Talk:Imperial Remnant

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Star Wars Portal
This article is part of WikiProject Star Wars, which aims to build an encyclopedic guide to the Star Wars saga on Wikipedia. To participate, you can improve this article or visit the project page for more information.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. Please rate the article and leave a message on the talk page to explain the ratings and to identify possible improvements to the article.

Contents

[edit] geez

Why don't you people just go over to wookiepedia? This in-universe stuff really damages wikipedia's credibility. 208.42.129.30 (talk) 16:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit]

I have removed the term "fascist" from the description of the organization because there is no evidence of totalitarianism or corporativism in the Imperial Remnant, and these are the most distinctive features of fascism (indeed, Mussolini coined the term "totalitarian" to describe his regime, and made frequent use of the motto Tutto nello Stato, niente al di fuori dello Stato, nulla contro lo Stato). There is simply no evidence of this in the Imperial Remnant; by all accounts it appears to be authoritarian rather than totalitarian, and there is far too little information about its economic policies to make even such tentative remarks about them. The use of the term "fascist" is imprecise and based on little to no evidence, and should not be used in an encyclopaedic article. Publius 05:23, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] I'm not an expert, but...

...well, going by the initial line of the definition of 'fascism' from Wikipedia:

"...refers to the right-wing authoritarian political movement..."

Given, I don't know exactly which way the political compass of the Star Wars universe points, but the Empire is definitvely authoritarian, and it definitely supports the proposition that the individual is inferior to the state writ large, even after the Bastion Accords (The New Essential Guide to Characters entry for Gilad Pellaeon briefly describes life in the post-treaty Empire as having "limited venues of individual expression" or the like). Initially, I had used the terminology out of deference for the fellow over at The Force.Net that originally used that descriptor, even though I didn't quote him here (it didn't seem like the thing to do). His original turn of phrase was, "[w]ell, they're still technically an empire, even if they haven't an emperor (and we're [sic] all a lot better off without him!), so I think they're more of a light fascist oligarchy." It was a very memorable quote, so I erred on the side of nostalgia.

That all said, if you desperately feel that it's not appropriate, I suppose the wording can be altered. "Has been described as..." or "is debatably..." or somesuch would be perfectly acceptable. I still think that the modifier 'light' in front of fascist makes the phrase work with a fair degree of accuracy, but again, it's not exactly a make-it or break-it point of contention for me.

What I do object to is the sporadic and inceasant reworking of warship descriptors. 'Star Frigate', as I recall, is the most commonly used term, and it is simply not correct in the context of the vessels that are continually revised. But that is neither here nor there. Just let me know what you think so we can come to some degree of concensus and kludge something more mutually agreeable together.


As early as 1946, George Orwell wrote in "Politics and the English Language" that "the word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies 'something not desirable.'" When your unidentified fellow described the Imperial Remnant as "a light fascist oligarchy," what precisely did he mean to say? Although it seems a neat turn of phrase and good prose is to be desired, "light fascism" is regrettably devoid of meaning: How does one distinguish "light fascism" from "fascism," especially in light of the fact that Benito Mussolini himself called fascism "totalitarian"? How can one have limited totality? Merely being Rightist and authoritarian is not enough to identify a regime with fascism, which, as the Wikipedia article notes, is totalitarian, corporativist, nationalist, and extremely hostile to socialism. How many of these distinguishing characteristics are seen in the Imperial Remnant? Aside from the fact that it is predictably illiberal in philosophy and does not permit a high degree of freedom of expression, this can hardly be said to identify it as fascist, lest one arrive at the farcical idea that one might also call Cardinal Duc de Richelieu a fascist. Publius 05:54, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough. Again, it's not something that I'm going to get all worked up about. I think I'll delete 'light', though--'light oligarchy' doesn't sound particularly good off the tongue. I'll also add in the bit about 'authoritarian' as a replacement for 'light fascist'. Mayhap 'light authoratarian'?

Anywho, I would also submit that the initial summary for 'fascism' be reworded so as to make it clearer that authoritarianism is insufficient, and that genuine totalitarianism is a prerequisite.


which, as the Wikipedia article notes, is totalitarian, corporativist, nationalist, and extremely hostile to socialism. How many of these distinguishing characteristics are seen in the Imperial Remnant?
The remnant is totalitarian, and nationalistic, Im fairly sure its corporativist, though im not 100%. It isnt massively against socialism however AFAIR, but that isnt apparently a neccesity of facism (though I cant see a fascist state in reality existing without it.), just simple apprehensiveness towards socialism is enough to technically be facist, I cant remember the remnants stance however, but seeing as it was a dictatorial totalitarian state I would imagine it being fairly apprehensive towards socialism by nature. 195.171.111.194 14:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Imperial Emblem.gif

Image:Imperial Emblem.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)