Jump to content

Talk:Sith

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

Wikipedia Ambassador Program assignment

This article is the subject of an educational assignment at Ball State University supported by Various group research topics and the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2011 Q3 term. Further details are available on the course page.

Above message substituted from {{WAP assignment}} on 14:55, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Rewrite Proposal

I am working on developing a Philosophy section for the Sith. This will explain a little bit more in depth about the Sith and the philosophy behind it. 00:11, 19 November 2011 (UTC)AbbyDMiller (talk) 00:11, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am working on the genealogy of the Sith both as they appear in the Expanded Universe and in Mass Media.Rrbray (talk) 02:01, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm currently working on expanding the information that is available for the Expanded Universe section of this article-Kgaribay —Preceding undated comment added 23:03, 17 November 2011 (UTC).[reply]

We intend to do it in Four parts, opening with an explanation of the sith in the context of ficitional characters. Then an explanation of the sith as they are in the universe from various sources. Philosophy of the sith and a list of the sith included supplementally. Shawna —Preceding undated comment added 18:00, 16 November 2011 (UTC).[reply]

The history may make it look like we scrapped the old article, however a ton of stuff was wrapped up in from it and some of it, like the beginnings we are keeping verbatim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShawnaV (talk • contribs) 22:58, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]


Heya, we're going to work on this for a class project. We intend to update the sources and arrange it encyclopedically. We've got some high standards to meet. Thanks for listing all the problems this will be a great help. Anyone mind? I'm guessing no since no one has been here since Aught7 Shawna —Preceding undated comment added 22:14, 8 November 2011 (UTC).[reply]

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)[reply]

Last chance

In the previous section, I noted that I agreed that the article needed re-writing badly. I also said that if statemetns weren't cited, they would be removed. Since that date, a half-dozen edits were performed, none of them addign a single citation. Since no one has commented about the call for citations, i must presume that a desire for citation appears to be secondary to explaining the psychologu of a fictional order.
At midnight CST, uncited information will be removed. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 19:50, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As promised, the enormous amount of uncited material from the article was removed to here. It cannot return to the article without significant clean up to remove in-universe references and solid, reliably sourced, noteworthy citation. We can discuss bits that may have been inadvertantly removed in the clean-up, but nothing is going back into the article without citation. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:31, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted

You can't delete the entire article - even if it contains uncited material. Add a rewrite tag and a citations needed tag and eventually an 'expert' might sort it out. Don't delete half the article and just leave a few disjointed paragraphs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.137.90.10 (talk) 16:31, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I would entreat you to please cite the material removed and re-add it with reliable, noteworthy and verifiable citation. It isn't going back into the article without it. It would be unencyclopedic to do so. Remember, this isn't Wookiepedia. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 03:18, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Expanded Universe

Since Star Wars is composed of multiple media (films, novels, video games, newspaper comics, comic books), it might be helpful to distinguish the contributions of each of these media to the understanding, development and evolution of the Sith. I am aware that canonicity is going to color these views, and we should probably note that outside of the films, nothing is canon (which certainly affects its notability). Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arcayne (talk • contribs) 10:03, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This Article Is Not About The Sith.

If you are going to write about the "Star Wars universe", and not just the filmed trilogies, show some background. This article should be completely rewritten.

The Sith are not counterparts of the Jedi nor are they Dark Jedi, but are of a far older order, and I don't think they can be described as a cult being that there are always only two: the Master and the Student. They are the Sith; not Jedi.

For a long time they were assumed to have been abolished, but the story I read revealed the Sith Temple.

"Star Wars: Darth Bane: Path of Destruction" "Star Wars: Darth Bane: Rule of Two" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xetheare (talk • contribs) 16:19, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an ubergeek here that has loads of references that can be used about the Sith, but I would have to agree here that this article needs a major rewrite.... nearly to the point that I might even support a VfD on the grounds that this article should simply be rewritten from scratch. Note I'm not saying that this article shouldn't exist in Wikipedia, but this isn't the article it could be. More to the point, I don't see the basic "5 w's" questions being answered in this current version of this article. Who are the Sith? What exactly do they do...especially in contrast to the Jedi? When (in the Star Wars Universe) did the Sith start and what is their history? Where are the Sith found? Why are the Sith motivated to destroy the Jedi, and why would the Sith seek to take over the Galaxy (as in the head of the Sith becoming the "emperor of the Galaxy")? How did the Sith achieve their goals and accomplish the task of galactic conquest?
You can argue a bit that George Lucas didn't leave much in terms of content to answer all of these questions to any great depth, but between the six films and the substantial body of literature in the "Star Wars Universe" you can find answers to a great many of them. What I read in this article is not answering these questions, but it is a movie review (a lousy one at that) of Episodes I-III, emphasizing the Sith perspective.
Unlike many fictional universe topics, the topic of the Jedi and Sith are something that has invaded mainstream culture. Not only can you find in universe content that describes these two topics in some considerable depth, but you can find commentary, books, and articles about the Sith/Jedi relationship that are of a non-fiction orientation as well, not to mention going into depth from what notes George Lucas has mentioned about these two fictional religions and their relationship to real-life religions. When census workers have to come up with codes to record people who have declared the Jedi/Sith theology as their professed religious belief, it certainly it a topic to explain in terms that go well outside the "in universe" dimension. --Robert Horning (talk) 15:10, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmmm. This article used to be much longer. The sith is a philosophy, not just the actions of its followers. And there have been much more sith lords than the onces menchened here.
Is it a way to bring the old article back? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.242.98.174 (talk) 10:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What about going back to this older version?
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sith&oldid=10644725
I havnt read through it all, so I dont know exaxtly when the old article was on its best - ore exactly when the article was sabotaged. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.242.98.174 (talk) 12:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There haven't been any sith lords -- they are fictional. The only legitimate way to mention them in a WP article is refer to the real life work, by some real human being, that mentions them. Likewise, there is no sith philosophy, there are only real human beings who have written about the fictional philosophy of these fictional characters. -- Jibal (talk) 09:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the article used to be longer - full of uncited and speculative cruft. I am the one who removed the majority of it was utterly unencyclopedic. However, as there was a lot of it, I put it into archive 2, with the idea that once it was better written and notably, verifiably, neutrally and reliably cited, it could be added back to the article. Without those things, I am afraid the info has to remain in the archive. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 19:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article lacks much of the necessary information, such as its origins in the Sith species. The first Sith were a race of aliens centered on the planet Korriban. When the Dark Jedi were exiled from the Republic after the Hundred Year Darkness, they met the Sith on Korriban, and became the first Sith Lords. They are not warrior priests, nor are they Dark Jedi. I see these types of misinformation all over the Star Wars stuff on Wikipedia. A lot of it is entirely incorrect, and needs to be revamped. A great example is the title 'Darth' which is not, contrary to popular belief, the title of all Sith Lords. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darth Nex (talk • contribs) 16:04, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. This article seriously needs an overhaul.It's really lacking especially in regards to their history and philosophy. Even the appearences section is very short as it takes only a small part of their development in the expanded universe. But the problem with this particular section is that most of the information regarding the sith( both the race and the order) come from the expanded universe novels and not many people are willing to acknowldge them as they do tend to conflict.--212.12.183.130 (talk) 13:02, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation

Hi, everybody! I need some help. Please, would you tell me, what is the correct pronunciation of Sith: [sɪθ] or [sɪt]? Or anything else? Thank you! - Gaja from Hungarian Wikipedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.134.59.200 (talk) 15:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[sɪθ] is correct.24.235.158.206 (talk) 00:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sith

Well a good cite for that is the official star wars databank: Little did anyone suspect how Palpatine had engineered his own rise to power. Hidden beneath a façade of wan smiles and smooth political speeches was a Sith Lord. Q T C 05:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but tell me more about who writes the entries for those? Does Lucas do it? Do the authors of the books? Not bloody likely. Perhaps something a tad more reliable is called for. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 05:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Erm, considering you can't get much more official than the Databanks when it comes to Star War, that'll do fine for a source. Jasca Ducato (talk) 09:47, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
'Official' is something of a generic term. Could I trouble you to answer my question as to who actually fills in these "databanks"? It seems like chunky-monkey fanboy cruft to me, akin to forums discussing who would win in a fight between Superman and Darth Maul. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 16:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What about the people who decide what is and isn't canon? In fact, the main author of the Databank is Pablo Hidalgo ( a well known Star Wars author) whilst others like Leland Chee (the man who maintains the Holocron continuity database) also contribute; you don't get much more official then that. Might I suggest you head over to Wookieepedia and brush up on your Star Wars knowledge, alot.Jasca Ducato (talk) 20:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the suggestion, but I am an editor in Wikipedia, not Wookieepedia. We don't write articles for fanboys, but for the newcomers to the subject. I don't have to know all about Star Wars; I just have to make sure that what is included is allowable and not likely to be challenged (info challenged requires good citation). As for who determines what is and isn't canon - I think you are missing a key element of the issue, which is that here at Wikipedia, we don't give a rat's ass what is considered canon; the requirements of inclusion are reliable, notable citation, and not canon or truth.
Another problem presented by the citation is that of all those folk you mentioned, not one of them has their name on the info you cited. Without identification, notability is not there, and reliability is not there. Hope that explains where I am coming from. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arcayne (talk • contribs) 22:47, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No need for rudeness, Arcayne; everyone knows what serious business Wikipedia is. Besides, you're being unfair. Q offered a legitimate source for citation in this article. It is not "chunky-monkey fanboy cruft," but officially sanctioned information, regardless of its notability. You call "official" a generic term, but there is a noted difference between a Web site that can print "© Lucasfilm 2008. All rights reserved." on the bottom of its homepage and fora where fans who are not affiliated with Lucasfilm, the people who actually make Star Wars, discuss who would win in a fight between Superman and Darth Maul.
As for who determines what is and isn't canon, you asked who these people are and Jasca Ducato answered you. If you're so adamant about not applying it to your edits on Wikipedia, why did you ask in the first place and then vulgarly dismiss the answer once it was given? Regardless, canon [i]is[/i] important when writing about published fiction. What else is keeping fanon, fanfic, fancruft, etc. from infecting legitimate articles? Surely there is nothing notable about Xetheare's Anakin/Ki-Adi-Mundi slash. Jon Hart (talk) 21:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Might I press you to point out where I was rude? Not for nothing, but I didn't recommend that someone needed to learn more before editing. Being flippant is not the same as being rude, Jon. I meant no slam towards Jasca.
As for the citation, I agree that the sourcing is better than a fanboy forum, but that's like saying a glass full of poop is better than a glass with only a little bit of poop in it is better. It's still sewage. I think there is a major difference between the site in question and something like Leaky Cauldron (a website specifically-endorsed by JK Rowling for info on all things Harry Potter). One is personally endorsed by the creator whilst the other is not. The difference is that one can specifically be said to be following the specific vision of the creator. A corporate logo - not specifically ensconced within the subject material (Lucasfilm does a lot more than Star Wars stuff) - cannot be legitimately be said to be doing the same. As well, the anonymous nature of the entries leave a great deal open as to the credibility of the information presented.
While I don't recall asking what is canon, you asked a question about how we determine what is canon and what is not and its legitimacy within Wikipedia. Canon is indeed important when writing about fiction, but that importance takes a back seat to notability, reliability and verifiability. If the aforementioned slash fiction is notably, reliably and verifiably cited, we can include it. This keeps out a lot of the wacky Darth Maul/Padme sex stories because they fail on every level: the info, uploaded by someone non-notable (notability issue), can pull the story at any time (verifiability issue) and is not reliably a description of events within the universe. Notability is determined a great many times by consensus. If a lot of people (and not just the fanboy-types) editing the article decide that the weekend getaway, shopping spree and bathroom habits of Darth Dookie isn't notable, then it isn't.
Understand that I am not claiming that the cite in question is utter cruft. I just think we should limit the information we take from it to those bits with an actual author's name attached to it. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 22:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The site that Jasca Ducato referred to, and specifically the page referred to, is itself fiction, and thus is not a reference for anything. The subject of this article is a fictional sect or group of characters; what the article must be about is the real-life context of those characters -- who originated them and what role -- in general terms -- they played in his work, as well as major additional influences on other authors and works. Appropriate references are reliable sources about the works of fiction, not the works of fiction themselves. The bottom line is that WP contains fact, not fiction (although it can contain facts about fiction). -- Jibal (talk) 09:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Splendidly put, Jibal. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 16:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To bad there's no policy to back that up. Heck, we've been allowed to cite the original works for quite a long time. Sure, it can't be used for the bulk of the article, but it can still be used. And Arcayne, being flippant may not be "rude" (by your definition), but it is definitely not being civil, as it is not treating your fellow editors with respect. — trlkly 11:16, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Images

Both the images have sources attached. So please stop removing them Jasca Ducato (talk) 18:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but those sources do not actually have the images you keep insisting are vital to the article. Please, find a well-cited image (maybe Dooku or Vader or Maul) to add along with a really good rationale and summary, and then we can talk about it. As it is, the Sith flag seems...amateurish. Next, folk will be wanting to color the infoboxes. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In-universe material

I have just had to re-edit this article again to remove in universe material. Please stop writing about this subject as if it were something that existed in the real world. (Ex: "fictional dark side Force users". What the hell is that supposed to mean?) That kind of stuff is what Wookiepedia is for. Treybien 12:53 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! I was wondering who I was going to have to put through Shaken Baby Syndrome to get them to listen. Your edits are pretty good, btw - even though that whole Sith code thing from the video game stanks to high heaven of fanboy cruftiness - Arcayne (cast a spell) 13:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism in article?

> The predations of Gay Sidious <

I don't think there was that much political correctness stuffed into the SW saga! 91.83.15.125 (talk) 21:39, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

Rule of Two should be merged into this article. The Rule of Two as a topic exists completely subordinate to this topic and in no way deserves its own article.67.159.78.196 (talk) 18:47, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Content has been merged here. The article itself redirects to the book (more likely search term), which has a meta-tag pointing people here for in-universe info. --EEMIV (talk) 03:58, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Rule of Two, if added correctly, would be great for this article. However, on its own it could be a nice-sized article (if including all the necessary information of Darth Bane's Doctrine).Darth Nex (talk) 16:07, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Rule of Two should seriously be in this article--212.12.183.130 (talk) 12:49, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

possible misuse of language

"In the comic books series Star Wars: Legacy, set 130 years after Return of the Jedi, the Sith (led by former Jedi A'Sharad Hett, now Darth Krayt) once again decimate the Jedi and take control of the galaxy." I have not read this comic, but the suggestion of this line is that the Jedi were almost wiped out, where as decimate means to kill one in every ten. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Onepat (talk • contribs) 09:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They were defeated by Krayt, first off. And your definition of decimate is secondary. It usually means to eliminate a large portion.68.43.207.114 (talk) 19:44, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Darth Vader, Sith Master?

At the end of the "Return of the Jedi", Vader kills Palpatine, although he gets mortally wounded. Yes, he is redeemed, but wouldn't the act of killing Palpatine (the incumbent Sith Master) technically make Vader/Anakin Skywalker a Sith Master as well? (Note: I'm pretty sure who his first candidate for an apprentice would've been had he still been intoxicated with the Dark Side at the time of Palpatine's overthrow: Luke Skywalker (a hint he drops during a lightsaber duel - an invitation to rule the galaxy together). Luke refused that invitation, and I think he'd have refused apprenticehood, too. 204.52.215.107 (talk) 19:23, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Likely not, because Vader never takes an apprentice, and Wookieepedia says a Sith Lord needs to have an apprentice to be a Sith Master. http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Sith_Master 204.52.215.107 (talk) 19:33, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, he wasn't a Sith Master. As you said yourself, he was redeemed by that point, and as such no longer a Sith. Jasca Ducato (talk) 19:34, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So where did Wookieepedia come up with stuff like this? Oh right, the Extended Universe, I'll bet. 204.52.215.107 (talk) 19:36, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's the "Expanded Universe", and Galen Marek isn't a Sith, he's a Dark Jedi. They're two different things entirely. Jasca Ducato (talk) 19:54, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Even within Star Wars lore, the true Sith actually are an extinct race. The later cults, political factions and machinator-couples are nothing but elitists among the Dark Jedi.--79.207.57.229 (talk) 19:54, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Vader constantly tries to lure Luke to the dark side knowing that this would mean his own death (Rule of Two). Luke doesn't play along, so Vader kills the Emperor, becomes the new Master and asks his son to take off his mask. Luke kills him by doing this, becomes the new Sith Lord and the story ends here. -Armin B. Wagner (talk) 19:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Except that Luke never was a Sith 80.60.80.108 (talk) 12:50, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Vader wanted to kill Palpatine. 80.98.146.68 (talk) 14:27, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

grievous

is general grievous considered a sith? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.100.154.19 (talk) 02:09, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:SidiousVaderPromo.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:SidiousVaderPromo.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests July 2011
What should I do?
A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 16:48, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

General Grievous is considered a Dark Jedi (I think) ~EgyptKEW9~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by EgyptKEW9 (talk • contribs) 16:26, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seiðr

Interesting how in Norse folklore (which was heavily used in LOTR as well) there are two forms of magic, Galdr used by Goði (c.f. Jedi), the good masculine magic, and Seiðr or Sið (in Old English) the dark or womanly magic. Note ("ð") is a voiced "th" sound. 216.227.115.137 (talk) 07:24, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The two words aren't related. That being said, the word bears more in common with the word "sidhe," a Gaelic term for faerie-style creatures (the spelling in Scots Gaelic is usually "sith.") — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.255.68.175 (talk) 15:20, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And remember that the Irish and Scottish Fairies and not the English tiny winged creatures who dance among flowers, they are dark sinister and malicious human like beings who steal children and poison cattle. Wmck (talk) 10:34, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Seiðr" as the ancient learning of sly seething to seek & sort & sleuth. This is a taboo word behind civilisation (seth/semitic/"scyth"/"cyber"/"sino") ... that this word is non in the articles etymology - even as a possibility - is proof at the psi wraparound sets of the very subject that Lucas was exploring with "Sith" in Palpatine-Vader-Skywalker story-arc. Text mdnp (talk) 22:29, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Order

In chapter "Depiction" why is the prequel trilogy before the original trilogy? The original trilogy depicted things first. Please, stop using in-world logic! 80.98.146.68 (talk) 14:24, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Egyptian and Greek God of Darkness?

Could this word relate to Seth, the god of darkness and chaos in ancient Egypt and Greece? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.36.196.6 (talk) 20:07, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you mean Set? Not Seth? I've never heard of any Egyptian mythological god/goddess called Seth, please do try to back yourself up on this. EgyptKEW9 14:40, 19 December 2012 (UTC)EgyptKEW9EgyptKEW9 14:40, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Darth

what does "darth" mean? where does it come from?--85.104.73.207 (talk) 10:50, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When I recall it right, it derives from the phrase: Dark lord of the Sith, and that's what it means, too. Regards BECK's 12:29, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Another interpretation is that it means either emperor or immortal in the Rakata language (The ones from which the Sith-species learned how to use the force, a race of dark-side-users who ruled the galaxy in the 10 millenia before the republic.)--84.152.228.91 (talk) 19:13, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
These are in-universe explanations of the word. In the real world, he has had this name since early drafts of the plot for the first movie which had a character known as "General Darth Vadar". The character became an evil Jedi only in later revisions, after his name was chosen. After a Star Wars novel referred to Dart Vadar as the "dark lord of the Sith", fans decided that his first name was a title. George Lucas adopted this interpretation and in the second trilogy introduced character bearing the title "Darth". Source for this is "The Secret History of Starwars".
Chappell (talk)

List

The list of "notable" Sith characters includes a lot of entries that seem not to be notable in the real word. This is creeping into quite a bit of listcruft. Any objection to me seriously condensing? --EEMIV (talk) 17:45, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do what must be done. A lot of those characters are only notable in-universe; outside of the various Darths from in the films, the only other ones that should be mentioned are Bane and Plagueis, as they've actually had books about them (with their name in the titles). Sadow and Kun are heavy hitters in the fictional universe, but we're writing in the real world. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:00, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Some of those aren't even that notable IU. I would say the list could probably be trimmed down to (in my personal opinion), the following:
  • Exar Kun
  • Darth Revan
  • Darth Bane
  • Darth Plagueis
  • Darth Sidious
  • Darth Maul
  • Darth Tyranus
  • Darth Vader
I've added Exar Kun and Revan to the list as I suspect their notability (mainly due to the KoTOR games) is higher than average. --Jasca Ducato (talk) 22:21, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maul image

I removed the image of Darth Maul from the top of the article. I'd done it a little while ago, with the restoring editor citing the picture as illustrative of what a Sith looks like. However, the article lacks any discussion about that particular example, or a general discussion about Sithy appearance. I pointed this out on the restoring editor's talk page, but that hasn't evinced any change to the article; the image still fails WP:NFCC #8, so I've again taken it out. --EEMIV (talk) 10:42, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rule of Two

Imho this section should be expanded. This is how the rule of Two works in detail:

- There is always a master and an apprentice.
- The master selects a candidate for apprenticeship with the help of The Force. The master then tests the candidate and if he finds him unworthy, he will kill him (Darth Sidious sometimes trains candidates, who are not suitable for becoming apprentices to Dark Jedi, but it I am not sure if this is a violation of the Rule of Two or not). If the master thinks that the candidate is the best choice for a new apprentice, he will make him his apprentice.
- The master teaches his apprentice everything he knows and the apprentice obey every oder of his master. If the master finds a better apprentice, he kills his current apprentice.
- At some time, the apprentice becomes stronger than the aging master, kills the master and becomes the new master. The whole cycle starts again.

--MrBurns (talk) 16:22, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Refimprove

As with many if not most Star Wars articles, much of this article seems to have been written by those intimately familiar with the films themselves. While such material is accurate and verifiable, it's not ideally what we want in an encyclopedia. What is needed is material that is taken from reliable secondary sources and attributed to them.

In theory this material could be summarily removed, but I do not recommend this as it would be to the detriment of Wikipedia. The content is valuable and should be retained. What is needed is painstaking research to adequately source the material. Andrewa (talk) 14:17, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In universe/out of universe

You know, even a tiny bit of out of universe information would be useful here. I wanted to find out what the first published use (in our universe) of the term "Sith" was, and particularly whether it ever appeared in the original trilogy. I don't believe there's anything about that here. We do get lots of details of expanded universe novels nobody cares about, though! So hurray for that. john k (talk) 21:32, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1000 years

In the opening paragraph of the article, it is said that the Banite Sith Order, the order we see in the original and prequel trilogies, "lasted 1000 years BBY (Before the Battle of Yavin)." What does that sentence mean? Does it mean that it started 1000 years prior to the Battle of Yavin, making it last a little over 1000 years when it ended, or did it last 1000 years, starting, then, some 900 or something years BBY? 83.242.29.37 (talk) 01:44, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Category question

OK, maybe there is something I am missing here, but how do the Jedi or the Sith count as "Fictional educational institutions"? I mean yes, there is the mentor/student relationship between the Masters and apprentices and you do have one scene of Yoda teaching the younglings, but does that make the Jedi or the Seth educational institutions? It seems more like the old guild system of a master craftsman and his younger apprentice, and the "training" seems to take place as they go about doing their jobs. If a page was created for the Jedi Academy, which I think was featured in some of the Extended Universe material, then I think that would be appropriate to put in that category.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 23:15, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the category does seem a bit out of place. DarkKnight2149 03:30, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Storyline chronological order

In this edit Aledownload added chronological order to the section head, but the following list is manifestly not in storyline chronological order. Does the claim of chronological order constitute original research?  —jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 15:04, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New Rewrite Proposal

As contributors have said for years, the page is badly in need of a rewrite and some reorganization. There are different ways the topic could be structured, but I think one reasonable, rough division would be as follows: 1) A general introduction to the Sith - basic history, characteristics, narrative role. 2) Some breakdown of details about the Sith in Star Wars media (maybe by canon source, e.g., SW films, other "official" media, SW EU). I and others have been tweaking the lead section, and I just contributed a new overview section. I tried to keep only the basic details common to SW media generally - hopefully someone can fact check. This overview needs more editing, but I think it's something decent to work with as a starting point. Not (talk) 00:40, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Not: I agree that an overhaul could be helpful, especially since much of the article isn't properly cited (among other issues). DarkKnight2149 01:18, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reorganization under way. Made some edits and moved some sections around per the rough structure suggested above. Will begin adding cites for the overview when I have the time. I have little-to-no knowledge about the EU, so hopefully someone knowledgable can help out on editing/citing that stuff.Not (talk) 01:50, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RE: "Legends" media - any opinions as to how much detail we want on EU, etc. stuff? My thought is that we currently have far too many specific details from "legends"-type media for a general interest Wikipedia article. In my opinion, that kind of fine-grained info would probably be more appropriate on Wookieepedia or some such. I think a single section (maybe a paragraph or two) summarizing highlights from the alternative Sith history provided in the EU would be appropriate. Any thoughts? If there are no contrary opinions I'm going to start heavily summarizing/editing this stuff down in about a week or so. Would also welcome opinions on retaining/cutting any other details, like "Appearances (chronological order)." Not (talk) 04:27, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just contributed a complete rewrite of the EU material which heavily summarizes the original content. I think this new level of detail is more in keeping with a general interest article.Not (talk) 18:26, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of progress recently: I think the next two main steps are 1) editing the "affiliated characters" and "in popular culture" sections for tone, and 2) inserting citations, especially in the early Sith history section. After that is done, the article should be in a basically "acceptable" condition. Not (talk) 03:36, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is probably beyond the ambit of the article, but I think it's interesting to note that the Sith are a potentially good fictional example to distinguish ethics and morality. On one common distinction, ethics concerns the justification of action by reference to an internal code of behavior, whereas morality judges the rightness of actions based on social norms. The Sith have a philosophical framework that "justifies" their ruthless and self-serving actions, but their agenda would still be considered appalling by society in general. Darth Sidious, the archetypical Sith, appears to be a genuine example of an unusual actor: thoroughly ethical, but also thoroughly evil. Interestingly, from this perspective, Darth Vader manages to be an unethical Jedi and Sith. Not (talk) 18:14, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Current Status, To-Dos

With the latest edits, the article is looking pretty good. The early Sith history section (and maybe the thematic role section) needs a few more inline citations, which I hope to include this weekend or next. Substantively, I think the affiliated characters and popular culture sections still need some work (I didn't have a chance to fully edit those sections back in September), but they aren't in terrible shape. Once those items are ticked off, I think we'll be in great shape.Not (talk) 19:48, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kraterocratic

This is very minor, but a google search of "kraterocratic" -"sith" returns only 10 hits. Is it really good for wikipedia to use such a 'questionable' word? -- Flizzjkzaop (talk) 19:11, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why not. The word is, technically, correct. --Jasca Ducato (talk | contributions) 15:53, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Scope of main background section - EU-only material shouldn't be here

I noticed that some EU-ish material (e.g., regarding the racial background of the Sith) was placed in the Sith's "Canon" background section at the beginning of the article. For now, I am reverting: On a glance, this newly-added material makes reference to facts that (AFAIK) are either not part of the "official" canon now or of dubious canonicity (e.g., identifying the Sith homeworld as "Korriban," which IIRC was replaced with "Moraband" in the canon-blessed, 3D-animated series, which may or may not be the same place as Korriban from the older comics).

In general, I think any major facts about the Sith that can only be sourced to SW: Legends material should be kept exclusively in the "Star Wars: Legends" section in this article. There is a good reason for keeping EU-only material separate and out of the main background section: Incorporating EU material in the main body of the history section will lead to inconsistencies and confusion as Disney-sanctioned canon begins to diverge from the older EU/Legends material (which it already has - see Moraband vs Korriban above). This is why we have a separate section for EU/Legends facts. Admittedly, this leaves the main early history section for the Sith a bit vague, but 1) this is a general interest wiki, not Wookiepedia and 2) the canon account of the Sith IS pretty threadbare in the Disney era, now that the EU material has been demoted from the official canon. Of course, if someone can confirm that the newly-added material that I reverted was blessed as canon by an official The Force Awakens-era work, feel free to source and then re-incorporate (but please do add a source). Not (talk) 20:04, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

darth maul

why — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.197.204.73 (talk) 18:17, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Darth Nihilus

Darth Nihilus was a video game character but, he was quite powerful because of that I think that he should at least be mentioned once. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.55.228.223 (talk) 00:18, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Major cleanup in order

One example I may note is under the “Ideology” section and Sith Code. It, for example, departs into more unsourced claims about sith empires under the ideology section. This is an example of something that either needs moved and sourced or deleted from the section. There are many instances of over the top description and explanation that needs trimmed down. Even points in the sometimes sound overly lore engrossed, as if a Jedi scholar was writing them. This is just too much for a wikipedia article. WesPhil (talk) 19:42, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Use of Old English Sith confirmed by Robert Kirk in the 1600s

The Old English word Sið is used by Robert Kirk in his classic work "The Secret Commonwealth" in 1691/2 to decribe a class of non-human entity known for covert interactions with human beings. He wrote it as Sith. 2406:2D40:4177:F910:30BE:D940:EEFA:D86B (talk) 23:44, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sith&oldid=1210396813"