Talk:Star Wars: The Last Jedi/Archive 4

RfC: Which version of the Audience response section should we go with?
Hi, all. Per an RfC, editors (myself included) have worked on a draft at Draft:Star Wars Last Jedi audience response and its talk page. We are just about done, but there are remaining disagreements and we need comments from other editors to finally get this material into the article. The main disagreements are the following: There is debate on whether or not to present the "divisive" aspect first and whether or not it is WP:Due or WP:Undue. With regard to the parentage aspect, there is debate on whether or not, in order to give give an example instead of being vague, we should mention that many fans were expecting Rey to be Luke's daughter. Or whether we should mention a few examples. And there is debate on whether or not to plainly state that many fans felt that Luke's actions in The Last Jedi contrasted his previous heroic portrayal or to instead state that many fans felt that he should have been portrayed more heroically; how to word this can be worked out later. There was also alt-right debates, but we have kept that material out of the draft. I present three versions below. Obviously, none of these versions mean that the section cannot be edited further afterward. Coming to a consensus on one of the versions simply means that we can finally move forward. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:17, 19 January 2018 (UTC) Reviewers characterized The Last Jedi as divisive among audiences. Audience reception measured by scientific polling methods was highly positive. Audiences randomly polled by CinemaScore on opening day gave the film an average grade of "A" on an A+ to F scale. Surveys from SurveyMonkey and comScore's PostTrak found that 89% of audience members graded the film positively. Conversely, the user-generated review sections of Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic contained scores that were significantly more negative, achieving the ratings of 49% and 4.6/10, respectively.

Several reviewers speculated that the low user scores are the result of manipulation, either by coordinated vote brigading from internet groups or from bots. Quartz noted that some new accounts gave negative ratings to both The Last Jedi and Thor: Ragnarok, while Bleeding Cool stated that reviews for Thor had tapered off up to that point but skyrocketed afterwards. In response to tampering claims, Rotten Tomatoes released a statement that they did not detect any unusual activity aside from a noticeable "uptick in the number of written user reviews" on The Last Jedi.

Todd VanDerWerff of Vox found that disgruntled fans saw the film as too progressive, disliked its humor, plot, or character arcs, or felt betrayed that it ignored fan theories. Other reviewers made similar observations. Particularly divisive was the reveal that Rey's parents are insignificant;  many fans had expected her to be Luke's daughter or to share a lineage with another character from the original trilogy. There was also sentiment that Snoke's character was underdeveloped and that Luke's actions contrasted his previous heroic portrayal. Reviewers stated that fan theories were held so strongly among some viewers that it was difficult for them to accept different stories. However, other viewers appreciated the film's action, tone and deviation from Star Wars tradition.

The first version includes mention of many fans expecting Rey to be Luke's daughter or to share a lineage with another character from the original trilogy, and feeling that Luke's actions contrasted his previous heroic portrayal.

Reviewers characterized The Last Jedi as divisive among audiences. Audience reception measured by scientific polling methods was highly positive. Audiences randomly polled by CinemaScore on opening day gave the film an average grade of "A" on an A+ to F scale. Surveys from SurveyMonkey and comScore's PostTrak found that 89% of audience members graded the film positively. Conversely, the user-generated review sections of Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic contained scores that were significantly more negative, achieving the ratings of 49% and 4.6/10, respectively.

Several reviewers speculated that the low user scores are the result of manipulation, either by coordinated vote brigading from internet groups or from bots. Quartz noted that some new accounts gave negative ratings to both The Last Jedi and Thor: Ragnarok, while Bleeding Cool stated that reviews for Thor had tapered off up to that point but skyrocketed afterwards. In response to tampering claims, Rotten Tomatoes released a statement that they did not detect any unusual activity aside from a noticeable "uptick in the number of written user reviews" on The Last Jedi.

Todd VanDerWerff of Vox found that disgruntled fans saw the film as too progressive, disliked its humor, plot, or character arcs, or felt betrayed that it ignored fan theories. Other reviewers made similar observations. Particularly divisive was the reveal that Rey's parents are insignificant;  many fans had expected to share a lineage with another character from the original trilogy. There was also sentiment that Snoke's character was underdeveloped and disagreement with Luke's portrayal and character arc in whether he was heroic enough. Reviewers stated that fan theories were held so strongly among some viewers that it was difficult for them to accept different stories. However, other viewers appreciated the film's action, tone and deviation from Star Wars tradition.

The second version does not mention that many fans expected Rey to be Luke's daughter, but it does mention that many expected her to share a lineage with another character from the original trilogy. It also characterizes Luke's actions as not having been heroic enough, rather than a departure from how his character was previously portrayed.

Audience reception measured by scientific polling methods was highly positive. Audiences randomly polled by CinemaScore on opening day gave the film an average grade of "A" on an A+ to F scale. Surveys from SurveyMonkey and comScore's PostTrak found that 89% of audience members graded the film positively.

The user-generated review sections of Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic contained scores that were significantly more negative, achieving the ratings of 49% and 4.6/10, respectively. Several reviewers speculated that the low user scores are the result of manipulation, either by coordinated vote brigading from internet groups or from bots. Quartz noted that some new accounts gave negative ratings to both The Last Jedi and Thor: Ragnarok, while Bleeding Cool stated that reviews for Thor had tapered off up to that point but skyrocketed afterwards. In response to tampering claims, Rotten Tomatoes released a statement that they did not detect any unusual activity aside from a noticeable "uptick in the number of written user reviews" on The Last Jedi.

Reviewers characterized The Last Jedi as divisive among audiences. Todd VanDerWerff of Vox found that disgruntled fans saw the film as too progressive, disliked its humor, plot, or character arcs, or felt betrayed that it ignored fan theories. Other reviewers made similar observations. Particularly divisive was the reveal that Rey's parents are insignificant;  many fans had expected her to be Luke's daughter or to share a lineage with another character from the original trilogy. There was also sentiment that Snoke's character was underdeveloped and that Luke's actions contrasted his previous heroic portrayal. Reviewers stated that fan theories were held so strongly among some viewers that it was difficult for them to accept different stories. However, other viewers appreciated the film's action, tone and deviation from Star Wars tradition.

The last version is something that was suggested by Erik. It does not begin by stating that the film was divisive. Instead, the first paragraph presents only the positive information, the second paragraph includes the user scores and commentary on them, and the last paragraph is specifically about why fans are disgruntled. Erik also suggested that we add why user scores are unreliable, which is not in this version, but can obviously be added. The fact that many fans expected Rey to be Luke's daughter and that many felt that Luke's actions in the film deviated from his previous heroic portrayal is also in this version, but that's because Erik did not offer any opinion on that. If it's felt that Erik's version is better without that content and/or wording, we can reword or remove it.

Survey #

 * Version 1 or something similar. Like I argued on the draft's talk page, there are numerous reliable sources stating that the film is divisive. It's not just passing mentions either. It's sources analyzing the divisiveness. It is entirely WP:Due to call the film divisive and to do so early on. To give WP:In-text attribution to that aspect is misleading per WP:In-text attribution, unless we state, "Reviewers characterized The Last Jedi as divisive among audiences. Otherwise, WP:In-text attribution would make it seem like only one or a few reviewers have called the film divisive, when, in reality, many reviewers have. The "official" polls only show what they show, and do not speak for the audience reception as a whole. It's not a contradiction to show that one side is one way and the other side is another. It's presenting both sides. And in this case, I do believe we have presented both sides with due weight. The overwhelming majority of the literature is not giving more weight to these polls when reporting on audience reception. An IP also made some points about the polling. As for the "Luke's daughter" and heroic aspects... We should give an example of the parentage matter instead of being unnecessarily vague; Rey being Luke's daughter is the most prominent popular parentage theory. This The Straits Times source states that many fans felt that Luke's actions contrasted his previous heroic portrayal. Stating that is more accurate than stating "Luke's portrayal should have been more heroic." A number of sources are focused on a change in his character. They are not simply stating that he should have been more heroic than he was before. I do not agree with this edit to the draft because it's unnecessary and is using quotation marks without specifying who made the quote. And using WP:In-text attribution in this case would also make it seem like only this source has stated this. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:44, 19 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Note: I can also be okay with Option 3. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:05, 19 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Support Option 3, with the Option 2 version of the Luke section All three options are alright, albeit a bit too long in my opinion relative to other sections. Regardless, option 3 seems to have the most rational progression: list the scientific polling methods first, then the user-scores and the media discussion about them, and then finally include information from critics, reporters, and writers, who found it divisive. Both Option 1 and 3 contain unacceptable and unclear terminology relating to Luke Skywalker; rather than stating the fan complaints in their voice (i.e. "... felt that Luke's portrayal was not as heroic as in the prior films"), it instead states it in Wikipedia's (i.e. Luke's actions contrasted his previous heroic portrayal). In other words, it's implying his actions weren't heroic. The wording in Option 2 avoids this problem while making clear exactly what fundamentally the critique is of: his character arc ad portrayal, specifically in how heroic he was portrayed. I also object to mentioning any specific parentage theory, as there are so many of them and none are remotely notable individually (the "Rey is a Skywalker" one is hardly dominant - the Strait Times source that Flyer touts doesn't even mention it, mentioning another theory altogether). Toa Nidhiki05 21:48, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Your assertion that the "Rey is a Skywalker" parentage theory "is hardly dominant" has been shown to be false by a list of sources I provided. By contrast, you have presented no reliable sources to even remotely show that any of the other parentage theories are more prominent/more popular. This is because there are none. And stating that The Straits Times source does not specifically mention that theory does not change the fact that it is the most dominant/popular one. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:56, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Option 3, with the Option 2 version of the Luke section It flows better this way, and I prefer the more-general wording in Option 2. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:57, 19 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Version 2 is my preference, although I could live with all of them. I don't see a problem by opening with the fact that the audience response was divided, since it was. 2nd choice would probably be Version 3 with the Version 2 Luke section. Rlendog (talk) 22:09, 19 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I would vote to not include any of that stuff.. the first two paragraphs are fine but why are we giving internet trolls a voice on wikipedia by including their grumblings about how the film wasnt enough like the fan fiction they had in their heads? How is this at all encyclopedic? Spanneraol (talk) 23:13, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Spanneraol, because it's not solely Internet trolls who are upset about the film and fans being upset about the film has received substantial media coverage. In the aforementioned RfC, we've been over whether or not to include this material. After that, we moved to the draft phase. Now we are at the "Which version to include?" phase. Besides, as noted by a number of reliable sources, The Force Awakens substantially contributed to fan expectations, such as its misdirections that Rey is Luke's daughter. Like this The Week source states, "At the beginning of 2016's The Force Awakens, Daisy Ridley's character is an orphan living on the remote planet of Jakku. Over the course of the film, she becomes swept up in the battle between the evil First Order and the plucky Resistance, until, in the final frame, she comes face-to-face with the original trilogy's lead character, Luke Skywalker. The encounter left many viewers with the distinct impression Rey would turn out to be Luke's child and the inheritor of his Jedi powers." The writers knew what they were doing with that, and with all of the Rey/Luke similarities and other stuff making viewers think the two were daughter and father. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:26, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Well i missed that previous RFC... so i disagree with it's outcome.. but in any event, i vote for whichever one includes the least amount of internet complaining about unmatched fan theories which i think is ridiculous. A few bits on how some fans were upset is ok.. but going into details about what theories some group had isnt really notable. Spanneraol (talk) 23:41, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Spanneraol, it's a small paragraph that summarizes the most important points. WP:Notable is decided by coverage in reliable sources. But our WP:Notable guideline is not what decided this. That guideline is about whether or not to create a Wikipedia article. WP:Due decided whether or not to include this material; I know you disagree. Thanks for commenting regardless. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:47, 19 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Version 1 I prefer its wording and example choice. Will accept whatever the majority decide. AnonymousEditor101 (talk) 03:10, 20 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Version 1 or Version 2. The divisiveness is the overwhelming narrative in the reliable sources, so it makes sense to lead with it. AfD hero (talk) 08:02, 20 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Version 3 – It makes sense to give the most prominent ratings (those that are reliable) the entire first paragraph. Because they are the most reliable audience scores and they agree with the critics, we should wait to mention the divisiveness in the 3rd paragraph, where it is well-covered. We know there's a divide among fans, but what we don't know for sure is how prominent that divide really is. Therefore, the whole section would be better off not leading with that statement, especially when it is only covered in the final paragraph. I'm fine with leaving the "Luke's daughter" bit in as well. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:10, 20 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Version 1 - I feel that enough WP:RS has demonstrated its divisiveness. Flyer22 has also provided enough sources stating Rey as Luke's daughter is the dominant theory starship.paint ~  KO   05:35, 21 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Version 1 looks the best out of the three choices. The sentence about Luke not being heroic enough is very clunky in Version 2, and I think Version 1 flows better than Version 3. Overall, I like how this section turned out. I am still against the inclusion of the user scores, but the third paragraph is important and as a package I think this is a good addition to the article. Granzymes (talk) 01:19, 22 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Version 1 – I prefer the wording of Version 1 over the other two, but I wouldn't be too bugged by Version 2. Will also go with whatever the majority goes with.--QueerFilmNerd (talk) 02:13, 22 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Version 3 - I am in agreement with GoneIn60. -- Mia o w   15:35, 22 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Version 1 - while in some ways I would prefer version 3, version 1's structure and coverage is probably best. I do not like the first sentence though. I am not a big fan of very terse sentences. I would rather a longer sentence that is a bit more of a summary of the section. This is probably not the best I can come up with, but something like this: "Measured audience response was overwhelmingly positive, however, the content was polarizing to many." This can be taken up after inclusion. Alaney2k (talk) 16:34, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The remaining problem, however, is that only the 3rd paragraph talks about polarizing content, and this updated proposal still wouldn't summarize any part of the 2nd paragraph. Sometimes it's best to avoid the summary statement altogether; keeps it more concise and less complex. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:40, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Good point. I think Version 1 without the first sentence works. I like keeping the scores in the first paragraph. Alaney2k (talk) 17:04, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The first sentence simply begins by mentioning that the film has been divisive. The first paragraph does show that divisiveness by comparing the user scores, which is one aspect of the "divisiveness" sources. It does not mater that some editors doubt the validity of the user scores. The second paragraph questions the validity anyway. And then the third paragraph goes into summarized detail about why fans have been disgruntled -- why there is divisiveness -- regarding the film. I don't think that it's a bad topic sentence. Yes, it's a good topic sentence for the third paragraph, but (in versions 1 and 2, of course) both paragraphs touch on the divisiveness. And I prefer that we lead with noting the divisiveness while keep the paragraphs as they are. But, obviously, I prefer it. I also prefer it without the "Reviewers characterized part," but that part is a compromise. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:59, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * "Some users" don't doubt user scores. User scores aren't reliable sources, period, and the only reason we are mentioning them is because some reliable sources mention them. Toa Nidhiki05 20:35, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Some editors doubt the user scores. Others trust them. And in this case, Rotten Tomatoes says the user scores are accurate. Either way, editors' complaints about user scores and doubts about the divisiveness do not matter. Numerous reliable sources state that the film is divisive, and they are not solely basing that on user scores. We've already been over this debate. I'm not debating all of this again. I'm well aware of why we are mentioning the user scores; I've argued that we should and why we should. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:41, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * RT didn't say the scores accurately reflect audience reception, they said the scores weren't tampered with. Regardless, user generated online scores are virtually never reliable, and their inclusion is only because of the mention in some sources. Toa Nidhiki05 16:00, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Given what I just stated and what reliable sources state, you are debating with yourself at this point. Some reliable sources use the same "Rotten Tomatoes says the user score is accurate" wording that I just used in my above statement. And it's not just "some sources" that have reported on the user score. I won't be debating semantics with regard to Rotten Tomatoes either. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:39, 24 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Version 1 - tentative support. if it is altered to at the very least include this inside source reference at the end of paragraph 2. A reference that is far more reliable than the present one, from a website called "screenrant". This insidesource## ref is a reliable source that I had already added in the draft but other editors seem to have nothing better to do than to undo all edits made by those they disagree with. Which appears to be a major case of WP:OWN. Conservatives and Liberals Divide on The Last Jedi and the Importance of Canon. Erin Mundahl InsideSources. -- Boundarylayer (talk) 12:36, 25 January 2018‎ (UTC)
 * The source is a separate issue that we don't need to spend time on in this RfC. Once the audience section is added, feel free to open a new thread on this page to discuss in more detail. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:23, 25 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Version 3. Very concerning that certain editors still support downplaying the positive audience reception as supported by reliable polling. Here's another way to look at it. The population's perception of a country's leader is polled in a controlled manner by specific authoritative organizations. They all indicate a positive perception of the leader. But some online uncontrolled polls in which anyone can stack votes, skew demographically, etc. say the perception is negative, therefore there is a "divided" perception of the leader. WP:WEIGHT says, "Other minority views may require much more extensive description of the majority view to avoid misleading the reader." That is what Version 3 does. By putting commentary based on uncontrolled polling in front, it gives the claim of divisiveness way too much credit. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 20:47, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Version 3 Scientific polling has to be discussed first. It is disturbing seeing all these suggestions that anecdotes should be given more prominence than polling data. I was in Edinburgh during the indyref campaign and I can tell you, the side that makes the most noise online or in the real world is not always the side that most people support. Anywikiuser (talk) 13:02, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Version 3, or if not, Version 2. Version 3 does not omit the criticism of the film as divisive, but rightly places such criticism further down. Leading with the criticism of the film as divisive is assigning too much importance to this. If we lead with either of Version 1 or 2, however, I strongly prefer Version 2 to Version 1, simply because the idea of Rey turning out to be Luke's daughter was simply not that important of a fan theory compared to the many others out there. Finsternish (talk) 18:56, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Finsternish, can you provide evidence of other fan theories having been more important or more expected to become a reality? I've already listed reliable sources proving my point. There are only a few/several fan theories that consistently get attention from the media, and the "Rey is Luke's daughter" one is consistently listed as the top or most prominent one. Most of the others get no attention, and/or are considered "crack theories." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:11, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I mean to say that none of the fan theories are particularly important in comparison to each other, and having a plurality of references in media does not imply that there were actually a large number of fans expecting this. Coverage of a theory in the media can be misleading; there is zero evidence that this was a widespread expectation among the film's audience. Finsternish (talk) 19:17, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Finsternish, per my arguments and the reliable sources I've listed on the matter, I'll simply state that I disagree. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:23, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * That's fair. Perhaps my personal lack of interest in fan theories is influencing my thoughts on this; it's my belief that the real fanbase of such popular franchises always ends up being overrepresented by a very small group of men who either have a lot of time on their hands and no greater calling or are paid to cater to such men, but that's probably neither here nor there. Finsternish (talk) 19:28, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Finsternish, I understand your viewpoint, but sources like this The Week source are clearly speaking of the general audience, not fanboys in particular, when stating, "At the beginning of 2016's The Force Awakens, Daisy Ridley's character is an orphan living on the remote planet of Jakku. Over the course of the film, she becomes swept up in the battle between the evil First Order and the plucky Resistance, until, in the final frame, she comes face-to-face with the original trilogy's lead character, Luke Skywalker. The encounter left many viewers with the distinct impression Rey would turn out to be Luke's child and the inheritor of his Jedi powers." A number of reliable sources have commented on the fact that The Force Awakens made people think that Rey is Luke's daughter. It's been called a misdirection because it was presented as so obvious without the film explicitly stating who her parents were. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:41, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I can speak of the general audience all I want; I could give you my opinion of the general audience right now, but without reliable polling such an opinion is baseless. I didn't see it as obvious, but I absolutely think it's very clear the audience was expecting Rey to have some sort of important pedigree, and the film deliberately blew such expectations apart. I also am not sure the film would have worked any other way, considering Rey is clearly the antithesis to Kylo Ren, so giving her some sort of pedigree would have undermined such a contrast. But again, that's just my opinion, and means nothing in the grand scheme of things. Public opinion polls at least mean something, but I haven't seen any that demonstrate that the audience was expecting Rey to be Luke's daughter. Finsternish (talk) 19:56, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Finsternish, again, I'm simply going by reliable sources on this matter. I don't think that a poll (whether considered scientific or otherwise) is needed to convey this aspect, especially given the obvious "Rey is Luke's daughter" pieces The Force Awakens included (as noted by reliable sources). But it's fine to agree to disagree on this. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:07, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * One of the "reliable sources" is themselves citing a Reddit user, and the basic premise of the theory is absurd and a clear example of someone interpolating their imagination into something that did not actually imply anything they were claiming. No offense but I question the actual reliability of the sources you're citing. Just because they are critics in notable publication doesn't mean their opinion is reliable. Finsternish (talk) 20:12, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Finsternish, yes, the The Week source mentions a Reddit user when commenting on "Disney's marketing strategy to mount a Super Bowl launch" or on something else. So what? Many reliable sources have commented on social media's feelings (including that of Reddit users) regarding the new Star Wars franchise. It is still a fact that many sources state that the film led viewers to think that Rey is Luke's daughter. The Week is not talking about Reddit users when stating "left many viewers with the distinct impression Rey would turn out to be Luke's child." Not only do I see the film having obviously put that notion into people's heads and intentionally decided not to reveal her parents in order to leave viewers guessing, there are many reliable sources stating the same thing. You can question the sources' reliability, but Wikipedia has its own idea of what reliable sources are, and we follow them with WP:Due weight. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:29, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Version 2 with modification - I don't see a need to mention such specific theories as "fans thought Rey was Luke's daughter". Also, if we're going to mention a specific critic by name and the organization that employs him, and detail his comments on the negative aspects of the film, we should in turn also mention at least one critic, by name and organization, who gave a positive review and include some details of that review, to give the entire section balance. - the WOLF  child  19:34, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Still not convinced we even need such detail when fans of franchises are known to often complain about newer installments being inferior to predecessors (regardless of what sources cover on the matter), though I will say that calling Rey's parents "insignificant" is an obvious personal opinion and definitely is inappropriate in what's supposed to be a neutral article. Snuggums (talk</b> / <b style="color:#009900">edits</b>) 19:37, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * SNUGGUMS, Rey's parents being insignificant/nobodies is exactly what the film stated and is one of the criticisms. It is not a WP:Neutral violation to note it as one of the criticisms. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:41, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * "The reveal that _____" implies a factual assertion. You'd probably be better off saying something like "Portraying Rey's parents as" or "Deeming Rey's parents as" if using that term at all. <b style="color:#009900">Snuggums</b> (<b style="color:#009900">talk</b> / <b style="color:#009900">edits</b>) 20:13, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It is a factual assertion in the context of the franchise so far and with regard to our real world. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:29, 29 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Support Option 3, with the Option 2 version of the Luke and Rey sections - Rey being Luke's daughter would fall under "a lineage with another character from the original trilogy". Singling out the Luke theory is entirely unnecessary.  Dark Knight  2149  02:20, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Version 1 or 2 No issues with stating the divided response right at the start because it has been demonstrated in reliable coverage that that's the way it was. A brief mention of the audience reception should be added to the lede as well.LM2000 (talk) 05:38, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I favor version 2 due to my belief that the family theories are a little undue but I can live with it if consensus swings in 1's favor.LM2000 (talk) 09:27, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Version 3 MOS:FILM discourages the inclusion of user-generated internet polls. The only legitimate reason for including them here is specifically in the context of the sourced commentary about the disparity between these scores and the controlled polls, undertaken by the likes of Cinemascore. In view of that they belong in the same paragraph as the sourced commentary. Betty Logan (talk) 07:42, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * At first glance, support any of the three I've been on a language and literature high lately, so don't expect me to go through the sources to make sure none of the above is unverifiable or anything like. I'm assuming it adheres to both V and NOR, although I recognize this is never a safe assumption. For this reason among others (I still think it's too early to fully assess the response, and the above are all at best adequate), I don't want the outcome of this RFC to be "The section is perfect and cannot be changed without a new RFC because consensus was in favour of this wording"; such is so often the outcome of discussions on these entertainment articles. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 08:26, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Hijiri88, yeah, I did mention above that "Obviously, none of these versions mean that the section cannot be edited further afterward. Coming to a consensus on one of the versions simply means that we can finally move forward." But I don't want the draft versions to be scrapped either...since they reflect a lot of compromising -- meaning addressing concerns by different editors about how to format an Audience response section for this article. I would not want us to be back to square one after everything is said and done. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:52, 30 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Further work - responding to User:Flyer22 Reborn ping below. The lead line "Reviewers characterized The Last Jedi as divisive among audiences." should be followed by what is shown down in para 3 - what the reviewers said.  This is also partly because of my impression that 'divisive' reports had more prominece in RS for are WP:DUE more prominence here.  The polling numbers should be the second or possibly last paragraph, after the poll commentary paragraph.  Also, allow that some liked aspects that others hated - see "divisive".  (e.g. that Reys parents are nobody special or broom boy were disappointing to some, but others saw it as a positive egalitarianism)(e.g. some commentators remark that Star Wars - like Star Trek - are challenging their own franchises, whether you call it a reboot or break with their biblical canon)  It also seems quite possible to me that different surveys could honestly produce strongly different results so think the implicit presumption that one side must be wrong is misguided as well as not being DUE much space.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 10:41, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Markbassett, we did further and further work at the draft talk page. What became clear there is that we were not going to please everyone, at least not 100%, and that we needed to compromise. As for some fans liking the character departures that the film took, this is covered by the last sentence; for that, we focused on what the audience stated rather on what reviewers stated. Most of the sources are not focused on what the audience liked, but we can add more if a source clarifies and the last summary line is felt not to be enough. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:52, 30 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Version 3 or to put it another way not Version 1, there are so many fan theories about everything, including Rey's parentage, that it feels WP:UNDUE to single out any one particular theory in such a short section. Whatever section you go with please change the last sentence to "Other viewers appreciated the film's action ..." Wikipedia editors use the word "However" as a verbal crutch, a mental pause, and sprinkle it everywhere like dandruff, even if it adds little or nothing to a sentence. (In this case at least there is actually some contrast to the preceding sentence but it is still unnecessary verbiage and the stated goal is to be brief and concise.) Good work on the phrasing, otherwise, it nicely outlines the difficulties of user voted web polls while still getting to the point that underlying dissatisfaction some viewers had with the film. Ultimately as a series, I'm not sure we can properly judge this film until after the next film. Just as this film was hobbled by the work JJ Abrahms before it, will be interesting to see if the next film is just another episode, or if it makes use any of the implied themes of this film (the break from the past and the idea that Rey being a nobody is egalitarian) or if it manages to find a way to give us resembling a coherent trilogy (but frankly I expect a whole lot more mystery and leading questions with no satisfying answers). -- 109.77.200.44 (talk) 13:44, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I've sufficiently argued the "Rey is Luke's daughter" aspect at the draft talk page, above, and below. If all of those other fan theories were as prominent or even consistently considered in reliable sources, it would be a different story, but they are not. Only several parentage theories are consistently mentioned in reliable sources, and the "Rey is Luke's daughter" aspect is the top one. Very much WP:Due, and better than being vague about who people were expecting Rey's parents to be. I already suggested that we give more than one example, such as the top three mentioned in Rey's Wikipedia article, but we didn't come to a consensus on that. I would take two or three examples instead of none. Being vague here is like being vague in Rey's Wikipedia article. But if going with one example, it should be Luke. I agree about removing "however"; it was not there until an editor came along and added it. I was tempted to revert then, but I wanted to be welcoming and to encourage collaboration. But I did ask the editor to discuss significant changes. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:52, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * You did not sufficiently argue it. There was no consensus to include or not include it on the talk - don't say there was.<i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 19:01, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I did, and with reliable sources, while you offered nothing but your opinion. There was consensus for that version of the draft. Then I reverted you on something, and you suddenly took issue with a part of the draft that had reached consensus. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:11, 30 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Version 2 Version 1 is too specific expecting Rey to be Luke's daughter. Blue Wiki (talk) 19:45, 30 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Version 2 is somewhat better than 1 as per Blue Wiki, although 1 is also acceptable. Not 3, as we definitely need to emphasize the great divineness among the viewers. This is important because we had a way to positive article for the last month, considering the huge amount of negative reviews that can be found all over the internet. Joris (talk) 21:26, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Just because there is a "huge amount of negative reviews" on the internet doesn't mean that they're representative of the audience reaction. Anywikiuser (talk) 09:38, 31 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Version 3 looks best out of the three available, but whatever is chosen I do not think there should be any kind of speculation as to what the reasons for the audience response were. First of all, unless there is reliable data suggesting a particular concrete reason, any kind of reason cited remains pure speculation. Second, providing one of many potential reasons such as fans being unhappy with Rey's lineage, has the potential to downplay the fan response as a case of sour grapes. Potentially, there are much less debatable (i.e., pertaining to objective criteria of quality) reasons for the fan response and these shouldn't be presented as some hardcore fanboys not being served their favourite story line. ClassA42 (talk) 07:07, 8 February 2018 (UTC)


 * ClassA42, reasons for the audience response are included in all three versions and supported by reliable sources. The sources are not simply going on their opinions; they are going on what viewers have stated. We can't list all of the reasons (all specific plot or character complaints, I mean), but we can summarize and give examples (like the Snoke aspect), which is what we have done. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:23, 8 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I support Version 2, though I would be fine with version 1 as well unless it's too specific. I agree that it's important to stress the divisive nature of the film, which rules out Version 3 in my opinion. WuTang94 (talk) 05:12, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Discussion #
Erik, I know that where I linked your name above did not ping you since that part was not signed. But you are aware of this RfC, aren't you? This is partly an effort to address your concerns. We are trying to work together so that no one editor gets to decide how the section should be. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:55, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Erik, thanks for weighing in. As for your comment, I stand by what I argued on the draft page and above. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:39, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

And, for the record, I don't think that versions 1 and 2 are downplaying positive reception. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:41, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree. Positive reception is covered. Alaney2k (talk) 05:59, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Pinging all of the editors who voted in the previous RfC, except for IPs (who can't be pinged) and those who have already weighed in on the new RfC above: Dcfc1988, Izno, Staszek Lem, Hijiri88, Muboshgu, SNUGGUMS, TenTonParasol, FallingGravity, QueerFilmNerd, Fustos, ClassA42, Oknazevad, Thewolfchild, Huggums537, Cjhard, Markbassett, Darkknight2149, Finsternish, Wolcott,  Jonipoon, LM2000, DevionM, Jack Sebastian, Joris, Popcornduff, Miki Filigranski,  LightandDark2000, Chensiyuan, Jsandia, Katastasi, Buffaboy,  Blue Wiki,  Wikibenboy94, TheOldJacobite, and Kevin Dewitt.


 * I considered pinging everyone earlier, but I was wary of having the same discussions result. Anyway, it's best to alert all who voted before. This will also help to better form a consensus. The RfC thus far hasn't gained much traction. I'll also alert WP:Film to this RfC. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:46, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Appreciated; I would not have come here if you hadn't pinged, and I do think this is a good thing to weigh in on. As I stated in my vote above, I don't think the criticism of the film as divisive should be totally neglected, and none of the three versions do this. But I do think it's best to lead with the scientific polling. Finally, I absolutely think it's a bad idea to assign excessive importance to the theory of Rey turning out to be Luke's daughter. Finsternish (talk) 18:59, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Missed pinging Antinoos69, Cnbrb, Markeer and Sock as well.


 * Finsternish, you're welcome. As for the "Luke's daughter" aspect, I stand by what I've stated on that. And what is there about it is not excessive. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:04, 29 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the ping. In the meantime, I have noticed that other Wikipedia entries (on other movies) also just mention the professional critics' score. In that sense, the treatment here is consistent. However, I see two reasons as to why the current state is not satisfactory: 1. There is more and more precedent that the professional critics' score is not representative for the quality/entertainment value of a movie. It is fine to mention the professional critics' score but the audience score deserves mentioning as well. Why treat it as a second-class piece of information? 2. If the critics' score and the audience score differ as much as they do for TLJ then this deserves mentioning, in particular by documenting the audience score (and potentially, pointing out the discrepancy). As a matter of fact, it was news to me that some Wikipedia articles are "protected", apparently to combat vandalism/sabotage. I was unpleasantly surprised by this mechanism, which appears to undermine the democratic nature of Wikipedia. If some people believe that including some information is helpful and the information pertains to the subject of the article, and is factually correct, there should be no way in which other can deny that information from appearing. Any mechanism that protects a certain class of articles to feature certain facts, feels like censorship to me. As to the "manipulation" allegations concerning rotten tomatoes: As I mentioned earlier, an RT investigation discovered no irregular patterns. It could equally be argued that a majority of professional critics are not free to speak their personal mind; various threats of manipulation from various sources exist here as well. ClassA42 (talk) 11:26, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * ClassA42, thanks for commenting. Do you plan to vote on one of the three proposed versions above to help us reach consensus? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:24, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Flyer22, for your welcoming attitude. As I understood, all three versions attempt to explain the fan response. AFAIC, anything like that would be speculation. Unless there is reliable data to support such claims, I would not assume any specific reason for negative fan responses. Version 3 looked best, but should only observe a) the discrepancy between professional critic scores and audience scores, and b) mention the fact that TLJ has the lowest audience rating of any Star Wars episode. ClassA42 (talk) 07:00, 8 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Question; why do all three choices include "Todd VanDerWerff of Vox" and his negative observations, but don't also include at least one notable critic from one notable outlet with positive observations as balance? I haven't read this entire page (and not about to either), only being here since pinged be, perhaps Flyer or someone else can enlighten me on this? Thanks - the <em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF  child  00:54, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The Vox source is an analysis of disgruntled audience reaction. As it stands now, there is only a single sentence at the end of the 3rd paragraph that discusses the positive. If there are other notable observations, particularly positive examples, then we can (and should) consider their inclusion. More can certainly be added following this RfC if consensus agrees, especially if it results in better balance. --GoneIn60 (talk) 02:47, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * That's what I would like to see, a balance to the force. (sorry, I had to) Cheers - the <em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF  child  02:52, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thewolfchild, the options were the result of a lot of hammering out on the draft talk page. Take a look at it if you haven't. We can't please everybody. The Vox source is summarizing why fans were disgruntled. And the draft notes that other reviewers stated similarly. I felt it was important to note that other reviewers stated similarly in order to show that it's not simply the Vox source stating that. I don't view the last paragraph as Vox being negative. Those are reasons that fans were disgruntled. I stated the following at the draft talk page: "How big are we thinking of having the draft? Right now, it's at three decent-sized paragraphs that cover all of the points. Fan theories, story arcs and character arcs are covered. What else is there? Criticism of the script as a whole? If so, that falls under 'story and character arcs.' Toa Nidhiki05 has expressed concern above about having the section be too big." We had size to worry about as well. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:03, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, Vox and Todd VanDerWerff are well-respected sources. --Cjhard (talk) 09:25, 31 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment - Since we are going to bring up that fans were disgruntled at how their theories were treated (I myself am partial to Supreme Leader Snoke's utter lack of development, but that's besides the point), we should probably also mention the fact that the filmmaker's debunked many of these theories before the film was released (such as Rey being Luke's daughter), the fact that they also downplayed the importance of Rey's parentage before the film's release, and that Rian Johnson has responded to the Snoke complaints.  Dark Knight  2149  02:25, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It's always going to be a struggle between being thorough and being concise. We want to balance the section properly, but we also want to make sure this section doesn't spin out of control and consume too much real estate. If more needs to be added following this RfC's outcome (based on significant coverage in reliable sources), we can start a new thread to discuss in more detail. I don't expect that the proposal above will be seen as a finalized product. --GoneIn60 (talk) 02:54, 30 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Darkknight2149, you argued, "Singling out the Luke theory is entirely unnecessary." Like I've stated before, why should we be vague on this matter? Why shouldn't we give an example or two? And if going with one example, why shouldn't it be the most prominent example? It's not my opinion that "Rey is Luke's daughter" is the most popular/prominent parentage theory for Rey. It's what reliable sources state. And we mention it in her Wikipedia article. I keep feeling like those objecting to mentioning the Luke parentage aspect are those who simply favor a different fan theory. I don't see any other reason for objecting. You say that the "filmmaker's debunked many of these theories before the film was released (such as Rey being Luke's daughter)." But what reliable sources state that? There were still reliable sources discussing these theories, including Rey being Luke's daughter, months, weeks and days before the film was released. And that includes this 2017 Bustle.com source. As for Rian Johnson's commentary, which I also suggested we should include, he explains why he deviated from the Skywalker parentage tradition, which shows that he knew that fans were expecting Rey to be Luke's daughter. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:03, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Flyer, I think it's pretty clear at this point most people aren't sharing your opinion on the fan theories. Repeating your same argument over and over isn't really going to help your case much. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 18:41, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Most people? So far, Version 1 has the most support. After that, Version 3 is the most supported, with most having no problem with half supporting mentioning the "Luke's daughter" aspect and half not supporting it. I think it's clear that you should let this RfC -- which will last a month unless someone closes it early -- play out before jumping the gun. And discussing a matter with different people is going to involve repeating. The last RfC showed that, and so did the draft's talk page, where you repeated your views more than once. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:51, 30 January 2018 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:11, 30 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Another correction (other than the strike through my post above): Currently, Version 3 has the most support, but only by one vote. It's not a matter of a headcount anyway, but rather the strength of the arguments. Either way, I stated that I could be fine with Version 3. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:33, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * My statement wasn't meant to advocate that we be as vague as possible. But there were so many fan theories that applying WP:WEIGHT to specific ones is easier said than done. The Skywalker theory is already covered in "a lineage with another character from the original trilogy", as well as several others. As for the source, I will have to dig up the interview but I seem to recall Daisy Ridley debunking the Skywalker theory before the film was ever released. The filmmakers and cast also downplayed the importance of the lineage in various statements closer to the film's release. This is one of those situations where the "mystery" was mainly built up by the fans. Here is the source where Rian Johnson explained his reasoning for lazy writing his creative decision regarding Snoke. My irrelevant opinion regarding it aside, I do think his statement is objectively encyclopedic enough to get mentioned in the article if we are bringing up the fan response.  Dark Knight  2149  02:14, 31 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Fair point. I'll be sure to post again once some of this is cleared up. This will probably continue to be a lengthy and complicated process.  Dark Knight  2149  02:14, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Darkknight2149, but the line in question is focusing on the parentage theory and WP:Weight is specifically with mentioning the "Rey is Luke's daughter" theory because it is the most popular/prominent parentage theory, as noted by reliable sources I listed. Most of the non-parentage theories are not covered in reliable sources and only several parentage theories are consistently covered in reliable sources. Stating "a lineage with another character from the original trilogy" without giving an example is being vague. There are plenty of reliable sources stating that the Stars Wars franchise is (or was) a Skywalker saga; sources note that this is one reason why so many fans expected Rey to be Luke's daughter. On top of that, we have Rian Johnson commenting on why he deviated from the Skywalker parentage tradition. And if we are to include that piece, it makes all the more sense to state that many fans expected Rey to be Luke's daughter or at least expected her to be a Skywalker. As for Daisy Ridley, she stated that the identity of Rey's parents were already clear from The Force Awakens. But her commentary didn't clear up anything. Some speculated that Rey was a nobody because of her statement, but most continued to hold onto their fan theories. The mystery regarding Rey's parentage was mostly built up by The Force Awakens. It was intentional, as made clear by Rian Johnson's commentary on debunking the parentage theories and having Kylo Ren tell Rey that she is a nobody. That reveal was being saved specifically for The Last Jedi. And as reliable sources note, people don't believe Kylo Ren either. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:42, 31 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment: Further commentary about how the so-called divisiveness is being exaggerated. This is yet another piece explaining why the uncontrolled polls are garbage:

"Get enough negative votes on there, and it starts to look like "general audiences" really hate a particular film when, in fact, it's just a small handful of disgruntled folks purposely trying to skew the results.

Moreover, even under the best of circumstances – even if you assume every single Rotten Tomatoes voter is expressing an earnest opinion about a film they've seen – these ratings aren't exactly what you'd call scientific. "People who care enough about a given movie to log into Rotten Tomatoes and rate it" is an inherently self-selecting sample, after all.

It's true that critics don't always see eye-to-eye with the larger moviegoing population, and there's certainly value in examining where they differ and why. Informal polls like the Rotten Tomatoes audience score or the IMDb user rating can help inspire those conversations. But sabotage attempts like this should remind us all to take those numbers with giant, heaping spoonfuls of salt.

Meanwhile, if you're really determined to find out how non-critics feel about a film, there are professional services wondering the same thing – like CinemaScore or SurveyMonkey, for instance. Sure, they might not be perfect. But at least they're not so easily gamed by a few cranks."


 * Thanks, Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 16:17, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Erik, maybe we should move this to the Discussion section? If you'd rather have it here because you think it'll be more readily seen, then okay. Either way, I stand by my arguments before on this matter. It's divisiveness either way, only this time, instead of simply being between critics and the audience, it's between critics, the general audience and fans. It seems that while critics and the general audience are generally pleased with the film, many fans (especially hardcore fans) are not. That is still a divide. The "official" polls do not speak for the audience reception as a whole. And even if they accurately reflect how the general audience feels, it's not a contradiction to show that one side of the audience is one way and the other side is another. It's presenting both sides. Again, despite the polling that you want us to give more weight to, there is all this analysis on the film being divisive. Audience dissatisfaction with the film is not simply about the polls. There have criticisms by fans that many sources have highlighted and a number have considered to be valid criticisms. Divisiveness does have to mean 50/50. Whether we note that the film has been characterized as divisive in the first sentence or at the beginning of the last paragraph, it should be noted. And in the case of all three drafts, we are noting that reviewers have stated this. We are not simply stating it without any in-text attribution. But again, stating "some reviewers" would be unnecessary WP:Weasel wording, and misleading since it's actually the case that many reviewers (rather than just some) have stated that the film is divisive. And stating "many" is unnecessary as well. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:37, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * "The 'official' polls do not speak for the audience reception as a whole." Completely false. They do, and nothing else speaks remotely like them. If that cannot be recognized, then nothing else matters. The crux of the matter is to tell readers that as a whole, audiences liked the film. Based on the polls alone, there is zero divisiveness to be reported. The insistence to claim "divisiveness" (of any sort, really, who cares what %) based on unreliable measurements is outright bizarre. I don't care about exploring what different sub-groups thought about different aspects of the film, but the topic should not be introduced with a false and unstatistical claim. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 19:13, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Erik, polls may be used to speak for an entire audience, but they often do not represent all or most of the audience. That is as clear as day in this case, and many other cases where polls have been used to speak for how people feel or generally feel. Whether it's CNN polling, or something else. And I like CNN. The IP's argument on polling was valid. It is not like the polls are even remotely close to having surveyed the majority of the audience. I do believe that, based on the polls we have thus far and the consistency of them, the general audience likes the film. But we obviously do not go with "based on the polls alone" here at Wikipedia. We go by WP:Due weight. And the WP:POISONOUSFRUIT essay you cited at the draft talk page cannot trump that policy. WP:Due weight does not at all support not calling the film divisive or not stating that reviewers have called the film divisive. There is nothing bizarre about following the literature with WP:Due weight. And you keep focusing on the polls even though so many reliable sources are analyzing the film's divisiveness beyond the polls. As for "introduced with a false and unstatistical claim," your argument has been addressed by suggesting Version 3. And I obviously see no issue at all with that third paragraph beginning by noting that reviewers have called the film divisive. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:00, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * "...polls may used to speak for an entire audience, but they often do not represent all or most of the audience... It is not like the polls are even remotely close to having surveyed the majority of the audience... " This reveals a lack of grasp on statistics, and I strongly encourage you to read about that. The polls most definitely allow us to conclude that the vast majority of audiences did like the film. We can reference the commentators who say there is a "divisive" reaction, but it must be made clear that they base their commentary on the user scores (which should be accompanied with why they're problematic). Please read this. And this also says, "...you would think The Last Jedi's CinemaScore would reflect that more negative audience response. But as you can tell from the film's CinemaScore... general audiences have graded The Last Jedi on par with Lucasfilm's other recent Star Wars offerings and ahead of George Lucas's prequel trilogy." Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 20:12, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Erik, I edit a number of scientific Wikipedia articles and I've studied statistics; one aspect I've studied is the demographics of sexual orientation. I suggest you read quality sources (not just media sources) about the flaws in polling. I'm not going to continue to sit here and argue with you on this if you are going to suggest that I just don't understand and/or that my comprehension level is lacking in this case. I'm not going to continue and sit here and argue with you on this matter regardless. You stated, "The polls most definitely allow us to conclude that the vast majority of audiences did like the film." I already stated, "I do believe that, based on the polls we have thus far and the consistency of them, the general audience likes the film." But, again, we obviously do not go with "based on the polls alone" here at Wikipedia. On this matter, going by Wikipedia's WP:Due weight policy is enough for me. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:25, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Flyer, your personal opinion as to how divisive a film is doesn't matter here. What does matter is that every reliable poll finds a positive reception. Only unscientific internet "polls" (they aren't even polls, per say, but for lack of a better term) find anything off, and they are not remotely close to being reliable sources. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 20:55, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Toa Nidhiki05, are you just looking to argue with me at any chance you get? Seems like. Because nowhere have I argued based solely on my personal opinion while you have consistently argued based on yours -- first with your WP:Weight nonsense, then with your "the Kenobi theory seemed much more prominent" nonsense, and now with this. At the draft talk page, I already told Erik that "numerous reliable sources state that the film is divisive. That is what I am talking about and am going by. It's not just passing mentions either. It's sources analyzing the divisiveness. It is entirely WP:Due to call the film divisive." He then pointed to the WP:POISONOUSFRUIT essay and made arguments based on it. You can feel whatever way you want about the polls, which, again, are not solely what the divisiveness is based on, but Wikipedia will not be going by your personal opinion. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:10, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: I should note that if we choose to include this information on the article, it is likely to set a precedent for how Wikipedia covers online hate campaigns against other films. For example, I've been reading reports that they are expecting online far-right groups to target the upcoming Black Panther film. We must not create a precedent where some angry men who represent only a tiny faction of a film's viewership (if they've even seen it at all) can be given the final say on how Wikipedia covers the audience reaction to another film. I have been willing to accept coverage of the hate campaign against The Last Jedi because it has been widely noted in reliable media sources and critics' reviews. I am less bothered over the issue whether the "Luke's daughter" fan theory is given too much prominence than the fact that only Version 3 (out of the 3 possible versions) avoids creating a false equivalence between scientific polls and user-generated ratings. Anywikiuser (talk) 14:24, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I trust that Wikipedia made the right decision in this case; it's not simply a matter of angry men or far-right groups. As for the draft options, I didn't want to list too many. I focused on the main disagreements and explained why stuff like the alt-right aspect wasn't included. Erik's version wasn't a part of the draft at any point. His was a suggestion. Version 3 is not his entire suggestion (which I mentioned at the top near version 3), but it's organized the way he suggested. I obviously disagree with his rationale, but I'm not going to repeat myself on all of that. Consensus had formed for version 1 or something very similar to it. I noted in the first paragraph of the RfC that going with either of these versions doesn't mean that it can't be changed afterward. I told Hijiri88 the following: "I did mention above that 'Obviously, none of these versions mean that the section cannot be edited further afterward. Coming to a consensus on one of the versions simply means that we can finally move forward.' But I don't want the draft versions to be scrapped either...since they reflect a lot of compromising -- meaning addressing concerns by different editors about how to format an Audience response section for this article. I would not want us to be back to square one after everything is said and done." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:23, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I must stress that in the case of The Last Jedi, I'm not assuming it's politically motivated. My only strong opinion here is that Version 3 alone has the kind of wording that handles the scientific polls bit in an acceptable way. An outcone that starts with Version 3 and then incorporates sentences from Version 1 would be just as acceptable to me as Version 3 in its entirety. Anywikiuser (talk) 18:41, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I was simply explaining why only version 3 does not have the user scores upfront. It was not a consensus version at the draft page, and I didn't want to present too many options in the RfC. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:59, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

_______________

RFC period has ended. What's our consensus?
Who will determine this? <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 00:26, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm going to list the RfC at WP:Requests for closure, which is where I list all RfCs I've been significantly involved in once they close...if they are not already listed there. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:22, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * So far, Version 3 had more support.  Mia o w   19:39, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Barely, though. WP:Consensus, as that policy states, is not supposed to be simply about a head count (the number of votes). But, in this case, the closer might state that there is very rough consensus for Version 3. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:16, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we should use Version 3 as a template, but edit it to take into account comments by those who thought a different version was better. For example, a recurrent comment has been that some users want to avoid over-emphasizing the "Rey is Luke's daughter" theory. Anywikiuser (talk) 15:03, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I can see why you'd want to consider that, but we have to keep in mind that at the heart of the RfC, we were presented with three options to choose from. Some simply chose without making any improvement suggestions, though they may have wanted to. It's best to move forward with one of the versions as presented in the RfC opening, copy the text as-is into the article, and let normal editing take its course. Trying to modify it beforehand is a recipe for further disagreement and possibly challenges to the RfC outcome. My 2¢ anyway. --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:53, 20 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Anywikiuser, we should wait for an official close, given how passionate editors are about this material. There isn't even consensus on mentioning the "Rey is Luke's daughter" aspect; some are for it and others are against it. Furthermore, including Rian Johnson's commentary on tearing apart fan theories has been suggested. And if we include that, which I think we should, some part of it will go into the fact that Johnson departed from the Skywalker family tradition when it comes to the lead being a Skywalker. Again, Version 3 barely has most of the support. Version 1 is right there with it, almost neck and neck. And then there is Version 2. Let the close happen first. The closer could even state "no consensus," which would leave us going with Version 3 simply because it is slightly ahead. Any nitpicking of the versions can happen afterward, but I sense all of the same debating going on afterward. I'm not convinced that any consensus version will stick. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:00, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Of course, after a version is implemented, we could add a WP:Hidden note asking editors not to make substantial changes to the section without first discussing the matter on the article's talk page. This won't stop the same discussions from happening, but it will hopefully combat WP:Edit warring and help maintain some form of consensus until new consensus is formed. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:36, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

After close discussion #
Swarm, thanks for closing. I know it wasn't an easy close. I'm not sure why you updated the draft instead of the article, but I've implemented Version 3. I'm confused about your following comments: "The arguments for Version 3 were strongly made and attempted to employ policy-based reasoning and outside sources. These were the strongest arguments in the discussion, and they were not strongly refuted." I supported Version 3, but I also strongly challenged it. There isn't any policy that supports not leading with the film being characterized as divisive. WP:Due weight is actually for doing that. When Erik argued me on this at the draft talk page, he pointed to the WP:POISONOUSFRUIT essay. And in the Discussion above, he didn't cite any policies that support him either. When it comes to Version 3, it was actually mainly just Erik and me arguing the merits of going with Version 3. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:07, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

He pointed to WP:SUBSTANTIATE at the draft talk page as well, but it's after I challenged him on this that he pointed to the aforementioned essay. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:22, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I was just updating the draft based on this particular question; I had no way of judging whether further discussion would be desired prior to implementation so I just decided to leave it for the actual editors to move into the live article. To be clear, the "strength of arguments" point was mainly to preempt any of the typical "not a vote" complaints that arise when a tally is close, not to suggest that the Version 3 camp was grounded in policy. In other words, when you cut out the purely personal opinions, Version 3 arguments were stronger because they at least attempted convincing policy-based reasonings that were not refuted; the policy-based concerns regarding the reliability of negative polls, the MOS, and assigning the most weight to something so questioned and hotly debated were not adequately satisfied. All of these things would need to be thoroughly satisfied in order to even consider a minority consensus. Version 3 was not disputed as convincingly and you were virtually the only user attempting to argue against it. S warm   ♠  21:03, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for explaining, Swarm. I wondered if you were basing "strength of arguments" on something other than policies and guidelines. I obviously feel that I solidly argued that there isn't anything wrong with beginning by noting the divisive aspect. As for MOS:FILM on this matter, it is about directly citing the polls themselves, when what we are doing here is reporting on them because reliable sources have reported on them. But I understand why you closed the way you did and feel that you did the best you could under the circumstances. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:28, 1 March 2018 (UTC)