. Just please remember that choices come about by concensus here, and not by any one person's imposed point of view : )

I hope you have a great day : ) - jc37 18:27, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

• And to add the jc37's comments. Your message would fit into a single paragraph correctly, you did not need to space out every single line as a new paragraph. Thank you. Jasca Ducato 20:10, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

The point remains: the opening paragraph of this article is a worthless block of blue text. Chris 17:57, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• No, the new point is that you can't write proper english. Jasca Ducato 18:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

That's cute, chief, but I'm quite sure that I can. The difference between you and me is, when I see that's someone's made a simple typo (You vs. Your), I am not so shallow and feeble-minded that I have to resort to attacking that minor point, rather than dealing with the arguments put forth. Chris 22:54, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I wasn't making such a "point", Jasca Ducato. I was merely offering constructive criticism, just as I noted above. - jc37 22:19, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

At any rate, there's a reason that 'Darth Vader' is marked as needing clean-up. You fellas can start with the 1st paragraph, if you have any good sense. Starting the article on one of the most important villians of all time by giving a rote list of the films he's appeared in is, in my view, pretty pedantic, and very questionable from a stylistic standpoint. Chris 22:54, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

"if you have any good sense" - Any chance you might consider your "tone", especially since you feel: "...I'm quite sure that I can"? It might be more condusive to discussion here on Wikipedia. - jc37 22:19, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello again Chris, coicidence it seems has brought me to this page. May I remind you and the people you are arguing with right now to avoid personal attacks. It's true that Vader is a famous figure in popular culture. But still, not everyone knows who he is. There's a first time for everything and many people were born after the Star Wars Craze (tm) of the late 1970s and early 1980s and are thus mainly familiar with the "prequels" in which Darth Vader plays a minor role. Even middle aged people (in their 40s) may not have caught onto Star Wars for a variety of reasons, i.e. dislike of science fiction. -- Solberg 00:21, 14 October 2006 (UTC)Solberg

I have to agree with Solberg's comments. - jc37 22:19, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Quite right. In any event, Darth Vader is now a cleaner read :) Theavatar3 17:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

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.

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

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? [email protected] 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)

*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)

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)

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)

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)

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 decission (sp?) 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)

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)

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

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.

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)

New picture

I really think we should update that old picture up there. Does anyone have anything good?Lokon40 03:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)