Talk:Grand Moff Tarkin/Archive 1

Archive 1

Copyright

reference

So let me get this straight, this was copied from another site, it says so at the bottom and nobody ever said anything.

Apparently so. I've reverted to the last "clean" version --rbrwrˆ 22:04, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

For those coming in late, the copyvio was from Star Wars Homepage (Grand Moff Tarkin) and has been up for about a month and a half. --rbrwrˆ 22:06, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Can you clarify the situation? My understanding was that the Star Wars Homepage gave permission for this to be copied over to Wilk. Much as the same procedure as Commodore (rank) was from the Naval Historical Society. --User:Husnock 31 Jul 04

Now that I didn't know. I have no history of editing Star Wars articles on Wikipedia, and just happened to notice the anon comment above on Recent Changes, so I don't have any specialist knowledge of copyrights in this area.

The use is clearly not permissable under the standard copyright on starwars.com, which states "Any use of any of the materials on this Site other than for private, non-commercial viewing purposes is strictly prohibited." If special permission was granted, that should be recorded somewhere and the specific terms should be made clear. Have they licensed this article under the GFDL so that we can edit it as we please and allow downstream users to make commercial use of it? If not, we probably shouldn't be using it. Are there any other articles licensed in this way, or is Grand Moff Tarkin the only one? I've had a quick look and can't see any that match the starwars.com articles. Who at Lucasfilm gave the permission? Do we have it in writing, as an e-mail perhaps?

So I think my question is: can you clarify the situation? What made you think that Lucasfilm had given permission for you to copy this article over? If they have given permission, that's excellent news, but forgive me for being a bit skeptical. --rbrwrˆ 09:22, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Self-contradiction

The article is self-contradictory...the picture describes him as "loyal" who "carries out Palpatine's will", but then implies him a plot to gain power? Isn't that not loyal and more of cunning? Or was he loyal, but Palpatine was paranoid as usual and decided to purge him? Ie. sort of like Stalin using Yezhov to head the NKVD to do the dirty work then pure him afterwards? (But I'm more of thinking Vader was the loyal one, and perhaps Tarkin the dangerous one?) I don't follow Star Wars much, so I do not know. --Natalinasmpf 00:30, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

A defining feature of the Sith (and by extension, the Empire), is that they are very loyal... up until the moment they plunge the dagger in their superior's back. --maru (talk) contribs 19:05, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Tarkin shows no signs of being anything but loyal to the Empire on-film; even Vader seems at ralative ease around him. It is the (often criticized) EU who hints that he might have been considering a power play. The EU is canon unless directly contridicted by higher canon, such as the movies or what Lucas himself decides.

Tarkin can plan to be in line of succession -- and still be entirely loyal. Chesspride216.144.161.51 (talk) 19:07, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

TARKIN DIES ON THE DEATH STAR

Is it clear in the film that Tarkin actually dies when the Death Star explodes? I mean-- is there a scene that confirms? Otherwise, how do we know he dies when the ship explodes? Is it assumed? Is there dialogue? A mention in a later film? Or is it equally plausible that he survived in an escape pod -- as Darth Vader does explicitly on screen, etc. Chesspride216.144.161.51 (talk) 19:07, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Move

The move to "General Tarkin" is erroneous and stupid. I'm contacting an admin to fix it. — Phil Welch 19:27, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Or we could just revert it and turn General Tarkin into a redirect.

I wasn't really thinking straight for that period of time. But Governor Tarkin would be an appropriate move. --A Link to the Past 01:39, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

I thought we generally left articles at the most common name or their highest rank? Lord know Grand Moff Tarkin is a lot more common than Governor Tarkin... --maru (talk) contribs 19:05, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Canonicity

The source for all this exposition is... what? Novelizations? Are those considered canonical in the SW world? I suspect some characterization is in order...
--Baylink 23:03, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Check the article on Star Wars canon, or Star Wars Gamer Magazine #6 (October/November 2001), page 113 where it cites Sue Rostoni, an editor with Lucas Licensing

"Our goal is to present a continuous and unified history of the Star Wars galaxy, insofar as that history does not conflict with, or undermine the meaning of Mr. Lucas's Star Wars saga of films and screenplays. Things that Lucas Licensing does not consider official parts of Star Wars history show an Infinities logo or are contained in Star Wars Tales. Everything else is considered canon.".

The Star Wars tradition is that everything is canon unless it's explicitly non-canonical (like some stories and comic books clearly marked as such) or been specifically disowned from the Canon (extremely rare, but some late 1970's comic strips run in newspapers are totally irreconcilable with the rest of Canon). If anything conflicts, there is a specific hierarchy to specify what is correct. First is the movies themselves and statements directly from George Lucas, then there are adaptations of movies like the novelizations and radio plays, then there is the vast bulk of Star Wars Expanded Universe material like novels and comic books. Then some secondary source material (which are generally accepted as long as they don't conflict).

Thus, if an official product gives the backstory and exposition of a character, and it isn't contradicted by anything higher up in the Canon chain, it's canon. Some parts of the Prequels, like the planet Coruscant, came first from the novels, and Lucas took them from the novels to use in the movie. Lucas has also vetoed some plot developments and revelations in novels because he disagreed with them, so everything does get a very extensive official review to ensure it fits within the canon. Some hardcore fans only acknowledge the movies themselves as Canon, but even Lucasfilm disagrees with that. Some casual fans also may make the mistake if they first came from Star Trek, which holds that only the TV shows and movies are canon, and never any novels or licensed materials. --Wingsandsword 04:36, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Grand Moff Tarkin/Archive 1 removed from Wikipedia:Good articles

Grand Moff Tarkin/Archive 1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was formerly listed as a good article, but was removed from the listing because of lack of references. There are no references other than a single embedded HTML link that does not mention the subject of the article. --Allen3 ^talk 01:57, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Excellent point, sorry for not noticing. Ill find some for it in a little bit. --American Patriot 1776 14:21, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

No no, leave it to me. I would have done it already, but I was busy with Rule of two. --maru (talk) contribs 19:01, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, I however will also search for references as this article is very well written and should be placed on the Good Articles list once it has some! American Patriot 1776 20:28, 17 February 2006 (UTC) Theres some links to start with. I also included the movies because they are critical in looking at who Tarkin is. American Patriot 1776 20:54, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I think its good now! American Patriot 1776 04:52, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

i dont. wikilinks are not referenced, the order is all messed up (why is revenge of the sith more important than star wars?), and most importantly the article "should not omit any major facets of the topic" - i.e. why this char is important, what was goerge lucas' intentions in creating this character, what was his impact outside of the star wars universe etc? as it stands its just starwarscruft. delisted.

ROTS comes before ANH because that is in chronological order. --maru (talk) contribs 03:22, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes and what exactly is this supposed to mean "should not omit any major facets of the topic" and does the article have to be relevent to anything but the subject its on? Just because it has no bearing on our daily life doesn't make it any more or any less well written than another article. American Patriot 1776 01:41, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

This article is shocking - how could it ever have been nom'd as a "good article"? It is not canon, and its accounts are highly subjective/interpretive -- the description of Tarkin & Vader's association is unclear and inaccurate (although, at least it refers to something all SW fans are familiar with). The author seems to be primarily concerned with downplaying Vader's (bureaucratic, not existential) inferiority to Tarkin.

Maybe one day I'll fix it... This article sounds remarkably like someone's private use of SW characters for RPG purposes - perhaps a link to fan uses and interpretations of SW could be added.

Confusing

I find this article confusing because it seems to list a whole pile of incident's in the character's life without saying what works they occurred in. Incidents from the movies seem to be mixed up with incidents from later novels. It would be much better if we could sort out what occurred in the moves from what occurred in other novels. DJ Clayworth 16:00, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Its called "in-universe perspective" and its an Wikipedia no-no for just that reason WP:WAF. This article seems to be monument to how not to write an article. Odd that it ever was considered a "good article". Halfblue 04:11, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Wilhuff

Sorry, but I think it's odd to include this EU information at the head of the article and in the infobox for a character as well known as Grand Moff Tarkin. The vast majority of the public would be unaware of this information, making the article confusing rather than informative. There's nothing wrong with mentioning EU notions such as this name, but as it has not appeared in the films, it should be restricted to the body of the article.Rhindle The Red 01:26, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed; I changed it to Grand Moff Tarkin, since that name is good enough for the article title. Tempshill (talk) 07:27, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Poorly titled sections "Revenge of the Sith" and "A New Hope."

These sections are poorly titled. Naming the sections after works in the Star Wars saga creates the impression that the contents of the sections refer to events in the eponymous works. This is not the case.

Because the two sections, taken together, describe the arc of Tarkin's career, I recommend that they be merged into one section called something like "Overview of Tarkin's career."

I'll do it myself if I can figure out how. Capedia 20:34, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I figured it out. It wasn't difficult. Capedia

Tarkin's action figure

Is this figure the only one Grand Moff Tarkin action figure ever created? --David Pro 16:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Death Star the novel

Tarkin has, understandable, a noteable (IMHO) role in the novel 'Death Star'. Lots42 (talk) 23:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

yes, I would agree that it is very notable, he oversees almost all of the construction and has many POV chapters Missingno21 (talk) 03:56, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Redirect

This is mostly in-universe plot summary, with no citations to third-party sources to establish notability. I am redirecting this to List of Star Wars characters. Please feel free to add there any sort of that real-world/development stuff, but only if cited to sources. --EEMIV (talk) 14:44, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

So... User:Gamaliel undid the redirect. Anyone going to offer up a reason why any of the cruft in this article should be preserved? The cited material added by User:Uncle G I'm happy to migrate to the List of, but none of those items asserts any independent notability for the subject. --EEMIV (talk) 18:49, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I think Uncle G's work is more than enough to have this article stand on its own. Gamaliel (talk) 19:18, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, there's more information here than can be gracefully incorporated into the list. I think the article can stand on its own now. Kudos to Uncle G. Zagalejo^^^ 02:57, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Clone Wars

Tarkin is apparently a good guy in the Clone Wars tv series. Is he really a good guy, and he switches to the dark side later line Anakin did, or is he secretly already on the dark side like Palpatine is? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.182.207.184 (talk) 05:06, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

He's portrayed as a good guy in the first encounter, insofar as that the "Republic" is the good guys in the series, and he is on the side of the Republic, but according to Tarkin, he was already a friend of Palpatine and was likely working for him — Preceding unsigned comment added by Missingno21 (talk • contribs) 03:57, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Production

I don't think that sentence is structured very well, because he didn't outright refuse to wear boots. It should read "Cushing found the boots supplied by the costume department to be uncomfortable, and only wore them in scenes that were necessary. In all of the shots that did not show his feet, he wore slippers." or something to that effect... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.111.55.26 (talk) 10:58, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Grand Moff Tarkin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100414111103/http://www.starwars.com:80/databank/character/grandmofftarkin to http://www.starwars.com/databank/character/grandmofftarkin/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:08, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Lead section

I recently expanded the lead section of the article as follows:

"Grand Moff Wilhuff Tarkin, also known as Governor Tarkin, is a fictional character in the Star Wars universe. He was portrayed by Peter Cushing in the original Star Wars film (1977), in which the character was killed off. A younger version of the character, played by Wayne Pygram, briefly appears in the prequel film Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith (2005). Tarkin also appears in the animated series Star Wars: The Clone Wars and Star Wars Rebels, in both cases voiced by Stephen Stanton, and makes numerous further appearances in non-canonical expanded universe material. The character has been called "one of the most formidable villains in Star Wars history."

Following this, I found my edit reverted by User:EEMIV, with the rationale: "Unnecessary detail/trivia for lede; more appropriate in e.g. Appearances section or infobox." As it stands, the lead provides very basic context, stating little other than that Tarkin is a Star Wars villain, played by Peter Cushing. Surely more context than that is needed to establish notability; for example, the current lead tells us little about Tarkin's relative importance within the franchise, and I would argue that some brief explanation of which Star Wars media feature him is hardly "trivia". I'd point to the lead section of Jabba the Hutt, which is a featured article, in support of this. Anyway, thoughts? Jellyman (talk) 19:23, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Crediting Cushing for Rouge one

In the portrayal box, Currently he's credited with a note explaining in which capacity, (clarifying that The Movie credits him with a special acknowledgement)should this be kept or removed from the article?Emrabt (talk) 02:48, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Kept89.240.165.149 (talk) 08:20, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Crediting Peter Cushing for Rogue One is factually inaccurate. While the character has been made to very closely resemble Peter Cushing, it isn't actually him. There are many articles on the subject, not a single one references archive footage being used directly in the film. The phrase used here 'digitally altered archive footage' appears in no other references I can find, it is original research as far as I can see. The article cited with referencing archive footage specifically says archive footage was studied to recreate him. Yes tonnes of footage and reference of Cushing was used to make the final character look as close to him as possible, but in reality it is not actually, physically him. This is not enough to warrant credit for playing the role. If so then, you could say the same for Tarkin's appearance in ROTS. Lots of reference photos of Cushing was used to make the prosthetic makeup resemble Cushing (of course the end result is less convincing, but it's the same principle). If Cushing is credited for his 'likeness' in Rogue One, then why isn't he for ROTS - since his likeness is used in the prosthetic makeup. Cushing should definitely not be credited for either, because it is not him. It looks like him, they used reference of him to create the character, but it isn't him. Cushing has been dead for 20 years, and was not involved in the film in any way. In the end credits, Cushing is not credited as playing Tarkin. A 'special acknowledgement' is given to Cushing in the credits (which is completely different) but the only person credited with playing Tarkin is Guy Henry - no one else. Yes it's a nice idea to imagine that the late Peter Cushing is 'reprising' his role, but it is just not true. If people are desperate to credit Cushing in the infobox, maybe they can use the parenthesis 'special acknowledgement', since that's how he's credited in the film - though I think that's unnecessary. Xpion (talk) 17:18, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Xpion Two different issues the archive footage thing isn't connected to him having a credit.89.240.165.149 (talk) 20:36, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, CGI was used to create actor Peter Cushing who died over 20 years ago. The Rogue One article discusses that in detail. Earlier this week, I had added some content to this article too, in the Portrayals section, in order to cover that topic. So I agree Cushing should not be credited.

btw, many journalists feel that it was a travesty or an indignity to use this trickery to revive a long-dead actor. Peter K Burian (talk) 17:36, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

I have now added this very good point (regarding whether it's morally right) to the 'portrayals" section. I've also put a note on Guy Henery's Credit (which leads to the foot notes at the bottom of the article), explaining Cushings Movie Credit acknowledgement, which hopefully is a half way compromise to those that want Cushing Credited.Emrabt (talk) 09:07, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Grand Moff Tarkin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110913063648/http://www.starwars.com/theclonewars/stephen_stanton_as_tarkin/index.html to http://www.starwars.com/theclonewars/stephen_stanton_as_tarkin/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:03, 4 May 2017 (UTC)