Talk:Star Wars: The Last Jedi/Archive 5
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Star Wars: The Last Jedi. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
i comment on documentary.
there is new documentary about the last jedi, it is called the director and the jedi. does documentary go in main the last jedi article or article by itself? IUpdateRottenTomatoes (talk) 16:51, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
- This would probably go in the home media section as it is released with the film. Toa Nidhiki05 17:55, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
What is a fan and what is a viewer?
The Audience response section does not explain that properly in my opinion. Are we discussing the impact of die-hard fans? I don't think we should do that. Also, the article currently looks as if fans expected [Rey] to be Luke's daughter
but "other" viewers appreciated the film's action, tone and deviation from Star Wars tradition
. And now this: other viewers?? So which are the first viewers we discuss, if we discuss "other viewers"? I am simply saying that I can't draw a Venn diagram in my head of the fans and the viewers and who appreciated what. Then I suggest changing fans to viewers. I do not want to make an edit because I will be reverted. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) wumbolo ^^^ 08:50, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
- Wumbolo, fans are a part of the audience (obviously). And "fan" doesn't have to mean "hardcore fan." I think the following line should continue to use "fans": "Todd VanDerWerff of Vox found that disgruntled fans saw the film as too progressive, disliked its humor, plot, or character arcs, or felt betrayed that it ignored fan theories." This is because I don't think we can accurately attribute this to the general audience or rather those who went to see the film but would not classify themselves as a fan. It may very well be that the vast majority of people who saw the film are fans of the franchise, but we don't know that. As for "many fans had expected her to be Luke's daughter or to share a lineage with another character from the original trilogy," as you can see by the sources I provided above, it wasn't just fans who expected it. The first film in the franchise led many viewers to think that they were father and daughter, but maybe it's safer to continue to state "fans." The section has been so debated already, as seen by the RfCs above. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:10, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
- Did fans really say it was "too progressive"? What does that even mean? Spanneraol (talk) 23:14, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
- It means the sentence is a pile of steaming feces. Sources incorporating the views of white nationalists and their ilk into mainstream discourse in this manner should immediately be disqualified from serious consideration as appropriate or reliable sources. Certainly other sources can be used for the remaining elements of the sentence. Like all sources, secondary sources must first be interpreted and evaluated before use, as is standard practice in academia. Unfortunately, such basic and elementary intellectual/academic procedure is far too often well beyond the abilities of Wiki editors. (I’ve actually seen secondary sources cited in support of positions they were actually written to refute around here, meaning Wikipedia. I’m not kidding.) Antinoos69 (talk) 07:08, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
- There is no proof whatsoever that the sources for the third paragraph are based on "views of white nationalists and their ilk." Well, except for the "too much progressivism" aspect that Todd VanDerWerff of Vox mentions. But he also states that "while there’s a lot of this going around, and it’s tempting to write off the backlash as wholly defined by anti-progressivism, that also wouldn’t be accurate. There are plenty of other complaints and criticisms from fans that range from nitpicky to more concerning." We already know that you don't approve of us reporting on those who disliked the film. It's why we went through an RfC, draft, and then another RfC after that. But describing all or most people who disliked this film as "white nationalists and their ilk" is ridiculous. We have followed Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, for the most part anyway, for this matter. And as for insulting Wikipedia editors who weighed in on the RfCs (and happened to disagree with your stance) and worked on the draft, that also is not surprising from you, but whatever. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:36, 12 March 2018 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:51, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
- You really must stop trying to understand a single word that I say. You seem constitutionally incapable of the task. I was addressing specifically and solely the "too much progressivism" comment, which was what the editor to whom I was responding had mentioned. My “Certainly other sources can be used for the remaining elements of the sentence“ might have alerted you to the narrow focus of my comment. Incorporating the views of fringe extremists from social media into discourse without proper criticism and analysis certainly does render a source problematic and inappropriate. Now, reread and try again, with a little less hysteria this time. Antinoos69 (talk) 12:09, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
- What you say doesn't always makes sense, and it is often based on your personal opinion rather than fact. We don't go by your "certainly does render a source problematic and inappropriate" reasoning. We go by WP:Reliable sources and WP:Due weight. Regardless of your "remaining elements of the sentence" statement, you called the entire sentence "a pile of steaming feces" simply because it notes the "too much progressivism" aspect. Including the "too much progressivism" aspect concerns why some disliked the film, and it is indeed something we should mention. Ghostbusters (2016 film)#Controversy includes a whole section on these types of people. But the "too much progressivism" aspect is not just about racism. Sure, you stated "and their ilk," but enough of the "too much progressivism" aspect has to do with sexism, misogyny or just plain ignorance. I wouldn't automatically put those people in the same or a similar category as white nationalists, although there is overlap. As gender studies make clear, many men are sexist or misogynistic without even knowing it since society is, in fact, mainly patriarchal. And like VanDerWerff stated, "when you consider that Star Wars fandom has long been presided over by white guys, it’s natural this would lead to angry policing over what Star Wars is and isn’t." There are also ignorant women in the "those are supposed to be men" category. As for understanding you, you have seemed to attribute much of the discontent or hate with regard to the film to racism, similar, or something else. You've been doing this for months, going on about how there isn't any legitimacy to the complaints. Many sources note that there is some legitimacy to the complaints and/or that viewers are mainly upset that their fan theories were decimated. And I certainly didn't misinterpret you unnecessarily insulting editors and insulting me yet again. But like I said, it's nothing new. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:32, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
- “Amazing. Every word of what you just said was wrong.” First, yet again, “Like all sources, secondary sources must first be interpreted and evaluated before use, as is standard practice in academia. Unfortunately, such basic and elementary intellectual/academic procedure is far too often well beyond the abilities of Wiki editors. (I’ve actually seen secondary sources cited in support of positions they were actually written to refute around here, meaning Wikipedia. I’m not kidding.)” Second, the entire sentence, rather than merely some part of it, is “a pile of steaming feces” because it is all framed by and based on a problematic and inappropriate source. Certainly you could have figured that one out. Plenty of other sources are already available for the remaining claims. Third, if we’re going to bring up “fact,” let’s start by acknowledging what a rare commodity it is both in much of that Ghostbusters “Controversy” section and in the entire “Audience response” section here. The sources are merely making huge assumptions based on entirely inadequate data. I don’t buy a word of it, as no serious thinker would. But enough with beating that dead horse. Wikipedia is as Wikipedia does. Fourth, my “and their ilk” was certainly intended to bring in sexism. That’s about as close to right as you get, I fear. Fifth, all the source’s speculation about the nature of the sexist comments and their prevalence is exactly that, wild and utterly unfounded guesswork. There’s yet more of that steaming feces, without a fact in sight. Until demonstrated otherwise, the sexism is to be lumped together with the racism — more fringe nonsense. Sixth, I am utterly unaware of ever even having mentioned racism before my comment of 07:08, 12 March 2018 (UTC), so I can’t begin to fathom your “As for understanding you, you have seemed to attribute much of the discontent or hate with regard to the film to racism, similar, or something else. You've been doing this for months … .” Seventh, as for other elements of the sentence (i.e., other criticisms of the film), I wasn’t addressing them. I’m afraid some of your user page representations do seem rather exaggerated and difficult to credit. Antinoos69 (talk) 22:36, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
- You still love to argue nonsense, I see. I'm not doing this again with you. I don't see why you are quoting yourself for that very first sentence of your latest reply since it's not something you stated before. And I don't see what my user page has to do with this, but you do love to deflect by getting personal when you can't hold an argument. That stated, I'm open to referring you to some administrators, WP:Med people and other academics who can verify some things on my user page if you want. But this isn't about me. And it isn't about you either. It's about the way Wikipedia works. It has worked correctly in this case, no matter your disagreement with that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:54, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
- Antinoos69: Wikipedia has processes in place to deal with the issues you've addressed. If a source lacks credibility, or if you feel it shouldn't be used, you can challenge its presence on Wikipedia by taking it to WP:RSN. If the consensus agrees with you there, it can be replaced with a better one here (or alternatively, the content it was linked to can be removed if an adequate replacement isn't found). Furthermore, without passing judgement on the points you've brought up, I would suggest you propose exactly what changes you'd make and what new source(s) you'd add if any. Otherwise, conversations like these can go back and forth indefinitely without progress. --GoneIn60 (talk) 11:45, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
- “Amazing. Every word of what you just said was wrong.” First, yet again, “Like all sources, secondary sources must first be interpreted and evaluated before use, as is standard practice in academia. Unfortunately, such basic and elementary intellectual/academic procedure is far too often well beyond the abilities of Wiki editors. (I’ve actually seen secondary sources cited in support of positions they were actually written to refute around here, meaning Wikipedia. I’m not kidding.)” Second, the entire sentence, rather than merely some part of it, is “a pile of steaming feces” because it is all framed by and based on a problematic and inappropriate source. Certainly you could have figured that one out. Plenty of other sources are already available for the remaining claims. Third, if we’re going to bring up “fact,” let’s start by acknowledging what a rare commodity it is both in much of that Ghostbusters “Controversy” section and in the entire “Audience response” section here. The sources are merely making huge assumptions based on entirely inadequate data. I don’t buy a word of it, as no serious thinker would. But enough with beating that dead horse. Wikipedia is as Wikipedia does. Fourth, my “and their ilk” was certainly intended to bring in sexism. That’s about as close to right as you get, I fear. Fifth, all the source’s speculation about the nature of the sexist comments and their prevalence is exactly that, wild and utterly unfounded guesswork. There’s yet more of that steaming feces, without a fact in sight. Until demonstrated otherwise, the sexism is to be lumped together with the racism — more fringe nonsense. Sixth, I am utterly unaware of ever even having mentioned racism before my comment of 07:08, 12 March 2018 (UTC), so I can’t begin to fathom your “As for understanding you, you have seemed to attribute much of the discontent or hate with regard to the film to racism, similar, or something else. You've been doing this for months … .” Seventh, as for other elements of the sentence (i.e., other criticisms of the film), I wasn’t addressing them. I’m afraid some of your user page representations do seem rather exaggerated and difficult to credit. Antinoos69 (talk) 22:36, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
- What you say doesn't always makes sense, and it is often based on your personal opinion rather than fact. We don't go by your "certainly does render a source problematic and inappropriate" reasoning. We go by WP:Reliable sources and WP:Due weight. Regardless of your "remaining elements of the sentence" statement, you called the entire sentence "a pile of steaming feces" simply because it notes the "too much progressivism" aspect. Including the "too much progressivism" aspect concerns why some disliked the film, and it is indeed something we should mention. Ghostbusters (2016 film)#Controversy includes a whole section on these types of people. But the "too much progressivism" aspect is not just about racism. Sure, you stated "and their ilk," but enough of the "too much progressivism" aspect has to do with sexism, misogyny or just plain ignorance. I wouldn't automatically put those people in the same or a similar category as white nationalists, although there is overlap. As gender studies make clear, many men are sexist or misogynistic without even knowing it since society is, in fact, mainly patriarchal. And like VanDerWerff stated, "when you consider that Star Wars fandom has long been presided over by white guys, it’s natural this would lead to angry policing over what Star Wars is and isn’t." There are also ignorant women in the "those are supposed to be men" category. As for understanding you, you have seemed to attribute much of the discontent or hate with regard to the film to racism, similar, or something else. You've been doing this for months, going on about how there isn't any legitimacy to the complaints. Many sources note that there is some legitimacy to the complaints and/or that viewers are mainly upset that their fan theories were decimated. And I certainly didn't misinterpret you unnecessarily insulting editors and insulting me yet again. But like I said, it's nothing new. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:32, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
- You really must stop trying to understand a single word that I say. You seem constitutionally incapable of the task. I was addressing specifically and solely the "too much progressivism" comment, which was what the editor to whom I was responding had mentioned. My “Certainly other sources can be used for the remaining elements of the sentence“ might have alerted you to the narrow focus of my comment. Incorporating the views of fringe extremists from social media into discourse without proper criticism and analysis certainly does render a source problematic and inappropriate. Now, reread and try again, with a little less hysteria this time. Antinoos69 (talk) 12:09, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
- There is no proof whatsoever that the sources for the third paragraph are based on "views of white nationalists and their ilk." Well, except for the "too much progressivism" aspect that Todd VanDerWerff of Vox mentions. But he also states that "while there’s a lot of this going around, and it’s tempting to write off the backlash as wholly defined by anti-progressivism, that also wouldn’t be accurate. There are plenty of other complaints and criticisms from fans that range from nitpicky to more concerning." We already know that you don't approve of us reporting on those who disliked the film. It's why we went through an RfC, draft, and then another RfC after that. But describing all or most people who disliked this film as "white nationalists and their ilk" is ridiculous. We have followed Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, for the most part anyway, for this matter. And as for insulting Wikipedia editors who weighed in on the RfCs (and happened to disagree with your stance) and worked on the draft, that also is not surprising from you, but whatever. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:36, 12 March 2018 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:51, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
- It means the sentence is a pile of steaming feces. Sources incorporating the views of white nationalists and their ilk into mainstream discourse in this manner should immediately be disqualified from serious consideration as appropriate or reliable sources. Certainly other sources can be used for the remaining elements of the sentence. Like all sources, secondary sources must first be interpreted and evaluated before use, as is standard practice in academia. Unfortunately, such basic and elementary intellectual/academic procedure is far too often well beyond the abilities of Wiki editors. (I’ve actually seen secondary sources cited in support of positions they were actually written to refute around here, meaning Wikipedia. I’m not kidding.) Antinoos69 (talk) 07:08, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
- @Flyer22 Reborn: thank you for the explanation. I agree with "fans". Though, in the last sentence, we say "other viewers", which I don't understand. Do we mean other fans or viewers that are not fans? wumbolo ^^^ 21:17, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
- Wumbolo, the "other viewers" part is goes with the sentence that states "some viewers." So the sentences are consistent. If the sources use one term over the other, we can go with what they use, but if the sources differ in the terminology, I don't see what should be done. Many sources have indeed used "viewers" and "fans" interchangeably. On a side note: There is no need to ping me to this talk page since it's on my watchlist. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:36, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
- Did fans really say it was "too progressive"? What does that even mean? Spanneraol (talk) 23:14, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 23 March 2018
 | This edit request to Star Wars: The Last Jedi has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Tomatometer up to 91% with 371 reviews. 207.172.180.75 (talk) 00:41, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 24 March 2018
| This edit request to Star Wars: The Last Jedi has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Official novelization by Jason Fry. Audibook edition narrated by Marc Thompson (voice actor). -- GreenC 15:39, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
A "junior novel" by Michael Kogge (2018 Lucasfilm Press), audiobook version narrated by Jessica Almasy -- GreenC 16:32, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Sakura CarteletTalk 23:13, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
Mention Audience Response in Lead?
Should the lead mention a brief sentence summarizing the audience response on how it was divided? For instance after talking about the critical reaction, it can say "However, it proved to be divisive among audiences due to ..." Also, in the audience response section, when it refers to character arcs, should it be more specific and talk about especially Rose and Holdo? Hummerrocket (talk) 22:08, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
- I'd say definitely not on mentioning specific gripes about Rose and Holdo... this isnt a blog. Spanneraol (talk) 23:02, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
- Based on how divided editors have been over this issue (and you can look at the recent RfC's above), I don't think it's a good idea to mention in the lead at the moment. While the reaction and controversy has been well-covered, it's not nearly as significant as the critical reaction to the film. Having score aggregators such as Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic help us assess critical reaction, but we don't have anything that reliable for audience reaction. Therefore, while it deserves a place in the article, I don't think it has enough justification to be present in the lead. I'm curious to know how others feel about this, however. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:00, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
- I agree. Leave it out. We'd probably have to start another draft: article just for this one sentence. Alaney2k (talk) 16:34, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
- The fact that editors on Wikipedia have been so extremely divided on this that it basically took over 2 months to get three tiny paragraphs through, proves that the movie is extremely divisive among "normal folks" - so to speak. Star Wars is one of the biggest movie franchises ever, and the fans come from all ages and places. Surely there's a bigger chance that a random Wikipedia user will be a Star Wars fan rather than a DC comics fan, for example, This creates various problems since it's almost impossible for many Wikipedia users to remain neutral when it comes to Star Wars. I don't want to go on too long about this, but I think that's the reason why we will not get a mention of audience response in the lead text - even though it would totally make sense. Jonipoon (talk) 19:33, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
- One month of that was waiting on the outcome of an RfC, in which the three paragraphs had already been written. Also, the divisiveness among editors isn't the same kind of divisiveness among the audience. While we may bicker on what to include and not include or how to arrange the content we've agreed on, it's not the same as squabbling over the content of the film. One thing to keep in mind is that most editors who have weighed in believe there is some divisiveness among fans, particularly hardcore fans. What we disagree on is how prominent that divide actually is. It hasn't been reliably quantified for us, and the only reliable statistics we have (CinemaScore, PostTrak, etc.) all indicate that the overall audience reception is positive. Is it a small minority, such as 5%, that is making all that noise? Or are we really talking about significant percentages reaching into the 30s and 40s? No reliable survey agrees that it's a significant percentage. It's all subjective if you choose to distrust the survey scores from opening weekend. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:45, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
- The whole point of the Wikipedia philosophy is that we aren't supposed to make that call. We are supposed to present the subject as it is reflected in the reliable secondary sources. Interpreting the meaning of polls and other primary sources -- deciding which polls to believe and which to discard, which are scientific, what exactly does "divisive" mean -- this is original research. The reliable sources overwhelmingly say that the movie is divisive, so we must present that perspective prominently in the article. AfD hero (talk) 18:51, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
- In theory, that is correct. If secondary sources are overwhelmingly saying something, then we should present that perspective prominently. However, its presence should still adhere to WP:DUE as it relates to other coverage of the subject. For example, whether you had 10 sources or a 100 covering it, the perspective may sometimes only deserve one sentence or one paragraph. Other elements surrounding Last Jedi (i.e., production, box office, marketing, critical reception, etc.) are all just as significant if not much more significant in some cases. The single paragraph currently allotted to "audience divisiveness" may be more than sufficient.Also, keep in mind that we need to be careful distinguishing between primary and secondary sources. A careful read of WP:PRIMARYNEWS shows that investigative journalism, in which analysis is based off their personal experiences and observations, would be considered a primary source. CinemaScore, PostTrak, and SurveyMonkey would be secondary sources, and therefore overall, they would be considered more reliable in this particular situation. We could probably have a separate debate about that, but the main point here is that the divisiveness has only been given one paragraph, or one-third of the audience response section. That doesn't necessarily justify its presence in the lead section, which is what the OP is asking. I'm leaning against it. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:48, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
- Ask yourself: 'are people going to think this was vital information in five, ten or twenty years' time? The audience response to Jaws was part of an important legacy of the film (increased shark hunting, Shark Week tv specials, etc).
- The point is: does how people Sherlocking about Rose and Finn or the nature of Rey's parentage create a legacy of the film? There is a problem with living in the present: everyone living there thinks that everything that occurs then is oh-so-very vital. It usually isn't. The Birth of a Nation, The Shawshank Redemption and yes, even Star Wars (and other films on this list) endure beyond the confines of their release. Comments about the film are either enduring or they are not.
- I think we can agree that fanboy Sherlocking is largely unimportant, and distracting. It is unnecessary. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:23, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
- Jack Sebastian, in the #Discussion section above, I pointed to this 2017 "Culture, Identities and Technology in the Star Wars Films: Essays on the Two Trilogies" source, from McFarland, starting at page 95, to note that it addresses the divergence, varied audience responses to the original trilogy and the Star Wars prequels. It was mostly fans hating on the prequels as well, and that made it into academic books. I have no doubt that the divisiveness regarding this film will also make it into academic books. But, yeah, for Wikipedia, there is no deadline. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:48, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
- Right, Flyer22 Reborn - there is no hurry to include it. Maybe this will become something that overtakes the original media, like Reefer Madness or Blacula's impact. I doubt it, but I'm not a fortune teller. As for your source, that's great that you have one, but consider that we cannot allow it to swell out of proportion to other, reasonable voices of the article. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:46, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
- Jack Sebastian, the source is just an example of divisiveness about Star Wars films being covered in an academic source. It doesn't concern this film. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:51, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
- Right, Flyer22 Reborn - there is no hurry to include it. Maybe this will become something that overtakes the original media, like Reefer Madness or Blacula's impact. I doubt it, but I'm not a fortune teller. As for your source, that's great that you have one, but consider that we cannot allow it to swell out of proportion to other, reasonable voices of the article. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:46, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
- Jack Sebastian, in the #Discussion section above, I pointed to this 2017 "Culture, Identities and Technology in the Star Wars Films: Essays on the Two Trilogies" source, from McFarland, starting at page 95, to note that it addresses the divergence, varied audience responses to the original trilogy and the Star Wars prequels. It was mostly fans hating on the prequels as well, and that made it into academic books. I have no doubt that the divisiveness regarding this film will also make it into academic books. But, yeah, for Wikipedia, there is no deadline. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:48, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
- @Hummerrocket: I can't find any RS talking about Tico's and Holdo's character arcs. Almost as if they didn't have one. wumbolo ^^^ 08:53, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose for now because it's hard to predict what the long-term reputation of the film might be. The detractors might be all anyone remembers about it, or they might be forgotten altogether. Anywikiuser (talk) 12:11, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
- Pardon me for saying, but the fact that the lead section fails to mention the negative audience reaction just stinks of whitewashing, if not censorship. Such a simple sentence requires discussion or debate? The division this movie has caused is clearly evident on this talk page alone. Wolcott (talk) 05:17, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
- I think you should carefully read the comments in this discussion. No one is adamantly opposed; the consensus is just leaning against it at the moment. Several are in favor of taking a long-term, wait-and-see approach. Also the bickering among editors over article content and where it's placed has nothing to do with the bickering among audiences over film content. They are two very different kinds of division. --GoneIn60 (talk) 11:19, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
RFC: How should the audience response section cover Rey parentage theories and Luke's portrayal
- The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The clear consensus of the participants is to use Version 1. Since there are no other issues involved here, I'm closing the RfC on that basis. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:42, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
We've now reached consensus on the base version to use for the audience response section. It's now time to discuss potential changes. Modifications were suggested to the base text in the RfC; most of these revolved around versions of the text included in version 2. The two options in the RfC were:
Version 1/3:
Particularly divisive was the reveal that Rey's parents are insignificant;[7][13][15] many fans had expected her to be Luke's daughter or to share a lineage with another character from the original trilogy.[16][17] There was also sentiment that Snoke's character was underdeveloped and that Luke's actions contrasted his previous heroic portrayal.[15][18][19] Reviewers stated that fan theories were held so strongly among some viewers that it was difficult for them to accept different stories.[13][15][19] However, other viewers appreciated the film's action, tone and deviation from Star Wars tradition.[13][15]
Version 2:
Particularly divisive was the reveal that Rey's parents are insignificant;[7][13][15] many fans had expected her to share a lineage with another character from the original trilogy.[17] There was also sentiment that Snoke's character was underdeveloped and disagreement with Luke's portrayal and character arc in whether he was heroic enough.[15][18][15][19] Reviewers stated that fan theories were held so strongly among some viewers that it was difficult for them to accept different stories.[13][15][19] However, other viewers appreciated the film's action, tone and deviation from Star Wars tradition.[13][15]
Specifically, the question was whether or not the "Rey is Luke's daughter" fan theory should be mentioned and how to characterize Luke's portrayal. This issue was not decided upon in the RfC; the closer specifically said that .
The question in this RfC, then, is to decide this. Should the third paragraph in the audience reception section use the text from Versions 1/3, or the text from version 2? Toa Nidhiki05 19:25, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
Survey 3
- Version 2 Per my reasoning in the previous discussion. As I said there:
Both Option 1 and 3 contain unacceptable and unclear terminology relating to Luke Skywalker; rather than stating the fan complaints in their voice (i.e. "... felt that Luke's portrayal was not as heroic as in the prior films"), it instead states it in Wikipedia's (i.e. Luke's actions contrasted his previous heroic portrayal). In other words, it's implying his actions weren't heroic. The wording in Option 2 avoids this problem while making clear exactly what fundamentally the critique is of: his character arc ad portrayal, specifically in how heroic he was portrayed. I also object to mentioning any specific parentage theory, as there are so many of them and none are remotely notable individually (the "Rey is a Skywalker" one is hardly dominant - the Strait Times source that Flyer touts doesn't even mention it, mentioning another theory altogether).
I think it is, at the very least, blatantly obvious that we should not mention any specific fan theory for Rey's parentage. There were so many of them (Rey is Luke's daughter, Obi-Wan's daughter, Han and Leia's daughter, Palpatine's daughter, some Jedi from Luke's academy, born miraculously of the force, etc.) and none are notable in and of themselves. Toa Nidhiki05 19:25, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
- Version 1. I don't see why we are going over this yet again other than Toa Nidhiki05 not liking that the "Luke's daughter" aspect is the most prominent/popular parentage theory. The previous RfC specifically included this as an option. But do see the sources presented in the #Discussion 3 section below. If editors want to go on their personal opinion on this rather than WP:Due weight, whatever. But the sources support the "Luke's daughter" parentage theory being the most prominent/popular parentage theory. No sources have been provided showing or indicating that any other parentage theory is as popular. So to repeat what I stated in the #Survey # section above, we should give an example of the parentage matter instead of being unnecessarily vague. In the #RFC period has ended. What's our consensus? section above, I also noted that "including Rian Johnson's commentary on tearing apart fan theories has been suggested. And if we include that, which I think we should, some part of it will go into the fact that Johnson departed from the Skywalker family tradition when it comes to the lead being a Skywalker." As for Luke's actions, this The Straits Times source states that many fans felt that Luke's actions contrasted his previous heroic portrayal. Stating that is more accurate than stating "Luke's portrayal should have been more heroic." A number of sources are focused on a change in his character. They are not simply stating that he should have been more heroic than he was before. I do not agree with this edit by Toa Nidhiki05 to the draft because it's unnecessary and is using quotation marks without specifying who made the quote. And using WP:In-text attribution in this case would also make it seem like only this source has stated this. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:58, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
- Version 1 - I'm convinced by the multitude of sources provided by Flyer below in the green box that Luke's daughter is the prominent theory. Disagree with Toa that we are stating fan complaints with Wikipedia's voice - reading that There was also sentiment that ... Luke's actions contrasted his previous heroic portrayal - it seems that we are indeed stating the fan complaints in their voice. starship.paint ~ KO 01:53, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
- Question Summoned by a bot. Version two reads: many fans had expected to share a lineage with another character from the original trilogy. Am I right to assume there is a "her" missing between "expected" and "to" in that? Many fans expected her to share... Wanted to make sure I was reading it properly. Thanks! Comatmebro (talk) 02:48, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
- Comatmebro, yes, you are right in assuming that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:54, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
- Version 1Reading both out loud, and having a general sense of the subject from seeing the movie once, I think the first version is a better fit than the second. Just seems to flow better IMO. Comatmebro (talk) 03:04, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
- Version 1 seems much better but I would switch the word order in that I would say
share a lineage with another character from the original trilogy
ahead ofbe Luke's daughter
.Also, if another fan theory is mentioned in the same order of magnitude of RS as the Rey's daughter one (e.g. if it has at least half as many RS discussing it as the Rey's daughter one), it may well merit inclusion, as we do draw proportionality from sources: a fan theory may well merit inclusion if 20 RS discuss it.wumbolo ^^^ 08:43, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
Propose linking Rey (Star Wars)#Parentage. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) wumbolo ^^^ 07:00, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Discussion 3
Some sources noting that the "she is Luke's daughter" theory is the most obvious, the best guess, the most prominent, and/or those that list it first.
|
|---|
|
- I'm totally confused by what you are suggesting.. I think the article is good as is with the recent changes and don't see the need to add anything more. Spanneraol (talk) 21:16, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
- Spanneraol, I feel that the current text is fine as well. It's why I voted for Version 1 above. But Toa Nidhiki05 objects to us noting the "Luke's daughter" aspect and the "Luke's actions contrasted his previous heroic portrayal" aspect. We've both explained why we feel the way we do above. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:41, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Alt-right claim is FRINGE yet is given undue weight
- An obscure anti-disney facebook group has claimed credit for something and instantly it's given weight? Spanneraol this is the group, it has 90 followers, that's right 90. Most eveyone that follows them roasts their posts. Now you're telling me, despite that, they have botz armadas and vast subterfuge skillz? Lol. It's a WP:FRINGE claim . Notice the quotation marks in the actually skeptical media reporting.
- Alt-Right: We ‘Rigged’ ‘Last Jedi’ Low Rotten Tomatoes Audience Score
- In Feb 2018, the moderator of the group again claimed "credit" for the Black Panther score. Same group which claimed credit for the last jedi score.
- ‘Black Panther’ Rotten Tomatoes Score Sabotage? Anti-Disney Fan Group Takes Aim
- So the next time a movie comes out, you telling me if I set up a fb group, claim to be alt-left and claim credit for its score. Whatever that score might be, Black panther for example is at 79% and as you can imagine, had less people vote on it than Last Jedi. So you should be wondering, if they really did have undetectable botz, where exactly are these bot armadas? If I take credit for artifically elevating a movies score, will I get a nice write up in the newspapers too?
- I honestly don't know who is worse, the anti-disney group or the WP:FRINGE pushing editors here that aren't accurately communicating the incredulous tone of the reliable secondary sources.
This has already been discussed in detail numerous times, including when developing the section and on this page, and your opinion has been rejected every time. Please stop beating a dead horse. Toa Nidhiki05 00:18, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
- This isn't a matter of opinion but about reliably summarizing the tone of sources. Elements of this fake news story also haven't been even mentioned before, specifically the "news" that they're also claiming credit for the black panther score, hasn't been even mentioned by me until now, as I only stumbled upon it.
- So "Is there anyone who is not {a supporter of the cause, a member of the cult, etc.} who could confirm this or offer another perspective?"
- Boundarylayer (talk) 00:39, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
- And yet you are, at the same time as proclaiming something as a conspiracy theory, accusing editors of being on the payroll of Disney and propping up absurd Change.org petitions that aren't remotely notable. We've had this discussion before, and it didn't go the way you liked, so you tried it again, and again, and again, and now again. The result is not going to be any different. To quote Luke Skywalker, this is not going to go the way you think. Toa Nidhiki05 00:51, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Fan petition passes 100,000 signatories
A number of secondary sources have covered this petition to warrant its addition?
"Have Disney strike Star Wars Episode VIII from the official canon.". https://www.[dot]change.[dot]org/p/the-walt-disney-company-have-disney-strike-star-wars-episode-viii-from-the-official-canon
A recent mention to the petition circa early March 2018: https://www.unilad.co.uk/film/mark-hamill-pulls-off-best-response-ever-to-an-internet-troll/
Boundarylayer (talk) 15:17, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
- Change.org petitions aren't notable. Period. We've discussed this before. Toa Nidhiki05 18:09, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
- Anything is notable if it receives substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources. AfD hero (talk) 07:09, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
- That's less than 1% of the number who saw it. Anywikiuser (talk) 09:37, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
- Yep. It's just a bunch of whiners. Not notable. oknazevad (talk) 11:37, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
- It has received substantial coverage from secondary sources. AfD hero. What our personal feelings about it are, or not, do not matter oknazevad. Here are 3 secondary sources. There are more like the huffington post etc, if 4 or more sources becomes the magic number for notability?
- Boundarylayer (talk) 23:24, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
- It's not notable in the context of this article. There are a million of those goofy fan petitions. Spanneraol (talk) 00:02, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
This has been discussed before, and there are plenty of good reasons not to include it. You can see past discussions at Talk:Star Wars: The Last Jedi/Archive 2#Change.org petition and Draft talk:Star Wars Last Jedi audience response#Summarizing. It doesn't suprise me one bit to see that it's Boundarylayer leading the way yet again. It's time to drop the issue and move on. Continuing to push the issue is becoming disruptive and really starts to question the editor's motive behind its inclusion. --GoneIn60 (talk) 02:05, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
- And, just to point it out, the first "source" is months old and pointless to establish notability, the second is the petition starter retracting the damn thing, and the third is movking it's stupidity! These are the sources you want to use for this POV-pushing BS? oknazevad (talk) 02:38, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
The audience response section covers the main points and with suitable amount of detail. As for numbers, I don't think a few media mentions rank as notable coverage. We have to think from a pov of outside the fan base to judge its notability. Right now it is a bit of trivia. Alaney2k (talk) 17:50, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
- We are not here to discuss the legitimacy of the petition, nor editor motivations. Which is a form of WP:PERSONAL ATTACK. The petition is, by any logical appraisal, far more WP:NOTABLE than the present WP:FRINGE conspiracy that is given credence in this encyclopedia article, that "alt-right bots", affected the Rotten Tomatoes audience score. It is revealing that this demonstrably "goofy" FRINGE conspiracy, invented by a solitary individual on an obscure facebook group is given some considerable credence, yet a petition that has received over 100,000 signatories, is here treated as "trivia"? I will be marking the article as having a major POV slant, if corrections are not made.
- Boundarylayer (talk) 20:14, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
- I will immediately remove any such tag as a disruptive action. The consensus is so incredibly clear on this and your continued insistence that an internet petition is notable is disruptive. Toa Nidhiki05 22:01, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
- Is that a combative tone? Moreover removing a POV tag when many others here have noted one, would in fact be a case of WP:OWN. So indeed it is no wonder you'd like to paint my input as "distruptive". I'm not sure what you're reading but on the issue of consensus, if you actually take a look at this talk page. Every other editor that did not play an intimate part with ensuring the excruciating delay with the audience criticism section, everyone else. Everyone else, such as User:Lenoir9898, who has literally just started a thread about POV, right below this section on the petition, everyone uninvolved seems to agree with their being a POV problem with this article.
- Therefore, it is your manner of editing, involvement desire to paint POV tags as "distruptive" that leads one to assume you are not open to actually achieving consensus. Indeed, due to how this article has been written and how the audience criticism section, took months of agonising over to be included, something that you Nidhiki05 played a central part in, another editor has even expressed concern with paid editing being at play. That's how much of a POV problem this article has. When readers and editors are coming away with sentiments like that, you have written a promotional piece that includes a laughable conspiracy theory, about "alt-right" boogey men, to try and handwave away the poor audience score. Which curiously enough again, should be mentioned in the LEDE, per WP:LEDE. Yet contrary to policy, you have not included it? I hope you see what I mean. It's really plain as day.
- Boundarylayer (talk) 15:12, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
- I'd recommend you not accuse editors here of being paid to edit. That's an unfounded personal attack. Not surprising, unfortunately. I do find it ironic you're accusing others of pushing conspiracy theories when you're basically calling everyone here paid shills trying to suppress the audience scores. Toa Nidhiki05 15:41, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
- As an uninvolved editor, I have to say that you're painting yourself as fringe. I recommend that you drop the stick until reliable sources commonly and consistently say that this petition is notable. DonQuixote (talk) 15:16, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
- DonQuixote this really has become more than the petition, if you follow how the discussion has gone. As an editor who has read WP:LEDE, it plainly states that criticism should be included in the introduction. Now, do you genuinely expect us to buy that its complete absence from the introduction, was just some "accidental oversight"? That it isn't a problem with a consistent POV slant? You have essentially tipped the can over and body-painted yourself as an editor one who can't read or doesn't know policy. Though that's why I'm here, to help.
- To reiterate, the principle editors of this page - have written a promotional piece that even includes a laughable straw-man conspiracy theory, about "alt-right" boogey men, to try and handwave-away the poor audience score. A quick look at this talk page has 3 editors who have noted a POV slant. The introduction doesn't make the slightest mention to any criticism or controvery that the movie generation. So one has to wonder, is this an encyclopedia or a fanclub article? Is the talk-page their fanclub treehouse or something? Is that an accurate explanation for why users such as Nidhiki05 would view a POV tag, as "distruptive editing"?
- Boundarylayer (talk) 16:00, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
- Just keep digging your hole, Boundarylayer. Toa Nidhiki05 16:24, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Boundarylayer: You've already been topic banned from several subjects on Wikipedia for your battleground mentality and inability to collaborate with others. It actually seems like you thrive on the friction in challenging others. I would be cautious at this point if I were you. Focus solely on whether or not the petition is significant enough to be mentioned in this article, and not what's going on in other conversations about the lead, paid editing, etc. Siding with wild accusations have no basis in this discussion and certainly isn't helping your cause. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:17, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
- Topic banned by somewho who is described as a "batman"? Contrary to your now repeated personal attacks, I have since discovered that I was actually the target of a particular editor who has a history of trying to get everyone banned, a documented history of engaging in the practice. As another editor put it, it was another [|round of Jytdog's superhero wikicrimefighting show. You are not Batman. It is not all about you. Before long you will (inevitably so - we've all seen your behaviour before) move this to ANI with a variety of wild accusations]. A round of ANI, full of "wild accusations" is precisely what I experienced. Funny coincidence that.
- On your wish to have me solely focus on the petition. I find that a little cookie, as already discussed, We quite literally have a reliable secondary source that puts an interview with Director Rian Johnson right up beside the petition. Here on wikipedia however, you won't find so much as a slight mention to it. |Rian Johnson star wars backlash, We also have the revelation that the creator of the petition even received death threats and has tried to distance himself from it due to that. The Telegraph Star Wars fan behind anti-Last Jedi petition denies he was 'bought off' by Disney to back down..." Henry Walsh, who launched the Change.org petition earlier this week, has now stepped away from the petition following death threats,"
- Now seen as WP:NOTABLE has well and truly been met and no mention of this petition nor any hint of criticism is found in the lede. There is an obvious POV issue at play. I therefore do not think it very productive to focus solely on the petition, when at this stage 3 other editors have found the article severely lacking in balance and all the major editors have a clear POV. All the major editors to this article have unwittingly or not, helped Disney by probably making wikipedia history by taking the longest amount of time to include a criticism section in a wikipedia article, in all of time.
- Speaking of, when exactly did the criticism section get added, was it once the movie was out of all world theatres?
- Boundarylayer (talk) 21:30, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
I suggest editors just ignore Boundarylayer and his conspiracy theories about editors being controlled by Disney at this point. It's not worth a response. Toa Nidhiki05 21:33, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
- "ignore another editor"...is that a manifestation of the treehouse fan-club mentality? I am not going to be as petty as this, to suggest editors ignore you, or even suggest they perhaps look into the editing of Toa, not least because you'll actually find that I never said you were "controlled by Disney". Instead I have pointed out that another editor has speculated to that effect and because of that, because other editors are picking up on that sentiment, the article definitely needs work on the POV issue. You do see the nuance and difference, I hope? Or is responding to the mounting concern over POV, something that the gentlemen from the treehouse have determined, that it is just "not worth a response"?
- Boundarylayer (talk) 21:56, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
- I don't have anything to add to my position, but it may benefit you to know that WP:N is a guideline that helps determine whether a particular topic deserves its own article. It does not cover content within an article. Also, "verifiability does not guarantee inclusion" per WP:ONUS, so despite the comments above, coverage in reliable sources isn't the only requirement for insertion. Considering that you're fighting an uphill battle here, I don't think it's in your best interest to throw policies and guidelines into the faces, especially when they're being misinterpreted. As for your information surrounding the petition, the previous discussions I linked to above have pointed out some issues that you have yet to address. --GoneIn60 (talk) 02:34, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
- Your issues with the petition have been addressed, for example in the past discussions, you claimed rather dubiously that since the creator of the petition has distanced himself from it, this should be some kind of indication that it isn't notable or serious. However according to this source, the reason why they distanced themselves from it, was due to how they began receiving death threats. The Telegraph Star Wars fan behind anti-Last Jedi petition" Henry Walsh, who launched the Change.org petition earlier this week, has now stepped away from the petition following death threats,"
- WP;N and WP:WEIGHT state "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources". So where exactly is this hill and battle you speak of?
- Boundarylayer (talk) 04:09, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
- You're saying that the Telegraph article says he distanced himself "due to" death threats. I read that article. It does not say that. 81.145.136.27 (talk) 10:18, 12 April 2018 ( [Apologies. That was me and I forgot to log in. Anywikiuser (talk) 15:08, 12 April 2018 (UTC)]
- While it is completely unnecessary to get into the evolving minutia of Walsh's changing motivations for distancing himself from the petition he started, if you truly want to look into it, he seems to have begun using the publicity surrounding the petition, as a platform to raise awareness for his GoFundMe and other causes he feels passionate about. Which I think then resulted in certain signees to feel taken advantage of, and to then allegedly send him death threats, over this switch in focus. To quote him from the Inquisitr(another reliable secondary source) "I couldn’t get the help on GoFundMe to help pay for my surgery, and yet *this* gets this kind of attention? To the point that this petition has been in multiple news publications at this point?" Inquisitr Star Wars Last Jedi petition.
- So to say he distanced himself from the petition, due to death threats, is a fairly accurate summary, though if you wish to look into it, by all means go for it.
- Boundarylayer (talk) 13:34, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
- The forming consensus here is that the petition isn't significant enough for inclusion. In the grand scheme of things taking all reception into account, critical reception holds the greatest weight by a long shot, followed by secondary sources such as CinemaScore and PostTrak that have reliably gauged audience reception. In a pie chart, these sources would consume all of the pie in most film articles. For this film, because of the overwhelming amount of published coverage surrounding "fan" backlash, we've decided through an RfC to reserve a sliver of that pie to cover audience reception in more detail. The viewpoint that some Star Wars fans are disappointed and unhappy with the film is being adequately represented per WP:DUE. The petition is a supporting detail of that viewpoint, not an entirely different viewpoint. A majority here, including myself, feel that adding said detail to the article is unnecessary to further understand the disappointment some fans have had. My view on that may change if the petition actually leads to some kind of change or official response from Disney/Lucasfilm. The Rian Johnson source you linked to above is just him responding to fan backlash in general and not the petition itself (he specifically cites Twitter as an example in his response). Even if he had addressed the petition specifically, I think we'd need a bit more than that. Furthermore, it seems most of the coverage has been in the early days following the film's release, with some of the later coverage focusing on how the person who started the petition has backed away from it. Long-term coverage and significance needs to be taken into consideration.It all boils down to the limited coverage and space we've allocated here. We don't need to include every detail that shows up in published sources, and quite frankly, we simply can't. I think we should keep an open-minded approach and realize that it's certainly possible the coverage of the petition may elevate to another level at some point, but in an honest assessment, I don't feel it has accomplished that yet based on what I've seen. That's not an answer you want to hear, but it's a thorough one nonetheless. --GoneIn60 (talk) 13:35, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
It appears the inconsistency is breaking thru again. Something short would be DUE. Nothing longer than something to the effect that "a petition to have the movie removed from canon was started by a fan and received substantial media attention". Now while we're on that topic, I find it literally incredulous that despite your thorough" response here, the facts of the matter are, that the article presently gives ink and space to a FRINGE conspiracy on rotten tomatoes scores being hijacked, with just 1 secondary source giving a platform to this debunked hearsay started by guy who claims vast tech skillz, yet dubiously, he has a tiny following on his facebook group. Now, by every measure of reality this is an example of WP:UNDUE weight, yet the petition we are discussed, which by contrast has received widespread coverage by multiple different secondary sources. That it is this petition that here, is the thing that is being painted as WP:UNDUE? I hope you can see the fundamental problem now? I mean is it really necessary to have a line the mentions the RT page of Thor Ragnarrok in this article? When we're apparently constrained for pie-chart space? I would like you to just consider how not a single outlet has even mentioned this laughable straw-man conspiracy theory since then, while the petition on the other hand continues to receive attention this year. Boundarylayer (talk) 15:09, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you @GoneIn60. However, I warn you that he just hates The Last Jedi and wants negative coverage to be included at any cost. Don't expect unanimity. No-one else has shown clear backing for including the petition, so it should not be included. Anywikiuser (talk) 15:29, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
- Boundarylayer, I think more credence would be given to your ideas if you made simple policy based suggestions and left out the conspiracy theories and argumentative tone. At this point its probably too late to change on this page... but in the future you should consider it. Spanneraol (talk) 15:33, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
- You have written, "No one else has shown clear backing for including the petition". Yet AfD hero wrote Anything is notable if it receives substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources. on April 3. So I'm not sure about you Anywikiuser, but that seems a pretty "clear backing". Why are you here falsely suggesting "no on else" backs inclusion? When you and they literally discussed this on April 3.
- Spanneraol I too would prefer if editors left out the tone that gave credence to conspiracy theories and innuendoes in encyclopedic articles, yet there is presently a WP:FRINGE theory contained in this article. What are your thoughts on that? In the future could you contain your responses to the editorial matters, say a suggestion on how an entire paragraph is given to this straw-man conspiracy theory, yet mentioning this petition is the thing that has received a lot of antipathy, could you please relate your response to the policies of WP:WEIGHT and WP:DUE? That would be great.
- Boundarylayer (talk) 16:29, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) To be clear, there are quite a few sources that state the RT audience score should be taken lightly with a grain of salt, acknowledging how easily a non-scientific poll can be gamed. This is common knowledge about RT audience scores, which is why we don't include them in 99% of film articles. An exception was made here for the reasons stated above. That one source is just one example of how it could have been gamed; it is not being presented as fact. Multiple sources ran with the story as well. If you have a better one that shows how cautious one should be about accepting the RT audience score, we can certainly consider a replacement, but I would suggest starting a new discussion thread for that. Back to the petition discussion... It is still my opinion that adding a statement about the petition isn't adding any value. With or without it, any reader of the Audience response section is going to understand that some portion of the fan base was unhappy with the film's representation of the Star Wars storyline. --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:52, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
- RT have literally looked into the conspiracy theory and found it to be entirely without substance. It is therefore wholly unnecssary to include any mention to this special pleading about "potential gaming", when security staff have looked into the conspiracy theory and found it entirely without merit. So it, again, is now and will continue to be WP:UNDUE to include this innuendo of yours on "how [the score] could have been gamed. Indeed to jog the memory, the conspiracy theory began when a reporter looking for a story at the huffington post asked an anti-disney facebook group-admin, a bunch of loaded questions and they received the answer they were looking for. If you don't want to see the wood for the trees on this, that is up to you. However the facts of the matter are, that giving this WP:FRINGE notion, coverage in an encyclopedia is WP:UNDUE. Moreover, as this discussion on the petition is about, what is DUE, especially considering your grander response about the "sliver of pie-chart", that criticism should be given. It is actually very much relevant to the discussion on including the petition.
- Likewise, addition of the petition will communicate to readers just how passionately some disliked the movie, that they apparently went to the lengths of starting and signing a petition, to essentially communicate that these viewers felt, it wasn't even a Star Wars movie. Presently I do not see any ink being given to this passionate group of movie enthusiasts. Vague plot specific gripes, is all one sees in the criticism section. When over 100,000 signees are passionate enough to take the time to communicate that they felt it wasn't even a Star Wars movie. Death threats, suggestions that Walsh was alt-right and all of it being covered in multiple secondary sources, pretty wall warrants it for inclusion. Also, I think the story that there has been a consistent attempt to paint everyone who disliked the movie as politically motivated, is kind of notable too. I mean why exactly does the criticism section of this article lead with critics apparently finding the movie "too progressive"? When I think you'll find, if you read the critical reviews, that viewers thought the movie was bad, not because Luke and the island-cow-creature may have had a "progressive" relationship deeper than perhaps met the eye, instead the criticism was over the poor writing, shallowness of character arcs etc. So why exactly does the criticism section lead with this politicized notion, that " critics felt the movie was too progressive"? Is that truly representative of the critics? Or is it another straw-man? Any dispassionate appraisal will find that there is presently a consistent trend, of UNDUE editorializing, within in this article.
- Boundarylayer (talk) 16:29, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
- There are a few of your ideas i would agree with.. taking out the "better than empire" line, removing that remark about it being too progressive.. but the RT audience score controversy was a real thing not a "fringe" theory...and this petition thing is nonsense... how many of those 100,000 signees are bots? People launch petitions over every silly thing its hardly noteworthy. It's really difficult to follow all the different threaded arguments and long paragraphs. I'd suggest coming up with a couple of very specific proposals and your suggested wording and proposing them directly rather than what you've been doing so far. Spanneraol (talk) 16:53, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
- RT's assessment of the situation is a biased source. The audience score's validity and significance is on the line, so they would have motivation not to reveal flaws in their system or dig deep enough to find them. That's not to say their findings aren't legit, but we prefer more neutral sources to stake that claim. Regardless of how you feel about that, RT's comments are included in the article. We leave it up to the readers to decide for themselves.Again, we've had this discussion before, and it is derailing the petition discussion. You obviously feel passionate about its inclusion, and that could be clouding your judgement. You are convinced the hatred of Last Jedi is worse than it's being portrayed in this article. Here's the kicker...you might be right. However, Wikipedia relies on consensus, and it's clear what that is at the moment. I'm going to refrain from further comments for now and give other uninvolved editors a chance to weigh in (if this discussion is even inviting at this point, which I fear it may not be). I suggest you do the same. This needs to be a collaborative effort. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:55, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
- Yesterday Apr 2018, Mark Hamill who played Luke Skywalker, the character which is the focus of the petition. Likewise "slammed" the protrayal of the character. So it seems notable that not only a petition was started that reached 100,000 signatories but that the actor himself, has repeatedly come out and said such things as this and as he's said before, "he's not my luke skywalker".
- Mark Hamill Slams Last Jedi Milking Scene and Luke's Lack of Emotion. Apr 2018 movieweb
- Maybe he’s Jake Skywalker. He’s not my Luke Skywalker' - Mark Hamill reveals 'fundamental differences' with Last Jedi director Rian Johnson
- I'd like someone else to propose an article addition for this, it doesn't need to be long but it certainly is notable at this point.
- Boundarylayer (talk) 00:17, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
- Saying Mark "slammed" the portrayal of the character is completely incorrect. He has described a process of collaboration with the director and these interviews take his comments out of context as he has clarified in other interviews. Spanneraol (talk) 15:00, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 20 April 2018
| This edit request to Star Wars: The Last Jedi has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The "audience response" section states that audiences disliked the "reveal" that Rey's parents are "insignificant." It should include some qualification to the effect that the evil Kylo Ren might have been lying, or even merely mistaken about Rey's parentage. Bug1333 (talk) 13:54, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Not done That's conjecture. Unless you can cite a reliable source that says anything like that, we can't just put it into the article. DonQuixote (talk) 14:15, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Mark Hamill criticism & why was it removed in the 1st place?
Back in Dec 2017 there was a line in this article about Mark Hamill disagreeing "fundamentally with every decision Rian Johnson made with respect to his character". This criticism was removed. Though no authoritative rationale was given. All mention to it, just vanished.
Since then, Hamill has been back "after protesting the changes during production of the movie, cooling off during the initial promotional campaign and now, coming back to take slight jabs at some of the decisions." Mark Hamill Slams Last Jedi Milking Scene and Luke's Lack of Emotion. Apr 2018 movieweb The actor also shows no interest in reprising his role now.
There are a large number of reliable references to this effect, though these are just the 2 I'm most familiar with.
Boundarylayer (talk) 19:59, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
- I don't know the history of that on these pages, but Hamill's "criticism" was blown out of proportion in many of the sources as he was primarily talking about creative discussions and eventually said he was happy with the film. Spanneraol (talk) 20:25, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
- No I think the more-modern Apr 2018 sources instead point out that he cooled his criticism around the time of the movie being released but since then has come back out and said he disliked the movie and wasn't happy with it at all. Though if you have an up-to-date source to support what you instead suggest, then please add it here and illuminate things for us.
- Boundarylayer (talk) 20:28, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
- I have not seen any reliable source where he was quoted as saying he disliked the movie and "wasnt happy with it at all." Spanneraol (talk) 21:20, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
- There was an excellent documentary on The Last Jedi’s home media release, “The Director and the Jedi”, and it covers the background of production quite well. It absolutely might to be worth noting Hammil’s thoughts on the film during production, in the production section. To use it as an objective criticism of the film not only isn’t the appropriate section, it also isn’t what Hamill actually felt. Clickbait news is clickbait. Toa Nidhiki05 22:56, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
- I have not seen any reliable source where he was quoted as saying he disliked the movie and "wasnt happy with it at all." Spanneraol (talk) 21:20, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
- 'Not my Luke Skywalker': Mark Hamill wasn't happy with the direction of his character in 'The Last Jedi' either
- Since then, he's still criticizing the plot, direction and editing of the movie. No reunion with Han or Leia, no emotional resonance in Han Solo's death. He essentially doesn't agree with any decision made but went along with it as he was contractually obligated. Mark Hamill Slams Last Jedi Milking Scene and Luke's Lack of Emotion. Apr 2018 movieweb
- In March 2018 he stated to IGN that - ‘I happen to know that George [Lucas' original plot for the new trilogy didn’t kill Luke until the end of [Episode] 9, after he trained Leia...‘Which is another thread that was never played upon [in The Last Jedi].’
- Again in March 2018, Hamill said his reaction to finding out about Luke's end in Star Wars: The Last Jedi. "I said to Rian Johnson, 'It's dramatically inert...'
- So my paraphrasing that Hamill has come out to say that he essentially "wasn't happy with [the movie] at all", is fairly accurate.
- Boundarylayer (talk) 23:58, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
- a lot of those quotes are out of context. Spanneraol (talk) 00:48, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
- As Screen Rant mentioned on May 1, it is generally accepted that Mark Hamill "made his peace with the direction the character was taken". Your quote from the IGN source, by the way, does not mean what you think it means. --GoneIn60 (talk) 03:33, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
- By way of your irrelevant quote here, from someone who is not even Hamill. It most definitely does say what I think it does, as maybe a little schooling is required here? - even if he did "make his peace", that doesn't mean he's happy about how someone or something turned out. You understand the major difference between the 2, right? It's a movie written, directed and edited in a way Hamill did not find even remotely characteristic nor have much of any emotional impact. By everything Hamill has said and keeps saying. He is a critic of the movie. Though by all means, keep trying to equate the notion of "making peace with the impossibility of being critical". As it's a truly absurd non-sequitir.
- Boundarylayer (talk) 02:37, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
- If he has made peace, then he is no longer a harsh critic of the movie, despite what Boundarylayer thinks at this point. It also shows that you have interpreted his current state of mind differently than that of a reliable source. And there's the problem: you are injecting personal interpretation. Also in case you're wondering, the material was removed in this edit by Granzymes. Their main gripe was that the information doesn't belong in the critical response section, which I agree with.Instead of debating theory, why don't you present a proposal of the text you'd like to see inserted back into the article? Doing so might help your case. I'm just one uninvolved editor sharing his two cents, and I don't plan to comment any further in this thread. --GoneIn60 (talk) 08:13, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
What I "think at this point"? Mark Hamill is a critic of the movie. You may try and find references to support this move to a stance of "less harsh of a critic", though even if they were in existence. It still doesn't change the fact, that he's still a critic. If a summurization of Hamill's criticism is penned by any editor here and it gets removed from the critical response section and indeed does not get moved to a different section or discussed, it instead was and likely will be again, just blanket erased from the entire article. Then perhaps it best to determine why you do not think the lead actor's statements are unfitting for the criticial response section. It really doesn't fit into the production history, as well, he's still criticizing the movie in interviews as of Apr 2018.
So something akin to "Mark Hamill having read George Lucas' script, clashed with Director Rian Johnson on his script and direction and regards the representation of Luke Skywalker in The Last Jedi as uncharacteristic." - Is that fair? I'm not wedded to it or anything. Though his criticism should be in the article. Boundarylayer (talk) 12:43, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
- He's not a critic so it doesnt belong in that section.. and he isnt really criticizing the film... people with agendas are using his words out of context. Spanneraol (talk) 12:55, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
- So what you're saying is, when the lead actor's criticism gets removed from the article. Vanished like it never existed. It is really the "other people [who want to have it put back in, it is those] with the agendas", really, is that so?...I always find it a never ending source of curiousity how people can accuse others of what they, are in fact, doing. The WP:RS as of March-Apr 2018 state without qualification, that Hamill is criticizing the movie. So Spanneraol How far does this alleged agenda go? How many people are involved in it? He wasn't happy with the movie at all, he remains a critic of the movie. That is all obvious at this point.
- Boundarylayer (talk) 13:15, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
- The critical responce section is for the reaction of official movie critics... actual film criticism.. And those articles you mention are often referencing things from before that where he is talking about how he felt when he read the original script, and omitting the part where he says that after talking to the director and discussing his vision that he came around and accepted it.. When these articles are all selectively quoting him then the writers of them, almost all of your sources are blogs that arent reliable sources anyway, there is definitely an agenda. Spanneraol (talk) 15:28, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
- The funny thing is, in normal circumstances I would have been fine about including a mention of Hamill and Johnson's discussions in the "Production" section. Unfortunately, these quotes from Mark Hamill have been taken by those who were angry with TLJ and presented without context in order to fabricate stories of Mark Hamill not liking TLJ – even though he has clarified in interviews that was he happy with the end result. Anywikiuser (talk) 15:26, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
- Is this more of the same suggestion of vast right-wing conspiracy theories against TLJ? Where does Hamill say in any reliable source, that "he was happy with the end result"? Or that "he came arond and [joyously] accepted Rian Johnson's vision? In all the interviews since the movie was made. He's a critic of just about every plot and script choice in the movie. Ergo he's critical of the movie.
- Mark Hamill Slams Last Jedi Milking Scene and Luke's Lack of Emotion..."Mark Hamill still seems to be conflicted about, after protesting the changes during production of the movie, cooling off during the initial promotional campaign and now, coming back to take slight jabs at some of the decisions." Apr 2018 movieweb
- Boundarylayer (talk) 16:02, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
- That article is from a sketchy not reliable website and most of what you are talking about is editorializing of the writer of the article... which only uses a couple of very short out of context quotes. Spanneraol (talk) 16:50, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
- In regards to Hamill's comments, the truth about is out there, and easy to find, but of what use is the truth if it tells someone something that they don't want to hear? Anywikiuser (talk) 18:36, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
I think you have to limit the sentence to that Hamill only disagreed with decisions made regarding the Luke Skywalker character. An actor disagreeing with the director is probably not very unusual in itself, but Hamill making it this public is. "In public statements and interviews, Mark Hamill voiced his disagreement with the plot choices affecting Luke Skywalker in the movie. Hamill called it "not my Skywalker." That is probably enough. The main point being that Hamill came out publicly, not individual details. Probably appropriate in the production section? I don't know if there is a section appropriate in the Mark Hamill article. It could be relevant there. Alaney2k (talk) 19:29, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
- Beware of quotes like "not my Skywalker" as thet have been taken out of context by angry fans. Anywikiuser (talk) 19:41, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
During production, Hamill expressed disagreement with the direction his character was taken, finding the character's more disillusioned status to be contradictory to his previous optimism. Hamill later said that he regretted making his initial misgivings public and compared his disagreements to clashes he had with George Lucas during the filming of Return of the Jedi.[1]
- This would resolve all complaints. It notes his particular criticism, his later regret for making the complaints public, and his comparison to the process in previous films. Toa Nidhiki05 21:17, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
- Yeah, that sounds alright. Anywikiuser (talk) 22:21, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
- I'm ok with that bit, though it should definitely be under production and not in the criticisms section. Spanneraol (talk) 22:01, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
- Yes that sounds good. I like the content, especially. I think a lot of it, as it came out, was really overblown. I do think "not my Skywalker" summed it up, but it's not at all necessary. I do like to put in a quote if I can, but I see it is problematic. Alaney2k (talk) 22:36, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
- I'm ok with that bit, though it should definitely be under production and not in the criticisms section. Spanneraol (talk) 22:01, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
- Yeah, that sounds alright. Anywikiuser (talk) 22:21, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm glad we're giving this the proportionate attention it deserves now. However I find the suggested text problematic. As Hamill allegedly regrets saying what he said in public. Ok regret:public. Though maybe you've noticed, or you find it too well obscured in the proposed text but he's not actually taking any of the criticism back, he just regrets it became so public. He's not trying to say that his quotes were taken out of context either...so your proposed text is kind of misleading...As he didn't instantly stop being a critic of the movie...I mean on which day did that allegedly happen, exactly? He's still coming out from time-to-take to communicate just what he thinks and feels.
Secondly, specifically where in the actual interview did he say "regret", or indeed where is all the long quoted text in the AVclub reference coming from? I looked up what might be the source on the youtube. Journey to Star Wars Rian Johnson & Mark Hamill SXSW 2018. I didn't find these words at all. Instead the closest were at 40:30 when he comunicates in the 3rd person that he feels as though the expectation is that "Mark should do the right thing for the betterment of the movie"...and at 44:40 onwards... he says again about being surprised by being killed off before film 9, from this he surmises that TLJ/film 8 was maybe a case of "kill off the old foagies". Though I will grant, that when Hamill does mention the circumstances and resonance of Carrie Fisher passing and with that, wanting to put his criticism of the movie in some sombre perspective - he does say he "had a wonderful entrance in 7 and big pause, and a wonderful exit with 8...and couldn't ask for me." Under that light everything genuinely pales in significance.
In any event that was a while ago, then we had this news happen afterward. Star Wars SHOCK: Mark Hamill SLAMS Last Jedi for cut Han scene ‘They had time for milking'...this was covered by the Express and numerous other outlets c. Mar 28 2018 It really was covered widely.
So instead the clarity that should be forming on Hamill's position, is as described in this newer source, Hamill - "after protesting the changes during production of the movie, cooling off during the initial promotional campaign and now, coming back to take slight jabs at some of the decisions." Mark Hamill Slams Last Jedi Milking Scene and Luke's Lack of Emotion. Apr 2018 movieweb
For that reason I hope I've made it clear why Alaney2k's proposed text is actually far more percise and of the two proposals, it is the one, which is much less unproblematic. "In public statements and interviews, Mark Hamill voiced his disagreement with the plot choices affecting Luke Skywalker in the movie. Hamill called it "not my Skywalker." Unless of course you wish to expand the critical response section, with more material than is necessary? 20:37, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
- Again, he is not a movie critic so anything about his opinion doesnt belong in critical response... Toa Nidhiki05's version works best for me.. as it seems to accurately describe his opinions without editorializing as all of your sources do... they are all written by blogs that are pushing a narrative and all refer to the same general interview which came out around the time of the film. You don't need to keep reposting the exact same thing over and over every time you answer either. Spanneraol (talk) 21:55, 17 May 2018 (UTC)