Talk: Galactic Empire/Legends

Article milestones Date Process Result 1 December 2005 Featured article nomination Failure 8 January 2006 Failed Featured article nominee 20 April 2006 Featured article nomination Failure 21 May 2006 Failed Featured article nominee 30 January 2007 Featured article nomination Failure 17 March 2007 Failed Featured article nominee 6 January 2008 Featured article nomination Failure 10 January 2008 Failed Featured article nominee
Current status: Failed Featured article nominee

Named

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)
      • Can we make the table more descriptive. Like, basically what I get from it when I look at it is a bunch of people control a bunch of things..... Oh yeah, and the military, beauracracy, and planetary governors are on the bottom. Maybe put in some info as to how it works rather than saying "This is the chain of command."--OompaLoompa of DOOM 04:11, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
        • Uh, that's too much information for an infobox. Admiral J. Nebulax ^(talk) 19:50, 4 April 2006 (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)

Some similarites include attire,military structure,and the fact that all Stormtroopers and Nazis are Caucasian males 69.230.101.52 23:35, October 6, 2010 Swordakus 22

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

• 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.

[[1]] [[2]] 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 [[3]] [[4]] [[5]] [[6]]

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 [[7]] [[8]]

• True. Admiral J. Nebulax ^(talk) 12:24, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Nebulax, I hope you have looked at the pictures, I had a hard time sorting them out, but you will see the similarities. I know a lot about the Pacific front in World War II and I hope you look up on Wikipedia, the Japanese Admiral Chuichi Nagumo, he was the same kind of incompetent commander as Admiral Ozzel in Empire Strikes Back. Nagumo was selected by the brilliant mastermind Admiral Yammamoto to lead the attack on Midway Island. The Battle of Midway was much like the Battle of Endor. Like the Emperor in Return of the Jedi setting a trap to destroy the Rebel fleet, Yammamoto was setting a trap to lure the American aircraft carriers to Midway. The Japanese would strike the island, supposidly the U.S. carriers would arrive too late where they would be destroyed in overwhelming numbers by planes from Nagumo's aircraft carriers, then the rest of the American fleet would be pursued an destroyed by Yamammoto's cruiser and battleship squadrons. Even like the Emperor, Yamamoto was at the battle himself to oversee the defeat of the U.S. Pacific Fleet, unfortunately both of these men spent too much time forseeing how the battle would take place, rather than acting on the spot which resulted in Yamamoto's defeat at Midway and Palpatine's defeat at Endor. Aren't the coincidences eerily similar. Look up the Battle of Midway to see my reasoning

• Yes, there seem to be many similarities. Admiral J. Nebulax ^(talk) 12:49, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• Another point that relates Palpatine to Hitler is the general populace in Germany loved Hitler because he was helping to rebuild Germany and then he went to war. Also, Hitler and Russia made a pact saying they wouldn't attack each other but then Hitler broke the pact much like how Palpatine betrayed the CIS. Its all speculation though --Dumac 22:51, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  • But it's better than some of the speculation I've heard. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 22:52, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Just a historical point for Dumac, Hitler was NOT loved by the general populace, Hitler was loved by militarists, nationalists, industrialists. The moderate population, about 60% of them feared him, many coericed to vote for him by the real Nazi Stormtroopers. In 1933, the Nazis got only 30% of the vote but got more seats due to left-wing voters fleeing the Social Democrat party to the Communist Party to keep the Nazis out. The policies of Palpatine are fascist in nature and like Hitler, but his assent to power is like that of Julius Caesar.
      • Oh, and one more thing about what Dumac said, I think that Palpatine's betrayal of Dooku is similar to Hitler's numerous betrayal of countries. However, the country with similar plight to the CIS is Vichy France. Vichy France was the unoccupied, semi-neutral area of southern France, which declared its existance after the German Army took Paris. Hitler allowed its independence, Vichy France officially decided to remain neutral in the conflict, though Hitler had enormous influence over them (like Sidious). Two years after Vichy France was formed, Hitler suddenly betrayed them and invaded his own puppet state to consolidate his power.
        • Now we're starting to talk about Palpatine instead of the Galactic Empire. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 19:22, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
• the leadership following the Emperor's death is much like that after, admittingly a far shorter period after Hitler's. In both cases, a naval officer became a leader, in Star Wars, Admiral Pellaeon becomes leader, in Germany in 1945, Admiral Karl Donitz, leader of the German Navy, took over control of Germany in its literal final days.
  • Pellaeon was just one of many who took control, though. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 14:38, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Like I said, Donitz took over in the final days, around May 2, 1945 to May 8th. following Hitler's suicide on April 30th and then the next Fuhrer Goebbels death on May 2nd I believe. The Empire took years to fall apart. It is a similarity nonetheless, that two navy leaders took control of the governments after their main leader died, although the circumstances surrounding both of them differ significantly.
      • But the Galactic Empire was never gone for good. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20:11, 30 July 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)

• • • • Lucas tends to go back and forth on ideas when he makes movies. A friend of my brother has a copy of the original Star Wars script. In that script, Luke's last name was "Starkiller". The script called "The Adventures of Luke Starkiller" has the introduction beginning with:

"For over a thousand years, generations of JEDI KNIGHTS were the guardians of peace and justice in the galaxy. Now these legendary warriors are all but extinct. One by one they have been hunted down and destroyed by the sinister agents of the Emperor: the DARK LORDS OF THE SITH."

"Suddenly, there is a slight lull in the fighting, then a deathly quiet sweeps over the passageway as an awesome, seven-foot tall DARK LORD OF THE SITH makes his way into the blinding light of the main passageway. This is DARTH VADER, right hand of the Emperor."

12-13. INT. REBEL SPACEFIGHTER - HALLWAY - CABIN

"Princess Leia is led down a low-ceilinged hallway by a squad of armored stormtroopers. Her hands are bound with brass bracelets, and she is brutally shoved when she is unable to keep up with the briskly marching troops. They enter a small gloomy chamber where Darth Vader, the Dark Lord of the Sith, is sitting. Vader speaks in an oddly filtered voice through his complex breathing mask"

This line is similar to when in Ep3 when Palpatine says "Darth Plageouis, a Dark Lord of the Sith", he is saying his short form title and then says its expanded form which is more respective."

Therefor Darth was orginally intended as an acronym in the 1975 script. check this website for proof. http://www.starwarz.com/starkiller/scripts/thestarwars_third_draft.htm

If you look at the Church of the Dark Side page, you'll see the whole thing was fake, so it doesn't really count Supreme Admrial Warrior 00:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC)Starwarrior555

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)

What does the Imperial Insignia stand for, What colours can it use, etc.?

As with all emblems or flags of nations, they have meanings, as for the Imperial insignia, I am not sure what it stands for. Could someone please give me a hint? Also, I am wondering about the colours used on the Imperial insigina, did the Empire have any particular colours it endorsed, or was any colour allowed to be adopted. Usually it is white on black such as with an Imperial pilot [[9]] However on the AT-AT drivers at Hoth the insignia is red [[10]] In addition, as a logo nut I wonder if there is an official width standard od the inner circle with rays and the outlying band, which seem to variate from site to site which I look at. The TIE pilot's insignia shows very broad rays coming out of the centre circle [[11]] as well as the Superlaser Gunner on the first Death Star [[12]] Meanwhile while I was searching on google, I found that at Starwars.com they depicted a logo with narrow beams coming out of the centre and a broad outer band. [[13]] Are these emblems interchangeable, or is their a discrepency?

• Well, I don't think the logo stands for anything. As for the colors, the most offical one is the black and white one. Admiral J. Nebulax ^(talk) 19:55, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• My personal interpretation of the logo is that it is a symbol of the galaxy with the circle in the centre being the core worlds, or Imperial Centre itself with "rays of the Emperor's will" power, or influence stretching into the the Galaxy, particularly the Middle Worlds, while the jutted outer circle represents the echo and impact of the Emperor's will and power in the Outer Rim, an area notorious for lawlessness. I know its complex, but if you think it over, you'll know what I'm saying That's the possible symbolism I could make out of it, does it sound reasonable?
  • Well, I'm sure you could interpret it in many ways. Admiral J. Nebulax ^(talk) 01:09, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes you can, but usually symbolism revolves around political motivation, I recognize that in many cases insignia for any organization have meaning and it is usual for them to be based on the name and/or principles of the organization itself as well as art The Nazi flag was designed both out of art by Hitler and to symbolize his twisted National Socialism. The swastika stood for nationalism and good luck, the white stood for the supposide Aryan Race, and the red stood for socialism. So yes you can look at a flag or emblem as a work of art, but so yes there can be other interpretations, perhaps the Imperial emblem symbolizes the galactic reign of the Sith, or a galactic political motivation. I know that George Lucas just picked it out of a batch of possible insignia presented to him, and I personally think his choice was a good one, as it is unique and strikes at you as a symbol just like the Hammer-and-sickle and the swastika.
      • True. Admiral J. Nebulax ^(talk) 12:58, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
      • The color's were symbolic, but not necessarily in a single way, and some of the symbolism may be "historical retconning". One I do know that Hitler mentioned was that the flag used Black/White/Red because that was the colors of the German Empire during what the Nazi's called the "Second Reich", as contrasted to the black/red/gold of the post WWI Weimar Republic. I'm bemused about Palpatine making the Empire/Republic Navy/whatever's symbol more similar to the CIS symbol myself, but...eh.
        • Well, Palpatine didn't make the Imperial insigna as far as we know, as I've said at least four times throughout this talk page. Someone, maybe Palpatine, created it for the Republic Navy, and Palpatine made it the Imperial insigna. Admiral J. Nebulax ^(talk) 13:42, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

here: When Palpatine took over the Old Republic and transformed it into the Galactic Empire, and installed himself as Emperor, he removed 2 spokes from the original 8-sided symbol, forming a 6-sided symbol. 7 could represent the Sith and their ideas, as Palpatine is a Sith. It could also mean that the “corruption” of the Old Republic is taken away, hence the removal of 2 spokes, it could also mean that the belief in the force is now frowned upon by society and the Government and the Jedi are now almost extinct. It could also mean centralization, as there are only 6 spokes, not as much power into others and into the central Imperial government. The symbol’s color is often colored red, showing royalty, diplomacy, and Officiality. It is also gray, showing the transformation to an Empire from an Republic, Statism and Fascism, instead of Republic and Democracy. They are not smooth, they are geometric representing the Military, which is more built up, has an important role in society, and the Imperial Fleet is built up. The logo also features similarities with the logos of both the Confederacy of Independent Systems and the Galactic Republic to signal that the galaxy was now united, under his rule.

http://www.geocities.com/leesci@sbcglobal.net/sw/symbols.html

-SWF

• No, as you'll see in the next section, the Imperial insigna was first used as the Republic Navy's. Admiral J. Nebulax ^(talk) 02:21, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

The Republic Emblem has 8 spokes, the Imperial one has 6 spokes when Emperor Palpatine defaced it, removing two spokes, in a way saying "**** you" to the Jedi -SWF

• No, that's not it. Has anyone been paying attention to what I've been saying? The Republic Navy used that insigna during the Clone Wars, before the Empire came to power. Admiral J. Nebulax ^(talk) 02:18, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

• The symbol is a perversion and a corruption of the Galactic Republic symbol. The eight-spoked symbol of the Galactic Republic was really the Bendu symbol used to represent the unification of the Galaxy by the Force. Go to the Bendu article for more information. Marco Lam 07:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Does Anyone know when the Republic's round insignia was replaced by the Empire's?

The Empire was suddenly declared by Palpatine, and I am wondering if anyone knows when the Imperial emblem replaced the similar Republic emblem?

• The Imperial emblem was used by the Republic Navy during the Clone Wars (see a picture of a clone pilot, you'll notice it on their shoulders, or Anakin's Eta-2). Why Palpatine chose it for the Empire is beyond me, though. Admiral J. Nebulax ^(talk) 01:55, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  • The symbol in the Clone Wars is the Republic's symbol - it is similar, but has more spokes. Palpatine simply removed some for his Empire (like Hitler defacing the Swatstika) QuentinGeorge 04:45, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Actually, Palpatine couldn't have removed some for his Empire when it didn't exist yet. Unless Palpatine came up with the idea of the insignia for the Republic Navy, which he later used as the Empire's. Admiral J. Nebulax ^(talk) 21:26, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Please read what I wrote. The symbol used for the Republic Navy is the Republic symbol, and had been used for thousands of years. The Imperial Symbol did not appear until the Declaration of a New Order. QuentinGeorge 23:15, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
        • No, that's incorrect. Look at Anakin's Eta-2. Look at the shoulders of clone pilots from Episode III. The insignia that was used by the Republic Navy later became the Imperial insignia. Admiral J. Nebulax ^(talk) 00:05, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
          • I wrote the initial question, and I agree with QuentinGeorge, the Republic's symbol is different than the Empire's. The Republic's is more simple, while the Empire's is more stylized. Perhaps they're meant to be same thing. For QuentinGeorge, I'd like to say that Hitler ALSO defaced the Iron Cross in the same way Palpatine defaced the Republic's emblem. An ordinary Iron Cross is curved and can be seen on WWI Luftwaffe aircraft, a Nazi iron cross is a square-edged cross, used on WWII Luftwaffe aircraft. Anyway, whether the Imperial emblem is in ROTS or not, does anyone know when the Imperial emblem was officially adopted or could you estimate a general time period?
            • Yes, the Republic symbol is different from the Imperial symbol, but the Republic used the symbol that would later become the Imperial symbol for it's navy. Has anyone been listening to me? Just look in the Episode III Visual Dictionary. Look on Anakin's Eta-2; the shoulders of clone pilots. The symbol that would later symbol the Empire is there. Admiral J. Nebulax ^(talk) 20:49, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
• I know that the Republic emblem is obviously the primative form of the stylized Imperial emblem, I was simply wondering if the modern Imperial emblem came in in 19 B.B.Y. or afterwards. However I thank you Nebulax for telling me about the Eta Fighter emblem, because I looked at the scene where the buzz droid is near Artoo, and I noticed that the emblem was different from the Republic emblem shown under the Galactic Republic section, in that the Eta's emblem has six rectangular prongs coming out of the centre sphere like the modern Imperial emblem, two less than the version which is seen in the Galactic Republic section. So yes, the emblem did develop over time.
  • "The starboard wing of Obi Wan's craft is marked with a symbol of a disc with eight spokes. This ancient icon dates to the Bendu monks' study of numerology wherein the number nine (eight spokes joined to one disc) signifies the beneficient presence of the Force in a unitary galaxy. After the fall of the Galactic Republic 1000 generations later, The Emperor will personalize this symbol by defacing the icon with the removal of two spokes." = Star Wars Attack of the Clones: Incredible Cross-Sections TIEPilot051999 06:13, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Uh, that's no longer acturate. Skywalker's Eta-2 has the pre-Imperial Imperial symbol on it. Whether Palpatine created it is unknown now. Admiral J. Nebulax ^(talk) 18:42, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

The empire symbol is a combo of the Republic and CIS insignias.

Military symbolism

The Empire's military - ie their AT-ATs, their stormtroopers, Star Destroyers etc were key parts of the symbolism of this Empire. . . why not add an image in of one of them? They're as much a symbol of the Empire as Palpatine is 211.30.161.57 08:47, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

• I don't think having those images here is really necessary. Admiral J. Nebulax ^(talk) 11:51, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

sith orgnision

Empire is not a sith orgnision, it was just created and ruled for most part by a sith Most of its officials were not sith. Empire existed for at list for sometime under a non-sith leadership. King2006 05:25, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

• This could be looked at multiple ways, I suppose. One could argue that only under Palpatine's rule was it a Sith organization. It comes down to point of view. Admiral J. Nebulax ^(talk) 12:10, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Kind to think of it, under mostly all of the Galactic Emperors' rules, it was a Sith organization. Admiral J. Nebulax ^(talk) 12:28, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
    • The Galactic Empire was originally a Sith Empire. Listen to Palpatine himself "Once more the Sith shall rule the galaxy and we shall have peace." Of course with Palpatine's downfall, Sith ideology was replaced with pure militarism. As with a number of my posts, I compare them to real history. In this case the issue is similar to Hitler's view of Germany, he believed that Germany was the natural extention of the First Reich - the Holy Roman Empire, and the Second Reich during World War I. As for Palpatine, he knows that the Jedi will stop at nothing to make the Sith extinct and sees the Republic as the Jedi's tool to keep the Sith from creating another Sith Empire. He treads cautiously, turns the tables on the Jedi with the "attempt on his life" to say that the Jedi are evil. Afterwards he can legitimize sending out the "mysterious savior" and "loyalist" Sith Darth Vader to kill the Jedi, and officially "save the galaxy" the so-called "separatist" Sith collaborators who followed Count Dooku. This legitimize the use of the Dark Side of the Force, the publicly known existance of a Sith Lord in the Empire, without officially tieing a connection between Palpatine and Dooku. So in this way, he never had to officially declare it a Sith Empire, to avoid questions about his relations with Count Dooku and his connections to the Battle of Naboo. But Palpatine himself knows that he is running a Sith Empire.
• The Empire wasn't a Sith organization under Palpatine any more than the New Republic was a Jedi organization under Leia. Only a handful of people even knew that its leadership was a Sith, and as people like Tarkin and Pestage show, a not-insignifigant amount of work in maintaining and excpanding the Empire was done by non-Sith. Besides, Palpatine actively worked against increasing the number of Sith in the empire; if it truly was a Sith organization, why weren't the Hands, Inquisitors, etc all made Sith? Kuralyov 02:41, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Well history shows that Hitler never publicly displayed his beliefs in the Occult as it would damage his image,plus Hitler, while advocating Aryan Race, did not have blonde hair and blue eyes himself, nor were many of his followers. Despotic leaders make contradictions, Palpatine did not want competitors for power, that's why there are no public Sith teachings. That's why he shines his little grin when Vader is suffering from the loss of Padme, because he knows Vader will not achieve his goal of being Emperor along with his wife as Empress and Palpatine thinks his potentially dangerous offspring are dead. Palpatine is too arrogant and proud to let someone else steal the Sith's thunder, he wants to oversee the end of the Jedi himself, which is why he has clones of his body, so he can rule forever as the dominant Sith Lord. Besides, why would he want to waste money on training Sith, weaken his hold on power, when he can simply manipulate people as he did with the Senate. A Dark Jedi named Desann said an important quote saying "the force is not meant to strengthen the weak, but empower the worthy."
  • Kuralyov, you have a good point. You're right; the Empire really wasn't a Sith organization. However, if Palpatine's Dark Empire succeeded, that would be a Sith organization. Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 11:18, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Member Worlds

Does anyone think this article should have a member worlds section? User:Odintheking

• It would get pretty large. -- SFH 21:54, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • The Galactic Empire was what it's name suggests—a Galaxy-wide empire. There's no need for a member worlds list. Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 23:12, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Yuuzahn Vong War

Does the Empire temporarally join the New Republic to fight agenst the Yuuzahn Vong during the horrible Yuuzahn Vong War?

• At that time, it was the Imperial Remnant. And yes, they did join together. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 00:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Killed by whom?

"and while the leaders of the Confederacy of Independent Systems were killed on Mustafar by Anakin Skywalker"

Was this not actually the first official assignment given to the newly crowned sith lord darth vader? granted he isnt the iconic suited vader but technically he became darth vader when the title was conferred on him by sidious. please tell me if im splitting hairs but id like for someone else to be in agreement before i move to change anything. 68.217.170.203 05:50, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• Really, you could say it either way, but since Darth Vader was second in command of the Empire, it should be changed. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 13:14, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes it shouldBobafettH23 22:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

• Please don't restart old discussions like that. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 22:51, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry man won't happen again, thanks for the tip.BobafettH23 23:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC) Sorry about all the questions but what do you consider an old discussion, Iam not being rude I just don't want to make the same mistake twiceBobafettH23 23:20, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

• Usually one that hasn't been posted on about for about a month or more. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 01:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I will remember thatBobafettH23 01:09, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• No problem. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 15:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

palpatine declaring new order

can we change it over to the film version of the picture since, i think, its better to use the live action pictures than animated. Ugluk 01:54, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

• The picture is probably better than anything we can get from the movie. I think it should stay. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 13:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Vaders Placement

I was just looking at that orginization of the Empire table and I wondered where Darth Vader would be on that table. I'm thinking halfway between the military and the Emperor, but I am interested in what others think. user:Darth Vatrir

• He's the Executor, so he's in charge of the military. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 11:13, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Era

How is the New Order Empire in the Legacy era? Unless you're referring to the Imperial Remnant or the Legacy era Empire, I doubt it existed past the New Republic era. Jedi Wolf 2:05, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• The article refers to the Legacy era Empire which was actually the evolution of the Imperial Remnant. Oh, and why do I only see your IP address when you edit?--Lord Oblivion^{Sith holocron} 18:11, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Jedi Wolf, if you keep it up, I'm going to inform the administrators. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 19:41, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Imperial Logo

Why are the outermost spokes of the imperial logo on this page so thin? In the films, on the uniforms of imperial soldiers, especially on the helmets of TIE Pilots, they are much thicker. On the page of the image it is said, that this Image is in some way "official". But where is it from? There are other imperial logos used in wookieepedia, some of them with thicker outermost spokes. Maybe this is a variation of the logo with a special meaning? I am just wondering as this is the first time I see the logo in this style. --TeakHoken84.173.70.123 23:14, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

• I'm afraid I don't know what you're talking about. The logo on the article is the same one I've seen in the movies. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 00:04, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

So. Then compare this:Media:Implogo.png(used in article) with these: Media:Imperial_Emblem.svg,Media:Tcgtesb symbol.jpg (from category: logos), and this:Media:Tiepilot.jpg (also used in wookieepedia), or imperial logos on any movie screenshot. Here some that I found in a quick search: [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] There are also imperial emblems on the shoulders of the (black) uniforms of some minor imperial officers. I found no images of them, on which the outermost spokes are clearly visible. But note that I found NO image on which the imperial logo has outermost spokes that are as thin as a dash. Maybe the whole topic isn't that important. But as a true star warrior I would hate to see thousands of fans wearing or using a wrong drawn symbol (including wookieepedians using it in their signature). Please, either show me a movie screenshot of a imperial logo with thin outermost spokes OR change it. I want to sleep again.--TeakHoken84.173.66.9 00:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Uh, I still don't know what you're talking about. I compared some of them to the current insignia, and they are identical. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 00:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Plus, I don't see what the big deal's about. If it's something as minor as that, why worry? Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 00:45, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

This is the last time that I explain it. I'm talking about the thickness of the 6 outermost spokes. They are just dashes in the logo used in the article. In all other logos I can find they are much thicker, almost as thick as they are long! (Please ignore the inverted colors)

It is minor, yes. But: In other articles for example Stardestroyers are classified into dozens of types because of minor differences. It is discussed about Yoda-Action-Figures with different numbers of toes. Variations of lengths, colors and shapes of lightsaber blades are listed. The whole Wookieepedia is full of people with sharp eyes and magnifying glasses. If you let the logo as it is, maybe someday somebody thinks that the discrepancy makes the difference between Galactic Empire and Imperial Remnant. Different symbols! Duh! Why?--TeakHoken84.173.23.140 22:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

• Listen, one minor difference is not a big deal. So an artist makes the spokes thinner than other images. No big deal. And for the examples you gave, such "minor differences" are somewhat important. And no, a minor difference in the symbol wouldn't mark the difference between the Empire and the Remnant. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 22:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

But I can see no reason for using a wrong drawn symbol. The right symbol already is in Wookiepedia. Why don't you just replace it?--TeakHoken, bearer of the right imperial emblem84.173.12.142 16:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

• This isn't a "wrong drawn symbol". It's not a big deal. Don't get so worked up over it. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20:02, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh yes it is. At the beginning of this discussion I was not sure. But now I am completely sure that it has wrong proportions, especially the spokes. Look, this is like a coat of arms. In Medieval times, these images were not exactly the same on every shield or flag. The reason for the differences were that they were drawn by hand and that the creators had very little skill in geometry. If you look at flags and coats of arms today, you will see that every country has a very exact description of how the symbol looks. Take any flag for example. USA: the stars have exact positions, the star corner has an exact size (relatively to the rest),... . UK: the thickness of the lines is very important. Englishmen, Scotsmen or Welshmen would kill you if you draw their lines too thin. Maybe company logos are an even better example, as the star wars galaxy is more industrialized than ours. So I think the logos are even more strictly defined. (And besides, I think most logos are drawn by droids or other machines. And machines need an exact plan and will execute it exact.). Have you ever worked in a big company? Their company logos are almost holy for them. There is only one mercedes logo, only one McDonald's "M", only one way to write "Coca Cola" right. Look, I'm on your side. You are an imperial officer. If you use a wrong symbol, maybe they will tortue you or kill you or - even worse - demote you!--TeakHoken84.173.20.77 09:43, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

• • Like the Empire cared. And for the record, there clearly isn't just one Imperial logo. Your images prove that. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 22:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Which two are different?--TeakHoken84.173.27.223 11:44, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

• Which two? More like which almost all of them. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 12:20, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

OK. They are not all exactly the same. But at least all have thick outer spokes. I also checked various other sources: the movies on DVD, all PC-Games I own (I own almost all), Dark Horse Comics, and starwars.com. The proportions seem to be not exactly defined, but the right logo definitely has outer spokes that are approximately as thick as they are long. You can tell what you want. I know that I am right and that the logo in the article is drawn wrong.--TeakHoken84.173.22.80 12:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• It's not drawn wrong. It's a variation. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 12:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

You don't give arguments. You just point out unproven statements. Find a source for your logo and we talk again. And still I can't see why Galactic Empire and imperial remnant have different logos in wookieepedia. Thanks for your inattention.--TeakHoken84.173.22.80 12:32, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• You seriously need to calm down. Now. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 00:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

And you are still not making arguments. I think I know why. You are too lazy to change it. The logo is used everywhere. And I tell you what: the logo is definitely fanart. I always thought wookieepedia doesn't want fanart? Maybe its a personal problem for you to change it, as you are using the wrong logo in your signature?--TeakHoken84.173.45.90 15:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

• You're taking one small variation and making it a big deal. You need to calm down now. Unless you can prove it is fanart, do not keep calling it such. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 15:51, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry, I'm cool. But how should I prove it's fanart? I showed that it can not be seen in this "variation" in any official source. Isn't that prove enough? What else can it be then if not fanart? And would you please answer me one question? Why does Wookieepedia use the "variation" as well as the right logo? Some good examples where the right logo is used: imperial remnant, rebellion era. What is the point for using a logo that looks wrong if the right one is there?--TeakHoken84.173.29.254 22:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• You have no proof to suggest this logo is fanart. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 01:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Then would you pleeeese tell me how one can prove something is fanart? Or would the great wise Grand Amoral J. Nebulax (who is wearing the right logo on his chest on a picture on his site for unknown reasons, as he is using the wrong logo in his signature) so kind to answer me one question? Or at least make an argument once in his life? I for my part think that I made enough arguments to show every citizen of the galactic empire that the mentioned imperial logo is drawn wrong. It can't be seen drawn this way in any official source I have ever seen. That makes me think that the creator is not working for George Lucas in any way. So he must be a fan or the absolute opposite (an anti-fan that made a wrong logo and spread it among fans, who are using it not knowing that it is wrong). Whether he was a fan or an anti-fan, I think what he made must be fanart. I don't know what other people think about this. Most Wookieepedia-users seem to fear the mighty word of wants-to-be-administrator Grand Amoral J. Nebulax, even if he says in fact nothing. I bet the next post is by Nebulax. And I am sure that he will not answer all or at least a few of my questions to my pleasure. PS: You have no proof to suggest this logo is no fanart.--TeakHoken84.173.29.254 01:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• If you think the logo is fanart just because you haven't seen it anywhere else, then change it. As I said before, and will repeat again, you have nothing to suggest it's fanart. But if it bugs so so much to see those little spokes so thin, change the logo. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 12:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Done. --TeakHoken84.173.28.193 11:17, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

• I have to ask you this: Why did you make such a big deal about it? Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 13:15, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

It was because of your answers. At first I wasn't really sure myself. You first didn't seem to understand what I mean. Then I was pretty sure that I am right, but you kept saying that the difference is minor. I wanted to show you why I think that it is not minor. But I learned from this. Next time I will change it if there is nobody who can prove that my assumtion is wrong. If it then should show that I wasn't right, then I will agree to revert the change.--TeakHoken84.173.21.222 11:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• Well, you seemed so determine to prove that image to be fanart. I suppose you were a little overdetermined, which is why I tried proove it wasn't fanart. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 13:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

None of us can prove his opinion, so I would propose that we don't talk about the fanart-thing any more, do you agree?--TeakHoken84.173.17.126 09:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Unless it is necessary, I agree. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I really hate to say that, but now the logo features an additional black ring around itself. Why didn't you guys leave it black-on-white? And again Galactic Empire and Imperial Remnant have different logos. Explain, or I'll change it again in one week.--TeakHoken84.172.163.8 21:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

• Oh, give it a rest. They're all official. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 01:20, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Thats no explanation. I change it.--TeakHoken84.172.199.59 14:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

• You take things way too seriously. It's an image. So what if it is different than another one? It's still official. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 14:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

The other one had a black ring around it. The actual one is the basic one - without any specials. Just the simple black-on-white logo. This is my main point. I want nobody to believe that the the Imperial Logo has to have features which it can have, but mustn't.--TeakHoken84.172.178.9 20:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• Stop calling it fanart if you have no proof of it. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

You didn't get my point. I wasn't saying that it is fanart. Maybe you have to read again what I wrote. But I will repeat my main point: I want a pure, basic logo, without make-up and earrings. But somehow you are right: I think it's fanart. And to answer your post: Oh yes I have. Well, not really. But I almost "saw" User Sentry changing it. And after all I must say that it's pretty obvious FAN-ART. Nearly no proportions are right. If you weren't this lazy you could easily take a REAL OFFICIAL logo from www.starwars.com and make a direct comparison. And additionally, you can read the description of . Convinced?--TeakHoken84.172.178.9 23:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• I think you should watch what you write. In addition, you do not control the canon standings of images. If you are not happy, keep it to yourself. This entire discussion is filled with your "I like this image, not that one; therefore I'm going to change it" opinion. Now, you've got your way here, and this discussion is over. Don't continue it anymore. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 00:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

OK. A last word: strange, but I thought the same of you.--TeakHoken84.172.145.135 19:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

• Oh for God's sake, listen to Nebulax for once. I'm R-41 here and I for one know about discrepencies of WWII flags, for instance Nazi Germany had SO MANY VARIANTS of the swastika flag. In some Nazi propaganda you can see non-angled swastikas, which were rare but present on flags. Heck, me being a WWII navy nut, I have a model of the German Battleship Bismarck, it had a very unofficial nazi swastika on its deck, extremely thin and unangled. But my point is that if you want a really pampered, precise Imperial logo, you will have a very hard time. There is no common logo. Lucas's Star Wars.com, which I would consider the Rosetta Stone of all Star Wars cannon has a different emblem than that of the TIE pilot helmuts. So that's cannon competing with cannon, thus...THERE IS NO OFFICIAL EMBLEM, ONLY MANY VARIANTS. R-41 21:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Look on "Lucas's Star Wars.com": [20], notice the logo, click on the picture under the headline saying "Star Wars profile:". An image of a TIE-Pilots head will pop up. Tell me: where is the difference between the logo on the helmet and the one, that is used everywhere on starwars.com? Maybe that there are many different logos. And maybe many of them are wrong? However, the one I favor is the one that is used in EVERY comic from Dark Horse (and it actually is from starwars.com, ergo official). And as I already said: Your logo can not be seen in the movies (ergo: no indication for it being official).--TeakHoken91.7.24.121 18:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll change it again. I have reasons for what I am doing. You all don't. Even if my logo should be another one of hundreds of "many variants", there is no point for the other one being better than the one I think is the only right one. You can change it back if you want. But if you do I'd say that you don't understand how a WIKI should work.--TeakHoken91.7.41.24 13:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

The white and black on the logo that we have here are inverted in the movies - can anybody explain why this is? This logo does not match the logo warn by the crew of the death star in episode 4. You can clearly see that the logo they use multiple times is inverted. Check it out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXCfEhW0R3k Watch from 01:40, specifically 01:52

Quote

• Does anyone have a better lead quote? I really think the current one is bad. I can't think of anything better now, but I'll go look through the novels of Episodes III,IV,V,VI and Dark Lord. Please make suggestions if you have any. Chack Jadson 20:00, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I think it's bad, too, but I can't recall any good ones. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20:37, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
    • I know, too bad. I'll try to look through the above mentioned books today and find a good one. I might not have time though. It's Ohio State-Michigan. Go Bucks! Chack Jadson 14:12, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
      • I hate having these kinds of debates, but... I'm for Michigan. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 14:35, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
        • Sorry, I just wanted to say that. Anyway, back on topic. My fault for that. Chack Jadson 14:54, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
          • Anyway, what about one of the quotes currently in the article? Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 14:57, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
            • I like the the Sith will rule the Galaxy one. And the Republic will be reorganized into the first Galactic Empire is good. Unfortunately we have something like that article, where it fits really good. Chack Jadson 15:14, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
              • I supposed the "Once more, the Sith will rule the Galaxy… and we shall have peace" one is the best option. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 15:17, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
                • It's probably the best. Should we add it soon? Chack Jadson 15:22, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
                  • We should probably wait a few hours to see if anyone else has any opinions. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 15:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't like it. I admit, it's better than my replacement, but it could be better. The Empire is not a complete Sith Empire.--Vladius Magnum^{(Clan Magnum)}

• But it was ruled by the Sith. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 18:12, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Myesss... I suppose that is true. There might be another good ROTS one that's better though.--Vladius Magnum^{(Clan Magnum)}

• If you can find a good one, then it may become the new main quote. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 00:23, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
  • There's this from the RotS novel: "Your Empire? It will never have peace. It was founded on treachery and innocent blood." - Obi-Wan to Anakin. Although it might be better in the article text - \\Captain Kwenn// ^{— Ahoy!} 21:35, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I too think the current quote is crap. However, I do know where a better one is. Unfortunately, I can't get it right now. Unit 8311 16:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Where is it? Maybe someone else could find it? - \\Captain Kwenn// ^{— Ahoy!} 16:29, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
        • Actually, there may be another good one in the RotS novelization... I'll check. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 19:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
          • The quote I'm thinking of is in Star Wars: Empire: Darklighter. I can't remember where or what it is exactly, but I'm planning on borrowing Darklighter from my local library soon, and then I'll have it presented. Unit 8311 08:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
            • I have the comic, but I won't be able to look through it until later. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 12:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
              • I think I remember roughly where it is. It's a bit where Biggs is talking to Luke on the Lars farm, or somewhere on Tatooine. Unit 8311 21:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
                • I'll see what I can find. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 21:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
                  • Could it be this: "Yeah, he says the Empire is the worst thing that ever happened to the Galaxy. Dismantling every vestige of democracy, seizing assets, killing whole populations."—Biggs Darklighter. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 21:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
                    • That's the one! Thanks, Jack. I know it might not be the best one in the world, but hey, I still think it's better than the current one. Unit 8311 08:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
                      • It's debatable, but good nonetheless. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 12:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
                        • I've decided I want to put the Biggs one in, but to prevent myself being chastised by anyone, I'm asking if anyone else thinks it should go in. Unit 8311 14:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
                          • It's already in the article. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 14:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Grammar war

• Guys, work it out on the talk page, not in the edit history. Nebulax, if you've got a source saying that ships should remain italicized in ship titles, please state it, because as far as I know italicized terms enclosed a larger italic scheme should be de-italicized. jSarek 01:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I suppose the discussion on my talk page took care of it. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 12:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Indeed; the page has been unprotected. jSarek 00:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
      • My English book still says otherwise, though. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 01:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Contradiction about Palpatine's return?

While most of the rank and file troops returned to loyal service, few of the warlords did, while most fled for their lives.

Return of Palpatine
Following the death of Thrawn, however, a new leader of the Empire emerged—a clone of Palpatine himself. Imbued with the dead despot's spirit, which had fled the death of his body at Endor, the clone proceeded to rebuild his Empire and six years later had finally regained the strength to again challenge the New Republic. Palpatine's clone regrouped the fragmented Empire's many warlords and loyal forces into a single unified force...

Hmm? Thanos6 13:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

• I don't see any contradiction. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 21:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  • The first part says most of the warlords fled, while the second part says they all joined. Thanos6 04:46, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
    • They were reunited after Palpatine returned. So, there is no contradiction. Chack Jadson 10:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Exactly. After Palpatine's first death, they scatter, but when he returns, they all come back. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 12:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
        • Um, then maybe it needs to be cleaned up, because it sure as hell looks to me like they're saying they scatter after Palpatine announces his return. Thanos6 15:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
          • I don't know what you're reading, then. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20:08, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Change from "Authoritarian Empire" to Totalitarian

Under the "type of government" section in the side chart, the Galactic Empire is described as an "authoritarian empire". I have been in a course that has been studying totalitarianism and describes the differences between simple authoritarianism that I think Wookiepedians should take note of.

Authoritarian regimes have no goal for society, they tend to not want to change society at all, they are usually want a government in stasis which allows them to secure their popularity, boost their ego and importance, make money, etc. The Galactic Empire does not fit this definition at all, though Palpatine was self-centred and egotistic, he DID have goals for the galaxy, which leads me to define totalitarianism.

Totalitarian governments, unlike authoritarian governments, want drastic change to society, they may take their time in doing so, but stasis is not an option. They wish to create a "perfect" society and will do anything to achieve it, even if it costs them popularity, which no simple authoritarian government would do.

The most noted example of a totalitarian government, Nazi Germany, is known key reference for George Lucas' concept of the Galactic Empire, i.e. stormtroopers in the movies, the "High Human Culture" relating to the Nazi's "Aryan Race" concept, the political use of terror as a key function of government ideology, rather than just an expediency, totalitarians use terror as part of their ideology, like the Tarkin Doctrine and Hitler's stormtroopers' terror campaign in the 20s and 30s for example. Finally, the Emperor's goal was to purge entire cultures, like the Jedi, similar to how Hitler purged mainly Jewish writers, soldiers, and politicians, and books advocating democracy, communism, or socialism.

Now that you know, I hope you concur with me in changing the chart's description of the Empire from "authoritarian empire" to "totalitarian empire". R-41 23:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

• I don't. Palpatine had goals for himself, but society itself did not change much. The Great Jedi Purge and Human High Culture were actually not sudden changes—Jedi were being purged all during the Clone Wars, and Human High Culture was established during the Clone Wars as well. Therefore, I think having it as "authoritarian empire" is perfectly fine. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 14:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Like you said, it didn't happen all at once, the fact that Jedi were being deliberately purged during the Clone Wars is still totalitarian in nature. Time is not a factor. Yes, Palpatine was self-interested, BUT, he did have the goal to set up a dark empire to destroy the Jedi. Hitler was extremely self-interested, but he had pathological hate of the Jews, and made government policy of killing Jews. Like authoritarian regimes, totalitarian regimes, have strong dictatorial leaders. Totalitarian leaders usually believe they are the "embodiment" of their agenda and goals for society. Authoritarian leaders want to gain a name for themselves, and boost their ego, nothing else is done, other than to protect them to do these. The difference between Palpatine and Hitler as well as Lenin, was that Palpatine had to work LONGER to destroy the republic and the Jedi, as it faced no immediate crisis like Germany and Russia in the real-world did when they took on totalitarian regimes. R-41 21:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I still say the Galactic Empire was authoritarian. Maybe it was even both. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 12:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Understanding the Empire free from GL prejudice

There are few things more obvious in the OT and EU than that the Empire represents the bad guys. According to this article, it had many negative traits:

1) Rule through fear

2) Zero political power to the masses

3) General speciesism

However, none of these are inherently negative on their own. If the alternative is beneficial to galactic society at large, and speciesism was limited to no alien emplyment to imperial positions, with this actually having a positive effect on the Galaxy, then these can be considered worthwhile changes to galactic government. As far as I've seen here and know myself, there were only two acts the Empire did on their own volition for no good reason, which can be classified as evil:

1) Permitting slavery

2) Destroying Camaas and scattering its population.

All other nagative acts commited by the Empire could be justified as acts of war to restore order to a galaxy rebelling, or changes that while nagative for some, might well benefit the Galaxy at large. Which brings me to the real question: Apart from these two acts, one pretty insignficant considering the large amount of inhabited planets in the Galaxy, the other questionable but not evil unless the Empire as an institution made use of slave labour themselves, what did the Empire canonically do that without question makes them worthy of the Nazi-like reputation they have in the public mind? If there are more examples than these two, they should ba added to the article. If not, I suggest a BTS mention of how their evil is grossly overplayed compared to what they actually did. DarthMRN 04:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

• GEORGE LUCAS "GL" PREDJUDICE!!! He made the movies man! The Empire is EVIL, that's what the whole story is about! The movies ARE the basis for the other books, magazines, etc. of Star Wars. Now come on, the empire destroyed Alderaan with billions of beings on it, and intended to use the Death Star to terrorize worlds into falling into line with the emperor or face annihilation, if that's not evil, I don't know what is. User:R-4110:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
  • But that is interpretation, not encyclopedic fact. We cannot say they were evil on basis of how they were portrayed. That is propaganda. Only occurences count.

Alderaan was an act of war, brought about by the campaigns of the Rebel Alliance. You may think whatever you want about the rashness of such measures, call it an unjust action and downright evil, but it was still an act of war that would not have found place if the Alliance had not existed. And regarding the evilness of destroying a planet as an act of war, I present exhibit A: [[21]] Jedi being responsible for the annihilation of a world, likely backed by the Republic. Still, I don't hear anything about the the Republic being evil. And the Tarkin doctrine was an attempt at bringing systems in line through fear of violence, rather than actually haveing to resort to violence. Sounds like a step up to me. DarthMRN 11:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• If the first three traits aren't inherently negative, then the two you mention aren't either. There are no ethical absolutes, but most modern conceptions of political ethics would say that rule through fear of violence is little better than ruling through violence itself, that a government that does not have the interests of its citizenry at heart and does not listen to their concerns is unjust, and that prejudice against irrelevant inborn traits is wrong. That slavery and attempted genocide are also wrong is merely icing on the cake. If one doesn't subscribe to these tenets, that's their choice, but they should know that they'll be pretty lonely and be labeled some unkind things. As for Palawa, it only states that the world was destroyed in the course of a war with the Jedi, not that an unsuspecting planet against which no declaration of war had been announced was obliterated in one swift stroke by the Jedi. A bit of a difference, I think. jSarek 11:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Oh, forgot to add evidence of further Imperial evil. Their speciesism led to actual genocide of races based on species (see Azgoghk and the Gulmarids). The Empire as an institution did employ slaves - Wookiee slaves were used havily in the construction of Death Star I, and Lurrians were enslaved for their genetic knowledge. The Empire also destroyed several other worlds that weren't in rebellion - their own penal world of Despayre, for example. Thrawn also exterminated an unnamed species when their artwork didn't provide him enough understanding to conquer them successfully. They regularly employed torture (A New Hope and The Empire Strikes Back for examples; for an extreme example, see Bevel Lemelisk). They experimented on their subjects (see Danetta Pitta and Evir Derricote). I don't think authors could have used a broader brush to paint these guys with evil traits than they already have. jSarek 11:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
    • See, this is what I'm talking about. Add it to the article as solid proof. And you are right, in the interest of moral relativism, the word evil should be excluded from the discussion. Let me ask this in stead: Do we have any sort of canonical proof that the results of the Empire's rule were less beneficial to the galaxy than that of the Republic? Can any clear internal destructive tendencies be seen, or were the practical benefits of each type of government equal enough to be considered merely political in difference?

I gotta ask, since it makes no sense that the Empire would treat its own member worlds in ways that would weaken them, and thus the Empire itself. And the personal greed of few high-ranking gand moffs and the Emperor himself couldn't possibly have been able to upset galactic economy in any noticable way. So with these things in mind, it seems totally unreasonable that the Empire could have acted counter to its own interests, by destroying tax-paying, productive worlds and commiting similar heinous deeds for no good reason, and without question made life far more miserable for everybody than during Republic Reign. If these things have been included in canon to demonstrate how "evil" they were, then that is fine, but I suspect much of this view is conjecture based on what is heavily implied in various media, rather than clear-cut fact.

In short, as an encyclopedia about what has evolved into a universe of its own, I consider it beneath us to so heavily reflect the black & white fairy-tale POV Lucas demonstrated in the OT, in light of real-world historical comparions it is possible to draw. RL-comparisons are fanon, but using the POV of the protagonists certainly violates NPOV. Where is the indisputable proof for the Empire being a big meanie? Circumstancial evidence and Lucas POV be damned! We are good enough to be able to support ourselves on canon facts alone, without resorting to bias! DarthMRN 13:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• • • • I'll attempt to sort my thought even further: If Leland Chee with 100% knowledge of canon, were to make a list of pros and cons with both the Galactic Empire and the Republic, based on canon occurences alone, would it be clear to anyone with half a brain that the Empire was by far the worst of the two, beyond mere political difference in view? If there is any sort of doubt about this, then phrases like the "Tyrannical Empire" and whatnot I see around the site are not NPOV. And another NPOV requirement should be that the Republic article lists as all canonical travesties committed during Republic reign, they way they are listed in this article. DarthMRN 14:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• Well obviously George Lucas has some opinions on what is evil and what is good. He happened to have made the movie in the 1970s, a period which was known for liberal values such as opposition to nuclear proliferation. Only 17 years prior there had been the threat of nuclear annihilation between the Soviet Union and the United States, and even before that the extremely controversial bombing of Hiroshima.

I don't want this blog to turn into some philisophical debate about what evil is, but I and many others view evil acts in war as being unjustly and un-needed destructive nature towards groups or individuals who have not entered into similar aggression against them or have little or no means to defend themselves. Just compare what the Trade Federation did to Naboo to what the Empire did to Alderaan. The Trade Federation did a controversial but initially reasonable effort to force changes by having a blockade around Naboo, this did not result in mass death and it gave them the neccessary leverage to do what they wanted, they were hesitant about invading Naboo, when who else but Palpatine tells them to go there and wipe out anyone who stood in the way. The Empire with its enormous military might which could have blockaded Alderaan or isolated it, but thought "they're all Rebel scum anyway, the whole planet should be destroyed." Not every person on Alderaan was a Rebel just like not everyone in Hiroshima was part of the Japanese military and no one with common sense would say that mass deaths of civilians is just a part of war. The destruction of Alderaan by the Death Star was an unneccessary act of aggression, which could have been solved by less (but stil mean) tactics.

By this I say, that while the Empire talked of security for the Galaxy, who were they protecting when they destroyed a planet that by all information I've seen was relatively peaceful. If the Empire wanted to bring about security by destroying planets why was its first target not some criminal underworld like Nar Shadda or Tatooine.

To sum up, THE ENDS DON'T JUSTIFY THE MEANS! Sure the Empire could have brought peace, order and security by imposing authoritarian laws and destroying all the beings and planets that they don't like, but that does not mean that such actions were warranted. Also you claim that ruling through fear of violence is better than ruling through violence itself. That is what the Empire tried initially, but what happens when people start to overcome the fear like the Rebel Alliance, did the Empire go belly up and surrender, No! Then it delivered exactly what it warned, violence by destroying Alderaan. Those who oppose to give in to fear will face violence. Rule by violence itself is usually anarchy, rule by fear of violence has been the most effective method of cold-hearted rule by some of the worst dictators in existance like Hitler and Stalin.

• This entire discussion is based off of users' points of view, and therefore will likely accomplish nothing. Please, there's no need to continue this. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  • You make a lot of good points. Both of you. We cannot bring views of good and evil into an encyclopedia. Initially I started this in an attept to locate more sources justifying the universal; the empire is super-bad, viewpoint, which I thought the article didn't support at all. The Empire was crappy in a lot of areas compared to the Republic, but overall, if this article alone is any indication, they weren't half bad, all things considered. So I wanted more info, and it turned into a rant. Sorry about that.

However, am I to understand that the only canon history we have for the Empire are one travesty after another? Otherwise I shout bad NPOV! Lucas' views you mention at the top of your last comment has been thouroughly projected to the fans, and I fear this has affected NPOV. Someone say, Empire = Hell, and not even the staunchest NPOV'er will lift an eyebrow, because that is what he considers canon as well.

So, what I'm saying is, unless the canonical history of the Empire is one consiting of nothing but travesties, this article is not NPOV. It is possible to write in an neutral tone, while rigging what info to include and what not to, in order to project a certain image, and then we are back to square one in terms of NPOV. The Republic article is by and large very neutral, even though it lists the Republics clear down-sides, while this article has a sub-header named "The Dark Times" and a picture of palpatine with the words "galactic tyrant", and words like "tyranny" in it. If the Republic wins a war, it says "defeated". If the Empire does, it says "subjugated", "conquered", or "devastated". Such descriptions shouldn't have any place on an encyclopedia. Imagine how fast the Nazi article on Wikipedia would be edited if it was described with anywhere near the kind of bias that shines through our Empire article.

Don't be Michael Moore! List canonical facts and leave them like that. If the Empire was as bad as everybody seems to think, listing the facts alone, without SW fanboy bias should be more than adequate to prove it. Featured article material my arse... DarthMRN 21:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• Please, don't add more wood into the fire. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 21:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Im critizising the lack of NPOV in this article in particular and Wookieepedia in general, and you are are calling it personal views?! DarthMRN 21:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Yes. Because that's what this whole discussion is about. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 21:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
    • There is nothing to discuss. Star Wars has formally decreed that the Empire is evil. Analysis of whether this is true is fanon. So maybe the Empire isn't all that bad? Maybe it was just set up so that bad folk got to take charge. I don't know. As I already said, that's fanon. Karohalva 21:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Formally decreed? It has?! COOL! Source me! DarthMRN 21:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
        • Sorry Nebulax, for going off, I just found the notion of "GL prejudice" to be a little over the top. But DarthMRN can think what can think what he can.
          • Please, don't apologize. It happens to everyone. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 23:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
            • I'm still waiting for that source, Karohalva. And Neb: Your trademark method of delivering unfounded final words and expect them to end the discussion won't work any more here than anywhere else. I claim this article is biased, in violation of NPOV, and my reasons are outlined in my earlier comments. If you disagree, argue your case, or I will edit this to sound a little more like the Republic article. DarthMRN 23:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
              • How about this: You do that, I revert it. If you keep that up, I'll get the admins to give you a block. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 23:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
                • Come on, Neb. You can do better than that. Shut off anti-vandal mode for a moment and use that keybord to make some sort of argument for yourself. Tell me how "Palpatine, galactic tyrant" can possibly fit within NPOV. Confirm or deny that the only Canon history of the Empire consists of one questionable act after another. You start reverting without giving any reasons even when asked, and we'll see who gets banned by the admins. DarthMRN 23:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
                  • The Three-Revert-Rule knows no right or wrong. We'd both be banned. Anyway, if you can't realize that the Galactic Empire was bad, I think you need to start re-reading every appearance it's in. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 23:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
• I don't question that the Empire was bad. I question that it is portrayed as such in more than strictly factual terms. Anyone can make a valid opinion on just how bad the Empire was for themselves, as long as that opinion is based on completely neutral descriptions of its actions and policies, free of the kind of descriptors and sentence-rigging evident in this article. Even more so if it is to be nominated for Featured Article. DarthMRN 23:58, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  • What I don't get is this: You claim you don't question that the Empire was bad, yet you're basically arguing against that portrayal, which is how the Empire is constantly shown in the movies. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 23:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
    • On a strictly personal level I do think it is fairytale BS, which makes no logical sense whatsoever. But this is Wookieepedia, my views are fanon. The NPOV requirement isn't. Look at the Wikipedia articles for Nazi and Adolf Hitler. Notice how they have been painstakingly written in as neutral a tone as possible, using as much political and military terminology as possible in stead of juicy descriptions, leading to an article that would otherwise have been overwhelmed with bias actually being factually neutral. It doesn't have to say "Hitler was a mass-murdering SOB a**hole" when it says his racist politics was responsible for the deaths of millions of jews. Words "tyrant", "tyranny" and what else we find here doesn't leave it up to the reader to decide what to think. I suggest a fix clearing that up, as well as adding more factual material to support this alledged evil status. As I said at the beginning, I don't find this article to support the generally held view of the Empire, and you suggest I should refresh my memory. That implies that the article doesn't contain all the info there is, so if there is enough canon to back up what you say, include it! DarthMRN 00:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Well, let's remember that Star Wars never happened. It's only been portrayed one way. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 02:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
        • So what about writing the article as neutral as possible and adding a section "the "evil" Galactic Empire", which is written in a out-of-universe-style? This section would include for example: "The Imperials are shown in the movies as the bad guys. Their leaders are doing typical James-Bond-enemy-actions, like:

- killing their own minions

- torturing of prisoners

- unnecessary sacrificing of their own minions

- prefering violence over diplomacy....

Additionally, some of the leaders have dedicated their life to a religion that centeres on the achieving of power at all(!) costs. Their minions however are shown as typical followers. They never question the orders of their leaders, even if it includes unnecessary violence against obviously innocent people. They either totally lack of moral courage, or they are amoral. However, the Imperials have some positive attributes, giving them some fans in the community. For example:

- looking bad (= cool)

- having more power and/or powerful weapons and/or physical abilities (used in the wrong way, of course)

- staying mysterious, what makes them interesting.

- strong characters that never change their agenda, don't hesitate, do not fear, make quick decisions..."

I can write such a section, if you want. However, my native language is Ewokese, so you would have to check for errors.--TeakHoken91.7.24.121 19:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

• Look, the Empire did not have to be evil. According to Thrawn, it wasn't. He had a point. In fact, in the Legacy era, the Empire under the Fels was good. In theory, it could have been good. But it wasn't, and never could be because it was ruled by a Sith. That's the key point. It was ruled by a Sith, making it inherently evil. But saying the Empire wasn't evil, well, that just takes away from the point of the OT. While you may have a point, few people want to admit it. Chack Jadson 19:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
  • In addition, such a section wouldn't do the article any good. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 23:27, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
    • True. It's too off-topic. I think it's like this: states, empires or rebellions are abstract entities. They are neither good nor bad. It's always the people who are affiliated to it that make it good or bad. May it be by doing something in the name of the state or by not doing it. For example every citizen in the Empire or in any other State in the real world has the option to assassinate its leader.--TeakHoken91.7.50.153 18:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Well, like I've said, everything basically comes down to point-of-view. However, the majority of sources portray the Empire as horrible (having a saga of movies showing no POV would just be pointless), so we follow that. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 19:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
        • No, I mean the Empire as an abstract thing is in fact neutral. It's the Imperials who are evil.--TeakHoken91.7.44.136 18:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
          • I suppose you're right. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
            • Maybe the Imperials commited atrocities, but were they worse than the Republic? It had grown useless,corrupted ,and powerless. This changed when Palpatine became Chancellor. I don't suppport him, but I think the shocking effects of his rule were beneficial to the Galaxy as a whole.

Don't forget, the Old Jedi Order commited atrocities as well, remember this?: Padawan Massacre of Taris —Unsigned comment by General Katarn (talk • contribs).

• • • • • • • • And you should always make a difference between times of war and times of peace. Is it possible NOT to commit atrocities when taking part in a war? I say no. War means to kill, to destroy, to capture.... That's no excuse of course! A really good (* see my comment above) system should always try to end the war - without violence. Have you ever heard of such a system?--TeakHoken91.7.41.24 13:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

End of the Empire

Was the empire ever truly wiped out? I don't think there was ever a book about that(or a comic book)Starwarrior555 19:19, 15 December 2007 (UTC)Starwarrior555

• I would say not. The Empire stopped being the dominant galactic power, but they were never truly destroyed. From the Remnant to the new Empire from the LOTF comic series, the Empire has been around since Palpatine started it. So again, there has technically been no end of the Empire. --LtCol. JuiceStain 00:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the end would have come after the death of Darth Wyyrlok III. Although I see no things about his death.

List of defectors

I have been searching for a comprehensive list of Imperial officers, dignitaries, etc. who defected over the years. Do we have one on wookieepedia that I just haven't found yet? Or should one be started and link to from this page? Medleystudios72 03:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

• I, too, can't find that list...but starting one is a good idea, in my opinion--JuiceStain 16:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

British Accents

Is this really accurate? Yes, most of the Imperial officers speak with British accents, but most lower-class Imperials (ie stormtroopers and starship crew) speak with American accents. 130.64.31.169 00:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

• It's a representation of a social class. The British accent probably represents the upper or middle class.--The All-knowing Sith'ari 16:16, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• I cannot recall the direct statements he issued, but Irvin Kershner, the director for The Empire Strikes Back provided some insight as to why he (not Lucas) selected actors with British accents for ESB. One such reason, if my memory serves me right, was the simple fact that they were filming on a British sound stage, heh. I can't reference my DVDs at the moment, but I want to say these statements were made during the "Making of" (?) feature from the bonus disc of the Trilogy DVD release. JoelBray 05:48, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
• Okay, I spent the last few hours researching and I finally located what I was looking for. In the Special Edition DVD release of The Empire Strikes Back, while the movie is playing with DVD commentary active, ESB's director, Irvin Kershner, begins speaking during the cut between the "Nerf herder" and "Princess, we have a visitor" scenes (Echo Base med lab cutting to the command center). As General Carlist Rieekan begins to deliver his lines, Kershner explains: "The actors that I chose, in England, were British. There were just a couple of Americans and what I wanted to do was make all the bad guys British, and all the good guys American. But sometimes I didn't have the actors so I had to use British actors and put American voices on them." Kershner then goes on to briefly describe how "a lot of the picture [ESB] was dubbed" for various set sound contamination. Kershner is then followed by commentary by Ben Burtt, Star Wars film sound designer. Kershner, in this instance, could have been referencing actor Bruce Boa, as a prime example, assuming that his voice was dubbed for his scenes (whether due to native accent or background noise contamination though is unknown). If other users approve, I'd like to have Kershner's explanation for Imperial character accents added to the Behind the Scenes portion of this article. I hope I've made some contribution! :) JoelBray 05:16, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
• Oh, and during the bonus DVD containing the documentary, Empire of Dreams, when actor selection for the A New Hope is being presented to viewers, the majority of secondary character actors (i.e. Tarkin, Chewbacca, R2-D2, C-3PO, and various extras... or Darth Prowse, heh) are themselves British or otherwise not native to the United States. The same goes for various film crews (at least during the first cut of the film) due to sound stage scenes being filmed in England, not in Hollywood. I would say that a typical call for "extras" and actors is more efficient in the film shooting's native location, rather than people transported in, so with the exception of Kershner's explanation of choice in "bad guy accents" this whole British accent having any relevance to the Galactic Empire might be utterly unimportant. Thoughts? JoelBray 05:33, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Hmm, I can't help thinking that when casting for the Imperials was underway, George thought; "Hey! Who had an empire? The British."--The All-knowing Sith'ari 21:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Members list

Hey are there any page that list members of the Empire? Luke did not join the Empire unlike his sister, Han Solo and even his best friend Biggs.(ZOCOM 9 08:34, 1 October 2008 (UTC))

Jerec leader?

Just wondering but wasn't Jerec ruler of the empire in some way? Either another warlord like Trioculus or leader of one of the remnants? --Vitas 05:24, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, Jerec was a Warlord, but I don't think he was very powerful compared to the vast numbers of other warlords with more military connections--99.141.182.145 18:52, April 1, 2010 (UTC)

Astrography--More specific info

The Astrography section says the Empire at its height consisted of over a million member worlds and about 50 million other worlds and/or protectorates. While I am not disputing this, a recent source (The Essential Atlas) pegs the number at about 1.75 million member worlds, and about 69 million colonies. This is still "over 1 million" but I think 750,000 is a big enough number that a distinction could be made. I'm new here, this would be my first non-grammar related edit, and I wanted to make sure this would be an acceptable change to make. Any advice is greatly appreciated. (Hase Rux 04:48, April 8, 2010 (UTC))

The Dark Empire issue 3 stated the galaxy had twelve million inhabited systems. But The Essential Atlas says 1.75 million member worlds and 69 million colonies, protectorates, and governorships. I will modify the section to fit what is said in The Essential Atlas. --Larry Young 14:25, July 25, 2010 (UTC)

Someone should make a list... Venators 06:42, September 14, 2010 (UTC)

Imperial Inner Circle

The Imperial Inner Circle did exist, so why is it not mentioned?KitFisto19BBY 20:50, March 14, 2012 (UTC)

• It is mentioned several times, under the name Imperial Ruling Council. LelalMekha 20:54, March 14, 2012 (UTC)

Then why is it called the Imperial Ruling Council if it is well known as the Imperial Inner Circle. It is just confusing.KitFisto19BBY 20:11, March 15, 2012 (UTC)

• While an institution my be well known under a "common" or vernacular name, it still has an official name. "Imperial Ruling Council" is the real name of that board of advisors, while "Imperial Inner Circle" is just a popular nickname. We list institutions under their official names (cf. "Alliance to Restore the Republic" and not "Rebellion"). LelalMekha 01:52, March 16, 2012 (UTC)

I have never read a source that mentions it as Imperial Ruling Council. Do you know one?KitFisto19BBY 14:52, March 16, 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, I do. Star Wars: X-Wing Rogue Squadron: Mandatory Retirement (TPB). LelalMekha 15:40, March 16, 2012 (UTC)

Figureheads?

Down in the government/politics section of this article is says "Emperor Palpatine, Darth Vader and the common Stormtrooper, figureheads of the Galactic Empire". While the stormtroopers are obviously cannon fodder, Palpatine and Vader are far from figureheads. Figureheads being powerless symbols at the head of something. I think we all know that both Sith had a very large amount of power in the empire. --Jaguartalon (talk) 05:13, November 2, 2012 (UTC)

• I am no native speaker of the English language, so I might have misused the word. I intended to say those three were the "living symbols" of the Imperial might. --LelalMekha (talk) 10:11, November 2, 2012 (UTC)

Anthem

Can Imperial March be added as the anthem? Does anyone know of any sources confirming that it is an anthem of the Empire? In a few games, NPCs can be heard whistling the tune so it is definitely an in-universe tune. --Saboteur100 (talk) 17:15, January 5, 2013 (UTC)

Behind the Scenes

I believe this is the interview with AP referenced in the Behind the Scenes section:

"We were just funding Saddam Hussein and giving him weapons of mass destruction. We didn't think of him as an enemy at that time. We were going after Iran and using him as our surrogate, just as we were doing in Vietnam. ... The parallels between what we did in Vietnam and what we're doing in Iraq now are unbelievable."

The prequel trilogy is based on a back-story outline Lucas created in the mid-1970s for the original three "Star Wars" movies, so the themes percolated out of the Vietnam War and the Nixon-Watergate era, he said.

Lucas began researching how democracies can turn into dictatorships with full consent of the electorate.

In ancient Rome, "why did the senate after killing Caesar turn around and give the government to his nephew?" Lucas said. "Why did France after they got rid of the king and that whole system turn around and give it to Napoleon? It's the same thing with Germany and Hitler.

"You sort of see these recurring themes where a democracy turns itself into a dictatorship, and it always seems to happen kind of in the same way, with the same kinds of issues, and threats from the outside, needing more control. A democratic body, a senate, not being able to function properly because everybody's squabbling, there's corruption."

What was happening in America during the Vietnam era proved an inspiration for Lucas' ideas. We know that similarly Nixon's attempt to consolidate power and bend the Constitution proved the inspiration for Lucas to look at how dictators emerge. Thus it is wrong to assume the Empire is based in part on America, as the wording in the Behind the Scenes section suggests, but rather the issues of the time provoked a look at the historical concepts of dictatorship.

I think the same applies for Vietnam, as while Lucas acknowledged the war as an inspiration for the Battle of Endor, he was more looking at the idea of the will of the people being able to overcome technological might. If you listen to the ROTJ commentary, Lucas describes this, and goes through some historical cases such as in the Roman Empire repeating this notion.

60.225.195.213 10:39, August 5, 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I'm doubtful that he gave any thought on it other than the Vietcong. I remember watching Han Shot First on Afterburner, and it was made very clear that Lucas' direct intentions for the Ewoks were an analog the Vietcong, and that the Empire was supposed to represent America. And I'm suspecting that he stated it in the Empire of Dreams segment (Haven't watched it, but that was the thing that popped up when I searched for it), either that or the ESB commentary.

If, and I give emphasis on the word "if", Lucas was simply trying to show the human spirit overcoming technological superiority, then please explain why it is that he didn't even bother citing the actions of the Minutemen led by then-General George Washington during the American War of Independence, if he even gave any consideration of it? My Aunt Susan is just about as liberal as Lucas is, and she spent her time protesting at her university more than studying, yet even she was aware of the exploits of the Minutemen and their usage of Guerilla Warfare. Heck, even ignoring America for just one minute, the French Resistance during World War II and their actions would have worked just as well. I'd comment on the rest of the post (namely Lucas' reference to the French Revolution), but I don't think its quite on-topic anyways.

We're keeping it in as-is, and that's final. Weedle McHairybug (talk) 11:38, August 5, 2013 (UTC)

Citations requested for this article

Other than the infobox, "Death throes," and "Economy" sections, there are barely any citations. This article is in dire need of sourcing. Please help if you can.--Richterbelmont10 ^{(come in R2!)} 16:33, September 12, 2013 (UTC)

• I'm still seeing people adding unsourced information to this article.--Richterbelmont10 ^{(come in R2!)} 01:31, September 24, 2013 (UTC)

Editor problems

Hi.

I'm trying to add in information from Time Magazine dated April 22, 2002 around the time Attack of the Clones was to be released where Lucas, when explaining what formed the basis for Star Wars, in particular the Republic becoming the Empire, implied that besides Nixon, the Kennedy family was also an influence on this particular plot point. The edit is as follows:

"In an interview for TIME magazine regarding the then-upcoming Star Wars: Episode II Attack of the Clones regarding the connection of the Empire and the Republic, Lucas also implied that, besides Nixon, another influence on the Empire had been the Kennedy family.<ref name="Dark Victory">https://web.archive.org/web/20020423000824/http://www.time.com/time/sampler/article/0,8599,232440,00.html</ref>"

However, for some reason, it won't actually apply the edit regardless of what I do, with the error message saying either of the following:

"Warning: Your attempt to edit this article with the VisualEditor interface has resulted in mangled code, and thus has been blocked. Please try your edit again with a different editor. Source Editor can be accessed by clicking the menu icon to the left of the Cancel button and selecting Source Editor from that dropdown list.

If you are not using the VisualEditor and have received this error, your edit contains improper formatting that is typical of VisualEditor edits. Fixing these will allow your edit to be saved. Common occurrences include: Using Crucible instead of the correct Crucible Using extraneous spaces in headers, such as == Appearances == "

Or

"This action has been automatically identified as harmful, and therefore disallowed. If you believe your edit was constructive, please inform an administrator of what you were trying to do. A brief description of the abuse rule which your action matched is: VisualEditor derpage"

Can someone tell me how to actually apply the edit? Weedle McHairybug (talk) 12:54, June 20, 2017 (UTC)

EDIT: Never mind, I managed to get the edit in. Though I'll admit it was odd that it only took after I did a carriage return, since that wasn't a problem with the other edits. Weedle McHairybug (talk) 13:08, June 20, 2017 (UTC)