Talk:Sith

message: 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)
thread_title: Rewrite Proposal

message: I've added the rewrite tag and taken away two of the unreferenced tags for a number of reasons.
# The article obviously uses references, but most of them are not readily apparent. They need to be teased out and cited properly.
# 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.
# 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.
# 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).
# 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Rewrite tag 

message: 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)
thread_title: I'll go one better than that

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Last chance

message: 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)
thread_title: Reverted

message: 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)
thread_title: Expanded Universe

message: 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)
thread_title: Pronunciation

message: Both the images have sources attached. So please stop removing them Jasca Ducato (talk) 18:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Images

message: 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)
thread_title:  In-universe material 

message: > 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)
thread_title:  Vandalism in article? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: The Rule of Two should seriously be in this article--212.12.183.130 (talk) 12:49, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Merger proposal

message: "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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  possible misuse of language 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: Except that Luke never was a Sith 80.60.80.108 (talk) 12:50, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

text: Vader wanted to kill Palpatine. 80.98.146.68 (talk) 14:27, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Darth Vader, Sith Master? 

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

message: An image used in this article, , 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)
thread_title: File:SidiousVaderPromo.jpg Nominated for Deletion

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: "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)
thread_title:  Seiðr 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Order 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Egyptian and Greek God of Darkness? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Maul image 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Rule of Two 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Refimprove 

message: 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)
thread_title:  In universe/out of universe 

message: 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)
thread_title:  1000 years 

message: 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)
replies: text: I agree, the category does seem a bit out of place. DarkKnight2149 03:30, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category question 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Storyline chronological order 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: New Rewrite Proposal

message: 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)
thread_title: Current Status, To-Dos

message: 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)
replies: text: I don't see why not. The word is, technically, correct. --Jasca Ducato (talk | contributions) 15:53, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kraterocratic 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Scope of main background section - EU-only material shouldn't be here 

message: why  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.197.204.73 (talk) 18:17, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  darth maul  

message: 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)
thread_title:  Darth Nihilus 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Major cleanup in order 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Use of Old English Sith confirmed by Robert Kirk in the 1600s