Talk: Imperial Romulan State

Just starting a talk page, please discuss the differences between military dictatorships and monarchies. -- Captain MKB 22:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I was the one who created the page and initially characterized the Imperial Romulan State as a military dictatorship. But when I looked at it today, I realized it didn't really fit -- military dictatorships tend to be like those in Argentina^WP during the Dirty War^WP: Governed by an active-duty flag officer who simultaneously holds a military commission and a political office. The state is officially described as being governed by the military. A Singular Destiny established that Empress Donatra does not wear a military uniform, but is instead dressed in a robe -- civilian garb. She's not described as continuing to hold a military commission in Articles of the Federation, A Singular Destiny, or in any other post-I.R.S. novel. And, on top of all this, she styles herself an empress -- a monarch -- rather than an officer. So the implication definitely seems to be that the Imperial Romulan State is a monarchy, not a military dictatorship. -- Sci 01:21 1 JULY 2009 UTC

Maybe then we should leave this sort of information - speculation/analysis - out of the sidebar and just have it as background information in the appendices. --8of5 01:25, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The title of "Empress" does indicate monarchy, so this isn't extreme speculation -- but there are a lot of variables (for example, some free countries could be mistaken for democracies when they are republics or vice versa, and then there're democratic republics) that could have more room for discussion. basically, this example kind of works for that field but other uses might not. -- Captain MKB 03:16, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Splitting continuities

At this point in time the proseverse has not progressed so far that I feel it's necessary to split the prose and online continuities. The fact the Online continuity does not mention the Typhon Pact does not preclude it's establishment of the two state reuniting several years later. For now at least, I do not think the information should be separated. --8of5 12:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

True, there have been no specific differences in the two timelines that deal with the Romulan Empire. I mean, if you toss all logic completely out the window, they might both be seen as possible in Romulan terms. But then, there are the other markers that establish the novelverse as being quite separate. Much like Canada is not the United States, you can't say, "But those North Dakota people sure sound Canadian". The novelverse is accepted as separate. Just because this little corner of the separation hasn't been specifically addressed, does not make it so. As established timelines you cannot say that they are separate only over here and not over there.

Which is why the article is/was set up with continuity notes to flag up the fact the information comes from potential incompatible sources, even while they can present a singular narrative from the point of view of this article. --8of5 12:52, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Who has accepted these continuities as separate? Seems like two sources describing what is essentially the same government, with only minor contradictions, if any. Seems to me this separation should consist of separated, cited paragraphs rather than creating unnecessary continuity subsections. It confuses readers if we create a whole separate subsection for what is supposedly a different continuity, but then no contradictions arise, giving them the indication of two continuities or worse, two separate alternate universes, when in reality these things all are in one universe. -- Captain MKB 14:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Looking at them outside of confines of the subject of this article they have to be two divergent continuities. Star Trek Online uses stuff from the proseverse up until about Death in Winter and Articles of the Federation. After that it starts doing it's own thing: doesn’t have a massive Borg invasion, doesn't have the subsequent growth of the Typhon Pact and does have a degradation of Federation-Klingon relations. The Path to 2409 is taking the Trekverse in a distinctly different direction than the proseverse.

However, the proseverse is only up to 2381, and as far as the differences go in relation to this article there is very little so far that constitutes a major divergence, so they it works just fine together without labelling a section an alternate continuity. --8of5 14:42, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Whoa now! Please stop trying to mash these two separate story lines together. You can't have a story in which the Enterprise blows up in March of 2383 and a story in which that same Enterprise saves orphans and nuns in August of 2384 and try to convince the world that they're the same story line. Granted, this is an exaggeration, but the point is still valid. Separated, as they clearly are, you then cannot give a summary for a side subject which will obviously be affected by the separate story lines. Look at Borg history! If you lied to yourself enough, we could make them all one fluid (yet insane) article. But it makes more sense the way it is. – AT2Howell 14:52, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

A reasonable point, but there's nothing about these two continuities that needs them to be separated here. Even though the Online stuff doesn't mention the Borg Invasion or the Typhon Pact there is no reason those events couldn't have happened and still lead to an eventual reformation of the Romulan Star Empire some years later. In regards to this particular subject the two continuities do not exclude each other. --8of5 14:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, there is a contradiction between the two continuities of these separate sources, but only a little of the contradiction involves the Imperial Romulan State, if any -- which means this article doesn't need to be involved in separation at all. Theres nothing in the Online sources that says the IRS weren't part of the Typhon Pact before they rejoined the Star Empire. -- Captain MKB 15:01, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Not splitting them up into separate timelines is what is absurd. The Imperial Romulan State, in both the novels and in Star Trek Online, does not exist in a vacuum. It is one of many interstellar states, and it is affected by the events that occur around it. The events that occur around the State in Online differ remarkably from those in the novelverse. In the novels, the State is on decidedly better footing than the Empire -- its citizenry are not requiring aide from the Federation, its territory was not as close to the Azure Nebula and therefore not as much of it lies in the Borg's "dead zone," it is allied with the Federation. Heck, in A Singular Destiny, the State was offering the Empire aide! The State is clearly in a better position than the Empire, even with the Pact. Meanwhile, Online presents the Empire as being in a much better position than the State, to the point where the State is reabsorbed after only a few years.

And, no, you can't reasonably say that the Online chronology does not preclude the Borg Invasion and the Typhon Pact. It does preclude both. You can't not present the Borg Invasion if it happened in your continuity -- it was simply too huge of an event to be left out if it happened in your continuity. It would be like trying to say that you could write a history of 20th Century Europe without mentioning World War II. Plus, the creators of Online have indicated that the Borg will appear and be an adversary in Online 's 25th Century -- a possibility that Destiny clearly precludes. Meanwhile, you couldn't possibly present a history of the Romulan Star Empire's internal politics -- which is what Online does -- without presenting the Typhon Pact if that Pact existed in your history. You're talking about an alliance so closely integrated that it replaced its member states' indigenous currencies! That's huge.

And then, of course, there's the very basic fact that Donatra founded the State in 2380 in one timeline and 2381 in another. This is an irreconcilable difference.

There is no reasonable way to reconcile the two timelines. They are clearly separate, and as such, the article on the Imperial Romulan State should present the two divergent versions of the State's history separately. -- Sci 18:36 1 JULY 2009 UTC

Ditto. – AT2Howell 18:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The IRS did not fold back into the Empire because it was weak and couldn't stand up on its own. It was strong, the Online timeline also shows that Donatra could offer aid to worlds in the Empire. And it reunited only once Tal'Aura was killed, and thus Donatra's primary motivation for splitting off in the first place removed.

I don't deny for the second that the two continuities are completely divergent, but the previous set up did not deny that either; it very carefully described and explained points of contradiction, without pushing once set of information into alternate continuity section. --8of5 23:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

If the two continuities are divergent, then what is the point of not splitting them into different sections? If you have two contradictory versions of something, it makes no sense to lump it all into one section (which implies that they are not contradictory versions of that something). -- Sci 04:36 2 JULY 2009 UTC

Because the differences are in details and the two continuities still describe what is basically the same State with 'only those details being different. -- Captain MKB 04:51, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

But those are important details. There's no point in trying to describe it as though it's all one thing when it clearly isn't. -- Sci 04:57 2 JULY 2009 UTC

Like Sci said, those details are like WWII being left out of European history. Even the little countries have it noted in the books. – AT2Howell 12:21, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah and like I said, the previous arrangement does not deny at any point these are divergent continuities, it goes out of its way to explain that. It just avoids ugly and sidelining of one source over another. --8of5 00:45, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

There's nothing ugly or sidelining about creating separate sections for both continuities. Each one gets a section devoted exclusively to it, and it's much less ugly than putting in five thousand indented italicized paragraphs noting contradictions. -- Sci 04:53 5 JULY 2009 UTC

Two paragraphs, one of which still exists, and the other removed from a useful position providing a direct contrast to the parallel events in the other continuity. Consider the implication of your argued need for this set-up if it is to be the formatting of choice: Take for example the Christopher Pike article, the Early Voyages comics series and the novel Burning Dreams provide contradictory information on Pike's parentage. At the present the article splits the information by continuity at the point of contradiction, but otherwise integrates information from both sources later in the article. If we extend your proposed formatting suggestions to that articles all events from Burning Dreams would have to be removed from their sensibly integrated place in Pike's history to a separate continuity section... --8of5 06:39, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

And that is exactly what I have always thought should happen, as I have never been of the opinion that it is "sensible" to integrate non-contradictory information from contradictory sources. It makes far more sense to list information from separate and contradictory sources separately. -- Sci 07:21 5 JULY 2009 UTC

Nice theory, but that will make for a lot of messy convoluted articles when we take into account the many many different sources that are incompatible on some level, even if that incompatibility has nothing at all to do with specific article subject. It would ruin a lot of articles. --8of5 07:27, 5 July 2009 (UTC)