Talk:Star Wars: The Last Jedi/Archive 2

Fan reaction
I have added a couple of sentences to the fan reaction section. First, I was not sure whether it is encyclopedic. I decided to add Mendelson's opinion, and I have added a source from Voxx. If we expand a bit, maybe we can decide whether to keep it? Is it significant? I didn't expect it to be divisive itself, but there you go. Alaney2k (talk) 17:21, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It isn't encyclopedic to me. It must be discussed here before adding it again. -- Mia o w   18:38, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

I understand that fan reactions aren't as scientific, concrete, or reliable as the opinions of established critics; but when two of the most popular user review sites on the internet, Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic, show that about half of all user votes are overwhelmingly negative, it's relevant information. Wiki users who are unaware of the situation and backlash should at least be offered the information that many fans of the franchise are highly critical, so much so that on RT it has the lowest user score of any of the franchise's major films. This isn't just a vocal minority that are screaming loudly about how much they dislike the film, from what we've seen from user polls online a large portion of the audience straight up disliked the movie. And considering how far apart critics and fans opinions seem to be, I believe that it is information that should be included in the page; so maybe years down the line, when some of the anger may have subsided, there should be a record of how much fan criticism the film received. This doesn't appear to be a massive troll towards the film, like what we saw with 2016's "Ghostbusters," this seems to be legitimate fan criticism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PSpepper1 (talk • contribs) 19:38, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * (edited) Hard to say whether it is trolling. It's been suggested elsewhere than at Forbes. Someone claimed to be behind it. In a smaller way, the 1998 Godzilla film, was a box office success, yet widely derided by fans. That article has mentions of that. I'd rather leave it in and edit to a better point, but there have been two editors who seem to be completely against it. I got through two sentences, then saw it reverted before I added a third. Now it's gone completely. I hope further discussion happens. Alaney2k (talk) 19:56, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

See discussions above. An 'open poll' that anyone can respond to can be skewed up or down by a vocal minority, especially if there is a campaign to skew it on social media. A survey like CinemaScore is a more reliable measurement. Anywikiuser (talk) 20:17, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Gotta agree with Amywikiuser. There are an insanely large number of threads on this talk page opened on the same topic by various users popping up and assuming no one has been discussing it already. I kinda wish we could merge them all. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 20:26, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * When there are lots of topics, you can't tune into them all. It's not a board, we're not 'users'. Alaney2k (talk) 20:50, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

This recent source may be of relevance to those making assumptions or claims about audience reaction to the film. Antinoos69 (talk) 20:38, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok, great. This clears it all up. I'd say thanks for wanting it in, but it seems to be like Mendelsohn said, it's trolling. A bit of fake news, like the times nowadays. I'm okay with finally stamping it out and not allowing a section to discuss it then. It has been discussed in the news, but it should blow over and be irrelevant. Alaney2k (talk) 20:50, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Regarding this and this, we include fan reaction (yes, CinemaScore as well), per MOS:FILM, and it can go either in the Critical reception section or have an Audience response section (if there is enough material for a standalone section and it does not fit best in the Critical reception section). Such sections are encyclopedic if done right. Professional critics are not the only aspect to critical reception. That stated, Erik did recently state that PostTrak is "more reliable than user scores (which have apparently been manipulated for The Last Jedi)." And I have seen many fans disliking this latest Star Wars film. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:54, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Star Wars fans have been disliking the latest Star Wars film and considering it the worst/worse Star Wars film since The Empire Strikes Back, if you’ll recall. I certainly recall having to keep my views of the relative merits of the first two films to myself to avoid rather vicious mockery and insult. Professional critics at the time were unkind to TESB. And you might also recall that Empire had the lowest original box office gross of the original trilogy films. Antinoos69 (talk) 00:13, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The Empire Strikes Back is generally disliked by fans? I haven't known that to be the case. I think I've heard it be considered the worst in the original trilogy, and I assume that's what you mean. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:40, 20 December 2017 (UTC)


 * No, I can't say that I've even heard The Empire Strikes Back referred to as the worst. I guess by "since," you simply mean "after" and are discounting the prequels? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:46, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Um, no, you misunderstood, perhaps because I misjudged your age. I meant that, since The Empire Strikes Back first came out in 1980, there have been Star Wars fans who have considered the latest film released, whatever film that may have been at the time, disappointing or the worse/worst Star Wars film to date. When it first came out, and for years afterward, Empire was generally considered inferior to and unworthy of the original by both fans and critics. To say otherwise was generally considered a sign of idiocy. Perhaps you’re too young to recall or know that. Needless to say, the prequels didn’t exist when Empire was released in 1980. Antinoos69 (talk) 15:05, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think misunderstanding what you meant has to do with my age. You also just stated, "Empire was generally considered inferior to and unworthy of the original by both fans and critics." But I've never known that to be the case. I mean, are there any sources noting that critical and fan opinion changed, like there is for 2001: A Space Odyssey? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:41, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I’m afraid you’re betraying your youth. Had you been old enough to have lived through the release of the original trilogy, as a viewer able to remember them and the times, you would likely have gotten the gist of my post and understood its factuality. But not to worry, as there are certainly sources available to alert you to the change in opinion. You can start here. Even the official SW website refers to the change in critics’ opinion, while self-servingly downplaying fan opinion (which the first source does not, citing examples). You can easily find more sources. Antinoos69 (talk) 21:20, 20 December 2017 (UTC)


 * How young do you think I am? I mean, I'm not going to say. Just wondering. Me misunderstanding your The Empire Strikes Back comment is due to your poor wording. You should be clear instead of assuming that editors are as old as you are and/or are hardcore fans. Fan logic is what is going on now with a few trying to keep valid criticism out of the article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:05, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Can I conclude from your response that you now concede the point regarding the initial reaction to The Empire Strikrs Back and its subsequent change? Antinoos69 (talk) 07:08, 21 December 2017 (UTC)


 * What need is there to concede? I was not debating the matter. I questioned it and asked for sources. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:54, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * And you were provided with sources supporting the point you were strenuously resisting, hence the need to concede. Is the matter now settled? Antinoos69 (talk) 19:58, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Your argument is odd and childish. Do move on. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:57, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I’ll take that as a yes. I find it telling that you’re incapable of forcing yourself to actually say as much yourself. Antinoos69 (talk) 16:39, 30 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Take it any way you like. You are wrong, just like you've been wrong on including the fan reaction. End of discussion. I will not be replying to you any further in this section. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:41, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * ”Wrong” about what? You can’t possibly be suggesting I’m “wrong” about the initial response to The Empire Strikes Back. I provided two sources on the matter verifying my position, including the official SW website. What more could you possibly want? How stubborn do you doggedly insist on being? If you’re trying to convince me you’re a complete idiot, you’re succeeding marvelously. Antinoos69 (talk) 23:21, 30 December 2017 (UTC)


 * At the risk of replying to you yet again in this section despite stating that I would not and your out-of-line WP:Personal attack, your reading comprehension is off in this case. When typing my "17:41, 30 December 2017 (UTC)" comment above, I briefly wondered if you would think that I was stating that you were wrong about The Empire Strikes Back initially being hated by fans, but I figured that you would have the comprehension skills to know that I obviously was not talking about that since I never stated that you were wrong about that and since you pointed to sources. Just like Huggums537 below, all I did was question the matter. I did not state that you were wrong. I did not debate it. I stated, "But I've never known that to be the case. I mean, are there any sources noting that critical and fan opinion changed, like there is for 2001: A Space Odyssey?" After that, you provided sources. There was no need to "concede." I was even going to point to sources before you followed up with sources. But since you are so adamant on me "conceding," as if I was actually stating that you are wrong, I should not be surprised that you misread my "You are wrong" comment. That comment has to do with your "telling" B.S. argument. Your "concede" demands are akin to me asking or demanding that you concede regarding your "RfC is not now going the way you seem to have hoped" commentary below in this section, where I noted that RfCs last a month. I knew that the RfC's tide would return, but there is no need for me to belabor that point. Anyway, now I really am done replying to you in this section. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:45, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Be all that however it may actually be, a simple yes would have sufficed about three responses ago, and would have been far more concise and trouble-free. Antinoos69 (talk) 08:21, 1 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Totally off topic comment: I've always heard it said that The Empire Strikes Back was actually THE BEST of the films (by many fans), and I never understood why because I never could see that as being true myself. My personal choices were always A New Hope and Revenge of the Sith. Anyway, I agree with Flyer22 and Erik that fan opinions have some kind of value, but it should be stated/positioned appropriately in accordance with Wikipedia structure. However, waiting a bit in this case, as suggested by other users, seems justifiable. Huggums537 (talk) 02:17, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * See my comment above for a partial response. Antinoos69 (talk) 15:05, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Fan reaction as discussed by reliable sources is warranted. I've seen a few sources analyze the the matter (like here), and they can be combined. However, fan reaction as derived by user scores should not be included at face value (per our guidelines). Meaning, don't lead with, "The film was heavily panned in user reviews. But! Some periodicals noticed this being at odds with the critics and the on-site polls." Just share more directly that sources noted a discrepancy and provide their assessment and reasons as to why (rigging, vote-stacking, bot manipulation, whatever). Beyond that, there's no clear-cut way to capture "fan reaction" beyond CinemaScore, PostTrak, and the film having "legs" at the box office (which sources tend to tie to word-of-mouth). Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 22:05, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I think it would be best to wait until the dust settles a bit and more is actually known; otherwise, we would risk running afoul of WP:PROPORTION. Antinoos69 (talk) 00:13, 20 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Erik, thanks for weighing in. Antinoos69, I don't think it's a WP:Undue weight issue yet. I don't even think WP:Recentism needs to be applied. The matter of the fact is that we have professional critics giving generally positive reviews, and reports on fan response differing. We haven't waited to include the thoughts of professional critics. I don't see why we should wait to include the thoughts of fans. Regarding this revert of UAIED by DonQuixote, I see that a reliable source reporting on the Rotten Tomatoes score was included.


 * Anyway, I'll contact WP:Film about weighing in on this. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:04, 20 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Also alerted MOS:FILM. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:16, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The policy I referenced was WP:PROPORTION, not any of the ones you mention. We should wait because it is currently not established what is actually going on with a few of these audience-response measures. Doing the topic justice at this time would likely involve giving the matter disproportionate attention in the article as a whole, what the policy I referenced actually addresses. Antinoos69 (talk) 15:17, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The policy you pointed to is an aspect (subsection) of the WP:Due weight policy, which is a part of the WP:Neutral policy. Did you not know that? The discontent that many fans have with the film is not solely being tied to user scores. There is nothing that states we need to wait. And if I go the WP:RfC route, I'm sure that most of the votes in the Survey section will be to include the material. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:29, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * First, my relevant comments specifically concern WP:PROPORTION, not any of the rest of it. Or would you suppose that anything that could be said of Roman Catholics can also be said of all Christians? This matter concerns a miniscule aspect of an article on the film as a whole. Any reasonable discussion of the current state of this matter is all but certain to run afoul of WP:PROPORTION, specifically. Second, it has yet to be established by any source that there actually is any disproportionate discontent about this film, as opposed to about any SW film after the original of 1977. Every source I’ve seen saying otherwise is basing itself either on problematic audience-response metrics or on purely anecdotal evidence, essentially assuming disproportionate discontent in the latter case. We need to wait until we actually know something, anything at all. Third, your RfC is not now going the way you seem to have hoped. Antinoos69 (talk) 21:49, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Your objection seems to be based on your personal feelings rather than the way that Wikipedia actually works. It's clear that I and others do not agree with your WP:PROPORTION arguments, and why we don't is made clear in this section and below. As for the RfC, do you know how long RfCs last? A month. And WP:LOCALCONSENSUS cannot override our rules. The content will eventually be in this article, much to your displeasure. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:07, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I’ll just assume readers can discern for themselves the startling disconnect between your (mis)characterization of my comments and my comments themselves. Antinoos69 (talk) 07:08, 21 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Sure (sarcasm). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:54, 21 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I have a bit of a question: is it possible to wait a bit in time, perhaps another week or two? Given the apparent massive disparity between critic and fan reactions, it seems reasonable that in the next couple of weeks, we'll see more third-party articles talk about the fan reaction. Personally, my approach to these things of issues is to give it time to settle and see how it shakes out. Is that a viable option in this case? To just wait a little? I do think that at least a couple of sentences summarizing that RT and MC reported negative audience scores appears warranted. ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  01:30, 20 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Wait for at least a week. It's hard to distinguish from people just disappointed, and reasonably legitimate negative reaction. If its the latter, RSes will still be talking about it in a week. If its just the first, it will disappiate quickly. --M asem (t) 01:31, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Regardless of what happens when the "dust settles", it's encyclopedic information. This fan reaction is being covered in numerous third-party sources. Even if it ends up being partially rigged, it's still a notable backlash/event due to its coverage in multiple sources. &mdash;Deckiller (t-c-l) 02:59, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Then that won't change in a week or a few week's time. From what I've gathered it is basically undue weight given to the actions of a small proportion of fans. That's not encyclopedic in nature. There are always going to be unhappy fans. Alaney2k (talk) 03:19, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Not really WP:Undue weight, judging by the sources and number of sources covering this. If there was this type of reaction to The Force Awakens, it would be in the The Force Awakens article as well. But the most criticism that film got is that it was a copy of past Star Wars films, or namely the first one. Some critics covered that, and we included that criticism. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:26, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I did not mean the wiki policy. I meant that the media is giving it undue weight. Alaney2k (talk) 15:30, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * But that is not for you, me or anyone else to judge. It is up to us to follow Wikipedia policy. And it is entirely due to cover this aspect. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:34, 20 December 2017 (UTC)


 * But that criticism was from actual critics (Andrew O'Hehir, Scott Mendelson, Brian Merchant). What is being discussed here is an online poll of fans. Granzymes (talk) 04:39, 20 December 2017 (UTC)


 * That it was professional critics commenting on that matter was part of my point. They were still a minority aspect in terms of the overall positive reception. And in the case of The Last Jedi, it is not simply about an online poll of fans. Look at the sources on this matter via a simple Google search, such as the one I linked to above. Critics are reporting on this matter as well (and in depth). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:59, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

I believe this is a unique situation where mentioning info about the audience scores are appropriate as it has become part of the larger story of the movie and we would be disservicing the readers if we didn't mention it. There's also mentions that voting manipulation tactics may have been used which also I think should be covered. --Deathawk (talk) 04:43, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree. I mentioned this in a previous discussion as well. Hopefully, we can contain these discussions in one thread! --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:38, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * GoneIn60, and right now, there is nothing but an "Audience surveys" section with two surveys mentioned. This is wholly inadequate, given what various reliable sources are stating. There is no valid reason to wait when we are already including survey material, which is positive, but not analysis material, which notes that many fans are not positive about this film. The section should be changed to "Audience response," per MOS:FILM, and expanded. We are not in habit of including an "Audience surveys" section that consists of nothing but a single sentence or two. And we do not need to start that habit. If there is not much to state about audience response, we include that material in the Critical response section or Box office section. If there is, then the material gets an Audience response section. Seems like one of us needs to be WP:Bold and expand the material or start a WP:RfC on the matter. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:57, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not in favour of adding mention of "fan backlash" if the only evidence for it is non-scientific polls that any passer-by can chip in a review for, as these are not considered reliable surveys and are vulnerable to participation bias. CinemaScore and ComScore are scientific polls. If there are enough reliable and significant sources commenting on this issue, I may change my mind. Anywikiuser (talk) 16:29, 20 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Read the articles here, here, here, here, and so on, discussing the matter. The sources discuss the matter beyond fan polls, although fan polls are a part of the discussion. It is critical analysis of fans being disappointed in the film. We absolutely include information such as this. Anyway, unlike others, I'm not going to keep arguing over it. I'm going to start a WP:RfC below since it's clear that we have editors who will oppose the inclusion of this material even if we wait a week to include it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:54, 20 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Also, it's not so much about posting non-scientific polls/scores as if they carry any real weight. We're talking about the media coverage surrounding the low scores and presenting that in a particular way. For example, the Newsweek article I mentioned before, which focuses on RT's audience score, emphasizes that it may have been gamed, but the fact that the low scores are receiving so much attention justifies inclusion in the article in some form; albeit, with careful phrasing so that we're not taking sides on whether the scores themselves really matter. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:50, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Should we include an Audience response section?
One view is that an Audience (fan) response section is unencyclopedic and/or WP:Undue in this case because the backlash to the film is mainly reflected in polls that can be easily manipulated and those who have issue with the film are a significant minority. The other view is that, per MOS:FILM, an Audience (fan) response section can be encyclopedic and that it is WP:Due to include fan response in this case because various reliable sources have noted that there is significant discontent with the film among fans, which goes beyond polling, and that this discontent clashes with what professional critics are stating.

Thoughts? If seeing this from the RfC page or from an alert on your talk page about RfC participation, see previous discussions on the article talk page, including Talk:Star Wars: The Last Jedi, for more detail. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:13, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

I will alert WP:Film and MOS:FILM to this discussion. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:16, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Survey

 * Yes. Like I stated in the section above, sources like this, this, this and this are discussing the matter beyond fan polls, although fan polls are a part of the discussion. The sources are critical analyses of fans being disappointed by the film. We absolutely include information such as this. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:22, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes. I just read this BBC article on the divisive audience reaction to the film and came here hoping to read more. There isn't anything atm but there should be. The audience reaction is being reported on in reliable sources and is encyclopaedic. Dcfc1988 (talk) 18:38, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * No. Not yet. Per WP:USERG. Fan polls are a part of the discussion of sources discussing the matter. The media is giving it undue weight. CinemaScore and others reliable surveys are enough. -- Mia o w   19:00, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * No. Per WP:USERG and MOS:FILM we should not include user ratings submitted to websites such as Rotten Tomatoes, as they are vulnerable to vote stacking and demographic skew. However, several critics have written that the characters’ journeys aren’t what was expected (seemingly the main cause of much of the fan backlash), so I suggest we include a qoute by a critic to that effect. Granzymes (talk) 19:08, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Fan reaction as-covered in WP:RS is inclusion-worthy, broadly. --Izno (talk) 19:41, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes. Noting that per Wikipedia rules, it should be based on analyses of critics (secondary sources), not on various polls (primary sources). Also, the reaction must be described in as much factual way as possible: strong and weak points, etc., not just vague judgements. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:43, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Not yet Not until better sources putting the problem in context have been located. I said everything I want to on the issue here and I'm tired of repeating myself. It's obvious that most of the flood of SPAs coming to this page and trying to add the RT score are themselves people who didn't like the movie, not people who are legitimately concerned that Wikipedia is not giving neutral coverage and due weight to a noteworthy controversy (which is something that concerns me). It's also worth noting that, given that the majority of editors arguing against the immediate inclusion of the discussion on the article have been basing it on the lack of critical, uninvolved sourced looking at the problem retrospectively ("Not yet" or "Yes eventually"), rather than "Wp:Undue", and that this was true before this RFC was opened, the RFC question is a misrepesentation of the dispute, in violation of the guidelines at WP:RFC, and could be seen as a form of canvassing. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 20:26, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * An alternate reading of the question just hit me, and I would give that question an unambiguous Hell yes! OMG WTF NOT!?: Yes, there should be an audience response section if the audience response is going to be discussed in the article. Someone keeps removing the comment I left there several times and adding discussion of audience polls under the heading "Critical response", which is nonsense. I am not sure if other articles do this, but if they do, they probably shouldn't, and this article definitely shouldn't. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 11:55, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Is anyone noticing that a lot of the "Yes"s that don't include a "but" or "eventually" are either new accounts or old, unused accounts? This is also true of a bunch of the pre-RFC editors who tried to add the content unilaterally while ignoring the prior discussion. New (as in a few months old) accounts are allowed comment, of course, but they seem to be doing so in a manner that betrays a lack of awareness of policy, and their not having read any of the prior discussion as their characterization of the view they are opposing is somewhat off. Not saying they should all be disregarded or anything, just noting that it is suspicious that this is happening here, it happened with Ghostbusters last year, and a whole bunch of the sources discussing the issue attribute at least some of the backlash to internet trolls (even specifically alluding to the Ghostbusters fiasco)... Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 12:28, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't get why people keep bringing up "Ghostbusters" on this talk page. Yes, it was overblown to some degree, but the movie was a legitimate box office bomb and received lukewarm reviews by critics at best. Fitting to this article, there's even a Plinkett review of the whole thing and why it simply is not a very good movie. In addition, TFA barely received any controversy or people downvoting the score, yet was much more daring in terms of diversifying its cast. --217.85.61.201 (talk) 12:52, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It's simple: Ghostbusters was roundly attacked by "men's rights" types who hadn't even seen the film, because of its female protagonist(s), and this is also true of the last three Star Wars films. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 05:18, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * A number of experienced editors have stated "Yes," and that includes me. Do stop trying to discredit the "Yes" votes. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:09, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Experienced editors are definitely the minority of the editors simply saying "Yes" (as opposed to "Yes, eventually", which is essentially the same as what I said). And you should not be lecturing others about "trying to discredit [the other side]". Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 20:20, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * What is your definition of "experienced"? And stating that editors should not be acting like fans who do not want their franchise to be criticized in this way is reminding editors to follow ours and stay objective, like they should be doing. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:57, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't see why I should define terms that you are using, but "more than 500 edits" works as a definition of how I used it above. By the way -- why are you posting your back-and-forth discussion of my !vote immediately it? Shouldn't this be in "discussion"? Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 06:24, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * You are the one who focused on the experience of editors. As for this section, I won't be continuing a discussion with you in this section. In fact, I'm pretty much done arguing with you on this matter. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:33, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * No. I pointed out how the majority of editors replying "Yes" (as opposed to "Yes, eventually") were near-SPAs who seemed to have come to this page for the same reason random people who didn't like the movie went to RT. That's not the same as "focusing on experience". Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 02:46, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Newish editors have the same concerns as experienced editors about the criticism aspect not being covered. My concern, for example, has nothing to do with hating the film. I don't hate the film. And you are clearly wrong about the majority of "yes" votes now. But feel free to continue this discussion with yourself. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:35, 26 December 2017 (UTC)


 * No(t yet) for similar reasons. Anywikiuser (talk) 20:45, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * No(t yet). It has yet to be established by any source that there actually is any disproportionate discontent about this film, as opposed to about any SW film after the original of 1977. Every source I’ve seen saying otherwise is basing itself either on problematic audience-response metrics or on purely anecdotal evidence, essentially assuming disproportionate discontent in the latter case. We need to wait until we actually know something, anything at all. This matter concerns a miniscule aspect of an article on the film as a whole. Any reasonable discussion of the current state of this matter is all but certain to run afoul of WP:PROPORTION, specifically. Antinoos69 (talk) 21:59, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * No No(t yet). (edited as this was a troll/bot attack) I think most of the discussion in the media seems to be about the RT user score. I agree with Antinoos69 and Miaow's points on that. I know someone launched a petition on change.org, and it's reached 30 thousand or so. But again, it seems like a tiny part of the audience is just being louder than the majority. Alaney2k (talk) 22:38, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes The RT Fan's score may be user generated content, but the secondary sources discussing it are not. There is real backlash that needs to be discussed and put into context. It appears to be a small but vocal minority driving the score down below what it "should" be, if you follow my meaning. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:37, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: Editors can see a list of sources in the section below. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:05, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * No regardless of sourcing, what fans think isn't very important (at least compared to critics' opinions). Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:44, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Not yet. I advocate for allowing more of the fanbase to actually see the film and see if it shifts to a moderate or mixed fan reaction before writing anything on it. The movie is barely out, and I'm still unsure if the strength of the negativity comes out of it being first impulse reaction. Also, there are some reports that the RT fan score is being tanked by bots, and I believe we should wait to see how that shakes out before reporting on it. That said, yes, eventually that fan reaction should ultimately be included because there are a significant number of third party sources covering it right now. I just believe we need more distance from the release date in this specific case, see if it shifts at all and see what happens with this alleged bot business. We aren't on a deadline here, and we don't need to report about it as it happens. ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  03:48, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, or at least yes eventually. It's pretty strange that scientific polling companies (CinemaScore, Comscore, SurveyMonkey) find a majority viewers enjoyed the film, while user scores from Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic indicate mixed reviews. It seems like there is some genuine backlash from viewers, which should also be mentioned per WP:NPOV, even if it is just a "vocal minority". I'm sure we'll see more sources try to understand what's happening in the coming days and weeks, so I'm not against waiting a bit. FallingGravity 07:54, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, but not yet. Mainly agree with the above. The fan backlash I think is definitely worth noting, but from the correct, reliable sources. While it is a small minority, I think it's taken people by surprise. As long as it has the correct sources, I think it's fine to include.--QueerFilmNerd (talk) 08:40, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes The backlash is real, notable, and has substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources. Reputable sources like the New York Times, the BBC, and a handful of others have written entire articles about it. Right now the article reads like some sort of corporate press release. AfD hero (talk) 09:15, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes The fan criticism is real and leaving up only the professional critics opinions gives a false impression of a critically acclaimed succsess. Which according to the numbers, (rotten tomatoes alone circa 400 pro critics, vs 131,000 other users) it is clearly not. Fustos (talk) 12:01, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes The extremely low RT audience score is a fact and deserves to be reported. By all means include links to both accusations of manipulation and RT's response that they have examined the case and found no irregularities . Currently, the wikipedia article serves to promote a film that has undoubtedly generated a lot of controversy. Assuming that the professional critics scores are sacrosanct is inappropriate. If the audience reaction is withheld, so should the professional critics scores as it seems obvious that significant shilling has made professional critics scores rather unreliable. ClassA42 (talk) 12:21, 21
 * Not yet. This is one of those things where time is needed to really see the impact. There is some strong evidence that the low RT audience score is dubious, as other audience measures are significantly higher. So while the impulse is to include it if only for it's obvious incongruity with critics scores, there's also good reason to wait and see if further developments occur. oknazevad (talk) 12:48, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, and "Not yet" is not a good reason. The beauty of Wikipedia is that it can be dynamic. This is an evolving situation (e.g., use of Rotten Tomatoes being questioned and defended), and if needed, we can add a "current" or "fast-changing" template to such a section. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 14:02, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * That's more like reporting the news, not writing an encyclopedic article. There is no obligation to report news here in Wikipedia. See WP:NOTNEWS. It's not even very news-worthy. Alaney2k (talk) 15:46, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Sources obviously disagree with you on the "not even very news-worthy" aspect. This is not a WP:NOTNEWS matter anyway. And given how experienced a Wikipedia editor Erik is, he does not need to be pointed to that policy. Best to challenge editors' thoughts in the Discussion section below anyway, like others have done, so that the Survey section does not become stuffed with rebuttals. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:04, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * , WP:NOTNEWS is more applicable with "routine news reporting". This would apply more for a film's marketing where sources say, "Hey, the trailer is out!" The fan reaction is a more concentrated "event" that sources are assessing. Information can evolve to a more retrospective consensus at some point, but we can deal in "current" information. Today, we see coverage factoring in the "alt right". It doesn't mean we have to highlight every single detail from all such coverage, but it does warrant a reasonable summary that can be revised over time. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 17:50, 21 December 2017 (UTC)


 * No(t yet), agree with points made by @Alaney2k and @Miaow above. The film is still in theatres, and adding constantly changing fan reactions in great detail does nothing to improve the encyclopaedic quality of the article. Once the film has completed its theatrical run, there's more value in summarising audience & critical reaction (along with turnover, box office figures etc). Adding and removing information while it's still a hot topic only results in a tiresome edit war that's frustrating for everyone and adds value for no-one. Let the film run its course and then give it a sensible evaluation afterwards. Cnbrb (talk) 16:04, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak Yes based solely on the secondary sources that have chosen to discuss the issue of internet fan reactions of this film alone (which is the basic of WP:N). BUT this article should show respect for the fact that no one film is unique among all others, and other articles of films do not spend time on uncertain reactions from anonymous internet sources (who may or may not be bots).  Best practice would be one sentence mentioning there has been significant coverage of negative internet reactions to the film of an uncertain and often un-provable nature (and then footnote said coverage). Notability guidelines suggest reference to the existence of those internet reactions, neutral POV suggests only the minimum possible weight should be given to such a reference.-Markeer 18:06, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Not now (if at all) - The film just released. Wait until the mania has died down and a clear picture can be provided by reliable sources. Then we can determine what is and isn't needed to be added to the article. There is no need to weigh down the article with undue negativity, just because a certain group is bent out of shape about the story. This film will be in theatres for months and will be seen by millions of people. There is no rush to have a disjointed minority represented here right now. Everyone relax. - the WOLF  child  20:40, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes per previous points about reliable secondary sourcing for the backlash existing and appropriate wording to indicate the poll "fudging" definitely should be included. Also, my previous opinion was to wait, but since it's only our job to summarize what the sources say and report them in a NPOV way that is balanced in the article in a DUE way, and NOT our job to decide if the media is giving undue weight to a subject or not, I've decided to go with YES, forget about waiting. The article can always change later to reflect later changes since there is no deadline. Besides, the media isn't required to follow Wikipedia rules of DUE anyway, and to interpret the media for ourselves as being undue coverage is kind of Synthesis, which is forbidden. I haven't seen the film yet myself, but I heard it was good from my Mom and 15 yr. old Nephew. (Before you say it, I already know nobody here cares about my personal sources...) ;) Huggums537 (talk) 02:56, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes - Hate to throw around "of course"s in RfCs as it's a tad disrespectful, but this is silly. If the audience reaction is covered in reliable sources, it should be covered. Summarise what reliable sources say. Cjhard (talk) 03:20, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes - because reliable secondary sources have already covered it. I don't see why we have to wait when it's already being covered. We can note the date of coverage for accuracy. starship.paint ~  KO   12:59, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes to reflect due weight of presence in coverage.  It is irrelevant how good it may be, we only reflect on the prominence.  Markbassett (talk) 19:07, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * No - At least, not at the moment for the previously mentioned reasons. Also, fan controversies generally aren't notable. When a franchise as big as Star Wars gets low audience scores on aggregator sites and the usual complaining on forums and such, reliable sources are obviously going to wonder what the deal is (especially when it's as unprecended as this). We need to wait and see if the media coverage dies down or not to determine if it's truly notable.  Dark Knight  2149  21:46, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Notability guidelines only apply to the creation of articles and not for including content within them according to WP:NOTEWORTHY... Huggums537 (talk) 00:32, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, we quite frankly do have notability guidelines for content within articles, even if they aren't the same as the ones determining which articles should and should not exist. I echo sentiments below, and that WP:WEIGHT is just one example. There's a reason that, if a piece of content within an article doesn't get enough third party coverage, it may be subject to removal. Much of it also varies depending on consensus. Saying that we have no notability guidelines for article content is simply wrong.  Dark  Knight  2149  22:39, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Darkknight2149, WP:WEIGHT is technically part of the WP:NPOV guideline, NOT the notability guideline. Saying that we have notability guidelines for content within articles since WEIGHT applies would actually be simply wrong. The correct way to say it is that we have NPOV guidelines for content within articles since WEIGHT applies because WEIGHT is a subset of NPOV. WP:NOTEWORTHY is very clear about this. In addition, the nutshell of WP:NOTE clearly states: "The notability guideline does not determine the content of articles, but only whether the topic should have its own article." Then the very first sentence begins with: "On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article." and the final paragraph in the lead makes it completely clear that notability has absolutely nothing to do with content with: "These guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article or list. They do not limit the content of an article or list. For Wikipedia's policies regarding content, see Neutral point of view, Verifiability, No original research, What Wikipedia is not, and Biographies of living persons.". This should be more than enough to convince anyone that notability guidelines don't apply to content, but to the creation of articles. Huggums537 (talk) 06:42, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Your comment would have more weight if there weren't other editors in this discussion actually arguing that Fan response to The Last Jedi should have its own article. Anyway, that's the word of the section title, but not actually what the policy is. The criteria applied to the creation or retention of an article are not the same as those applied to the content inside it (emphasis added) does not imply that there are no criteria. WP:DUE states that something may not be noteworthy enough even for inclusion in an article on a broader topic. At present, I actually disagree with this statement in relation to the fan backlash against this film, but think that we need to wait for the dust to settle on the problem, or at least for someone to come up with an acceptable draft text for us to get consensus on. All the drafts so far presented (by SPAs edit-warring them into the article despite the ongoing discussion) have been deplorable. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 02:43, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I only see that AfD hero has suggested it get its own Wikipedia article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:33, 24 December 2017 (UTC)


 * At this point there is more than enough notability and coverage in reliable sources to warrant a standalone article (and, of course, a summary within this article as well). AfD hero (talk) 04:03, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * "At this point" one week after the film's premier? WP:NOTNEWS Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 22:44, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * More factors go into play when determining the notability of an article than the sheer number of sources. In terms of longterm notability and the topic itself, creating an article pertaining specifically to the fan backlash (or even the overall audience response) of a film is undue overkill.  Dark Knight  2149  22:49, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * If an event has substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources, then, all other things being equal, it is presumed to be notable by default. Now, there is an exception for fleeting topics that really aren't important, but just happened to get a quick surge of coverage. Although I think this is not one of these situations, I do agree that you could make a reasonable case either way. It is important to note, however, that just because a cultural event took place in a short time interval doesn't mean we can't have an article for it, and moreover just because something happened recently doesn't mean we can't have an article for it. It just means we have to be more careful to present an unbiased perspective, and make sure to update it over time as things change. AfD hero (talk) 10:07, 24 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes – Many of the arguments against its inclusion are focusing too narrowly on whether audience response matters or whether user-generated polls should be permitted. Maybe the phrasing of the question in this RfC is partly to blame, since those voting "yes" or "no" may not realize exactly what kind of content they are voting to allow. My vote is in favor of broadly mentioning the disparity between critics and audiences as identified in mainstream media. We can present it as factual; X media outlet or Y journalist have observed/reported a low rating at Z source. The observation itself is the factual piece of information. Many of these publications acknowledge that these ratings may have been gamed by a low number of disgruntled fans, but however unreliable the numbers may be, we can't ignore the significant coverage it's receiving per WP:DUE. Mentioning its impact and presence in the sources (whether that's a few sentences, a couple paragraphs, or a dedicated section) is justified. --GoneIn60 (talk) 04:56, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * GoneIn60, when it comes to the phrasing of the RfC, that is what was being debated and still is; my wording for the RfC didn't cause that debate. I understand what you mean about some commenters not knowing all of what is being debated, but that is why I suggested they look at previous discussions on the talk page, including the one I linked to. My vote is also "in favor of broadly mentioning the disparity between critics and audiences as identified in mainstream media," but we've had editors questioning the importance and weight of that disparity. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:47, 24 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, but it's important to note, as an earlier revision of this article pointed out, that certain polls have been gamed by Internet trolls and that the movie has unfortunately been caught up in the culture wars going on right now. It's important to note all of these things: the RottenTomatoes fan rating, the much more favorable polls of people confirmed to have watched the movie, and the coverage of this from people who have rightly pointed out that it has been caught up in the crossfire from the same people who intentionally sabotaged the ratings of the new Ghostbusters and, in general, have nothing better to do than attack anything they see as insufficiently right-wing. Finsternish (talk) 12:15, 23 December 2017 (UTC) The Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic ratings are still relevant, though. The fact that these new films have gained the ire of the new generation of culture warriors is a notable point about them, and one that reasonable people who watched the movie deserve to be informed about, whatever their own reaction to the movie was. Finsternish (talk) 12:24, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes - the fact that this article makes no mention of the negative response to the film just stinks of bias, if not censorship. Rotten Tomatoes has already said their audience ratings are authentic and various reliable sources have already published stories about it. Unless there's a way to verify it, who are we to doubt it? Wolcott (talk) 05:34, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes - Not only do we have the RT audience meter, but it has now also been confirmed that the film has had the biggest second week drop in dollars ever for a film. That's a 69% drop I think it's very important to include the mixed audience reaction, because I think we're beginning to see a significant pattern here. Jonipoon (talk) 23:35, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Source for the above. Granzymes (talk) 22:50, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * From what I can see, it's hasty to attribute the drop in gross to bad fan reaction. And it's hasty to say that the gross is on a permanent downswing. ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  15:40, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed, it is too early to tell why the box office dropped so much, and there are only a few (relatively low quality), sources providing critical commentary about it. Although the drop is large in absolute terms, it still made lots of money the second weekend; the drop may say more about how much it made the first weekend rather than how much it made the second. Also, the drop isn't much more than Rogue One, percentagewise, and the fact that it is Christmas weekend also complicates things. AfD hero (talk) 00:18, 26 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes We should typically avoid including any audience polls but in this case it has received ample coverage from secondary sources. At least for the time being, this is part of the film's legacy.LM2000 (talk) 01:53, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes The critics are known to give bad reviews that contradict the opinions of the actual populations, such as with the film Bright. When the difference between the critics and the actual audience is 40% (92% v 52%), that's very relevant, and shouldn't be summed up with the sentance "...many American conservative commentators panned the film due to their perception that the movie promoted liberal values more explicitly than prior episodes." The audience's opinion is relevant, and shouldn't be left out. Especially here, where the bad opinions of the audience is so relevant to this particular movie — Preceding unsigned comment added by DevionM (talk • contribs)
 * Not Yet - I think that a lot of folk have forgotten how genuinely screwed up the scoring is for sites like Rotten Tomatoes is, its been the subject of a lot of discussion, and appears to be a much larger problem than can be covered within the scope of his film alone. We have news sources claiming that the scoring might be rigged one way or the other. I am not sure what the solution is, but I think we need to be having a larger conversation about how much credit we - as an encyclopedia - are giving these sites that are under fire for statistical oddities and possible doctored results. As a bad rsult can harm a movie's box office (the film is still in theaters), we are feeding the rigged reviews by reporting on them. Let's have that conversation. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 09:08, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Hit the nail on the head, Jack. That said, it's pretty clear that hurting the film's box office (because of its female protagonist? because of its prominent non-white cast members?) is Goal #1 for the folks who bombed the RT audience survey (and quite possibly a few of the SPAs that have been commenting on this talk page), so pointing it out might just make them more eager. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 12:26, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Do you have any reliable source backing up that claim? I've also heard of the "alt-right spamming" conspiracy stuff, but RT themselves seem to quite clearly deny that and claim the score is authentic.--217.85.32.62 (talk) 17:41, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Jack Sebastian, if we are reporting the potentially rigged scoring issues from a truly WP:NPOV perspective, then we should not be starving or feeding the scores, but merely presenting them as they are with the added accurate description that there is a controversy surrounding the accuracy of the scores due to them possibly being skewed. Avoiding feeding (or starving) one side or the other is one of the main reasons for NPOV to exist in the first place. Huggums537 (talk) 20:49, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 100% endorse this view of Huggums537. starship.paint ~  KO   03:06, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

I think that, of there is a larger, more on-target article about the larger rigged scoring issues, we should absolutely add a sentence explaining how TLJ got an aspect of that, and link to the main article about that. If there isn't a larger artcle about it, I think its in our best interestes - at this time - to illustrate the issues after noting the cited viewer scores. Just like the studios went after torrent pirates, they will pursue any vote rigging potential that interferes with their bottom line. In short, it won't be the last we hear about this subject, and it would be smart for us to be preparedfor that fallout. So, my 'not yet' can be interpreted as allowing the RS's scoring, but there needs to be an explanation about what was going on in the background of the scoring, and why some would find it odd. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:06, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I disagree. This should be included irregardless of why the scores differ, be it by vote manipulation or not. The fact that there are several large sources discussing that they differ considerably, as well as RT acknowledging that themselves and discussing it in the Forbes article linked several times in this survey already, makes it highly relevant for the Critical Reception section. And that's clearly the case. I'd even claim it makes it just as relevant as the other audience-driven ratings even considering WP:USERG alone - the score has been additionally checked by RT on being authentic. Where do we draw the line between this and one of the several surveys already mentioned in the article? I'd claim there isn't any if a non-user entity, in this case RT, has been involved in confirming the score in this case.--217.85.32.62 (talk) 00:08, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * When RT says they have confirmed the results, they mean that they didn’t find any evidence that bots were used. The poll remains an open response poll by self-selected members of the public, unlike the scientific polls conducted by CinemaScore. The line is drawn by WP:USERGENERATED and the film MOS. The fact that news articles comment on the poll’s faults is only an additional reason to not include it. Granzymes (talk) 00:31, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. The fact that this is reported on by several news outlets still makes it notable enough to definitely warrant a mention, though. The scores are user-generated, their review by several sources contrasting it to critical consensus is not and just as notable as e.g. Christian Toto of The Washington Times noting that conservative reviewers gave worse scores to the movie, which currently is part of the article. --217.85.32.62 (talk) 02:00, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The fan reactions, as reported, are definitely notable. But that doesn’t mean that we should be including the poll. Granzymes (talk) 02:40, 26 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I would agree. My not yet includes the same sentiment. ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  22:22, 25 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Has the left gotten so bad that they now use the "racist/sexist" card against anyone who dislikes their favorite movies? Perhaps the dislike towards Holdo in the film comes from the fact that Holdo decided not to tell the Rebels the plans even after they held a mutiny over her not having a plan, or the fact that the women are only made to look good by degrading the characters of the men (classic approach from writers who don't understand how to write strong female leads). Dislike for Rey comes from the fact that she never struggles with anything. Everyone naturally likes her, and she wins every fight. Instead of Luke teaching her, she spent the whole movie teaching him stuff he already should have known. The film also had a throw-away plot with Fin that took up over an hour of time, and the movie threw away everything built up from the last movie. This may not be the same opinion of everyone else, but the point remains the same. You can't just silence dislike towards movies you liked by throwing around claims of racism and sexism. DevionM (talk) 15:21, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Nope, we aren't going to go there, my fine little SPA. Take your little Trumpetter ways and seek thee out a Facebvook page to be enraged at. Your opinions and political views are (at the risk of stating the obvious) useless here. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:00, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 * This isn't a WP:FORUM, Devion. Nothing you said is constructive either even addressing anything anyone in this thread. ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  22:06, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes. This article is starting to be a joke now. This movie is currenlty being heavily critized by fans en critics on youtube, facebook, twitter, etc. Please add some balance to the critical response, the current text does not reflect the general public opinion. Joris (talk) 01:11, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes. Even putting aside RT polls and whatnot, the divide between audience and critics is enough to have attracted significant attention from a hundred billion sources and it should be covered in the article, sooner rather than later. Popcornduff (talk) 03:08, 26 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes: Specifically per, and primarily because there is considerable news coverage about this. Whether it's being blown out of proportion or focusing too narrowly on Rotten Tomatoes is not for us to decide; the fact of the matter is that it's being reported on widely. That makes it noteworthy in my book. Sock   ( tock talk)  16:33, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes: There too many reliable and informative sources on this issue to be ignored. Wikipedia should not and must not be the place for propagating only positive perspective which corresponds to companies or any other agendas desire. Neutrality is core content principle of Wikipedia.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 00:45, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Game of Thrones (season 7) is that way. Strawman arguments are inappropriate on talk pages in general, and in this case are particularly disturbing since not only is no one actually arguing for negative coverage to be left out of this article to advance the Disney agenda, but some of us have in fact been fighting a losing battle to keep the biased corporate-influenced coverage you are talking about off of Wikipedia. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 05:10, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * it is not a strawman as it is the very issue - critics said their part, audience said their part, nevertheless the critics' positive reviews the film flopped in the second week, and now possibly due to Disney pressure Mark Hamill partly withdrew his words and so on.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 19:07, 28 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes There are plenty of reliable sources discussing the audience responses (and some of the controversy around the reported audience responses) and the possibility that the apparent discrepancy between the critic response and the audience response may have accounted for the especially large dropoff in the 2nd weekend. Ignoring those sources is inconsistent with Wikipedia's mission. Rlendog (talk) 02:32, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes - Per Wikipedia rules and to maintain a balanced point of view in the article. Also, plenty of other movie articles include audience reception, so why shouldn't we do so here? To address some of the issues brought up earlier, this information should be added to a new Audience reception section below the Critical reception section.  Light and Dark2000  (talk) 03:34, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes. Chensiyuan (talk) 11:23, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes. Please these article section is laughable! It seems as if everybody loved the film, and that is just not true. While it is true that the 'professional critics' generally praise it, the film has been very polarizing and there are several sources that echo this reaction. Not a day goes by in which I read an article on the topic, and even Mark Hammil has voiced this position, something which by the way has been eliminated as well from the article. Isn't Jim Carrey rejection of Kick Ass 2 referenced in [|Wiki article for that film]? This is totally biased. Jasandia (talk) 13:36, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * No Reminder that this is not a vote. RT audience score is not reliable and is consistently treated as such across the entire project. Impact on box office (either positive or negative) for a film that is currently out is not useful and mostly is coming from opinion sources, not editorials or straight news reports. The entire audience reception controversy is a great example of why WP:NOTNEWS is policy: we're an encyclopedia, not a news outlet, and it is best to wait until everything has cooled down and then add what reliable sources have said. Opinion pieces and internet opinion polls just aren't acceptable here.  Toa   Nidhiki05  17:44, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The coverage is based on the numerous editorial pieces from reliable sources, not RT scores or opinion pieces. Popcornduff (talk) 17:57, 30 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Toa Nidhiki05, if you haven't already, see what is argued by others above (for example, Erik, who addressed WP:NOTNEWS, and GoneIn60), and the section below (where I presented a list of sources). This is not a WP:NOTNEWS matter. And the experienced editors (such as myself) who have stated that the audience dissatisfaction material should be included are aware that WP:Consensus is not a vote (not usually anyway). We are making valid arguments for inclusion. The issue at hand is not simply about the RT audience score, although reliable sources reporting on the matter and RT weighing in on it as well are things that some (including me) feel we should include. The issue at hand is not simply or even mostly about the box office aspect either. There are numerous reviewers who have commented on and analyzed audience dissatisfaction with the film, and that content is currently missing from the article even though it is perfectly standard for our film articles to include an "Audience response" section when there is enough material for an audience response section. Like Erik stated on his talk page, what need is there to wait in this case? And as questioned before, why should this film article be the exception when it comes to including an "Audience response" section? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:07, 30 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes - based on the substantial coverage from reputable sources. κατάστασ  η  20:57, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * No per the WikiProject Film consensus decribed above, Wikipedia's WP:NOTNEWS policy and other reasons stated above. The only way I believe it could be added is if due weight is given to the critics. The audience itself is not particularly a WP:RS. For example, who knows if certain comment chains are the result of a Brigade? We don't know this for sure, but secondary coverage of this would be more encyclopedic than direct, unreliable and unverifiable coverage of it. Buffaboy  talk 07:57, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Buffaboy, see my and Popcornduff's responses to Toa Nidhiki05 a little above. There is no WikiProject Film consensus against including this kind of material. In fact, that project is supportive of this kind of material. And the material is based on secondary coverage. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:59, 1 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes per the secondary sources linked by Flyer and others. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:47, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes; the fact that it's got this many people up in arms means it's worth talking about, and important to mention. Several reputable sources discuss it, and it's clear that fan reactions are polarized - look at how many people are arguing, just here, about whether the movie should be (protected, basically) from negative opinions. It's one thing if people are a smaller group, but it's not a small group. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎2605:6000:610e:6700:cc55:278b:f1e1:d6f0 (talk • contribs)
 * Yes per Flyer22 Reborn. 193.34.160.162 (talk) 13:28, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes This is the most polarizing Star Wars film ever. Blue Wiki (talk) 15:37, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes I think the amount of coverage that has been posted by a large number of reliable sources deserves for it to be included in the article, no matter if the audience ratings are seen as reliable or not. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 16:18, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes The 351 critics reviews summing 91% are being presented as an overwhelming positive consensus, while the 166+ thousand user reviews which show a 50:50 split are totally ignored. This is a totally misleading and non-neutral expression of the overall opinion of the movie.124.106.129.175 (talk) 10:55, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * No. The sheer number of anon./SPA comments above only reinforces my view that this whole story is being manipulated.  First, the user reviews were manipulated (by the scum of the earth, quite frankly); then, the media were manipulated into covering the so-called controversy; now, we are being manipulated into discussing that coverage.  There's nothing here but fanboys having a temper tantrum and I see no reason to pay them any mind.  Do we honestly believe this is what we are here for? --- The Old Jacobite The '45 13:50, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * TheOldJacobite, I don't think of myself as having been manipulated into wanting to cover audience dissatisfaction with the film. And I'm sure the same goes for all of the other experienced editors who have weighed in on this RfC. A number of the "no" votes are focused on the Rotten Tomatoes user score, as if that is all this is about. It's not. And to reiterate, Rotten Tomatoes has stated that the user score is accurate anyway. Like I stated before to another editor, see my response to Toa Nidhiki05 a little above. Reviewers have noted what they find to be valid criticisms of the film by the audience. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:46, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Fortunately for us, we don't have to analyze motives or form opinions. As long as the proposed content is an accurate reflection of what reliable sources are saying and represents at least a "significant minority viewpoint", then there shouldn't be anything standing in the way of its inclusion. It's not our job to shield others. We should expect that the average reader will use reasonable judgement to form their own opinions. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:01, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I will admit my own hesitation at some of the IP votes and other low-user count editors in the survey section, there are myriad other good and solid arguments for inclusions. The claim that the coverage is being manipulation is ridiculous and dismissive of the wider spectrum of fan criticism represented in RS (and much of it is clearly not fanboy temper tantruming). This isn't a reasonable or solid opposition to inclusion. ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  04:24, 4 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes. Per Erik and Flyer22 Reborn. Kevin DewittAlways ping 22:24, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Discussion
Miaow and Granzymes, the numerous reliable sources clearly show that WP:USERG does not apply in this case. And as noted, the sources are not simply talking about polls. They are also talking about a number of criticisms that fans have with the film. Also, when reliable sources report on polls, so can we. If we include commentary on other poll material, such as Rotten Tomatoes, we would not be directly citing the polls; we would be citing critical analyses of the polls. And that is very much allowed. Lastly, it is not for any of us to state that the media is giving undue weight to fan reaction. It is simply up to us to follow WP:Due weight. And we do indeed include an Audience response section when there is enough material on audience response. There is no reason that this article should be any different in that regard. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:13, 20 December 2017 (UTC)


 * http://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-42424445 Wolcott (talk) 19:17, 20 December 2017 (UTC)


 * And considering the misunderstanding about WP:USERG above, I will go ahead and notify Identifying reliable sources and WP:Verifiability to this discussion as well. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:19, 20 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I am against even critical analyses of the polls, as they are "not a particularly scientific way to appraise a film's popularity", may have "been gamed by the same kind of trolls who brought down Ghostbusters’ score and down-voted the hell out of its trailers last year." "This divide is not entirely organic" and "one disgruntled fan has boasted of using bots to skew The Last Jedi's user score" (although RT says they have a good enough system that mass spamming by bots would not go undetected). As I alluded to in my vote, I would be in favor of the narrow inclusion of audience response as long as it does not reference the polls and we only cite actual critics. Chief among this should be information such as "it looks like the largest criticisms of 'The Last Jedi' have less to do with its qualities as a film and more to do with how much it didn't meet the expectations of 'Star Wars' fans" in particular that "the characters’ journeys aren’t what was expected." All quotes are from articles liked above by others. Granzymes (talk) 19:38, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Even if you and others are against critical analyses of the polls, these sources are not simply talking about the polls. Again, they are also talking about a number of criticisms that fans have with the film. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:44, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, and I am in favor of the inclusion of some of those criticisms as long as they have proper weight and context. Granzymes (talk) 19:50, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm in agreement with Granzymes. I would also note that "fans" and "audience" are not quite the same thing. Anywikiuser (talk) 20:34, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree with that last part. Whatever comes of this discussion, we can't conflate different terms like that. Frankly, I think giving special weight to "fans" is out of the question -- anyone can call themselves a Star Wars fan and claim that anyone who doesn't agree with them is "not a real fan", and some of the fan "common sense" about a lot of the production of Star Wars frankly doesn't make sense (I'm alluding to the stuff addressed in part 3 of SD Debris's The Hermit's Journey). Also, we need to be careful to craft exactly what we want to say on the talk page first, to avoid editorializing disasters like this. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 20:49, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Good point re: fans vs audience. Granzymes (talk) 21:37, 20 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Our Audience response sections include fan reception. Let's not quibble and play a semantics games. If any of you can validly distinguish between "audience" and "fan" response, then let's see it. Because we certainly do not in our Audience response sections. Otherwise, Audience response sections would hardly be any different than our Critical response sections. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:28, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The difference is that the "audience" are the majority who see the film (and the ones that critics write their reviews for). Audience reaction can be measured through surveys. "Fans" are a smaller and louder group which obviously exist but cannot be precisely defined - and thus isn't easy to measure. Anywikiuser (talk) 09:27, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Audience reaction in those surveys include fan reaction. Many people who go to see Star Wars are fans, not just general viewers. In fact, it's safe to state that the vast majority of those who see Stars Wars films are fans of the franchise. I think you are confusing "fans" with "hardcore fans." There is no way to tell who is a general viewer and who is a fan in surveys. Furthermore, reliable sources use the terms audience and fans interchangeably. Either way, we go by what reliable sources state. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:54, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * "Fan reaction" says nothing in and of itself about whether the people involved actually saw the film, or just intended to sabotage the rating long before it ever came out due to their belief that Star Wars had been taken over by "SJWs." Polls of audiences leaving the film say much more important things. We don't need to be agnostic to the fact that there are people very dedicated to making a political point with their ratings of the film, and that many of them from the get-go are not even interested in watching the movie. This has been extensively reported on, often with screenshots. Finsternish (talk) 12:19, 23 December 2017 (UTC)


 * You seem to basically agree with the point that I made after you, that it is acceptable but we need good, reliable sources addressing the problem in a manner that we can mimic, without engaging in OR or including any of this "the fans gave it a lower score than the critics; it's all about how good or bad the film is and whether Wikipedia should tell its readers to watch the film". Have you noticed how none of the versions of the article have actually addressed the problems in the manner that your comments imply you think (you agree with me) that they should? Or have you noticed something I missed? Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 20:54, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I avoided commenting on the specific of this article because I did not review the article. :) (And for the same reason, I avoided a BOLD THING thing.) In Flyer's response, she listed a few sources, and there's a stray one above that. The ones I can pick out as immediately reliable are the IGN and BBC articles (editorial overhead is a checkmark). The Forbes Sites source is obviously not RS (sites domain are self-published without editorial overhead), Vox doesn't make it obvious what their editorial policy is, nor does Toofab strike me as reliable (not even an about page?). --Izno (talk) 22:28, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Izno, we sometimes include Forbes sources in our Wikipedia film articles. See this section at the Star Wars: The Force Awakens article, for example. We also cite Vox in many of our film and television and film articles; see our Game of Thrones episode articles. Vox is a WP:Reliable source. And either way, there are more WP:Reliable sources reporting on this matter than just the ones that have been presented. The "not until better sources putting the problem in context have been located" argument makes no sense. And the "we need good, reliable sources addressing the problem in a manner that we can mimic" argument makes no sense. We have various reliable sources commenting on the discontent that fans have with the film, and examining the matter beyond polls. They name a number of reasons that fans do not like this film. And yet we have some editors here making it all about the polls. All I see are fans of the film trying to block valid criticism from being in the article. Shame. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:28, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I've been one of the more vocal commentators on this issue over the last five days, and said in my first comment on the issue that not only do I consider myself a fan of the film but that I don't think this content, as it has been written and sourced so far, belongs in the article, so I can't help but feel that I am among the fans of the film trying to block valid criticism from being in the article that are all [you] see. But if you had actually read any of my comments, it would be clear that that is not what I am about, and in fact my main concern is that framing the issue around "whether the film is good or not" (essentially whether the reader should pay to see it or not) is not something an encyclopedia article should be doing. I would therefore appreciate you not making comments like that about me or (presumably) other users who share my views again. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 11:26, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * (To clarify, I'm assuming other users share my position on most or all of the above based partly on other editors explicitly stating they share my view, and partly on the fact that at the time I posted my RFC reply every answer but mine was "Yes" or "No", with the exception of Izno's, while in the time since then six of the nine new answers has been "Not yet", "Yes, but not yet", or "Yes, eventually", and one of the early "No"s changed to "Not yet". I'm assuming that the editors who agree with me on the substance would also not appreciate being called fans of the film who are trying to block valid criticism, and I'm also assuming that even if F22R had missed everything I had written, at least one of them was almost certainly in my camp. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 11:42, 21 December 2017 (UTC) )
 * Hijiri88, per the sources below, we have a number of reliable sources commenting on this matter from a critical analysis standpoint. They are giving the matter appropriate context, and there is no valid argument that they are not. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:54, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I looked at them, and most of the quotes you provide seem to say nothing more than "the RT score (or whatever) indicates this film has a polarized reaction among fans". I provided a single source further up that did a much better job than almost any of the quotes you provided, and the only ones among those you provided that actually addressed the issue in the manner you say are doing the opposite of what you seem to want them to, attributing the backlash to the same sexist alt-right internet trolls who went after Ghostbusters 2016. And I notice you haven't retracted your personal attack against me and everyone else who says you haven't done enough heavy lifting yet and probably can't. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 20:20, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * You stated, "most of the quotes [I] provide seem to say nothing more than 'the RT score (or whatever) indicates this film has a polarized reaction among fans'." Not the case at all, with the exception of the Forbes source which mentions polling while also analyzing whether or not there are any credible criticisms. As is clearly seen, I specifically left out a focus on the RT score and similar scores, and focused on what critics are stating has caused the divide -- the criticisms. You stated, "attributing the backlash to the same sexist alt-right internet trolls," but that is a nope. That aspect is only being argued in the case of whether or not RT polling has been subject to fan manipulation. And like Erik noted on his talk page, RT came out and stated that the polling is accurate. As for personal attacks, no. Reminding editors to leave the fan hat off Wikipedia in cases like these are not personal attacks. And I don't know what you mean about "everyone else who says [I] haven't done enough heavy lifting yet and probably can't," but you are the only one who has stated that and I have done plenty of heavy lifting when it comes to article editing. If you meant the sources, no, they are solid; you are just seeing what you want to see. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:57, 21 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Arguments along the WP:OSE axis aren't great, at all.  have no editorial oversight and are basically WP:SPS. Can you show evidence that the writers in those citations are experts in their fields commenting on their fields? Where is Vox's editorial policy? Claiming it is an RS doesn't make it one without some sort of evidence to back up your statements. If it doesn't have an editorial policy... it qualifies for the same treatment as a Forbes Sites article--so please, show me that the writers in question are experts.
 * If there are other reliable sources, please produce them. Handwaves aren't a great argument either.
 * Appeals to "someone is censoring the truth" are handwavey too. Whether someone is a fan is irrelevant--that's an ad hominem fallacy. --Izno (talk) 02:03, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:OSE arguments can be valid or invalid, but what I should have stated is that there have been various queries about the reliability of Forbes at the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard, and it clearly has not been banned like the Daily Mail has been. It is used on a case-by-case basis. But, really, I see it commonly used without incident. As for being a fan, when our editors are acting like fans instead of Wikipedia editors, that is a problem. And it is especially concerning when our new-ish editors who do not understand WP:USERG are learning inaccurate lines of reasoning. In this regard, my argument is not WP:VNT. It's that editors need to leave the WP:FANPAGE and WP:Advocacy mindsets off Wikipedia. As for sources, as you've likely seen by now, I listed more below. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:18, 21 December 2017 (UTC)


 * But, yes, the "you are behaving like a fan" assertion does not help, and I will stop arguing that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:18, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Anyone is free to look at the sources below examining the film beyond poll talk:
 * This "The Internet Is Having Very Strong Reactions to Star Wars: The Last Jedi" source from Time states, in part, "Perhaps unsurprisingly, the Rian Johnson-directed Episode VIII has been polarizing among fans [...].''"
 * This "Star Wars: The Last Jedi - the most divisive film ever?" source from the BBC News states, in part, "[W]hile fans are divided, film critics were largely in agreement. [...] 'It is unusual to have this much of a divide between critics and audience,' says Helen O'Hara, editor-at-large at Empire magazine. There have been more divisive films this year, she says - like the mystifying Mother!. 'But this is certainly one of the most divisive big films, and it slightly took me by surprise," she says. 'I really didn't see that coming. I really didn't think fans would be unhappy with this film.' There are a few reasons why some fans feel affronted. The Last Jedi didn't fulfil the fan theories that had been lovingly and obsessively plotted since The Force Awakens, such as Rey's parentage and the origins of Snoke."
 * This "‘The Last Jedi’ and You: What Fans Think of the Newest Chapter" source from The New York Times states, in part, "What’s going on? There are several theories: 1) It’s straight-up trolling. Deadline.com pointed out that nothing prevents the same person from repeatedly logging onto Rotten Tomatoes and dragging down the audience score. (And one Facebook user claims to have done just that.) 2) The adventures of Rey and company (including the villainous Snoke) were genuinely disappointing. As the Hollywood Reporter noted, fans hoped that the writer-director Rian Johnson’s follow-up to 'The Force Awakens' would explain, among other mysteries, who Rey’s parents are, and the answer (nobody special) wasn’t very satisfying. 3) It’s a function of how the internet has affected fandom. Vanity Fair argues that the web fosters the kind of scrutiny that few films can withstand.''"
 * This "The 'backlash' against Star Wars: The Last Jedi, explained" source from Vox; it states, in part,"It rarely happens in the opposite direction. Critics aren’t supposed to like blockbusters more than the general public. We’re supposed to be snooty snoots, with our noses turned up in the air at all of this populist garbage, as we head into the theater for the latest from Thai auteur Apichatpong Weerasethakul. And even if this sort of divide happens occasionally, it’s certainly not supposed to happen with Star Wars [...] Yet it’s important to understand that even though a lot of the most obvious examples of The Last Jedi backlash are probably — probably — bunk, that doesn’t mean there’s not a Last Jedi backlash precisely where it counts: among Star Wars fandom.' [...] The fan/critic divide seemed stark, almost right away. (I should probably note here that Last Jedi writer-director Rian Johnson has a more or less cordial relationship with many critics, since he uses social media in a more open and friendly way than most major filmmakers. I don’t really think that colored critics’ opinions — I love the movie and have never interacted with the guy — but I also can’t pretend it’s an impossible notion to think about.) Almost immediately on Friday morning, after Thursday night preview screenings, The Last Jedi was being dissected by Star Wars fans for its purported failings. And it’s important to note here that those 'purported failings' are going to differ wildly from person to person.'''"
 * This "Why Do Some Star Wars Fans Hate The Last Jedi?" source from IGN, states, in part, "Since Star Wars: The Last Jedi opened last night to huge numbers, it's become clear that not everyone who's seeing the film is terribly fond of it. [...] So why is this film eliciting such a strong response? [...] One of the bigger surprises in the film comes when Supreme Leader Snoke -- that CGI confection dreamed up by J.J. Abrams and company for The Force Awakens as a sort of Next Gen Emperor Palpatine -- bites the big one at the hands of his apprentice Kylo Ren. When faced with the prospect of killing Rey, at the behest of Snoke, the former Ben Solo instead chooses to plant a lightsaber blade right into his boss' side. Ouch. [...] The disposition of Rey's parents, another mystery teased since The Force Awakens, seems to be resolved here with the not very earth-shattering revelation that Mr. and Mrs. Rey were 'nobodies,' junkers who sold their young daughter for drinking money. As with Snoke, Rey's parentage not turning out to be some crazy reference to past Star Wars mythology is difficult for some to swallow. Again, there had been so many theories and expectations built up around this Abrams mystery that the apparent truth of it all plays as disappointing for many. Indeed, some fans believe that Kylo Ren's story about Rey's folks is just a fake-out and that we will yet learn the truth about them in Episode IX. And who knows?''"
 * This "Save 'Star Wars'? Angry Fans Petition to Have 'The Last Jedi' Abandoned and Remade" source from Newsweek states, in part, "There is a great disturbance in the Force: Angry Star Wars fans are petitioning Disney to discard The Last Jedi, the eighth installment in the Skywalker saga released last Friday, and remake the film. [...] To explain at least some of the fan discord, it seems some moviegoers felt Luke Skywalker’s story arc in the new movie—turning his back on the teachings of the mythical Jedi religion—was too much of a departure from the Luke we came to know and love in George Lucas’s original Star Wars trilogy.''"
 * This "Why The Last Jedi has divided Star Wars fans" source from The Week states, in part, "While Rian Johnson's The Last Jedi may have been a hit among critics, fan reactions have been divided. Intriguingly so. Some Star Wars viewers (myself included) are delighted to see the narrative emphasis on the Skywalker bloodline dissipate; the narrow, overtly aristocratic concern for a few Chosen Ones while billions of lives went unmourned never sat right with me. But another faction resents this 'populist' turn in the Star Wars universe. The revelation that Rey's parents, one of whom was long rumored to be a Skywalker, were 'nobodies' rankles. They reject Luke's disillusionment with the Jedi order, his whole new account of the Force, and his grand finale. And — here's the point I want to make — they're not wrong. [...] For many people who didn't like The Last Jedi, the fact that Johnson's Star Wars was more democratic — and consequently indifferent to the aristocratic Skywalker bloodline or its transmission — means, paradoxically, that it's also less interested in the rituals of samurai training that made Star Wars so satisfying. Becoming a great Jedi warrior used to be serious work; it demanded talent and skill and time. Later it seemed to require an aristocratic bloodline as well (what with the midi-chlorians, etc.). Now it just demands talent and no study — Yoda even burned down the Jedi library! (Yes, I know Rey saved the books.) If you loved the Skywalker legend, then the news that the Force is independent of Skywalker-ness isn't a relief. If you loved the training element, that's gone. The new democracy also means that anyone (like Rey) can just come along and be better at the Force for no apparent reason. What was the point of Yoda? Do the sages have nothing to tell us? Did they ever?''"
 * This "‘Star Wars: The Last Jedi’ Divides Fans: An ‘A’ CinemaScore, and a Negative Rotten Tomatoes User Grade" source from IndieWire states, in part, "'The Last Jedi' is proving to be one of the most polarizing 'Star Wars' movies ever released. [...] One reason 'The Last Jedi' is proving so divisive: Rian Johnson’s script is reckless with any number of fan theories that came out of 'The Force Awakens.' A fan who spent the last two years obsessing over Rey’s parentage (is she a Skywalker? Or maybe she’s a Kenobi?) was likely disappointed when a conversation between the character and Kylo Ren revealed there’s nothing special about her parents. By the end of 'The Last Jedi,' we learn that Rey’s parents were commoners from Jakku who probably 'sold her off for some drinking money.' That revelation is probably not the answer fans were expecting. Other theories that went out the door applied to Supreme Leader Snoke. Fans had been debating the true identity of First Order Supreme Leader Snoke' for years, with some suggesting he was the evil Darth Plagueis, who ended up being the mentor to Emperor Palpatine/Darth Sidious. But in the end, Snoke isn’t terribly important to the saga; Kylo Ren assassinates him with ease during a tense confrontation in which Snoke is tormenting Rey. It couldn’t have been easy for Snoke conspiracy theorists to witness the character exit the franchise with zero fanfare."
 * This "Star Wars: The Last Jedi is dividing fans like no other film in the series" source from Digital Spy states, in part, "There is no 'one-size fits all' answer, but a lot of it seemingly has to do with The Force Awakens. Not only did that film play it very safe and revel in nostalgia, it spent a lot of its runtime setting up questions for future films to answer. The Last Jedi is all about subversion, from Poe's storyline to how Luke acts, to how it deals with the two topics from the previous film that have had the most fan theories. Maybe it's because fans feel they have been played for fools, after spending so long researching and going in with an air of 'I know just how this will play out' and having the rug pulled out from under their feet. Audiences are so used to going into a film knowing exactly how a film will play out, from spoiler-filled trailers to enough behind the scenes photos to piece it all together, that anything going against the expectations is 'wrong'.''"
 * This "'Star Wars: The Last Jedi' director Rian Johnson reacts to the backlash and addresses the movie's most shocking moments" source from Business Insider states, in part, "When I was writing the movie, I was doing it while they were shooting 'The Force Awakens.' So it wasn't like I was reading all these theories online and being at my typewriter and going 'Ha! Ha! Gotcha!' It was me coming up with a story. I was writing purely from a personal reaction to the script of 'The Force Awakens' and what they were shooting. Snoke, for example, I probably would have done the same thing regardless."
 * This "The Last Jedi Is the Most Divisive Star Wars Movie Between Fans & Critics" source from Screen Rant states, in part, "That The Last Jedi is this polarizing is a surprising development, especially since the studio green lit an all-new trilogy from Johnson a month before its debut. Though many fans are highly impressed with what the filmmaker did with the material, some were left feeling a little colder. Viewers aren’t sure what to make of the abundance of new Force powers The Last Jedi introduces, feel the characters continuously made poor decisions that the film barely addresses, and may have gone too far in places with the comedic beats. Much like the DC Extended Universe, there will be debates about The Last Jedi for years to come."
 * This "Why Do So Many 'Star Wars' Fans Hate 'The Last Jedi'?" from Forbes (a contributor we often cite on Wikipedia) states, in part," I do feel that the Rotten Tomatoes audience polling, which is where much of the chatter emerged, has been gamed by the same kind of trolls who brought down Ghostbusters’ score and down-voted the hell out of its trailers last year. But whether or not it’s a diabolical conspiracy from (among other fun theories I’ve heard) DC fans taking revenge for Justice League’s critical thrashing or folks protesting the Disney/Fox deal, the overall result is that we’re discussing not an unqualified triumph for Disney’s filmmaking empire but why a seemingly great Star Wars movie is seemingly pissing off so many Star Wars fans. Needless to say, though, there are good reasons you can still dislike the movie and still hold on to that SJW card (mine is on suspension because I liked Downsizing). [...] Part of what we’re seeing here with Star Wars: The Last Jedi is the eternal struggle between (some) hardcore fans and (some) general audiences. [...] If you think Rian Johnson mocked your endless speculation, then A) maybe he did and B) Disney and Lucasfilm aren’t the ones that trolled the media with speculative clickbait about Rey's parents, Snoke's secret origins or what-have-you for two years. Speaking of which, those who are complaining about Disney ruining Star Wars are missing that, give or take behind-the-scenes shenanigans that I’m not privy to, these are Lucasfilm productions and Kathleen Kennedy’s movies. "

Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:57, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Miaow, please assume good faith. I think it's incredibly bad faith to assume that anyone would not be a "fan" of Star Wars. Haha! Huggums537 (talk) 04:02, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * All I see are fans of the film trying to block valid criticism from being in the article. Shame. It was a bad argument. Please, assume good faith. I'm pretty sure many of us aren't fans of this franchise. -- Mia o w   02:14, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The poor arguments to exclude the material indicate otherwise. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:22, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Let's wait RfC's results. I was reading Time's article (It analyzes twitter comments) and I realize the analysis audience criticism of the film is mixed, and not everyone hated it as some said just because sources discussing RT user scores. -- Mia o w   03:11, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm done with the "behaving like a fan" argument. As for the rest, what sources are stating that everyone hated it? If not sources, I don't see anyone on this talk page arguing that. The sources I listed above are clear that there is a divide and they note criticism, especially Luke behaving uncharacteristically, Snoke being killed off, and Rey's parents being nobodies. I bolded some of that (obviously). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:18, 21 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Other criticisms are the Finn and Rose subplot and too much humor. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:28, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok. I think we need to wait for now. The movie is barely out. Eventually should be included. -- Mia o w   04:16, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * To reiterate, each of these sources is basing itself either on problematic audience-response metrics (such as Rotten Tomatoes) or on purely anecdotal/unscientific evidence, essentially assuming disproportionate discontent in the latter case. Two of the sources provide no justification whatsoever, merely assuming disproportionate discontent outright. This source provides the most scientific and objective argument I’ve encountered on the matter; it tells a very different story. So I’ll repeat, it has yet to be established by any source that there actually is any disproportionate discontent about this film, as opposed to about any SW film after the original of 1977. Until that changes, I can see no positive value in supposing there is. Antinoos69 (talk) 07:40, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Not true at all. The sources note valid criticisms with the film and why fans dislike it. Your focus on the polling aspect is odd. And your interpretation of the sources does not matter anyway. And, for the record, critics' analyses on films is not scientific and objective anyway. They are opinions and analyses. And we report on what they state. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:54, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, it’s precisely true. I read each of those sources. Whether there are “valid criticisms” is utterly irrelevant to whether there exists any disproportionate fan discontent with the film, my actual topic of concern. Proper polling is one obvious objective measure of any potential such discontent. And editors can’t use sources until they first interpret them and assess their suitability. No source interprets itself, and not all sources are created equal. As the article already addresses audience responses, without objection from me, I cannot begin to fathom your spiel on critics. In any case, we don’t and shouldn’t report what bad sources state — or, in this case, essentially assume. Antinoos69 (talk) 20:16, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not "precisely true" in any sense of the words, but feel free to keep arguing that in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Your "disproportionate fan discontent with the film" argument is entirely subjective and is not the way things work here. The content is WP:Due, no matter how much you want to argue that it's not or argue WP:PROPORTION, which is an aspect of the WP:Due policy. We follow what the sources state with due weight. It is not up to us to try to keep material out based on our own views -- interpretations -- about what are valid or invalid criticisms. My "spiel" is due to years and years of experience editing this site and staying objective while doing it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:57, 21 December 2017 (UTC)


 * (Sorry to ping you again, but at least here it's on a completely unrelated topic!) I'm not sure if what fans think isn't very important (at least compared to critics' opinions) really applies in cases like this, since the fan backlash is so (supposedly?) sizable that a significant portion of professional critics have produced follow-ups to their initial reviews specifically discussing it, or even (if their initial reviews were written after the film's release) doing so in their initial reviews. If anything, it would seem that not addressing in this article at all such a common theme in the professional critics' coverage would be a serious oversight. (That said, this is WP:NOTFINISHED apotheosified; I obviously don't have any ideas on exactly what the article should say about it in the short term, and until someone comes up with something good I'd prefer to leave it out.) Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 11:20, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * So, based on what you have read in those sources, what content specifically would you like to see added to our article? If you look at other users' comments, hardly anyone is actually arguing that The backlash is [not] real, notable, [or] has substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources just that a lot of the reliable sources (and every one that has been cited for this material in the article to date) does not provide substantial coverage, simply regurgitating the figures, or saying "Isn't the inconsistency weird?" My view, and probably that of many others, is that until more critical analyses that actually address the problem seriously, considering why the real and notable backlash has occurred, can be cited, it's simply not worth including in our article; simply stating the user ratings given to the film on IMDb or RottenTomatoes without context is not "encyclopedic", for want of a better word. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 11:42, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Ultimately I think it would be best to create a new article about the controversy, say *Star Wars: The Last Jedi fan reaction controversy* where the subject is discussed from a neutral point of view. In the main article we would mention the controversy, briefly summarize it in a few sentences, and link to the controversy page. There is a great deal of precedence on wikipedia for doing it this way, and the controversy has more than enough coverage to warrant its own article. The controversy article would basically summarize what the secondary sources say: (1) there is a discrepancy between critics scores and audience scores on user review sites and social media reactions (twitter, youtube, etc), (2) there are a variety of proposed reasons for this discrepancy that have been covered in the secondary sources. On one side this include automated bots vote bombing, the alt-right trying to sabotage the movie because of political reasons, etc. On the other side, disney exerting undue influence on critics and traditional media, and the phenomena where critics rate blockbusters easier than other movies (see the Washington post article about this in regards Star Wars: The Last Jedi). We would also discuss the response of RottenTomatoes and other sites which claim that the reaction is genuine and reflects the fact that that people just don't like the movie, and more nuanced demographic analyses involving the difference between hardcore fans who vote online vs average moviegoers. AfD hero (talk) 00:15, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I strongly disagree that there is enough material for its own a standalone article, especially given that it's been very little time between the public release date and now. There has not been enough time to prove that this reaction has lasting impact or will continue to be noteworthy in the future——or even that it's particularly special. In my own memory, I remember similar response to the prequel films, including political backlash. Perhaps not on this scale due to the evolution of the internet since 1999 to 2002 especially. Any existing material on the fan response can absolutely be adequately covered in this article. ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  16:07, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Not here. Something for an op-ed somewhere. Why not write your own blog? Alaney2k (talk) 17:22, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * These are not my opinions, they are things I've read in news articles over the last week. Obviously I disagree with you and think they do belong here, so as to accurately reflect the discussion in the media and present a neutral point of view. AfD hero (talk) 20:59, 23 December 2017 (UTC)


 * You're new here, so I'll politely explain to you rather than directly reverting this: you are not allowed unilaterally overrule an ongoing RFC. The rule is that content that has already been discussed should stay out pending consensus to add it back in. Wikipedia operates on WP:CONSENSUS, and what you just did would almost universally be considered a no-go. Your comment in the survey also misses the point: see my response to Afd hero immediately above, and please read some of the replies that were posted before yours. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 12:13, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The section is titled critical response for a reason, namely that it's where we're supposed to focus on what critics thought about the film. Snuggums (talk / edits</b>) 14:40, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * SNUGGUMS, per MOS:FILM, we also include audience response material, and we include an Audience response section when there is enough material to do so. What fans think does matter, which is why we include audience/fan reaction in numerous television and film articles, including when controversy exists and the creator(s) speak out on it. And the Star Wars fandom is one of the more notable fandoms. Could easily have a Wikipedia article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:54, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Fans are not professional reviewers, so even if their opinions did have any value, it's not worth nearly as much as what critics say and shouldn't get even a quarter as much focus. <b style="color:#009900">Snuggums</b> (<b style="color:#009900">talk</b> / <b style="color:#009900">edits</b>) 17:11, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * SNUGGUMS, no one has argued that the general audience/fan opinion is as important as the opinions of professional reviewers, but it's really not up to us to judge that matter when many sources treat the views of the general audience and/or fandom as important, if not more so. I'm stating that we do validly include Audience response sections. Look at the Gone with the Wind (film) article, where Betty Logan has created a well-crafted Audience response section. Granted, a lot of what is covered there is covered in academic books, but we do not have to wait for the The Last Jedi matter at hand to be covered in academic books. I'm stating that if what fans think did not matter in this case, there would not be so many media sources analyzing it. The creators of the latest Star Wars trilogy would not have been worried about pleasing fans. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:21, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Sources not withstanding, I'm not convinced this is anything more than typical fan complaints for sequels (many are known to be all "it's not as good as _____" for their beloved franchises). There's also WP:NOTNEWS to take into account, and I fail to see how this will be significant beyond short term. <b style="color:#009900">Snuggums</b> (<b style="color:#009900">talk</b> / <b style="color:#009900">edits</b>) 17:29, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think that WP:NOTNEWS applies in this case. As for typical fan complaints for sequels, look at what the sources above state. The BBC News source relays, "It is unusual to have this much of a divide between critics and audience,' says Helen O'Hara, editor-at-large at Empire magazine. There have been more divisive films this year, she says - like the mystifying Mother!. 'But this is certainly one of the most divisive big films'." And that is why academic sources will eventually address this, just as they have addressed fan discontent with the prequel films. For example, this 2017 "Culture, Identities and Technology in the Star Wars Films: Essays on the Two Trilogies" source, from McFarland, pages 95-96 (for a start), address the divergence, varied audience responses to the original trilogy and the Star Wars prequels. But like I stated, I don't think that we need to wait years from now to report on this The Last Jedi matter. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:42, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

I still have to disagree that it is a substantial backlash. It's not that a section discussing the topic is banned. On other movies, e.g. Ghost in the Shell, articles have included related news/events/discussion about a movie. No debate against never discussing it. We simply need something more enduring. I don't think we've got that yet. The topic definitely matters a lot to a number of fans, but we have to try to be independent of that. Even if we assume that the disconnect on RT is genuine, is it really that big a deal? Not really. I am sure there are many other disconnects between critics and fans over movies. Alaney2k (talk) 16:00, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * We do not have to use the words backlash or substantial backlash. All we need to do is follow what the sources state, which is that there is a critical and fan divide and that fans have named valid criticisms. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:54, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Valid criticisms? That is entirely subjective. That exists for every movie. Some of the complaints are absolutely routine, such as plot holes. Alaney2k (talk) 19:24, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * We don't judge whether the criticisms are valid anyway. We follow the rules. And as others have stated, WP:Due absolutely supports including the material. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:57, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * But you are judging whether they are valid, and insisting that they must be addressed in the article because they are valid. On top of this (and multiple users have pointed this out) you still have notmactually specified which criticisms you are talking about, just linking a whole bunch of secondary sources that mention the problem of the fan backlash without going into the proposed reasons for it. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 01:33, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * My personal opinion on the validity of the criticisms is not the issue or focus. I am not putting any personal opinion I have ahead of the way Wikipedia is supposed to work. I am noting that critics have found these criticisms notable and valid enough to report on them and analyze them. And no editors have pointed out that I "still have [not] notmactually specified which criticisms" critics are talking about. I did not simply link to the articles. I copy and pasted, and bolded, some of the criticisms that are being discussed. And above, I specifically told Miaow the following, "'The sources I listed above are clear that there is a divide and they note criticism, especially Luke behaving uncharacteristically, Snoke being killed off, and Rey's parents being nobodies. I bolded some of that (obviously). Other criticisms are the Finn and Rose subplot and too much humor." Miaow changed his vote as a result of that. Let's not play coy about what critics are discussing. Acting like they are simply discussing the polls, despite the list of sources I posted showing otherwise, is disingenuous. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:43, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Flyer22, congratulations on the excellent foresight of your well thought response to the obviously loaded question, "...which criticisms you are talking about". Good on you for being perceptive enough to detect such discreet tactical maneuvers. :) Huggums537 (talk) 04:02, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Easy ones first: My personal opinion on the validity of the criticisms is not the issue or focus. Then stop bringing it up. I am noting that critics have found these criticisms notable and valid enough to report on them and analyze them. So am I. In fact, I was arguing in favour of the eventual inclusion of it three days before your first edit to this page. Acting like they are simply discussing the polls, despite the list of sources I posted showing otherwise, is disingenuous. This is a strawman argument. I never said that some of the list of sources you quoted did not provide citable criticisms, and again I cited one myself on Sunday morning, but most of the ones you quoted are little more than quoting of the polls. I don't know why you included so many of the latter group, but I would guess it was to artificially inflate the list of sources based on the cynical assumption that other editors wouldn't actually read them before !voting "yes" or "no" on the oversimplified question "should we discuss the problem". I did not simply link to the articles. I copy and pasted, and bolded, some of the criticisms that are being discussed. I should note that I didn't actually click on all those links and read through the full articles; I read the text you quoted, and if that is the furthest from "bare quotation of polls" you could find in those articles it is very unimpressive.
 * As for "no editors have pointed out...": While I definitely remember reading two or three other commenters expressing a similar opinion to the one I did immediately above, a quick scan just now brought up only the one, which is at least more than "no editors". Could you elaborate on what you meant by It might be helpful if there was proposed text for this "Audience response" section and You don't need consensus to produce a draft version of the proposed section? F22RB and H537 seem to think I was misinterpreting it as you wanting clarification of the inclusion of which criticisms we are !voting on here.
 * Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 04:39, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Nope, I'm not playing this game with you anymore. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:45, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It's just advice for this vaguely worded RfC. Even if we do reach consensus that there should be a section titled "Audience response", we still don't know what it should or should not contain, like you said. Wikipedians are better swayed to include a well-written draft section than a hypothetical section. For example, the recent efforts to create a "Fan reactions" section haven't been very convincing. FallingGravity 06:46, 22 December 2017 (UTC)


 * It might be helpful if there was proposed text for this "Audience response" section. It's kind of hard to !vote on the inclusion text we haven't seen, which might be the reason for the "not yet" votes. FallingGravity 17:18, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * There is no consensus even for adding the section. I think we would need that first. Alaney2k (talk) 19:28, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * You don't need consensus to produce a draft version of the proposed section. FallingGravity 22:43, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

I feel like I should iterate, especially with comments at User talk:Erik, since I'm of the position that the material should be included eventually, because I'm not a fan of articles covering material that is potentially in rapid flux (and I lean heavily on the no deadline principle), that if the waiting to include is what's decided here, there is currently no proposal for when it should be included? I personally think that one month from the public release date (in the US), so January 15, on other words two weeks, is where I'd say, "Go ahead. It's unlikely to change beyond this point." I am absolutely a proponent of adding fan reaction coverage based on how third party sources cover it, and I don't think critical response is limited to only just critics (critical being, imo, more in the spirit of a generalized critique and media criticism sense). The material should go in, I just am a little wary in this specific case. (If you're responding to this comment, pls ping me.) ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  20:56, 21 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, but what do we actually write? Your comment comes across as having since the large number of bullet points in Flyer's collapsed comment above, without having actually read the quotes. The majority of the reliable sources are basically useless for anything beyond simply saying that there was a backlash of some kind and for some reason. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 04:12, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll let everyone else collaborate on what actually to write. I have good faith everyone involved with that part of it will come up with a good solution. My !vote was mainly concerned with the inclusion of the content. Huggums537 (talk) 04:33, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, if it makes you feel better about it, you can know you were correct that I didn't actually read all of the quotes in the collapsed section because I trust with good faith that Flyer22's description about what is contained there is accurate enough. It's been my experience that Flyer22 represents her claims with a relative degree of honesty. Huggums537 (talk) 05:53, 22 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, but what are you suggesting we write? Virtually everyone who replied with some variation on "Not yet" (who vastly outnumber the simple "No"s) agrees that the backlash is notable and should be in the article in some form, but the text that has been edit-warred into the article multiple times by various near-SPAs is either some super-short variation on the non-noteworthy factoid The RottenTomatoes audience score is lower than the critics' score. or an outrageously unacceptable piece of non-NPOV editorializing fluff, and in the absense of any specific proposed text, it looks like you and the other simple "Yes" !votes are in favour of re-adding that stuff. I don't for a second think this is actually the case with you (as noted above though, some of the other comments are suspicious), but I do think that if enough people wrote their comments as you did that would be the unintended long-term effect. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 04:12, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I broadly agree with Flyer22's sentiments as to what should be included. Of course the RT polls and whatnot added by SPAs should not be included, as it's user-generated. That much is obvious, but seems to have muddied the waters of this conversation. I don't see much utility in waiting, as Flyer22 has provided a wealth of reliable sources describing common and consistent audience reactions to the film. Cjhard (talk) 04:20, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I also agree with including whatever Flyer22 brought up in the green box, because we have a range of reliable secondary sources. starship.paint ~  KO   13:35, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * What is going on/has gone on appears only to be some bots or trolls on Rotten Tomatoes. It is impossible, due to the UI of RT, to determine if all of the scores are distinct. The text already includes the Cinemascore. Anything more would only report that trolling occurred on Rotten Tomatoes. Is that really encylopedia-worthy? IMO, no. Alaney2k (talk) 16:00, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The bot stuff is speculation. Like Erik stated on his talk page, Rotten Tomatoes has come out and stated that the user scores are accurate. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:15, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Someone has taken credit for doing it. See Indiewire and the link to Huffington Post from there. Some of the star wars fake comments were posted on the The Shape of Water user reviews on RT. Alaney2k (talk) 19:33, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * And the Huffington Post link. Alaney2k (talk) 19:36, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * See the "Frankie G" review at RT user reviews for The Shape of Water. Alaney2k (talk) 19:38, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * A claim is not a fact, though. And like I stated, Rotten Tomatoes has stated that the user scores are accurate. These aspects are just something else to report on. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:08, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Enough to leave the RT score out of the article as somehow meaningful. In fact, I'd say that we should probably drop RT as a reliable source. Alaney2k (talk) 20:13, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * If you really want to include this on Wikipedia, then maybe it is more topical on the Rotten Tomatoes article. That it can be hacked and here is another example. Ghostbusters before, now this. Alaney2k (talk) 20:15, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * No, something like this should be briefly covered in the film article it is about...right along with the other stuff the many reliable sources are stating about the Last Jedi reception matter. You disagree; I already know that. As for dropping Rotten Tomatoes as a reliable source, you can propose that at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film, but it is unlikely that we will stop using it as a source. On Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic, user scores are not the same as critical reception scores. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:07, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * We are definitely not dropping RT as a source, they are a reliable census of hundreds of critics (even if their up/down methodology is somewhat unnuanced). It is the user scores that are subject to gaming—not the whole site—and there is already wikipedia policy not to cite the user reviews/poll. Granzymes (talk) 21:30, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * You are right. Sorry. I meant the user score, and I guess it is already discredited. So, then, another reason not to care about its value? Alaney2k (talk) 22:48, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * When a lot of reliable sources report on its value, that is different. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:33, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't see a lot of reliable sources reporting on the user poll other than to say that user polls are unreliable and then jumping into a critical analysis of the film from the perspective of the audience (too many plot holes, etc.). It is the second part that we should include. Granzymes (talk) 18:49, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Some sources I included above analyze the poll aspect. And there's been so much talk about the polls in reliable sources that we had editors focusing solely on that on this talk page and opposing in the RfC. Plus, there's been so much talk that Rotten Tomatoes felt the need to come out and state that its The Last Jedi user poll is accurate. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:53, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I want to reiterate that I have not seen a reputable source that does not call the poll into question or explain that it may have been gamed. Further, RT's response regards the use of bots, not the problems inherent with open response polls, which MOS:FILM explains. There is enough criticism in the sources you linked above to satisfy WP:DUE in a few sentances without bringing up questionable polls. Granzymes (talk) 19:31, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * When it comes to whether or not the poll aspect should be mentioned, we disagree. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:41, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Very well. I'll help write the criticism, whichever way this RfC shapes up. Granzymes (talk) 22:33, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

After a couple more comments about the box office drop for week two, I want to reiterate: I believe it's inappropriate to attribute the box office drop to the audience backlash. ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  22:37, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The drop between the weekends only compares what people spent on the opening weekend to the second weekend. The "weekend" is from Friday to Sunday for this purpose, and those are the three days of the week when films tend to gross the most. Except that this film had its second weekend just before Christmas Day (which fell on a Monday), so the usual pattern for films wouldn't have applied. The daily returns for the film show it doing better on Christmas Day and Boxing Day than 2 out of 3 days on its second weekend. Anywikiuser (talk) 23:35, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

About the hack of Rotten Tomatoes: Why not mention it in the RT article instead? It seems like it would be encyclopedic to note that its user score has been hacked, not once but twice. (And it is still going on, if anything RT's user score is now meaningless) That people have been trying to use it as a soapbox. I've still not seen anything on the net that indicates any kind of wide backlash to Last Jedi. Almost all of the articles cited discuss the RT score. I do think there have been negative opinions expressed, but there is no way to know if it is significant, that is above a few percent of the total audience. It's a huge audience, so that will still be a sizeable number nevertheless. I do not think that discussing the hack of RT here is relevant to the film itself. If anything, it could be relevant in a "Fandom of Star Wars" article. I mean, we realistically can not say that the fan base "is divided" or "polarized" with any conviction. It's not. Alaney2k (talk) 14:17, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not necessarily hacking or bots. The reason why we don't cite open polls like this in are article is because they are can be affected by participation bias. It could be that there is a small but vocal minority of viewers who didn't like it, especially among hardcore fans. But how big is this group? Millions of people have seen the film, whereas it takes as little as 10,000 people to cause a ****storm on the Internet. We can't be sure. All we know is that three scientific surveys done found that the vast majority of people who saw the film enjoyed it. Anywikiuser (talk) 17:21, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Even in the surve above, the majority of 'yes' !notvotes are simply opinions, with no backing evidence. That media have discussed the RT score? What is there really to discuss? That some people (we are not even sure if they are "fans") disliked it? I remember the previous Canadian government's justice minister was claiming that "unreported crime was increasing". It's the same sort of quicksand to discuss. It gives credence to opinions that are purely speculation as if their guesses were accurate. We have no way of verifying. Alaney2k (talk) 18:24, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * With no backing evidence? No. They are right that it is WP:Due to cover the audience response. And as has been made extensively clear with reliable sources, that audience response is not solely about the Rotten Tomatoes score. And Rotten Tomatoes has stated that the score is accurate anyway. Some can doubt Rotten Tomatoes's statement on that all they want to, but it's what the site stated. I'm not going to repeat all of this again, however. I've made my arguments above...with reliable sources. And there is no need for the "yes" votes to repeat what others have stated when they can simply state "per Flyer22 Reborn" or similar. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:38, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Much ado about nothing. Alaney2k (talk) 22:53, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * That's for the reviewers to decide, and they obviously have. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:57, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, not a hacked poll and indeterminate opinions. Alaney2k (talk) 23:00, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

After close discussion
Erik, GoneIn60, Starship.paint and Granzymes, with Galobtter's close of the RfC, are any of you ready to start the draft for the section? We can all work on it together at User:Flyer22 Reborn/Last Jedi audience response or in another draft space. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:47, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I think the best place to draft is right here on this page. Don’t forget to discuss reputable, reliable sources stating there is nothing to see here. I’ve noted a couple and may have to conduct further research, if this proceeds as I suspect it may. Antinoos69 (talk) 13:00, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Working on a draft on the talk page can unnecessarily take up the talk page. It can be better to leave a section on the talk page pointing to the draft, where editors can work on it and weigh in on it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:13, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I have two concerns about all this. First, I fear that absconding with the draft to another page somewhere is going to reduce and bias editor participation and work, producing a text that will be flooded with subsequent RfCs, at least some of which could have been avoided earlier and more organically in the drafting process. Second, I think more general substantive critiques of the film, which overlap considerably with negative critics’ views, could be better and more traditionally dealt with in the critical reception section, in the current last paragraph. I see an audience response section being more about the supposed fan backlash, including whether there actually is one, and including the polling info currently in the first paragraph of the critical response section. Antinoos69 (talk) 19:32, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't have a strong opinion on where the content is drafted, as long as editors of this talk page know about it and the content ends up in the article per the RfC. The RfC consensus is not to exclude some of what the reliable sources are stating. It is simply to report on what the reliable sources are stating about audience dissatisfaction with the film. So I don't see a need for another RfC about a specific aspect of that coverage. It is very easy to remove anything that is WP:Undue because most sources don't mention it. Erik (who has commented below) is very good at creating reception material for film articles. He might be WP:Bold and simply add it. If he does that, I would hope that a revert does not happen since we should be following WP:Consensus. Any unnecessary redundancy in the content can simply be cut, but it is common for the audience to have some of the same views as professional critics. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:33, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I know you don't like this, Flyer22, but I think we should put CinemaScore and comScore/PostTrak (and SurveyMonkey?) in its own "Audience response" section and provide a little more background detail about their controlled approaches (per the sources that talk about it -- there should be some). Then we can state that the user scores at Rotten Tomatoes (and Metacritic?) were noticed to be different from the critical reception, get into the uncontrolled approaches of such scores, and summarize the arguments as to why the scores differed from the critics. (We should probably work backward, using the most recent sources about this if they are better than the initial sources.) Not sure if I have time today or this weekend to do anything -- I've been sporadic this first week of the year. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 13:24, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Eik, when there is enough material for an Audience response section, as there is in this case, I don't mind moving CinemaScore and similar there. But remember the valid criticisms made against the film, which I pointed to with a list of sources in the section above. This matter is not solely or mostly about the polls. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:13, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * - I'm quite busy at the moment. I'd probably end up editing a draft than writing one from scratch. starship.paint ~  KO   13:52, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

I took the section from the time that Fan response was in the article and pasted into Draft:Star Wars Last Jedi audience response. I added comments about the alt-right group hacking RT. You guys can take it from here. Alaney2k (talk) 23:06, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think that although matching negative reviews of Last Jedi were also placed in the user reviews section for The Shape of Water should be included. I also tweaked some prose and information to better reflect the sources. Finally, I changed the list of direct quotations to a more natural sentence. Granzymes (talk) 01:41, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm going to contribute as well, since this is a group encyclopedia. If this is going to be here, it needs to be done right. There is a balance here (no pun intended) that we can and should meet, and I think we can do it. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 02:54, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, this section needs to be properly weighted relative to other sections. Two long paragraphs or three shorter paragraphs seems reasonable to me, at least. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 03:20, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * There is no need to limit the section at the risk of leaving out important content. The current draft, which I hope Erik works on, needs more work, of course. For example, there is no need to state "reportedly" in front of "has been polarizing among audiences and fans." It is casting unnecessary doubt on what WP:Reliable sources state, and is akin to WP:Editorializing. And "denied by Rotten Tomatoes" is casting doubt on Rotten Tomatoes's word, which violates WP:Said. So I will be fixing that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:47, 7 January 2018 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:52, 7 January 2018 (UTC)


 * But, yeah, although the current draft needs more work, I think that three paragraphs is enough. If four are needed, I am not opposed to that, however. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:14, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok, would like to note that the January will soon be over and we still do not have the section in the article. Can someone do the proper editing in next few days and include it in the article? It is only a section with few paragraphs and references, it is taking a bit too long.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 19:43, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Miki Filigranski, I understand. We are having minor disagreements on the draft. Here on the talk page, I will be proposing three different versions for editors to choose from. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:54, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

We are well into February, and this page still has no mention of the well-documented negative reactions to the film. There have been many attempts from others to include it on the page, which gets swiftly removed. The constant removal the mentions of criticism should be considered vandalism by this point, because it's getting ridiculous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.186.228.249 (talk) 04:21, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
 * IP, look at the section below. You can weigh in there. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:44, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 December 2017
This article completely ignores the large number of negative reviews from fans. The movie received mixed reviews not "largely positive reviews". Look at the IMDB and Rotten Tomatoes (audience score) which decline by the day, this was a heavily criticized film, and failing to acknowledge this is wrong. Josegonzalezm.4 (talk) 07:05, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * See the huge discussion happening about this above. Popcornduff (talk) 07:07, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I went and looked at the IMDB user score since you mentioned it and it hasn't really been discussed much here. For those wondering, it's a 7.6 with 200,000 reviews (context: Rogue One got a 7.8 and The Force Awakens got an 8.1). I wonder if the difference is because it's less high profile than Rotten Tomatoes (although there are only 150,000 reviews for TLJ on RT) or maybe that IMDB tries to eliminate review bombing from their data. Food for thought. Granzymes (talk) 09:11, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 December 2017
In the plot it says: one of the children that helped Finn and Rose escape grabs a broom "with the Force" and gazes hopefully up into space.

This is an error. The kid just grabs it, without using the Force.

Please delete those 3 words. Thank you. 2405:205:128A:571E:D45D:E591:5305:42E9 (talk) 22:44, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * ❌. You are incorrect. The broom clearly floats into his hand. oknazevad (talk) 00:26, 27 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Are we sure this is by using the force and not just e.g. kicking the broom up off-camera to give the impression? That's at least how I remember and interpreted the scene. It's clearly implied the kid has the force, but I don't think it's clearly shown to be the case. --109.45.1.251 (talk) 03:13, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Critical response neutrality
I placed the Template:POV section. The section "Critical response" needs to include, besides the audience response (which is extensively discussed above), critics negative reviews, it's not enough to have only 3 "negative" reviews. Wikipedia's core principle is neutrality, however, according to what WP:BALANCE such sections are edited, if even is implemented any principle at all? Also, the section needs to be written more specifically i.e. what parts of the film and its making were praised/criticized. When I read quotes from cited positive reviews there almost no objective meaning and value about what makes this film good artistic work or reason for its audience appeal, for example, " Rian Johnson ... has not ruined your Christmas with a turkey. His gift to you is a cracker, a blockbuster movie packed with invention, wit, and action galore " - that's pointless and meaningless drivel, anonymous comments on YouTube or Facebook have more critical weight and depth than that.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 01:14, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * When the critical response is overwhelmingly positive, as this is, there's very few negative reviews to use. More importantly, when the critical response is overwhelmingly positive, then a properly balanced section will quote mostly positive reviews. Yes, we should include some negative quotes because it's not unanimous, but we shouldn't seek false balance, either. I've seen articles where the aggregate score is in the high 70s/low 80s, and there's only one positive review, and one negative one quoted. That's not balanced, that's giving too much weight to the negative relative to the overall consensus. So if there's only three negative reviews quoted compared to a much greater number of positive ones, well, that accurately reflects the critical consensus.
 * As for the quality of the reviews' prose, that's a judgement call, but we shouldn't just ignore reviews because someone thinks their poorly written. oknazevad (talk) 01:43, 28 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Miki Filigranski, as noted in the RfC section above about audience response, I do think some criticism material should be included in the article, but I agree with Oknazevad. The vast majority of the critical response (meaning the response from professional critics...unless we are considering the criticism from some of the general audience) is positive. And so the Critical response section is WP:DUE; it does adhere to WP:BALANCE. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:55, 28 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree with Flyer22, oknazevad, et al. The critical response section does align with the fact that the critic reviews were overwhelmingly positive.  We do not need to reflect a quote from every negative review, just as we don't reflect a quote from every positive review.  But as discussed above, I do agree that we need an audience response section as well as a critical response section, and I agree that the lack of an audience response section does represent a POV violation. Rlendog (talk) 02:41, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The rough consensus that I'm seeing is to include a section on audience reaction (though the exact contents of this hypothetical section is unclear). I think the presence of a POV template is problematic as it appears to advocate for a certain RfC outcome. For this reason, I've removed the template. If there are still POV concerns after the RfC concludes, then it can be reinstated. FallingGravity 07:10, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I am not advocating false balance nor did I say we should ignore the reviews if they are poorly written. The first issue is seemingly settled. The second is not, and I do not see the meaning and value in including such poor quotes. It is impossible that these reviews do not have anything more specific and valuable, it is irresponsible from our part as editors if we do not find and include it.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 18:15, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Miki, the second issue is a valid concern. If you're willing, I suggest proposing what you would change or add specifically to improve this section. If reasonable, I don't see why anyone would be against providing better quotes with more substance, but suggesting that there is an imbalance is a different issue that will likely run into more resistance. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:42, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Neutrality of the reception section disputed
I dispute the neutrality of the entire reception section (not the critical response section, but rather the whole reception section more generally), and have placed a notice there accordingly. This should be obvious given the extreme controversy that it has generated throughout this whole page. The notice should remain up until the RfC above is resolved.AfD hero (talk) 02:01, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree. That is the crux of the POV issue and the tag is appropriately placed as you have done. Rlendog (talk) 02:41, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Let’s try this: What, if any, are your specific objections to the neutrality of the box office section, specifically? If you don’t have any, then you misplaced the tag, which I assumed from your lack of stated reasons, relocating the tag accordingly. Antinoos69 (talk) 05:40, 31 December 2017 (UTC) Please note the second bullet point at the top of Template:POV section. Antinoos69 (talk) 06:08, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I have no objections to either the box office subsection or the critical response subsection. I have a strong objection to the entire response section as a whole since it does not include an audience reaction subsection. This is not neutral, given how much coverage the audience reaction has gotten in the media. It is a structural problem. I would like to point out the following quote from WP:NPOV: Pay attention to headers, footnotes, or other formatting elements that might unduly favor one point of view, and watch out for structural or stylistic aspects that make it difficult for a reader to fairly and equally assess the credibility of all relevant and related viewpoints. AfD hero (talk) 00:14, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I must challenge your logic. Since the critical response subsection actually addresses audience response, and is the only place that response is discussed, it seems you very obviously would have to have objections to the critical response subsection, and no other subsection. So it seems I have correctly relocated the tag. Your original placement would have the casual reader questioning the box office subsection for its content. That would be a problem. The current tag placement keeps things clear, not making some readers, including myself, wonder what could possibly be wrong with the box office subsection. Antinoos69 (talk) 08:10, 1 January 2018 (UTC)


 * - I just created an Audience response section since there was already content in the Critical response section that was actually audience response. I don't think there is much problem with the Box office nor the Critical response stuff (as per the above discussion). Should we shift the tag lower? starship.paint ~  KO   03:56, 28 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree with the adding an audience response section, but that is currently the subject of a controversial RfC above. Although adding the section appears to be the growing concensus, not everyone agrees and it may be better to wait until the RfC is closed. See the discussion above. AfD hero (talk) 04:43, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh I see you have already posted there. Do you think concensus is clear enough that we can go ahead and make the section, or perhaps we should make a formal request for closure? AfD hero (talk) 04:57, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I disagree, the template appears to be advocating for a certain RfC outcome (include "Audience reaction" section, though I personally agree that there should be such a section). FallingGravity 07:24, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I thought the template doesn't indicate which way the dispute should go, but rather indicates that there is a dispute taking place. But I don't feel too strongly about the template and am OK deferring to your judgement here. AfD hero (talk) 15:30, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

I have corrected the location of the tag. There isn’t so much as a rumor of a neutrality issue with the box office section, which would necessarily be implied with the former location of the tag. Antinoos69 (talk) 16:49, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Just as a response to your question (although it's stated above), the tag was placed there to dispute the neutrality of the entire section. Granzymes (talk) 17:13, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, no such thing is stated anywhere on this page. The location of a tag must be objectively justified with concrete reasons. Merely claiming one objects to multiple sections, without providing or referencing concrete objections to all those sections, simply won’t do. How is a problem to be addressed if the problem remains unspecified? As no one on this entire talk page has raised concrete neutrality issues with the box office section, no tag can be placed so as to include that section at this time. Should someone raise such concrete neutrality issues, the tag’s placement could then be changed, but only then. Antinoos69 (talk) 23:43, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It's the first line of this section. I've moved the tag for you. Granzymes (talk) 04:54, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * There’s nothing there about the box office section. I’ll move it back for you. Antinoos69 (talk) 05:27, 31 December 2017 (UTC) Please note the second bullet point at the top of Template:POV section. Antinoos69 (talk) 06:08, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The tag belongs on the "Reception" section. That is where the dispute is.  The fact that there is some information within Reception (such as the Box Office subsection) doesn't change the fact that there is a NPOV dispute about the Reception section in general. Rlendog (talk) 18:42, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Incorrect. Tags must be specifically placed to indicate only that part or those parts of articles that are problematic; otherwise, readers are misled to doubt a part or parts of articles with which no problems have been raised. As neutrality problems have been raised regarding only the critical reception subsection, then, by logical necessity, the neutrality tag must be assigned only to that subsection, as it currently very correctly is. Antinoos69 (talk) 04:40, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

There is nothing to dispute. Critical reception comes from critics and most critics like it. 2601:4A:600:A217:A5F5:6A60:1BCE:FB1A (talk) 19:52, 1 January 2018 (UTC)


 * my 2 cents here is to do what I did (mainly to appease IPs) on Bright and create an Audience response section. And this film actually has CinemaScore and PostTrak to give further context, so that’s nice TropicAces (talk) 03:40, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Whether or not to include an audience response section is being discussed in another section of this talk page: Talk:Star_Wars:_The_Last_Jedi You may want to weigh in there. AfD hero (talk) 02:02, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Plot summary: 'battle' between Kylo Ren and Luke
At the moment the plot summary says: "Luke appears and confronts the First Order so the surviving Resistance fighters can escape. Kylo orders the First Order forces to fire on Luke to no effect, then engages Luke in battle. Kylo strikes Luke with his lightsaber but realizes he has been fighting Luke's Force projection." I edited 'in battle' to 'in hand-to-hand combat', but User:Popcornduff reverted this (in good faith), arguing: 'unnecessary detail, "battle" is correct and sufficient'. However, I suggest two reasons for changing the wording (not necessarily to 'hand-to-hand combat'): So I suggest we change 'in battle' to 'in hand-to-hand combat' or 'in a duel'. Alarichall (talk) 13:14, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Context. The preceding clause led me to assume that the 'battle' between Kylo and Luke was still a firefight, which then became confusing when the following sentence implied (correctly) that the fight was hand-to-hand combat.
 * The principal definition of 'battle' given by Oxford Dictionaries is 'a sustained fight between large organized armed forces.' That was indeed that I thought was being described. But their fight is actually a duel.
 * I understand what you're saying. I personally feel this is unnecessary because the next piece of information is "Kylo strikes Luke with his lightsaber". I don't feel strongly about it, however, and if you feel we need it I won't revert again. Popcornduff (talk) 14:06, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * On further reflection, I see your argument about "battle" possibly being misleading, even if that's only misleading until the reader reads the next sentence. Ideally readers shouldn't be misled at all, of course - so maybe your suggestion is necessary after all. Popcornduff (talk) 14:18, 31 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment - Technically, the conflict described is a battle of sorts. It's not exactly "hand-to-hand", as it involves a lightsaber battle/duel (similar to swordfighting). You can change it to "lightsaber duel" if you want, to clear that up, but I'm fine with either wording suggested here.  Light and Dark2000  (talk) 21:39, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I changed it to "lightsaber duel". Just seems the best wording. oknazevad (talk) 02:11, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks all! Alarichall (talk) 08:33, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * PS: for the record, User:LightandDark2000, Hand-to-hand combat covers a fight 'within the physical reach of a handheld weapon that does not involve the use of ranged weapons', but 'lightsaber duel' is fine with me :-)

Caption language
In the obsessive compulsive department, a week ago or so I edited the caption for Fischer. The caption has been restored to Carrie Fisher played Princess Leia in her final film appearance. It seems to me the language as written is ambiguous (though perhaps obvious to the entire world...) as to who is having the final appearance Fisher or Leia (or both). If it were me, I would write something like ''Carrie Fisher played the role of Princess Leia. It was Fisher's final film appearance. Or perhaps, In her final film appearance, Carrie Fisher played the role of Princess Leia.'' Perhaps the language experts can confirm whether there is a problem or not, and, if so, the best way to fix it. (I would be interested in knowing the answer.) Bdushaw (talk) 22:22, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with you, and either of your fixes are fine. Anywikiuser (talk) 17:23, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Small error in plot description
Just a tiny little error in the last sentence of the plot description; it says "on Canto Bight." Canto Bight is the name of a city on the planet Cantonica. It should either read "in Canto Bight," or "on Cantonica," as one wouldn't say they were on a city. Joebobajeeba (talk) 00:40, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Changed it to "at", as that is a smoother transition to indicate the short of location in the narrative. oknazevad (talk) 00:53, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Change.org petition
Why is there no mention to the now, close to 90,000 signatures, on this petition? Secondary sources cover it, nearing to 100,000 people have taken the time to sign it, therefore it is WP:NOTABLE. Or is there some reason why it isn't being mentioned? The discussion above seems to have come to no firm consensus. Angry fans petition to erase 'Last Jedi' from Star Wars canon. Boundarylayer (talk) 16:36, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * There is a draft article being worked out on audience response at Draft:Star Wars Last Jedi audience response. That will be integrated into this article. The petition could be included into that. Mention it on its talk page. Alaney2k (talk) 16:51, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I definitely support an article that sums up the division between fans but do we really need to include that "alt-right group probably affected the RT score" thing? It seems like it's only there as an excuse. TLJ was disliked mostly for failing to build upon TFA and dropping many unsolved plot threads from it, the two biggest being "Who is Snoke?" and "Who are Rey's parents and what did that vision mean?" Luke, Rey, Finn, Kylo, Captain Phasma, Leia and especially Snoke were all considered wasted and not given much to do. Fans of Luke Skywalker hated that he was portrayed as a cynical grouch. The new characters aren't popular, the humour felt forced, the lengthy casino sub-plot is already considered a joke online (as well as "Leia Poppins" and the unnecessarily graphic alien milking scene) and there was no lightsaber-on-lightsaber battle, a staple of the series. I'm certain that the 49% score on RT and the 4.6/10 score on Metacritic are genuine; TLJ didn't give fans what TFA promised them and so they voted negatively. PlanetDeadwing (talk) 13:36, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * No disrespect intended, but I don't think that is something for Wikipedia to go into, in depth. That sounds like an essay article. Maybe someone else has a suggestion? Alaney2k (talk) 16:13, 9 January 2018 (UTC)


 * The alt-rght thing is laughable and a complete conspiracy theory of speculation. I agree with PlanetDeadwing. The official Rotten Tomatoes response to this colorful claim of tampering, is far more authoritative than a bunch of conspiracy theory mumbo-jumbo.


 * If there had been any wide-scale review fraud, then Rotten Tomatoes would have detected it. WP:DUE applies.
 * Boundarylayer (talk) 19:20, 9 January 2018 (UTC)


 * See my comments here. Not only are source links to Change.org blacklisted from Wikipedia, but that petition's organizer had some pretty damning comments to share. The number of signatures also doesn't change anything, and citing WP:N is odd considering that policy deals with article creation not article content. --GoneIn60 (talk) 08:09, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

One of the movie’s biggest mysteries
Is the title in singular or plural? In some languages the title is singular in some plural (besides that English is in general a very ambiguous language). I mean this circumstance speaks for the whole movie. <kbd style="white-space:nowrap;color:#456;"> → User: Perhelion 12:49, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Rian Johnson said it was singular. AnonymousEditor101 (talk) 16:19, 13 January 2018 (UTC)


 * The title refers to Luke Skywalker, so it's obviously singular. Have you seen the movie? Luke is the only Jedi in the movie. Do you remember when Luke an Kylo were fighting, Kylo also says that Luke is the last Jedi. Maybe you should pay more attention the next time you watch the movie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.53.138.201 (talk) 16:55, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * We don't rely on user observation, we stick to what professionally published mainstream sources say on the topic. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:48, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * So if I say the color of the sky is blue, you would not believe me without a professionally published mainstream source? Really?! Anyway, the creator Rian Johnson said that it's singluar that's equal to god saying the sky is blue. That's enough for you? 91.53.139.94 (talk) 07:34, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Wrong translation in some languages
Did you know that the titel is translated wrongly into some languages e.g. French, German and Spanish? The titel clearly refers to Luke Skywalker, so its singular. In those languages the did a mistake and translated it as plural. It's obvious that it's singular but here is proove anyway: https://twitter.com/GMA/status/853004555423973376/video/1 Rian Johnson sais it's SINGULAR. Can we add a trivia section to mention this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.53.140.54 (talk) 16:45, 13 January 2018 (UTC)