Talk:Star Wars: The Last Jedi/Archive 6

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 4

→

Adding differents points of view.

Cited from the page "Identifying reliable sources": "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and SIGNIFICANT MINORITY views that have appeared in those sources are covered (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view)" I found very odd that the lead is literally praising the film, even with the line saying that is the "best film since Episode 5". There are plenty of reliable sources and critics with another point of view, even in RT. I have even seen discussions about this here. As of now, the lead has not a single review that mentions the faults of the film. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lenoir9898 (talk • contribs) 05:53, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

The vast majority of critics did like the film, including over 90% of those reported on Rotten Tomatoes. If it's that lop-sided, negative reviews shouldn't be given undue weight, and don't really belong in the lede. You might be confusing critical response with audience response, which is not the same thing and more ambiguous. Anywikiuser (talk) 09:03, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
The lead is a summary of the article. Unsupported statements like you added are inappropriate. The critical consensus is overwhelmingly positive and so is measured audience opinion. What is left are comments that are difficult to consider. As shown by the amount of debate in the talk pages of this article. Consider a sentence like "Critical opinions were overwhelmingly positive, measured audience response was also overwhelmingly positive, the movie was one of the top-grossing films of the year, while some fans were upset." That's about the overall situation. Stop pushing a POV. Alaney2k (talk) 12:50, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

The sentiments just expressed by Lenoir9898 are indeed valid. As the vast amount of material online, relating to the movie is not on glowing positive reviews by happy fans, but how divisive the film has been. As they have just put it, "SIGNIFICANT MINORITY views that have appeared in those sources [should be covered] (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view)". It is as Lenoir9898 has expressed wholly contrary to WP:LEDE to exclude this significant minority view. Yet a look at the article at the present, does that very thing.

Boundarylayer (talk) 20:20, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

-Anywikiuser I'm not saying that the film is bad nor that the critic's score is invalid. I'm remarking the fact that the lead doesn't even have a single criticism against the movie. The Force Awakens article has a line mentioning the criticism that the film received, and that movie was less dividing and had a better approval rating (in RT) than TLJ. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lenoir9898 (talk • contribs) 01:20, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

While I oppose the additions of the audience gripes into the lead, i do think the sentence about it being the best film since episode 5 should probably be removed as well as its a bit misleading and kinda undue weight on its own. Spanneraol (talk) 15:24, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Spanneraol agreed as it does sound unnecesarily and therefore nauseatingly promotional, to say "best film since episode 5". Indeed you'll find that the article, and lede, has been written by mega-fans who unwittingly or not, pleased Disney very much by ensuring an excruciating delay occurred with the inclusion of the audience criticism section. They even created a Draft_talk:Star_Wars_Last_Jedi_audience_response that chronicles the months of hair-splitting. The POV really is very strong with this entire article, yet any suggestion that there is a POV results in combative tones, and as seen above the mere suggestion of placing a POV tag on the article, gets labelled as "distruptive editing". So owing to how the article diverges from WP:LEDE and not to mention a number of other policies, this clearly isn't so much an encyclopedia article as it is perhaps seen by them, as the manifesto for the fanclub treehouse "truth".

Boundarylayer (talk) 15:56, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Well I dont think you can say that... I always assume that my fellow editors are working from good faith and trying to make the best article possible. I think you are trying too hard to get criticism information into the lead.. but on this one issue i agree... we need to take that sentence out as it sticks out a bit as being a bit unreasonable. While some critics did say that, many others did not and taking the weight of a few critics to put a sentence into the lead isn't quite right. Spanneraol (talk) 17:03, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Spanneraol about the lede. Judging by the RT scores, I suspect more critics said that about The Force Awakens. I propose substituting "...musical score, action sequences and emotional weight; some considered it the best Star Wars film since The Empire Strikes Back" with "musical score, action sequences, emotional weight and plot twists."

@Boundarylayer: I don't think there is a POV problem. The majority of the "entire article" covers other topics like plot and production. "Audience response" other than the box office is worth one section of the article (and perhaps in the future, a mention in the lede). There are now two paragraphs covering the topic of audience backlash, even though scientific polling has consistently suggested this is a minority opinion. I think that's pretty fair. You're accusing editors who stop you from getting your own way as being agents for Disney. We are not. If we do something you don't like, it is because we care about Wikipedia and want to uphold its standards for reliability and neutrality.

I also propose changing the lede on The Force Awakens, because that did equally well with critics, so criticism of it is being given too much prominence. Anywikiuser (talk) 17:35, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Comment – Even when a film received mostly positive critic reviews, it is occasionally helpful to mention what some of the criticism focused on in the lead (because there's always some criticism, even in positive reviews). The catch is that there needs to be a common thread to the criticism. Is there one? How about someone propose exactly what they'd like to include? As long as the positive heavily outweighs the criticism (like it does in the reviews), then it may be acceptable. That's up for debate depending on what the proposal is. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:16, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

To hazard a guess and having read many reviews, the common theme is the sentiment - "[The world building and writing are lazy]". Which appears to be even supported by the fact that director [Rian Johnson has recognised plot holes and other issues that took the wind out of the plots sails, with the director having commenced what has been described as an "apology tour" to patch this up.]. To add further weight to this being the common thrend, that it is regarded as fundamentally poorly written, this one resident reviewer for an online news outlet sums it up with, ["The Last Jedi” is not simply bad, it is incompetent on the most basic level".]

I'm guessing that Jar Jar will be rehabilitated now ... :-) But I remember the angst not that long ago ... Alaney2k (talk) 19:49, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

A particularly well thought out and balanced criticism that schools readers on precisely how bad it is, case by case, was penned by Stacey Lehane for the Medium, ["the writer in me want(s) to throw a book at Rian Johnson’s head. Not just because the movie has some particularly glaring writing flubs, but because they’re such fundamental mistakes".]

Boundarylayer (talk) 14:46, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

The guy in the article you linked to liked the movie. So there are flaws in the writing. He even pointed out it has happened before in Star Wars. It's not enough to support putting it in the lead. He made some good suggestions, though. Lucasfilm should get him as an editor. Alaney2k (talk) 19:49, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

@GoneIn60: I have often thought that the RT score is a useful guide to deciding how much prominence should be given to praise and complaints among film critics. That rule suggests that around 1/10 of the "critical response" section should be devoted to complaints. But perhaps a little more negativity can be covered if there are recurring criticisms among the positive reviews. A few critics who gave the film a great review thought the Finn/Rose subplot was the weaker part of the film. Anywikiuser (talk) 15:08, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

I think I'll abstain for now (I won't have much time to work on this in the next few days), but if someone wants to do the legwork in finding a common criticism (or criticisms) that can be summed up in a half sentence, then form a suggestion and post it here with the sources that support it. Then if there isn't any real opposition to it, we can add it to the lead piggybacking on the positive comments. I may be able to weigh in at that point. Just keep in mind that we need to avoid WP:SYNTHESIS. Any common themes in the criticism needs clear support in the sources used. In other words, we can't take a number of individual opinions and aggregate them together. At least one highly-reputable source needs to do that for us. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:30, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Comment – We should include a short summary of the controversy in the lead. Aside from the obvious neutral point of view considerations, which are policy, the lead style guideline is also very clear on this. Quote (emphasis mine):

The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies.
— Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section

AfD hero (talk) 05:39, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

AfD hero, this discussion is about adding a summation of the critics' criticism to the lead. See the comments above. You may have posted to the wrong thread. --GoneIn60 (talk) 10:51, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Do not be facetious or mischaracterize his edits. AfD hero is clearly refering to this discussion and how our lede and article is not reflecting the reliable sources.

Boundarylayer (talk) 04:12, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

You should heed your own advice. The term "controversy" is out of place here. --GoneIn60 (talk) 07:04, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

The term controversy is actually perfectly accurate, considering the movie has resulted in a petition signed by over 100,000 movie-goers who want the movie removed/re-written. It has also resulted in the lead actor of the movie coming out and saying "he's not my luke skywalker"...lead actors who have repeatedly said the way the story was written was un-characteristic, petitions to have the entire movie removed... and a notable and curious large gap in the user-generated reviews by movie-goers on rotten-tomatoes...all this, yet you and disney say "no,no, no controversy here"? Really, what would you classify as a controvery with respect to a movie then, if not this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boundarylayer (talk • contribs) 16:28, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Up until your hijacking of this thread (and page for that matter), this discussion has always been about adding criticism from professional critics to the lead. Stop wasting our time. --GoneIn60 (talk) 03:11, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

While I don’t agree with everything Boundarylayer says (his long rants and the accusatory nature of his statements certainly don’t help his case), he does have some points. The film does appear to be very divisive amongst the fan base. I, too, noticed the enormous difference between the critic reviews and fan views. This seems to be true on all the film review sites I’ve visited, including Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic, and the film has certainly caused its share of debates here (not that we could use the debates here in the article). Perhaps some mention should be made in the introduction with reliable sources. I would not, however, go so far as to state there is some “conspiracy theory” behind the difference between critic and fan views. That’s ridiculous. I also cringe at the thought of how much debate this is going to cause over “what constitutes a reliable secondary source” or “what is appropriate to add and/or remove”. We need unbiased sources from trustworthy and reliable sites. Until such a credible, unbiased secondary source is found, I think the article should be left as it is. The criticisms are mentioned elsewhere in the article. I think that may suffice for now. 2601:4C4:4000:D492:D51B:9840:EB76:1799 (talk) 19:49, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Why fans love Infinity War but hated The Last Jedi

I thought this was a very good read, particularly the criticism of the lampoonery that is present in TLJ. Is The Guardian a reliable source and is it worthy of inclusion in this article? https://www.theguardian.com/film/2018/may/02/why-fans-love-avengers-infinity-war-but-hated-star-wars-the-last-jedi 119.74.246.213 (talk) 12:46, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Agreed it is interesting. But the main point has been covered, I think Alaney2k (talk) 16:51, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Another interesting article recently published. Last Jedi Destroyed The Fandom, Infinity War United It - Why? Wolcott (talk) 08:16, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Who are these "fans" you're talking about? And what are they opposed to? Are there really that many people who aren't Star Wars fans? And didn't most viewers love The Last Jedi?

I think you're confusing "white men with no personality other than liking Star Wars" with "Star Wars fans." Finsternish (talk) 12:39, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

[User:Finsternish|Finsternish]], you can’t counter bias with bias. What gives you or any of us the right to define what a “Star Wars Fan” is, or the right to dismiss all of those who hated the film as “white men with no personality other than liking Star Wars”? For that matter, what makes these “white men” any different from, say, an African American who likes Star Wars, or a women who likes it? I see no evidence that the vast majority of fans hated this film, but I also see no evidence that all of those who hated it are just “white men with no personality”. Anasaitis (talk) 21:27, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

The problem with these opinion pieces is that they're founded on the assumption that fans hated TLJ. For reasons discussed in the article, polling suggests it was more popular than it might have looked. What these articles should have asked is "Why did a minority of viewers start loudly campaigning against The Last Jedi when Infinity War didn't have that problem?" Anywikiuser (talk) 23:15, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

A minority big enough to bring TLJ's IMDb rating to a measly 7.3, making it even worse than Revenge of the Sith which is currently rated at 7.6? Wolcott (talk) 12:06, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Exactly. IMDb, like Rotten Tomatoes, uses an online open-access poll to calculate the user score. Those can be skewed by self-selection bias; if one side feels more strongly in their opinions than the other, the former will be over-represented. That's not a problem with pollsters like CinemaScore and PostTrak, whose methods allow for a more representative sample. Quality is more important than quantity. A representative sample of 100 is better than a skewed sample of 1 million (which is still less than 2% of those who actually saw the film). Yes, there's been some backlash and it's been noteworthy enough to include on the article. What I'm wary of is having "the fans hated it" accepted as truth because that does not fit in with the best evidence we have. Anywikiuser (talk) 12:53, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

A lot is being made of the polls by Cinemascore and Posttrak, but honestly I'm skeptical. They say they are "scientific", but this is what they say about themselves, not what independent third parties say. Where are the peer reviewed papers? Where has their methodology been subjected to real scrutiny? If you ask people their opinion coming out of a movie with their friends, would they give the same answer the next day, upon reflection, by themselves? It is really easy to make seemingly innocuous mistakes that invalidate a poll, and even top pollsters often get things badly wrong (look at how badly the polls did leading up to the 2016 US election, for example). There also seems to be a lot of grade inflation going on; on the recent movies page of Cinemascore, most movies got an A, several A+. The worst score there is B-. AfD hero (talk) 02:03, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

In answer to the points you raised:

I couldn't find any academic studies. You can, however read news and entertainment reports that mention that CinemaScore has long been a trusted barometer in Hollywood. This 2013 article from Hollywood Reporter is particularly helpful. It noted CinemaScore's reputation but also suggested that their methodology was somewhat outdated and it argues that PostTrak has a better methodology. However, CinemaScore, PostTrak and SurveyMonkey were all in agreement on TLJ.

The exit pollsters use cards, rather than asking them orally. Nonetheless, a limitation of cinema exit polling is that people's reactions may change afterwards. This would have been less of a problem with SurveyMonkey, who polled viewers who had seen it in the first fnur days, so some would have just seen it and others would have had a few days to digest their opinion.

For anyone who thinks the 2016 presidential election means that polls are worthless, I encourage you to read this Real Clear Politics article. The bottom line is that the polls weren't as bad as most people assumed; a bigger problem was that journalists assumed America was impervious to fascism and disregarded polling evidence that contradicted this (i.e. confirmation bias). Polls typically come with a margin of error of 3%, which doesn't seem like much but is enough to screw up election predictions.

CinemaScore and PostTrak gauge the reactions of opening day audiences. You would expect these to be the people who are keenest to see it. So while a C+ suggests that more than half of respondents liked it, it's bad news if that's the reaction you're getting from your keenest viewers. As this 2009 article suggests, As are good. Bs are moderately positive at best. Cs and below are bad. The fact that most films get a positive-sounding result on CinemaScore is nothing new; it was observed in 1993.

I can see how someone who has no opinion on the film might assume based on the media coverage that audience reaction was negative. However, sometimes the side that is most noticeable on the Internet is the most determined side, not the most popular. Anywikiuser (talk) 10:55, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

These are fair points and you may be right. The PostTrack poll is the most convincing of the three. I remain skeptical though. The Hollywood Reporter article actually makes me trust CinemaScore less; apparently they increased the score of a movie when the studio complained! It would be much more convincing if these organizations published their methodology, or had it been subjected to independent review by a neutral third party. Or if an independent serious poll organization like Rasmussen or something did a poll, but that is unlikely to happen. Every website out there, youtube, reddit, twitter, news sites, other social media, and on and on, whenever the topic of TLJ comes up, it's filled with people who really disliked the movie, and their comments are getting the most upvotes. Among people I know in real life, the movie was divisive. Every news article mentions, at least in passing, that the fans don't like the movie. And this has been going on for 6 months. Now this is also unscientific, but it is such an omnipresent phenomena it would be remiss not to take it into account. If you had to bet money on what percentage of people liked it, would you really say 90% like these polls? AfD hero (talk) 17:11, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

My suspicion is that the polling was broadly correct, and that what we're seeing is a rift between a silent majority and a vocal minority. There's the issue that the Internet tends to amplify negativity. On top of that, I suspect that it was less popular among hardcore fans, and those are the ones who will talk about it far more now that it's out of the cinema. Many of the complaints discussed (e.g. Rey's parents, Luke's characterisation) do not sound like the sort of things that would bother someone who had just come to see the latest blockbuster.

But this is just speculation. I'm not saying complainers don't exist, it's just that in the age we live in, it's so easy for these things to get amplified. Anywikiuser (talk) 18:01, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Also don't forget the massive amount of money the film made at the box office. Breaking into the top 10 domestically is no small feat, and certainly not one that could have been accomplished without positive word of mouth. A blockbuster is going to make a lot of money regardless in the opening two weekends, but the only way it's going to sustain that momentum and rank high in the end is by very positive feedback. BvS is a perfect example of the impact mediocre audience reaction can have. Also, calling CinemaScore and PostTrak scientific is probably a stretch. A more accurate description is at MOS:Film#Audience response, which states the polls are conducted "in an accredited manner". It's pretty clear the industry agrees and cites them often, and you'll see a lot of recent film articles listing their scores. If you disagree with their reliability and/or acceptance on Wikipedia, the place to challenge the consensus is at WT:FILM. --GoneIn60 (talk) 04:04, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I've only been calling them "scientific" to distinguish them from open-access polls, even if their methodology isn't actually that complicated. Anywikiuser (talk) 08:13, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

The article itself refers to them as scientific, and since it was also described that way in this thread, I thought I'd touch on it. I understand why you did though. --GoneIn60 (talk) 11:33, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Can we please not refer to all Trump supporters as “fascist”? That’s clearly biased, and even if that was not your intention, that could have been worded better. It’s also insulting. Some of us, myself included, have friends who are Trump supporters. While I certainly disagree with their political views, I would not go so far as to call them fascist. Some of the editors may be Trump supporters, and that insulting to them. We may not agree with their views on politics, but that doesn’t mean we have to call all of them fascists.

My apologies for going a bit off topic there, but I feel that was something that needed to be said after reading Anywikiuser‘s earlier post. Back to the topic at hand, some good points have been made about polling. How do we determine which polls are accurate and which are not? It’s certainly not easy, especially since different polls use different methods to get results. Regarding changing opinions, it can be hard to determine which pollsters and reviewerschanged their minds. While the date the opinion was given can show how long the viewer has taken to reflect on the film, different people take different amounts of time to digest what they are shown to form their final opinion. So far, the majority of the polls I have seen suggest that the film is divisive. It appears that neither those who liked nor those that hated could be considered to majority of the fandom.

Regarding Anywikiuser‘s opinion that this is the case of a vocal minority vs. a silent majority, I’m skeptical. That can be very hard to prove, and there is little evidence of this. You could point to the amount of money it made, but that alone is insufficient to prove this is the case. Films can do well in some countries and poorly in others. There are also cases where movies panned by critics or polled moviegoers still made significant money. Plus, let’s not forget this is the Star Wars franchise, which in and of itself will get people to go see it. There are a lot of fans who will go to see the film simply because it is the latest film in a franchise they grew up with. They may expect it to be good, they may not, or they may have no expectations at all, but they will still go see the film to see what the latest e try in the franchise has to offer. Popular franchises like Star Wars tend to have extremely loyal fans. I’ve talked to people who said they didn’t expect the film to be good, but that they would see it anyway. When asked why, they simply responded “it’s Star Wars”. Sometimes, this loyalty can even transcend personal opinion. Many who didn’t like the film will still defend it because it’s a part of their beloved franchise.

Further complicating matters is the fact that Star Wars has been around for generations. You have fans raising their kids to be fans. It has become a family thing for some. I know someone who grew up watching Star Wars. Her father introduced it to her, and she has seen every movie. Now, she’s married with kids of her own, and she has introduced her own children to it from a young age. She took her kids to see every film Disney has released so far. Walking out of both films, both she and her kids said they loved it. Then, last month, she and I got together and had lunch. Eventually the conversation strayed to Star Wars, and I was shocked when she said that she felt that The Last Jedi was the worst film in the franchise. Up to this point, all I had ever heard her say about the film was that it was great. She had heaped nothing but praise on the film, and now out of the blue she said that it was the worst she’d seen. Naturally, I couldn’t help but ask why she had changed her mind, only to discover that this had been her opinion from the start. She then explained that she just didn’t want to say anything around her kids. These films introduced her kids to the franchise, and she didn’t want to “ruin the franchise” for them by admitting she didn’t like it. She wanted her kids to like Star Wars, so she kept her mouth shut. This is just one example of how complicated the Star Wars fandom can be. The Star Wars fandom is large, diverse, multi-generational, and complex. For many, the franchise isn’t just some film series they like. It’s an obsession, a way of life.

With so many factors and variables to consider, I don’t think we can simply dismiss some polls while accepting others without careful analysis. Even then, it could be difficult to get accurate results without some bias in favor of or against the film. No polling method is without flaws. As for your “silent majority theory”, it’s possible, but one could also argue that the silent majority hated the film. There is evidence for both cases, but it is scant, with nothing concrete or conclusive. Personally, I don’t think either theory is the case. In the end, the “silent majority” theory is just an opinion. We all have one. We cannot, however, put our opinions into our edits. Nor can we do our own original research. I think that we should just accept the polls at face value. We should stick with what we got and the credible articles that are out there. Let’s not make unnecessary changes based on opinion. Anasaitis (talk) 21:27, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't mean to be anti-social, but this page is supposed to be discussion of edits to the page, not original research. Alaney2k (talk) 02:40, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

You should probably read the other discussions on this page. What polls are you talking about? CinemaScore, PostTrak, and SurveyMonkey are asking for your forgiveness. --GoneIn60 (talk) 03:47, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Criticism in the lead.

So i add a line about the criticism in the lead and it gets reverted (and 2 consecutive times by the same user so it can't be undone). I add it again and it gets reverted because "it's not in the body of the article". I add it to the lead AND to the body and, guess what, it gets undone because "i need to explain it in the talk page". That's why i'm creating this new section. Oddly enough my edit in the criticism section has not been undone.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lenoir9898 (talk • contribs)

The lede is a summation of the article, but it does not mean that every detail should be mentioned there. The criticism you are listing is a minority position, not representative of the critical consensus, as such, it does not belong in the lede. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 14:52, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. It's inclusion in the lead is WP:UNDUE to that part of the article. oknazevad (talk) 16:16, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Totally disagree, as the page "Identifying reliable sources" says that: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and SIGNIFICANT MINORITY views that have appeared in those sources are covered (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view)" Even other movies like TFA article have a line of criticism in the lead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lenoir9898 (talk • contribs)

Hate to break it to you, but it's not a significant minority--if anything, it's a "minority" minority. As recommended above, please see WP:UNDUE. DonQuixote (talk) 18:20, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

So this "minority" (really?) can't be there but the line "best since ESB" can be although it was said by only a few critics? And what about the literally exact same line found in The Force Awakens article? Unless you think that 100% of critics liked TLJ, you should acknowledge that the lead has not a single line about the criticism. Even The Empire Strikes Back lead mentions some of the early mix reviews, and that minority is smaller than this one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lenoir9898 (talk • contribs) 00:37, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

From WP:UNDUE: 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. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views. (emphasis mine)

The current consensus is that it is rather a small minority and not worth mentioning in the lede. DonQuixote (talk) 02:23, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Lenoir9898: Did you already forget that we had this conversation above (scroll up three sections)? At best, a half-sentence may have survived if someone who wants it added would have done the legwork and put a decent suggestion forward that most of us could agree on. Seems like you bypassed the discussion and tried to do this unilaterally again. That's not going to work, which should come as no surprise. --GoneIn60 (talk) 03:45, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

I totally disagree, buy if the general consensus is that, then i will accept it. But i would still recommend adding some line in the lead. As i said before, The Force Awakens and The Empire Strikes Back articles acknowledge some of the criticism that, like in this case, was a minority. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lenoir9898 (talk • contribs) 04:23, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

You totally disagree with what? You've already ignored the discussion above by starting a new section. Now you've been asked to post your suggestion on this page and discuss in detail. If you don't agree with that, then you're out of luck. --GoneIn60 (talk) 02:30, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

To Lenoir9898 I too have noted the strange protectionism that some editors treat this movie and the article. I support you in your endeavors, to better make this article reflect at the very least the lede of the other Jedi movies. A line summarizing the criticism should be mentioned, as it is not only encyclopedic but it would cut down on the quasi-WP:PROMOTIONAL tone that you and I see this article as always engaging with.

Boundarylayer (talk) 04:01, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

I too have noted the strange protectionism that some editors treat this movie and the article.

I'm sorry, but I feel the need to point out that that kind of "scepticism" is a common attitude among fringe groups. That is to say, there really isn't any sort of "conspiracy" here. You really need to come to terms with the fact that you hold a minority viewpoint with very little weight. Personally, I couldn't care less about Star Wars, but I'm observing that the unbiased, neutral point of view editing of this article is adequate and that there's no "strange protectionism" going on here. DonQuixote (talk) 11:59, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

@Boundarylayer: − Stop trolling. It has been made quite clear several times that criticism in the lead would be taken into consideration through discussion. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:54, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

@DonQuixote an accurate appraisal of the history of this article, such as, the massive delay in time between (1)the decision to include the user-generated rotten-tomatoes score and then glacial amount of time this data then took to actually find its way into the article(coincidentally when the movie was out of all world-theatres). Why'd that have to take so long, exactly? Can anyone illuminate that for us?

There is a protectionist policy to keep the article as promotional as possible and that is pretty obvious. For the other point you make, the attempts to suggest that distaste for the movie "is a minority view"...well, are you a comedian? The lead actor Mark Hamill said "he's not my Luke Skywalker"...is this truly "a tiny minority view" in your opinion? So there is the lead actor of the movie, there is a petition to have the movie removed "from canon" and there is a notably low user-generated score. Not to mention those who have written detailed analyses of the movie, that feature in reliable sources, likewise have this to say. So in sum, the scholarly analysis of the movie was similarly, that it was rife with "fundamental mistakes".

[The world building and writing are lazy]". Which appears to be even supported by the fact that director [Rian Johnson has recognised plot holes and other issues that took the wind out of the plots sails, with the director having commenced what has been described as an "apology tour" to patch this up.]. To add further weight to this being the common trend, that it is regarded as fundamentally poorly written, this one resident reviewer for an online news outlet sums it up with, ["The Last Jedi” is not simply bad, it is incompetent on the most basic level".]

A particularly well thought out and balanced criticism that schools readers on precisely how bad it is, case by case, was penned by Stacey Lehane for the Medium, ["the writer in me want(s) to throw a book at Rian Johnson’s head. Not just because the movie has some particularly glaring writing flubs, but because they’re such fundamental mistakes".]

Boundarylayer (talk) 16:47, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Hate to tell you, but everything you mentioned is quite fringe-y. That is to say, such things like the massive delay in time that you seem to to perceive is because you're the only one who thinks it's important--everyone else thinks that it's trivial. Also, the quote-unquote-sources that you provided are blogs--not considered in anyway to be reliable sources by encyclopaedic standards, and an example of cherry-picking from a minority. Unless you can show that a majority of reliable sources commonly and consistently criticise it for the the negative things that you're soap-boxing about, you're in the minority and have very little weight. DonQuixote (talk) 17:09, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Hate to break it to you but the majority of editors here, throughout the history of this talk page have been independently raising the question again-and-again of "why is this article so promotional?". Also, this doesn't seem like a blog. [The world building and writing are lazy]. This source most definitely is reliable The Most Breathtaking Moment in ‘The Last Jedi’ Is Also Its Greatest Threat to ‘Star Wars’ Lore and when scholars or fellow writers touch on the movie, it is usually well written and balanced with a criticism section. Yet where is the corresponding balance in this promotional wikipedia article? The good, the bad, and the politics of The Last Jedi... Daniel W. Drezner is a professor of international politics Where is the remotest mention to the fact that the lead actor of the movie, Mark Hamill disagreed "fundamentally with every decision made by Rian Johnson"? Where? No where. Instead we have mention to irrelevant movies like Thor:Ragnarok...so on the issue of "weight", are you for real?

Boundarylayer (talk) 18:42, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Hate to break it to you but the majority of editors here, throughout the history of this talk page have been independently raising the question again-and-again of "why is this article so promotional?"

You know that the talk pages are archived, right? I've been following the discussions, and it's nowhere near the "majority". If it were, I probably would have said something about the matter because it's against Wikipedia policy.

And as for your sources, thanks for providing two new sources. Now please provide more so that you can show that the sources commonly and consistently give such negative criticism so that it should be given more weight in this article. DonQuixote (talk) 13:04, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, wikipedia admins have pretty much sabotaged this article. They are in denial of the fact that a majority of the audience did not like it. They claim that the people who disliked it are trolls. Well I can assure you that I am not a troll. I actually disliked this movie. So basically the admins are calling anyone who criticizes this film a troll. Wikipedia is based on facts, not biased reporting. Vincecrystal (talk) 00:09, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

@Vincecrystal: No, Wikipedia is based on professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources, which have concluded that trolls did try to influence user-submitted reviews to websites (which explains the discrepancy between scientific polls of audience members and user generated sites). Maybe try learning how things work before spouting off about things you don't understand next time? Ian.thomson (talk) 00:45, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Wow, someone is angry! As a Star Wars fan I can assure you that I DID NOT LIKE THIS FILM! If you want to call me a troll then go right ahead. But the fact of the matter is the film DID receive criticism even by Mark Hamill himself. So Solo A Star Wars Story gets to have criticism in the lead but The Last Jedi doesn't? Most people liked Solo, but some said that it wasn't good. Well it is the same with the Last Jedi. You need to accept the fact that even great movies are subjected to criticism. You cannot censor criticism. Vincecrystal (talk) 01:55, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Re anger: see Projection (psychology).

As for the rest of your statements, see WP:No original research, WP:NOTSOAPBOX, WP:NOTFORUM, and the sources cited in the article. This is not a platform for you to bitch and moan on, this is an encyclopedia that summarizes mainstream academic and journalistic sources. If you don't have any, then you're wasting everyone's time and bandwidth with your whining. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:57, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Please do not spam my talk page. Making personal attacks is against wikipedia guidelines. Vincecrystal (talk) 14:33, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Explaining the site's policies and guidelines is not a personal attack. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:36, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Calling someone a "bitch" is a personal attack, and flooding someone's talk page as a weapon is not constructive. I suggest you review the policies such as yourself. Foul language is not acceptable on wikipedia. Vincecrystal (talk) 15:41, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

@Vincecrystal: I didn't call you a bitch. I described your complaints were "bitching and moaning." There's a difference: one describes a person, the other describes an action. There's actually no policy against profanity, and attempts to get one started have generally been countered with WP:NOTCENSORED. Also, I explained policies and guidelines that you're clearly unaware of -- your failure to assume good faith (a foundational site policy) from that is your problem. Now, do you have any interest in being useful to the site, or are you just here to complain? Ian.thomson (talk) 15:44, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Actually there is a policy against profanity if you use it in a deragatory sense. But I am done playing your childish games. Talking to you is a real headache. The Last Jedi sucked, end of story. Bye bye honey! Vincecrystal (talk) 20:30, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

The "An academic study" addition, Russian bots

As seen here, I reverted the new addition by UpdateNerd. I did so per the WP:Hidden note, which is clear that we went through a lot of discussion over the section and it is very contentious and therefore significant new additions to it should ideally be discussed here on the talk page first. I also reverted because the bot aspect is already covered in the section. I do not see that there is a need for more bot material in the section. If we are to add more, it should be in the paragraph that already addresses bots, and it should not be as detailed as UpdateNerd's addition. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:20, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't see the prior mention of bots. At any rate, the CNET report refuted the "academic study", so I agree with its removal. Thanks, UpdateNerd (talk) 10:25, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Here you go User:Wikibenboy94

[[1]] Toa's wording on Mark Hamill's criticism was preferred by everyone(apart from me) so I added his.

Boundarylayer (talk) 16:58, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

And yet you've cut the end half of his comment (as follows) that no one aside from yourself had any issue with or wanted trimmed down:

"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." Wikibenboy94 (talk) 19:55, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

I've updated that text. It also left out Hamill's praise. Alaney2k (talk) 20:57, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Hey Wikibenboy94 & Alaney2k. Ping me to let me know if you choose to respond.

How does "Hamill's praise", done months after the release of the film, fit under the development section...Exactly? Wouldn't that be critique, that fits under the audience response section. No? I understand the desire to, once the man is finally allowed to be mentioned in the development section, to cram in what he later said though it's a little obvious?.

Boundarylayer (talk) 18:32, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

@Boundarylayer: The comments were all from after-the-film interviews, so all of that paragraph is in the same boat. It would not make sense to just have criticism, based on the referred-to article, and it would not make sense to put one sentence of the praise in some other section. It would be wrong to leave the impression that Hamill only had negative opinions of the movie. Alaney2k (talk) 18:36, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping @Alaney2k:. Judging by the context in which the remarks were made, Hamill appears to have disagreed on-set during development. Therefore that's why I added his remarks to that section, the development section. A section on Hamill's more recent views on the movie, should be in the response/audience reaction section, because wikipedia is not a promotional tool, it would not be wrong to leave the impression that Hamill had negative opinions of the movie during development...for the very reason that he did actually have negative views during the development. Did he not? I'm sure there are other film articles we could point to, that properly conveys a similar case of an actor famously disagreeing strenuously during development.

Would you be opposed to taking a leaf from other editors/other articles on this matter?

Boundarylayer (talk) 16:43, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Is there a point to splitting it up? As is, Hamill's comments are together. If you want to put it in reaction, then you should add that Hamill regretted his negative comments in previous interviews. Alaney2k (talk) 19:22, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes splitting it up makes sense as we're not here to cheerlead the movie but tell the facts, I mean isn't there "A making-of film" doing the rounds, or just released, which should also be discussed, referenced and added to the development section?

Hamill disagreed strongly during the development. Moreover, completely contrary to what you just suggested, Hamill actually never regretted his comments, the only thing that he has come out and regretted was merely the fact they that they grew into such a public-relations talking point. Yet you are here trying to put words in his mouth/synthesize material...again? ...Why?

I mean I just looked up "Mark Hamill 2018" to see what his more recent comments on the movie are and as recently as late August just gone, he's still creating publicity, with the now famous "He's not my Luke Skywalker" quote and that he "fundamentally disagreed" with every plot/story-arc decision, Rian Johnson made for his character. Who he allegedly had to name "Jake Skywalker", in order to continue filming the movie.

https://comicbook.com/starwars/2018/08/30/star-wars-the-last-jedi-mark-hamill-doesnt-know-why-luke-skywalker-gave-up/

I have to agree with you that Hamill goes back and forth. I don't know right now what he thinks. I saw him in a talk he gave at Fan Expo in Toronto, and he really rambles and goes off-topic to whatever is on his mind at the moment. I don't know if he has come to any serious conclusions on anything. That all said, the reference for the paragraph indicated that he was regretful and had praise, so I felt that should be included, because he doesn't have a black and white opinion of the film. I kind of feel that you might think he has a firm opinion and I don't think he has one. He has a bunch of contradictory opinions. I wouldn't want to stretch out discussing his opinions. His opinions are very personal, it's what he feels about something and I don't know if he is at all objective. A month later, and he will say something more. Right now, I think we have the most notable opinions and further opinions might be considered personal vanity opinions. Eccentric even. An actor being eccentric - not unheard of! Alaney2k (talk) 04:48, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

I would tend to disagree. At no point has Hamill ever praised how his character was written, his scenes edited together or felt in any way like who he was playing was Luke Skywalker. He calls the character Jake Skywalker and has expressed incredulity during both the development of the movie and now over a year later. He hasn't changed on that point, ever. About the only positive thing he has said about how Skywalker was protrayed was, in the context of Carrie Fisher dying, he couldn't have asked for a better send-off(death of his character). When naturally, verything pails into insignificance when compared to real-life. Other than that, he has been pretty coherent on the matter, the characterization just seems, off. I honestly don't think it's a vanity thing either, I mean he sounds like it's genuinely that the characterization just sticks out like a sore thumb to him, rather than wanting the sore-thumb to stick out even bigger. It would be the same thing if Han Solo was in the movie for 5 minutes but instead of doing normal Han Solo stuff, all his screen time was him simply played with porgs for 10 minutes. Harrison Ford would likewise be saying...wtf, this really Han Solo I'm playing? You know?

Boundarylayer (talk) 18:23, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

He has said he was wrong about the movie. He called it stunning and complex. Said his criticism was badly put. What do you believe all of that to mean? It sounds like he disagrees with his earlier criticisms of the movie. And this article is about the movie, not Luke Skywalker specifically. It was before Force Awakens that Skywalker went missing, so to ascribe everything solely to Johnson was a bit of a misdirected criticism. The writers of The Force Awakens left Johnson the task of filling in the blanks on Skywalker in episode 8. The character seems to lead directly from The Force Awakens, which placed Skywalker on the island in the first place and in direct opposition to Hamill's thoughts of a Jedi never giving up. How else would you portray someone who has hidden himself away? Hardly seems like a happy decision by a happy person. So, to me, Hamill's preference is that of the Expanded Universe, not the current saga, and that is his opinion on that and not more than any other person in that sense. I'm not sure if there is a better place to go deeper, if at all, maybe in the Skywalker article or Hamill article, but it's not a Last Jedi issue per se. And we don't have the last part of the arc yet. There may be yet more on this topic to discuss. There were original writings by Lucas on this arc/trilogy; as far as I know, they are basically following Lucas' arc in general terms, where Luke would have died in Ep 9 instead. I don't know who is in charge of the general arc - that would be with who his dispute really lies. On leaving out the grieving over Han; that seems to be the only thing specifically tied to Last Jedi's production. Alaney2k (talk) 19:29, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

BTW, I am ok with your last addition and the text as is. I might not have said incredulity. But hey. :-) Alaney2k (talk) 19:39, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, as I understand it, Lucas’ original “arc” also had Luke MIA on some ancient Jedi temple somewhere. Antinoos69 (talk) 05:44, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Re: Archive 5

@Boundarylayer: From archive 5: 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)

That's the only thing I can find in archive 5 that has anything to do with your recent edit. So to reiterate, please stop beating a dead horse. DonQuixote (talk) 21:57, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Except Don, you're tilting at windmills again and talking about something completely without bearing to this editorial matter, in this matter we're talking about the VOX reference. Agreed? If you had looked so hard by merely searching for the word "VOX" in archive 5, you'd find the editors discussing this very thing, without my input, with another editor stating:

"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"

The VOX author of the piece allegedly used twitter, to influence their views and writing, though interestingly they did not provide any screen captures of tweets, to corroborate their writing. Though let's assume the author of the VOX article is genuine. Twitter is still well known to be (A) not a scientific barometer for the obvious reason that it is not only transitory but (B)if you're unfamiliar with the mess that is twitter, the loudest most obnoxious trolls who spend too much time on twitter just circle-jerk themselves, upvoting the most trigger-baiting fringe opinions. Don't you know? So it is indeed ridiculous to be pushing the primacy of, some kind of anti-progressivism conspiracy theory. I mean is every movie you disliked in your entire life because of your political persuasion, do you even think that is common? Or do you think most people instead just do not enjoy movies due to things relating to, I don't know, feelings about an incoherent plot and issues relating to the story-arc?

As a thought experiment. What if I found a tweet from someone who also disliked a movie you dislike, just like you and they're a Nazi group...gasp...would you change your opinion on that movie then? What if all the KKK members of the entire world upvoted that disliking tweet. Would you then entertain the ridiculous notion that most people are somehow akin to the KKK that disliked the movie? Or like you, most people just didn't like it for you know, normal story-telling reasons and then didn't bother to get on twitter and write about their dislike, in a sensationalist way?

As Todd VanDerWerff of Vox actually mentions. "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.

Boundarylayer (talk) 01:20, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

From that same thread

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)

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)

Still doesn't support your edit. I'd suggest you do what GoneIn60 proposed and find new source(s), if any. DonQuixote (talk) 01:40, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

This one seems fair by Joanna Robinson of Vanity Fair. As it doesn't put a whole lot of stock in the manufactured notion of a legion of anti-progressism afoot who are against the movie, instead writing "there is a ticked-off splinter of the Star Wars fandom angered by The Last Jedi. These MAGA–esque fanboys...aren’t very comfortable with the film’s more progressive messages. Their hysteria-tinged reactions are best ignored. So it, in direct opposition to the VOX article doesn't put a whole lot of stock in the albeit sensationalist, though still very much minority "splinter group" as she describes them.

Most of the weight of the article is then spent teasing out, discussing and elucidating the actual understandable reasons why people didn't like the movie. It even includes comments from the director acknowledging some of them over the humor. So by and large, a much better reference worth summarizing by order of how much weight of text, they attach to each factor. The VOX guy just leads with the - do we even take them seriously, trigger-baiting "splinter group" because it's the juicier story isn't it. They even acknowledge being tempted to ascribe all dissatisfaction to those of that mindset but as it would jeopardize their journalistic integrity, because it just wouldn't be accurate, they don't.

By contrast Joanna Robinson hits the nail on the head, someone who actually seems to have truly gone and genuinely read the user generated, rotten tomatoes reviews. Robinson writes the biggest sticking point among The Last Jedi’s more critically engaged detractors appears to involve the treatment of the franchise’s original hero: Luke Skywalker.

It's nothing to do with this whole convenient-for-Johnson, (1) stoke the extremists on twitter to get them to say something anti-progressive about my movie, then (2) get all the media and everyone focused on that, while both of Johnson's widely acknowledged poor-writing and pacing that every character suffered from, conveniently gets the slip out the back door, not to mention along with, all the billions in dollars of sales money. Even Rey who is given a chance to eclipse Luke Skywalker by uniquely meeting the darkside...such a concept, really, with massive potential...surely something happens or is learned or changes after the confrontation, right? Nah nothin really happens, she doesn't even get so much as a t-shirt for her troubles, or any lasting change in perspective, a gargantuan opportunity for her character to be badass is given up and literally nothing happens. It wasn't even really done in a surreal David Lynch kind of way either, akin to entering the mysterious black-lodge with questions remaining...so you add it all up and there is just too much emotionally numbed, unengaging pointlessness throughout the movie. Though I think everyone would agree with Hamill, that Steve Yedlin's cinematography is by all accounts "stunning".

Just How Seriously Should We Take This Star Wars: The Last Jedi Backlash? by Joanna Robinson

Boundarylayer (talk) 04:54, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

First of all, thanks for providing a source. However, it doesn't say anything about a manufactured notion of a legion of anti-progressism, and it isn't in direct opposition to the VOX article. Rather, the most we can read from the article is that there is an anti-progressivism group which the article will not delve into. That is, these are a list of negative criticisms: dissatisfied fans saw the film as too progressive, disliked its humor, plot, or character arcs, or felt betrayed that it ignored fan theories of which the article is going to examine everything but the first one in detail--that doesn't actually contradict the Vox article or even the simple list that's presented in this article. In fact, if you read the rest of the paragraph in this article, it's more in line with the Vanity Fair article in that it lists the anti-progressivism first, but the rest of the paragraph describes the other stuff in more detail (more detail for a general encyclopaedia article at any rate). DonQuixote (talk) 10:27, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

No, the issue is one of WP:WEIGHT, not your obsession over what order in the "list", each journalist decided to lead with. We both know the anti-progressivism claptrap is not proportionate to the majority of the fans, it's a tiny "splinter group of the fans" as Joanna Robinson characterizes it and should be properly communicated as such. Therefore we're just feeding those trolls if we continue to give them pride of place, or frame the dissatisfaction with the movie as somehow to be viewed through this ridiculous lens. We're also setting up the, good-for-Disney-publicity-narrative, of everyone who doesn't like the movie, being a closet anti-progress type...when really, if you read the reviews on rotten tomatoes and likewise notice the weight that Joanna Robinson gives to each opinion, the majority of dissatisfied people just think the allegedly progressive movie was just poorly written, paced and presented. I mean the same fans who loved Aliens the movie, aren't smeared as anti-progressive when they don't like Alien 4. It was just a bad movie in the franchise. While the character of Ripley is still a badass, that particular movie was just an incoherent mess, all over the place, which is not surprising really as it had multiple writers with different "visions". Somewhat akin to this one, no?

Boundarylayer (talk) 18:37, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Reading the two sources, and reading the one-and-only mention in this article, the current weight of the topic in this article is fine as-is. If you think it's not, then feel free to start an RFC. DonQuixote (talk) 19:02, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Comment – This thread and the one above can end. It's been clear for some time that Boundarylayer is on a mission to tilt this article negative as much as possible to support his/her opinion that it was a bad film. Every month or so, another new thread is started, but it should have ended long before we even got to this one:

Talk:Star Wars: The Last Jedi/Archive 5#Mark Hamill criticism & why was it removed in the 1st place?

I recommend to everyone else following these discussions to stop feeding the trolls. --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:55, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

About The Russia Rumors

Should we add a section about the possible Russian influence on the film’s audience reception? Link: https://www.slashfilm.com/last-jedi-online-backlash/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.172.180.75 (talk) 20:54, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

This has already been briefly discussed on the Talk page. See "The "An academic study" addition, Russian bots" section--Wikibenboy94 (talk) 10:46, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Regarding the Audience Consensus Section

I am not an experienced editor, nor the best at constructing changes, and I would not like to be an edit in a way that fundamentally changes content. However, many fans upset with the Last Jedi have expressed their frustration with the section on Audience Reception, believing the section to have a bias in favor of the film instead of a neutral, objective stance. Their arguments can be found here: https://www.reddit.com/r/saltierthancrait/comments/9py0j0/can_we_take_a_minute_to_appreciate_how_riddled/.

Again, I personally will not make any changes but I wanted to bring this to everyone's attention. DeoGame (talk) 03:26, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia works by citing and summarising reliable sources. The first step is to read reliable sources known for fact-checking and/or acadaemic peer-review to get a general idea of a fair representation of all significant viewpoints in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources (see WP:DUE), specifically Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all. Regards. DonQuixote (talk) 03:39, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

This is one Reddit user who seems to exist solely to complain or incite criticism about The Last Jedi or the sequel trilogy in general. Those who are subbed or otherwise agree with them lap it up; in this case, echoing his claim that the film's Wikipedia's article is biased (yet most, if not all, of whom wouldn't otherwise have known about the article beforehand).

The problem is these users know next to nothing about how Wikipedia works in terms of sourcing or giving viewpoints (see DonQuixote above), and essentially would want every major source or topic of criticism for the film to be mentioned in the article. Nothing is changing and until a smidgen of fans angry with Wikipedia move on, the better. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 14:56, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Forums are not reliable sources per WP:RSSELF. Linking to a forum is pointless. Internet comments are not representative of the general public. Hence the need for metrics like CinemaScore and PostTrak, which are controlled. Other such metrics, like polling long-time members of an enduring Star Wars fan club, would be possible to use. Internet comments, in contrast, suffer from extremes. The people who love something or hate something will go out of their way to talk about it. And if such lovers and haters feel like the reported consensus is wrong, they'll talk about it even more. These aren't easily measured, so undue weight cannot be given to such sentiments. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:41, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the responses. DeoGame (talk) 20:25, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree that the section seems to be slightly biased, but unfortunately I was unable to find a good source that could correct this. The only thing I'd change right now is this sentence:

Several reviewers speculated that the low user scores are the result of manipulation, either by coordinated vote brigading from internet groups or from bots.

The provided sources do not attribute this solely to brigading and bots, so I inserted the word "partially" after "are". The user GoneIn60 undid this, saying "There are other ways to reword if you feel it's necessary." What could be a good way to reword this? Sandrobost (talk) 11:58, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

"Partially" implies that we know the amount of influence, which we don't--same problem with using "mostly". Using something like "affected by" might be better. DonQuixote (talk) 13:59, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

@Sandrobost: I don't know, to say something is biased often reveals that that person has some biases (as we all do), so I think you might need to consider that. I mean nothing harsh about that, just that that is my experience. Anyway, in what way is the text biased? The section attempts to summarize the negative comments expressed on the internet, which is clearly from a minority of the actual audience that actually attended. This group has spent a lot of time on developing that wording, trying to be fair and accurate. An audience reception section itself is not a common thing in Wikipedia film articles. The audience section is not a place for Wikipedia to start a debate with the critics or be a venting place for those who dislike something. We just try to report it accurately. Alaney2k (talk) 16:36, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

@Alaney2k: This is very true, I had some trouble wording my comment. Probably my only (small) problem with the section is the sentence "Reviewers stated that fan theories were held so strongly among some viewers that it was difficult for them to accept different stories" which, although obviously objective, on some level seems to "disregard" the previously mentioned fan opinions by saying they were caused by unrealistic expectations. (And for what it's worth, I actually really like this film and it was definitely not my intention to use this article as a venting place) Sandrobost (talk) 17:03, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

I think you are misinterpreting the context of that statement. It is not saying that all viewers had a hard time accepting different stories; it's saying some did. So the fact that other viewers had other opinions is irrelevant to this statement. We are taking several different viewpoints and incorporating them into one paragraph. Each viewpoint mentioned may or may not agree with another. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:11, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Still, it could probably be improved. Some people are taking it to be dismissive, which I am sure is not the intention. Tough one to rewrite though. Alaney2k (talk) 17:17, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

That could be true for any statement! Always open to suggestions. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:21, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Suggestion for "manipulation" statement: We could rephrase that sentence above and state the following instead:

"Several reviewers speculated that coordinated vote brigading from internet groups and bots contributed to the low user scores."

I hate to drop the phrase "manipulation" but thought I'd throw this out there as an option. Thoughts? --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:19, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

I do like that. The other sentence Sandrobot mentioned above was the one I was referring to:

"Reviewers stated that fan theories were held so strongly among some viewers that it was difficult for them to accept different stories"

Alaney2k (talk) 18:00, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

"The other sentence Sandrobot mentioned above was the one I was referring to"

Yes, I realize. I was talking about the same one up until the "suggestion" I posted, where I turned my attention back to the Sandrobost's original concern. Thanks for the feedback. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:15, 22 October 2018 (UTC)