Talk:Galactic Empire/Legends

Where is the "Imperial Inner Circle" named? --SparqMan 02:22, 22 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm sure I remember it being in the TIE Fighter video game. --beeurd 17:48, 22 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 * That was the "Secret Order". This is claiming that the group assembled on the Death Star was named the "Imperial Inner Circle" and operated as the executive branch of the Galactic Empire. --SparqMan 18:02, 22 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't the Imperial Inner Circle still be up on the table? Because it did exist. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 20:45, 1 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * The "Emperor's Inner Circle" was a name for a group of Palpatine's closest advisors and officials, but by no means the executive branch of the Empire. The Emperor was the executive branch. The table probably should not include a lot of the information that it currently does. --SparqMan 21:25, 1 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * I read that the Inner Circle was the "assistant" executive branch of the Empire. They aided the Emperor, who was basically the executive branch as you say. After all, the members were heads of divisions, like the Starfleet Commander who was mentioned in A New Hope. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 00:15, 2 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * Agreed, but Palpatine had lots of aides, advisors and assistants (not to mention courtiers, sycophants, etc.), but he was also paranoid and generally organized multiple bodies and offices to counter each other (thus reducing any risk to himself). The term was also mentioned in an aside, and never explained. Did I miss a description of the body somewhere other than Dark Empire? --SparqMan 03:01, 2 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * I myself have never read Dark Empire, but I have seen the term "Imperial Inner Circle" (refering to a group similiar to the group in A New Hope) in many places. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 13:41, 2 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * I can recall coming across similar terms, but I read them ot mean the clique of Palpatine's advisorial retinue, and not a proper group with responsibilities. --SparqMan 14:23, 2 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Appearances
Is this the appearance of any Imperial related person/place/thing? This article should probably just be Sources. --SparqMan 23:04, 17 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree. Admiral J. Nebulax 00:05, 18 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Real-world similarities
Should we have a Behind the Scenes section that includes similarities between the Galactic Empire and the real-world governments and empires it was based on? Most of us know that Nazi Germany has lots of similarities with the Empire including racism, genocide (most notably the Holocaust) and militarism.

Others include the Soviet Union, the British Empire, North Korea, Apartheid South Africa and the Japanese Empire during World War II. The creators of what we know as Star Wars must have been inspired by real world events. Palpatine may have been modeled after Adolf Hitler. Both committed numerous atrocities including warcrimes, slavery and oppression. Both also lost in the end.

Do you think it is safe to do this? I'm just trying to help improve this Wiki.MyNz 21:55 7 Jan 2005 [] Even the Imperial uniforms are a mix between Nazi and Imperial Japanese uniforms, the Japanese portion is the cap, rest is Nazi, and with the combination, is Imperial [] [] [] []
 * I think it's safe to do this. If there are similarities, just add it in. Admiral J. Nebulax 12:29, 7 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * We should stick to confirmed ones, though; otherwise, it could become a mess. I.e. comparisons that have either been stated by Lucas (Roman Empire, Nixon), or really obvious ones (Nazi Germany; the uniforms, Chancellor becoming dictator, etc.)  If we start comparing to every oppressive dictator it could get unwieldy and unnecessary, and if people start making comparisons from their opinions, it could get very POV.  In other words, rather than "the Empire is like this and this government in some way", keep it to "the Empire was clearly inspired by this and this government". - Lord Hydronium 12:48, 7 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree, but on Palpatine's page, Palpatine is compared to U.S. President George W. Bush without anything from Lucas. Admiral J. Nebulax 12:50, 7 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * There have been hints from Lucas on that. --Master Starkeiller 13:37, 7 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, then, let's add what we know is true. Admiral J. Nebulax 14:31, 7 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * There are many similarities between the Galactic Empire and the Japanese Empire with their navies. Japan had an absolutely massive navy from the 1930s to 1940s. Just as the Galactic Empire had a Super Star Destroyer, the Japanese Empire had the Super Battleship Yamato, the largest, most powerful battleship ever built.

As for the TIE Fighters, Lucas himself admits the spacefights over the Death Star were based on a movie called Flying Tigers where American P-40 fighters battle Japanese Zero fighters over China. In both cases, TIE Fighters and Zeros come in greater numbers, to make up for their weaknesses [] []
 * True. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 12:24, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

State religious body
Should the Sith really cound as the state religious body? It's existence was publicly unacknowledged. -- SFH 21:37, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I guess so. Admiral J. Nebulax 21:39, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

The Sith are not a state religious body, neither are they secretive.

Listen to Motti's disgust of the Force "Your sad devotion to that ancient religion has not helped you conjure up the stolen data tapes, or given you clairvoyance enough to find the Rebel's hidden..." This is the voice of an atheist Imperial officer, unless he is affiliated with another religion, nevertheless, Sith propaganda must not work if it exists. The Sith are a small group of people including Palpatine, Darth Vader, and supporters within their inner circle. As for the Sith being "publicly unacknowledged" then why would the Emperor post Darth Vader as their MILITARY EXECUTOR! Darth Vader is the replacement for the Jedi to insure security using the force. The Jedi are not a state religion do not interrupt in the affairs of others unless they are pose a threat, and do not show particular interest in beings with low Force powers. The Sith are the same in that respect, they only want people who are strong with the Force, the rest of the "weak-minded" society can do as the please as long as they don't conflict with the Empire or the Sith.
 * "Sith" should be taken out and replaced with Church of the Dark Side, which WAS the official religion of the Imperial State post 5 ABY. QuentinGeorge 11:54, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Very well, they made a church post-Endor, but I still disagree with the belief that the Sith were completely secretive. I mean Vader came right up to Leia and she said "Darth Vader, only you could be so bold." If there's someone referred to by his officers as "Darth" or "Lord", its pretty clear that the Sith are publicly acknowledged and accepted by society. Now maybe, Palpatine does not admit he is Darth Sidious to the public, but he titled Anakin, Darth Vader, whom he would be referred to in public and in private. After the fall of the Jedi, the Sith did not need to be secretive when Palpatine went on his rant in the Senate about how evil the Jedi were. With his manipulative powers, the average citizen would think "hmm, he's right, what have the Jedi done for us, we've been in chaos for years, no security, the corrupt republic was falling apart. How can we trust what the Jedi have been telling us about the Sith? The Sith have been oppressed by the Jedi for years, who knows what the old Jedi-run propaganda machine has been making us believe, maybe they had good reason to fight the Jedi." This is the kind of thought that comes out of disallusionment, the same disallussionment that made Germans vote for the radical Nazis rather than a democratic government trying to repair relations and end corruption
 * Actually, "Lord" wasn't just a Sith title. And when Episode IV was made, I doubt George Lucas had in mind that "Darth" was for a Sith only. Or maybe he did. I don't know. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 12:30, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Quotes
What's up with the 2 quotes at the beginning? Shouldn't "Fear will keep the systems in line" be in Government and Politics? Odintheking 3:40, 27 Feb 2006
 * Yes, it could be in that section considering it relates to it, and the top of the article shouldn't be crammed with two or more quotes. -- Riffsyphon1024 22:43, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * So? There are two quotes at the beginning of other articles. And please, put all new sections at the bottom. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 22:46, 27 February 2006 (UTC)