This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made in the Senate Hall or new Consensus Track pages rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record. The result of the debate was no consensus; by default, merge.
Before you kill me, let me explain my position - and the reasons for this ruling. It has nothing to do with my own opinion on this issue, as a voter. For a long time - a very long time - I supported this "special exception". There are people who can confirm it.
Let me first remind you that:
When consensus fails, it is not status quo that is preserved. In such cases, we resort to policy.
Establishing a consensus is a more complex process than simple vote counting.
It has long been a Wookieepedia policy that a character only has one entry for any number of alternate identities. It differs from Wikipedia's view, because they're writing articles from an OOU perspective while we're writing articles from an IU perspective. That's why they have separate articles for Anakin Skywalker and Darth Vader, or, to cite a non-Star Wars example, Clark Kent and Superman. Had Clark Kent/Superman been a Star Wars character (plausibility concerns aside), he would have had one article. The title doesn't matter (it would have probably been Clark Kent per my interpretation of the policy, but others might disagree and decide to make a special exception by consensus).
It could be taken into consideration that from an in-universe perspective, Grievous is physically Qymaen jal Sheelal, Lumiya is physically Shira Brie, Darth Who? is physically Jacen Solo, and Darth Vader is physically Anakin Skywalker (or, shortly after the showdown on Mustafar, Anakin Skywalker plus lots of prosthetics). The concerns about spirituality are something very vague, open for interpretation - where's the borderline? - and generally not the type of argument an encyclopedia should concern itself with.
But even that - and the criticism of the vagueness of the criteria, citing the borderline cases - is not very relevant. What is relevant is that the current policy, by itself, does not treat Anakin's case in a different way than any other case of a changed identity. The "special exception" for Anakin was decided by consensus - which, at that time, was in favor of keeping them separate. So this is what we did: when there was a clear consensus, it overrode policy.
This discussion is, as it stands, a mess from which no consensus can emerge in the foreseeable future. Normally, in such a case, a more options arise, which are usually a compromise between several (most often two) radical options. In this case, sadly, there can be no compromise: it's merge or keep separated, with no other options.
Also, I think it's safe to say that, even though the votes are split almost even, the merge argument is grounded by policy and is the thing we do "by default" - including some other arguments I have already reiterated - while the separation supporters have failed to come up with conclusive evidence for why these particular two articles should be treated differently from all the other cases.
(By the way, saying "we're winning" based on simple vote counting" is silly. While the vote count is indeed slightly in favor of merging, on a relative scale, it simply doesn't matter. The soundness of arguments is what matters. This is why VFDs can result in deletion even in the case of a nearly even split.)
To summarize, this is a no consensus thread, which means that the articles will undergo their default treatment: they will be merged. However, I advise whoever will be perform the merge to first fork the original articles - say, into Anakin Skywalker/temp and Darth Vader/temp. In this case, if the community looks at the merged article and decides this is unacceptable, they can hold another CT discussion to re-split the articles.
Or you just appeal on the Mofference, which is near.
Support. Few should be shocked by this. jSarek 05:23, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
And I think it should all be at Anakin Skywalker, personally —Jaymach Ral'Tir (talk) 05:27, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment: That would be the best place to put a merged article, as it's the name he reclaimed at the end of his life. (Finally, Jaymach and I agree on an article title! 8) ) —Silly Dan(talk) 21:21, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
They're separate. Damn, their physical and mental properties are so different....82 AirborneTac-Com "Hit any key to continue" 05:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC) (Alex, you've been looking too long at your chemistry homework...)
Yeah, I see the light now. We are an encyclopedia, we shouldn't make exceptions like this. .... 02:41, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
For the record, the Databank has separate entries for Anakin and Vader. Adamwankenobi 02:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
"We are not the Databank". And the Databank is a poor excuse for an encyclopedia. .... 03:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
No offense, but we're not the New Essential Guide to Characters either. I mentioned the Databank simply to give another example of how official sources have treated the Anakin/Vader issue. Adamwankenobi 03:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
The databank also has separate entries for Palpatine and Sidious. -- Ozzel 04:01, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
No, but we are an encyclopedia. And encyclopedias don't make distinctions - a person is a person, and gets one article. .... 04:02, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Ozzel: I know. But the point was that we shouldn't have to be the New Essential Guide to Characters or the Databank. We should make decisions based on consensus, like we did for Palpatine. I was playing Devil's Advocate mentioning the Databank. Adamwankenobi 04:04, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Maybe we could have the article at "Anakin Skywalker/Darth Vader", or maybe a soft-redirect. .... 06:09, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
If it's merge, is it going to be under Anakin Skywalker or Darth Vader? Divinity 17:45, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Anakin Skywalker, I would think. It's the name he died under. Havac 17:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
I really question this "they are treated separately in the films" argument? How are they treated any more "separately" to Darth Sidious/Palpatine? QuentinGeorge 21:00, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree. Obi-Wan and Yoda certainly think that he's changed -- but Luke treats them as one and the same, and he's ultimately proven right. Havac 21:04, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Who's this "we"? I've always found the arguments unconvincing. The whole point of the saga is that they are the same - that's how Luke is able to redeem him. QuentinGeorge 21:35, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Actually, one could view splitting the articles up as fanon. It's still the same person even if he's a Sith cyborg. --Imp 21:40, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
"Anakin Skywalker, I would think. It's the name he died under". Officially, surely he was still known as Darth Vader. Only Luke would refer to him as Anakin at this point. And if you're arguing against separate articles, having the article at the name he was known by before his fall would be just as "bad" - \\Captain Kwenn//— Ahoy! 22:00, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
No, it would be encyclopedic. He became Anakin Skywalker again when he picked up Palpatine and threw him down the shaft. Therefore, Skywalker it should be. .... 22:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
"Darth Vader" was a Sith name and Sith title given to him. By rejecting the Sith, he rejected that name. If he had lived beyond when he did, he certainly wouldn't have been referred to as Vader -- he reclaimed his former name. Havac 02:38, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
It's nowhere near completion yet, but have a look at this. .... 01:22, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Holy crap! That's a long article. --Xwing328(Talk) 06:26, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
I haven't finished intergrating both of the articles yet, but I've done a patch job of putting both of the biographies together. It will be long, but all complaints really fall into insignificance against this - "it's encyclopedic". .... 06:29, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Besides the fact that this has been discussed numerous times, I continue my argument from the past attempts: Anakin and Vader were emotionally two different people. Palpatine and Sidious weren't emotionally two different people. Palpatine was Sidious's public face. The same cannot be said of Anakin and Vader. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax(Imperial Holovision)20px 23:55, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, in that case, we should have two George Lucas articles - one for pre-ROTJ and one for post-ROTJ - clearly two emotionally different people. .... 00:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Irrelevant. Encyclopedias don't look at things in an emotional way - cold hard facts is what they present, and forgive me if I'm wrong, but aren't we supposed to be just like a real encyclopedia, only pretending that SW is real for the most part? .... 00:05, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
We're not really an encyclopedia, just like the Databank isn't. I know I've said we are in the past, but we're only an encyclopedia in the fact that we have the suffix of "-pedia" in our name. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax(Imperial Holovision)20px 01:12, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
"Emotional change" really isn't a solid basis for judgement. Jacen had a pretty danged huge emotional change after Traitor -- does that warrant a new article? That's far too unstable and subjective to form proper criteria. Havac 01:19, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Exactly. That is something far to intangible to warrant a seperate article. .... 01:52, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Nonsense! Did Jacen change his name and adopt a wholesale change of identity after Traitor? Of course not. Vader changed his name, allegiance, physical appearance, and personality. Palpatine was Sidious all along (well, as far as the movies are concerned.) To Nebulax you listen.Valin Kenobi 07:43, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
So what? Lumiya changed her physical appearance, mentality, name, hell, from a certain point of view she changed her allegiance, so by that line of thought, there should be a Shira Brie article. I'll say it again: Encyclopedias present cold hard facts. None of this "Emotional change" junk. Biologically, scientifically, they are the same person, therefore - one article. I'm yet to see an arguement that opposes the merge that's actually viable. .... 08:02, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
A change of name? So we need separate articles on Lumpawarrump and Lumpawaroo now? Change of allegiance? So we need Tycho Celchu (Imperial) and Tycho Celchu (Rebel) now? Change of physical appearance? So we need Anakin Skywalker (both arms) and Anakin Skywalker (prosthetic arm) now? Change of personality? So we need Jacen Solo (peacenik) and Jacen Solo (hardass)? Or must it meet two of the above criteria? Three? Or is this all a smokescreen to hide the fact that Vader should just be a special exception? Because if that's what you think, fine, that's what you think. But if you think that something as absurd, unquantifiable, and subjective as "changing" (or God forbid, "being two different people" which Luke Skywalker conclusively disproved) is proper encyclopedic criteria for an article being split, I'm going to say (and pleas don't take this wrong, as I'm not trying to make this personal and I'm not in the least angry, just tired and uninterested in sugarcoating) you're wrong and you don't have a leg to stand on. Ladies and gentlemen, just like a Wookiee living on Endor, it does not make sense. Havac 08:12, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Nail. Hit. On Head. .... 08:17, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Fine, leave out the emotional change thing entirely. By every empirical criteria mentioned--appearance and everything--they were different people. As far as the entire galaxy was concerned, Anakin Skywalker had died and Darth Vader was a totally different (unconnected) person who just showed up out of nowhere once Palpy became Emperor. Most didn't even know Vader was formerly Anakin until long after he was dead. I'd bet if you looked in any in-universe encyclopedia published before, say, the Yuuzhan Vong invasion, it would have Vader and Anakin listed separately since very few people knew any better (although clearly word was spreading over time). "Biologically they are the same"? Try again. "He's more machine now than man"--Vader was half robot, remember? Anyway, partly my argument is based on it being easier to navigate two smaller articles than one absurdly huge merged one. Yeah, at base, I am just arguing an exception be made. But is that so wrong? I just think that, as the central character and pivotal figure of the entire six-film saga, Anakin/Vader merits an exception. I don't see why some people (not pointing fingers here, I'm just talking about a general tendency I've been seeing) have such an aversion to making exceptions to the rules. The whole "IU encyclopedia" pretension can be carried too far. (Nice South Park reference though. :D )Valin Kenobi 08:25, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Try again. "He's more machine now than man"--Vader was half robot, remember?. Excuse me? Do you have no idea of what biological means? The torso and the head are the same man - God, I don't know how many times I can say this - THEY ARE THE SAME MAN. Before the Yuuzhan Vong invasion? We're past the Yuuzhan Vong invasion. That's why we have articles on the Yuuzhan Vong. Let's just say we were an out of universe encyclopedia then. Key word, it's on our main page, people: ENCYCLOPEDIA. Encyclopedia's don't make moronic exceptions like this, and neither should we. .... 08:29, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Firstly, no, by every empirical criterion they *are* the same person - altered, but the same. They have the same head and torso; the same heart beats within their chests; they share the same lungs (seared in the latter case, but there); and the same neurons carry out their thoughts. And those thoughts show *continuity* - Vader remembers *his* love for Padme, *his* creation of C-3PO, *his* relationship with Obi-Wan Kenobi. Vader thinks of Luke Skywalker, son of Anakin Skywalker, as *his* son. Anakin's memories are Vader's memories, carried out in the same head. What possible empirical criteria could be used to call them different people? Even non-empirical criteria are soundly weakened by Luke's redemption of Vader. Secondly, "as the central character and pivotal figure of the entire six-film saga," it's actually MORE important the articles be merged. The story of the films of Star Wars are about the rise, fall, and redemption of Anakin Skywalker; it makes no sense for the article about him to have the rise, *a gap to be found in a different article*, and redemption of him. jSarek 11:41, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Precisely. It's a damn shame this thing is consensus based. Or is it? .... 11:53, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Thefourdot, and others who support the merge, let me say this: Anakin has been said to be within Vader, not Vader himself. While jSarek has a point, some things are different. For example, his relationship with Obi-Wan. When he was Anakin, Obi-Wan was his mentor and greatest friend. When he was Vader, Obi-Wan was his enemy. To Anakin, Luke was a means for a return to the light side. To Vader, Luke was a means to kill Palpatine and take control of the Empire. Emotionally, they were the exact opposite. Unlike Jacen, and unlike Palpatine. To tell you the truth, solving issues like this with votes makes us less of an encyclopedia. Thefourdot, you continue to say we are an encyclopedia in every debate. But the cold, hard truth is that we aren't. We're just a Star Wars website where fans can edit articles. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax(Imperial Holovision)20px 12:13, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, forgive my ignorance, but I use it in every debate because it's right there on the main page. When I saw that, I thought "Yeah...I really want to be a part of this". But if we've decided to sell ourselves short and say "Oh, well...you know, we're not really an encyclopedia", then I honestly don't want a bar of it. That may please some of you. But whilst that little sentence is up on the main page, I'm going to continue to use this as an arguement point. And I'm going to continue to point out, that emotional stance is not something that warrants a seperate encyclopedia entry. And I agree, solving problems like this does make us less of an encyclopedia. The damn thing should have been merged in the first place - in fact, as soon as someone created the Darth Vader article, it should have been deleted, citing vandalism. Now excuse me, I'm going to go and have a drink with Monsieur Emo. In the words of someone imitating Charles Bronson - This aint over. .... 12:24, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
"The damn thing should have been merged in the first place - in fact, as soon as someone created the Darth Vader article, it should have been deleted, citing vandalism." I find your atitude toward the Vader article disturbing. No joke intended. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax(Imperial Holovision)20px 12:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Yup. And It's not the content of the Vader article I mind - infact, it's very good. But it should never have been allowed to exsist. Like Danish Pastries. .... 12:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
jSarek has got it. The EU especially has gone out of its way to beat us over the head with the fact that, while he may be wearing fancy new clothes and be calling a different guy "Master", that's still Anakin in that suit. Angry, emotionally damaged, resentful, having undergone a major transition in life -- but not a new person. It's not ecen like he got hit on the head and the brain damage completely altered the way he acted -- he made a choice, he gave in to darker tendencies that had been present in him for years, he switched allegiances because he thought it was what he had to do, and only later did he get cut up and burned. It's not as if Vader simply dropped into Anakin's body. It was a process, a process of temptation and deception that got him all turned around. It's all one guy at work. Anakin doesn't have multiple personalities. There's just no basis for separate status. Havac 18:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Why are we even voting about this? Keeping them separate is fanon—blatant disregard of the EU, as well as the three prequel films. And I do believe our policy is to respect canon. So it will be merged. --Imp 18:48, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
"Keeping them separate is fanon—blatant disregard of the EU, as well as the three prequel films." Merging them is blatant disregard for Episode VI. And Wookieepedia consensus. You can't just say "it will be merged" any more than I can tell a bird not to crap on my car. -- Darth Culator(Talk)(TINC)
How is merging the articles a blatant disregard for Episode VI?–SentryTalk 21:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
I thought admins were allowed to yell at each other? Or should we keep that in the IRC chat? (There is no cabal.) And I think the fact that Anakin's residual self-image (to steal a Matrix term) was as his pre-Vader self indicates that he agreed with Obi-Wan. The good person who was Anakin ceased to exist. -- Darth Culator(Talk)(TINC) 21:46, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
May I remind everyone that this has been discussed a few times before, and the result was always no merge? Now, if being a community of fans that constantly argues over the same things means we're an encyclopedia, then I don't know what wouldn't make us one. Now, we either continue to call ourselves an encyclopedia and still argue over the same topics that have been decided previously, say we're no longer an encyclopedia and continue to argue over previous debates, or stop recreating debates that were decided upon previously and keep calling ourselves an encyclopedia. Now, do we need another damn vote, or can we just choose which path we want to take right here? Grand Admiral J. Nebulax(Imperial Holovision)20px 21:52, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
There is a difference between an argument and a debate Jack. The reason that the subject keeps coming up is that both sides have fairly good points. Obi-Wan Kenobi does say that from a certain point of view Darth Vader and Anakin were different, but we just happen to have a NPOV policy on this site.–SentryTalk 22:22, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
The articles are already separate, so there must be consensus in favor of merging to merge them. Even a simple majority does not constitute consensus. I just fear the mergists will just keep pecking at the issue like angry ducks. -- Darth Culator(Talk)(TINC) 22:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
However, things change. New ideas come out, consensus changes. We certainly shouldn't be having a new vote on the same thing every week, but once-and-done for good is a little unreasonable. And the only reason why the issue keeps getting brought up is because the majority vote goes one way without any solid, sustainable arguments for it. Havac 22:37, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm striking out my vote because I really don't know which is better. It's hard to tell. And Culator, I thought the idea was to keep the shouting, obscenities, and incriminating pictures of Aayla Secura (lol) on IRC where the public can't see them as easily. :-P Atarumaster88(Audience Chamber) 23:50, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
I must say, the arguements resisting the merge are really quite pathetic. I haven't seen one piece of hard evidence, nor a strong, undisputable fact that says that they warrant two seperate article. Just a whole lot of simple tricks and nonsense. .... 00:13, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Thefourdot, shut up. You have no right to say that. Just because the majority is saying the opposite of what you said doesn't give you the rights to say something like that. Either say something to support your side or don't say anything at all. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax(Imperial Holovision)20px 00:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
I have. Take a good hard look. .... 00:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
What? That I said that the arguements resisting the merge are pathetic? Geez, you don't need me to tell you that. "It's unencyclopedic to have two articles" "Well, we're not really an encyclopedia" "Then what the hell is a Star Wars encyclopedia that anyone can edit doing on our main page?" "Well, arguing about it makes us less of an encyclopedia" "No more so than having two articles" "...Episode VI says they're two different people, you are contradicting G-Canon!" "No, Episode VI shows that they're the same person, along with a whole other bunch of sources." "...just shut up." For the uninitiated, that's pretty much where the debate has gone. .... 00:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
For the umpteenth time, ENCYCLOPEDIAS DO NOT RECOGNISE [sic...or is it?] EMOTIONAL BEARINGS!. They look at the cold, hard facts, and the cold hard facts say it's the same man, new wardrobe, cooler voice, snappier dialogue, different lightsaber, new outlook. But same man. It's not as if Luke opened up the helmet and found, say, Gary Coleman staring up at him. No, he saw Anakin staring up at him. Immolation doesn't change the person. .... 01:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Here we go again... Basing everything off our encyclopedia status. If you thought the arguments against the merge were pathetic, then this argument of yours really is. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax(Imperial Holovision)20px 01:08, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't know...he actually has a point when we need to look at the cold hard facts and can't be swayed by the opinions of Obi-Wan or Vader himself. But rather that they are the same man. --RedemptionTalk 01:09, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
If you thought the arguments against the merge were pathetic, then this argument of yours really is. Excuse me? Are we, or are we not an encyclopedia? The status of what we are should, by default, trump everything. Even consensus. I'm just fed up with it. The quitters motto. .... 01:13, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, we're an encyclopedia, but you end up using that in every single argument you enter. It's very annoying. And why would I quit if the side I'm supporting is winning? Hmm? Grand Admiral J. Nebulax(Imperial Holovision)20px 01:14, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Gentlemen, let's play nicely. Havac 01:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
If you feel safe with a margin of two, fine. We've got all the time in the world. And do you know why I use that in every single arguement? Because it's what we are. I'm sorry if you find it annoying, Jack - I don't give concession in debates like this. .... 01:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
I feel the need to remind, because some tend to forget. And the arguement has worked. Come with me Jack. It is the only way. You can merge the articles. I have forseen it. Join me, and we can end this destructive conflict, and bring order to Wookiepedia. If you only knew the powaaa of the merge! And I have underestimated the powaa of the edit conflict! ;) .... 01:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Aw...swinging like a freaking pendulum. Ah, well, it's even at the moment. I'll just wait until another name goes under "Keep seperate", then I'll fire up again. .... 01:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Forgive me for being blunt, but I'm about ready to add this to Civility disputes. I mean, Fourdot and Jack, you two have been using this as an argument page. You've both made your points- repeatedly- so give the keyboard a break for awhile. Neither of you is likely to change the other's mind and it's perfectly fine to disagree. Are you trying to filibuster on Wikipedia? Again, I apologize for the brusque manner, but could we just let the voters decide instead of making the same points in heated tones? Atarumaster88(Audience Chamber) 03:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Sorry. I just get so frustrated with the council. .... 03:20, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
At the risk of stirring things up now that they've settled ... you know fourdot, at one point I was almost convinced to switch my vote, but your attitude just made me dig in more. Just wanted you to know. *eyeroll*Valin Kenobi 03:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
P.S. Jack: sorry I missed it all, but I've got your back on every word you just said.Valin Kenobi 03:44, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Hey, don't let me stop you. My attitude shouldn't have a bearing on how you vote. .... 03:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
And I don't quite see how Jack's attitude was any better than mine...but hey, you know, whatever floats your boat. I can't tell you what to think, I can only show you what's right and hope that you make the right choice. .... 03:55, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
At least you were jovial and made attempts to keep things lighthearted most of the time... and, oh look, we're winning! 22 to 20.(Ulicus 11:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC))
Alas, that's not the case. It's becoming pretty clear there's not a consensus, even if there's a slight majority one way or another, in which case status quo will reign. jSarek 11:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Quoting Thefourdot: "I can't tell you what to think, I can only show you what's right and hope that you make the right choice." Right in your opinion, not everyone else's. That's one case where you should keep your opinions to yourself. No choice here is "right" or "wrong". If that was the case, there would be no need for a vote. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax(Imperial Holovision)20px 12:05, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Quoting Jack Nebulax: "I will no longer be in this argument." This argument is not accomplishing anything positive to the vote. Neither side is saying anything new or informative. Atarumaster88(Audience Chamber) 16:09, 7 November 2006 (UTC)