Talk:New Republic/Legends

I think we are being overly critical of the New Republic. True, it ultimately failed, but we shouldn't compare it's failings while promoting the Old Republic and the Empire as better alternatives. Take membership: The Old Republic had 25,000 years to gain members and found colonies. The New Republic had less than 25. And under no circumstances should we compare it to the number of worlds controled by the Empire. Membership in the New Republic was voluntary; membership in the Empire was negotiated at turbolaser point. --User:SFH
 * Further, as we now know (or rather, as it has been retconned), many of the Republic and Empire's claims were dramatic exaggerations of fact. A large number of systems still fell under the Imperial Remnant, and it is likely that both the Republic and Empire included segments like the Corporate Sector and the Hapans, regardless of their independence. --SparqMan 16:30, 26 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Cracken's Threat
Most of this text is a lift from Cracken's Threat Dossier. Am I right? --SparqMan 20:49, 6 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Ex-Imperial rights
I wanted to dump this somewhere for later integration: The New Rebellion: as petitions from former Imperial worlds were accepted (with the heavy lobbying from M'yet Luure and to the chagrin of Leia Organa Solo), Solo pushed through modifications to the "election law" that prohibited former "Imperial[s] with access to power in the Empire", ranging from military officers and governors to stormtroopers, from holding office of any sort in the NR. --SparqMan 16:57, 10 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * Hope somebody told Kyle Katarn, Jan Dodonna, Soontir Fel, Carlist Rieekan, et al...Kuralyov 06:01, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I think it's elected office; and you had to have actively defected before the war settled down. Thanos6 06:25, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

"Carlist Rieekan" rieekan wasn't in the Empire, he served in the Old Republic Army, and after the Clone Wars went back to Alderaan -SWF
 * Yes, that is true. Admiral J. Nebulax 21:26, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Image
Surely we can get a better image of the NR logo than this? It looks fan-made - Kwenn
 * That's definitely not fan-made. Admiral J. Nebulax 23:02, 30 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * It sucks, but I can't find another one on google. Anybody else have better luck?--Xilentshadow900 22:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Nope. Admiral J. Nebulax 22:40, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Is the new pic better? I couldn't find a good one so I made it myself...--Sentry 00:40, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * You made it? Fan-made images are not allowed. Admiral J. Nebulax 01:31, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn't make it from scratch, I cut it together from other images. Other users have recommended doing this for months. For goodness sake, the old image is obviously a fanmade edit as well - except its botched. Virtually every logo on this site has been edited to some degree or another. I think you are overreacting Nebulax there is nothing in the Image use policy that states user edited images are a problem, quite the contrary actually.--Sentry 04:45, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Finished the job on the new image. Redemption 04:57, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Why not just leave it as a transparent GIF? Its a smaller file and it will look good on every background... Whatever, it works ;)--Sentry 05:25, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Because it looks awful. The colors are bleck and the quality is awful. I say replace it with a simple black and white one. Redemption 05:39, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Ummm... I agree. I created the black and white version. I was referring to the fact that you changed it into a JPEG file with a white matte. I had saved it as a transparent GIF file on purpose, but once again, it doesn't really matter...--Sentry 05:48, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh...well. I didn't know. I simply completed it since the insignia needed to be completley black and it looked like it wasn't complete. My bad...Redemption 05:50, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

New:

Old:
 * I was not "overreacting". Fan-made images are not allowed here, Sentry. And you could have said that you put it together from other images in the first place. Admiral J. Nebulax 12:35, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * It shouldn't matter. If its the symbol and its accurate then what does it matter? Redemption 15:52, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, it does matter. Bad-looking canon images are better than good-looking fanon images. Admiral J. Nebulax 15:53, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * What makes the black and white image fanon and the blue and gold one canon? Redemption 15:58, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * If any image is fan-made, it is fanon. Any image from an actual source is canon. Admiral J. Nebulax 16:02, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Then they are both fanon. The blue and gold one is clearly a fan-made image. And considering how there can't be exceptions, we should remove all symbols that are fan-made, correct? Which is a good portion of the symbols on the site. Redemption 16:03, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 1)How is it "clearly a fan-made image"?, 2)There can be exceptions, provided they are on pages that contain non-canon information that has a warning tag or on a user page, and 3)Wrong. The majority are canon images. Admiral J. Nebulax 16:05, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Its horrible quality for one. And is just plain ugly. The blue is some sort of weird filter the person who made it. If this image is considered canon then so is the black and white one. And I will get right to work on removing the fanon images. Redemption 16:08, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * So? When canon images are downloaded, they could have poor qualities. And it doesn't matter if an image is "ugly". Everything here matters on whether it is canon or not. Admiral J. Nebulax 16:09, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * And now you're messing with the Gallery of insignia, logos and symbols, yet you clearly don't know the difference between canon and fanon. Let it up to the people that know the difference to removed the fan-made images. Admiral J. Nebulax 16:12, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I know the difference. I'm just going by your definition. I removed the images I created. The iamges I removed were created using a base image and simply going over it with black. Which is the exact technique used with the NR symbol. Redemption 16:14, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Then if you removed the images you created, why not removed this current fan-made New Republic logo? Admiral J. Nebulax 16:16, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Fine.Redemption 16:17, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Admiral J. Nebulax 16:18, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * You don't take a hint do you? I thought the Confederacy image would be one to prove that it doesn't matter where it comes from. If its accurate, and good quality then what does it matter? Redemption 16:30, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The point is, there should only be canon things on these articles. But, I apologize. I guess the images for these governments can be re-added. I'll do so now. Admiral J. Nebulax 17:13, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

The New Republic is a Confederacy
The New Republic is a Confederacy. Can we all agree on this? They call the New Republic a Confederation in the New Essential Chronology, and the Caamas Incident shows that sector and local governments have most of the power. The NR has a small centralized fleet, and Leia Organa mentions "member states".

-SWF
 * No. It is absolutely not a confederacy because it didn't break away from anything. If you keep this up, your vandalizing will be noted for. Admiral J. Nebulax 12:48, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * That's not at all what a confederacy is. Check any dictionary: describing a government as confederacy means it's a league or alliance of individual states.  confederation and federation have similar meanings.  Confederation, since it's canonically used anyway, might be better used here to avoid confusion with the Confederacy of Independent Systems. &mdash; Silly Dan 14:47, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * When you mostly hear the word "confederacy", what comes to mind? Well, I think of "a government that broke away from another". But confederation, then, not confederacy. Admiral J. Nebulax 16:31, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

"No. It is absolutely not a confederacy because it didn't break away from anything. If you keep this up, your vandalizing will be noted for. Admiral J. Nebulax 12:48, 29 January 2006 (UTC)"

I apologize for any vandalizing I may have done, please don't do anything to me.

"confederacy-a federal state in which the provinces have significantly more power than the federal government" It doesn't have to break away from anything, to be a confederacy.

“Shifting the bulk of political power back down to system and sector levels is definitely the way to go. The Empire already proved that the centralised approach doesn't work.” -pg. 80 of Specter of the Past

"The more commonplace day-to-day governing was handled at the sector, system, planetary, regional, district, and local levels." -pg. 100-101 or Specter of the Past

Note that in the Thrawn Trilogy, "half of the species of the old Rebel Alliance" could leave anytime they wanted. Weak centralized government, even back then. The New Republic has most of its' fleets given to sector and local governments. -SWF
 * It wasn't vandalism at all -- I think Jack just misinterpreted what a confederacy is. Mind you, the New Republic was established by an Alliance of Rebels, so even by his definition you were somewhat correct....&mdash; Silly Dan 17:53, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I was under the impression that the sector and local governments didn't actually have the overall authority, but were simply telling the New Republic to "kriff off". At least that's the impression I got from the article itself. -- SFH 17:58, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay. It can be changed, then? -SWF
 * I guess. Admiral J. Nebulax 18:52, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Coruscant is the only Capital
Erm, Coruscant is the only capital. Calamari was never a New Republic capital, it was attacked because of its' major shipyards and importance to the Rebels. Da Soocha V was a capital after the NR wad driven back from Coruscant, and they were called the Rebel Alliance again by the galaxy, and even by themselves once they lost Coruscant and the rest of the Core Worlds.

-SWF
 * Wrong. They were still the New Republic when Da Soocha V was the capital, and later, during the Yuuzhan Vong War, Dac was the capital. Admiral J. Nebulax

Dac was a Galactic Allience capital, after Coruscant was taken by the Vong, the New Republic became the GFFA (after some problems with re-building the governemnt).

Dark Empire refers to them as the Rebel Alliance, they lost Coruscant and the Core Worlds. The Dark Empire sourcebook calls them the "Alliance" in the article about the Imperial Civil War. THey're now regarded as Rebels by the Galaxy again due to these losses and Thrawn;s campaign. -SWF
 * Actually, the Empire always refered to the New Republic as the Rebels. They never called themselves that after Endor. And the New Republic didn't turn into the Galactic Alliance until after the Battle of Ebaq 9, several months after the election of Cal Omas. -- SFH 04:20, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * SWF, wouldn't you think that if these weren't the capitals, someone would have realized a long time ago and remove them? They are the capitals. Admiral J. Nebulax 12:33, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

SFH, the New Republic disintegrated after the loss of Coruscant to the Yuuzhan Vong, it wasn't that government, it died after that. The New Republic did refer to themselves as the "Alliance" in the Battle of Calamari and the Balmorrans themselves, who left the Empire called them the "Alliance" During the year where Palpatine was Reborn, the New Republic was called the "Rebels" by the entire galaxy, not just the Empire. Also, Admiral Nebulax, no one noticed that the New Republic was a Confederation until I mentioned it. -SWF
 * The New Republic lasted for a year after the fall of Coruscant, before it was turned into the GFFA. Kuralyov 02:56, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I concede that. I'd also like to say that the Narrator for Dark Empire, Dark Empire II and Empire's End ferers to them as the "Rebels" and "The Alliance" not the Empire, the narrator, Tom Veitch. -SWF
 * See? Admiral J. Nebulax 20:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I see for Dac (Mon Calamari) being a NR cpaital, but Da Soocha wasn't a NR capital. -SWF
 * Wrong again. After Coruscant fell back to the Imperials, they set up the government headquarters on Da Soocha V. Admiral J. Nebulax 00:03, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

And the Galaxy at large called them "Rebels" again, not just the Empire. During the Battle of Calamari the narrator says "Rebel Star Destroyer" and one of the Soldiers says "Alliance Frequency" The narrator says "Rebel Base" for Pinnacle Base. You do have DE, DEII and Empire's End, right? They show it in the comics. You aren't much of a New Republic anyway when you lost Coruscant, the Core Worlds and being driven back to the Outer Rim anyway (which is why the Galaxy called them Rebels again.) -SWF
 * They're referred to as the Rebels and the Alliance in the Dark Forces book too, but they were still the NR at that point. The only reason they're referred to as the Rebels in DE is because Veitch wasn't willing to change anything once the Thrawn Trilogy came out. Hence why we have official retcons to tell us that they're still the New Republic. And as for "much of a New Republic anyway when you lost Coruscant, the Core Worlds and being driven back to the Outer Rim anyway", the New Republic existed for two years before they took Coruscant, and when the NR was declared, all they held was Endor. Kuralyov 05:58, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Now do you finally get it? Admiral J. Nebulax 20:30, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Fine, I get it now. You win. Include Nespis VIII also. -SWF
 * Of course. How could we forget Nespis VIII? Admiral J. Nebulax 21:43, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

History Section
For starters, it is a bit biased. While the New Republic had its problems, the current wording is still pretty biased in favor of other governments. Furthermore, I think that we need to totally reorganize the sub-sections by years, not by which senate it was. It is confusing when you first look at the article because it leads you to believe that the whole point of the history section is to talk about each new legislative session. Does nayone lese think we should rename them? AdmiralNick22 15:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I think we should. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 21:04, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I admit the section I wrote on the fourth senate is pretty anti-government, but really, that's the way the authors seemed to want to potray the New Republic at times. I tried to be fair, but I really cannot respect a body when three-fifths of it's membership voted for Borsk Fey'lya. -- SFH 04:45, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, a bit of rewording can still convey the same sentiment without seeming slanted towards an anti-NR feel. I guess the reason I am sensitive to this is that the NR was a goog government for much of the early EU. Granted in the NJO it turned downhill, but that does not mean that everything it acchieved prior to that is unimportant. If I find the time today, I may try reworking the history section to show a gradual decline in the NR, while still showing their more noble acchievements as well. AdmiralNick22 16:05, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Good point. We don't have to have an issue on point-of-view here, no matter how it's portrayed. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 20:49, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I did a large edit. What do you guys think? AdmiralNick22 23:49, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * It looks pretty good. It just needs a little de-linking. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 23:50, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It still needs more info in some spots, but it is a start. AdmiralNick22 00:00, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, from the looks of it, I don't think it really needs much more information as of now. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 00:02, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

The picture of the people raising the flag
The picture with the people raising the flag mocks the the United States in World War II. Maybe someone could remove it. 24.7.112.100 03:48, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The Battle of Coruscant was as important in the GFFA as Iwo Jima was in the real world, so the picture was made as an homage. It doesn't "mock" anything. It was uploaded 4 months ago and is used on 5 different pages, and you're the first person who has raised an objection. &mdash;Darth Culator   (talk)  04:52, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * How exactly does a picture honoring a victory by a democratic republic over a fascist regime in a FICTIONAL universe mock a picture honoring a victory by a democratic republic over a fascist regime in a REAL universe? Answer? It doesn't. It's called a homage. QuentinGeorge 05:21, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Come on, it's Star Wars here, not real-world. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 20:39, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Uh, The New Republic took few casualties on the Ground. There is a black-and white picture showing the space battle you can use then, or a picture from Force Commander of Galaacit Battlegrounds.

Also about Star Wars and real life, remember how the U.S. is comparing to the Clone Wars-era Galactic Republic -SWF
 * For the space battle, that really isn't neccissary. This flag picture shows perfectly that the New Republic took Coruscant. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 00:23, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Images
Does anyone else agree that we have way too many images? The original three are good enough if you ask me. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 12:59, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I disagree. As you may have guessed from my entrance vandalism spree, I love images. I think they add to the page, and that it really increases impact. Plus, I've got cable and an awesomely fast Mac, so they don't screw me up--Erl 22:20, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I just think some of them are unneccissary. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 23:23, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * A picture says more than a thousand words. Images are higly useful and enhance the content of the article, especially when they are deployed for descriptive purposes. I think the images in this article add atmosphere to the content by depicting important events and individuals in the history of the New Republic. KEJ 23:28, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * While you are correct, there are too many, and this causes me to see some side-by-side. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 23:29, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah, well, it looks just fine on my comp. KEJ 23:32, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, then, you must have a different screen resolution than I do. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 23:39, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * It looks fine for my 1024 resolution. But yeah, we could probably take one or two out. Maybe the Correllian Crisis or Darksaber pics, which aren't that awesome IMO. -LtNOWIS 00:49, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I think it looks great, and I have no problems viewing it on my 1024x768 screen. I'm glad all the images got put on there during the improvement drive, because it was sorely lacking before. However, if one must go, take out one of the space shots in the "Reorganization and reform" section. But I still like it as it is. -- Ozzel 00:59, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Here's the pictures I think we should take out: The First Battle of Coruscant space picture, the First Corellian Crisis picture, and the Darksaber pictures. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 01:07, 28 March 2006 (UTC)