C3PX said:

This is either the third or fourth thread this debate has made it into up until now. It is kind of a pointless debate, I see no sign of either side swaying in the least. However, I will tell you that if you'd like to convince us, we are going to need some cold hard evidence of your claim that it is implied in the 1983 version of the film. And by cold hard evidence, I do not mean things like, "it is an illogical fantasy story, and instantly ending the Empire is illogical, therefore that was the original intention" or "clearly they are celebrating as hard as they are because they won the entire war, had it just been a mere battle they won, it would be a much smaller party..."

You are not going to be convinced as long as you refuse to accept ROTJ as what it was and refuse to accept that it works by other rules than the logic you try to force it to fit to. And I'm not even trying to convince you. I'm merely explaining my view. Have whatever view you like. I am just expressing and defend my view.

I do not mean things like, "it is an illogical fantasy story, and instantly ending the Empire is illogical, therefore that was the original intention"

If that's what you think my view is then no wonder you don't agree. I don't say the empire was over just because it would be illogical and an illogical ending would fit and therefore that must be the intention. The point is that the film doesn't make logic a priority therfore you cannot say the story must go a certain way just because it is logical. It's only if the story follows logic that the empire has to be not over. Whereas if you recognize that the story does not follow logic then you can go by the emotional implication of the film's ending. I also pointed out various clues, like Lucas declaring on the set of ESB that the conflict would be over in the next film and Lucasfilm in 1983 clearly taking the view that the conflict was over in ROTJ and the EU before Zahn following that same view. What have you on your side? The 90s EU, which disagreed with previous stuff and was clearly a revisionist take. And logic, which clearly does not rule in ROTJ.

As for cold hard evidence, the emotional message of the ending, taken in the context of what ROTJ is and how it works, is indeed cold hard evidence if you're sensitive to emotional things. People are naturally sensitive to emotional things, but when focusing on logic people have a bad tendency of distrusting emotion and shutting down their emotional sensitivity.