Talk:Star Wars: The Last Jedi/Archive 8

Audience reception section copyedit
I'd like to make the following changes to the audience reception section:


 * Audience reception measured by scientific polling methods... -> Not clear what "scientific" means here and the source doesn't explain it. "Methods" is unnecessary. Just write "polls".
 * was highly positive. -> The source just says "positive", not "highly positive". "Highly" is unnecessary and hyperbolic, and as a general rule, modifiers should be used sparingly anyway. (Mark Twain: "Substitute ‘damn’ every time you’re inclined to write ‘very'; your editor will delete it and the writing will be just as it should be.")
 * Todd VanDerWerff of Vox found that dissatisfied 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. What is the point in singling out VanDerWerff here, when we have a whole bank of citations saying the same things? We can simplify this to: Dissatisfied fans saw the film as too progressive, disliked its humor, plot, or character arcs, or felt betrayed that it ignored fan theories. Popcornduff (talk) 06:27, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I think they added "highly" because of "A" on an A+ to F scale and 89% of audience members graded the film positively, including a rare five-star rating. Sebastian James (talk) 11:29, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I assume that too. But "highly" is still an interpretation of the source. Popcornduff (talk) 11:44, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Highly is an accurate interpretation. I'd leave that as is. Your other suggestion is fine. Alaney2k (talk) 13:49, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Regarding this, "scientific" was there because editors wanted it clear that the polls are reliable, unlike Rotten Tomatoes user scores. And "Todd VanDerWerff " was there because he specifically made those claims, and there was doubt about the "too progressive" aspect. I found others making similar claims, and so "Other reviewers made similar observations." was added with reliable sources. Per WP:Citation overkill, if we are going to only have one sentence for that part, then it's best that it's just limited to three sources rather than four. I would state two, but I haven't re-checked the sources to see which two might cover all of those points. And one more thing: Every little aspect of the Audience reception section was debated. Just about. This is why Antinoos69 and others (including me) stress discussing potential changes first. If one editor makes changes that deviate from the consensus version, which consisted of a lot of discussion and took up so much time, another editor will think to do the same. One editor's copyedit is another editor's significant change. And, indeed, it's not like Popcornduff's changes fall under WP:Minor. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:48, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I understand the reason for the revert. I remember the mass debate surrounding this section. But that was some time ago. It's frustrating to be automatically reverted assuming the changes will be controversial when the reverter doesn't have any objection to the edits themselves. (At least Atinoos69 didn't voice any, or reply to my post here). Popcornduff (talk) 20:14, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
 * You misconstrued my silence and have failed to gain consensus here. For the record, I’m with Flyer22. Antinoos69 (talk) 06:03, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, let's start again. Barring the minor issue of "highly", which I can live with, I still don't see any objections to my changes here. Does anyone have any? Popcornduff (talk) 08:55, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Um, as I understand it, Flyer22 presented some objections. I second them. We may wish to ping previously involved editors. Antinoos69 (talk) 06:07, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * To clarify, I don't necessarily object to Popcornduff's changes. I just wanted to note why the text is the way it is. I do object to unnecessary citation overkill. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:11, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * You will likely have to come down one way or another regarding your “I don't necessarily object,” which doesn’t seem to communicate anything. In any case, I would present your “notes” as reasons why I object to the proposed changes. Antinoos69 (talk) 06:21, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * It communicates that, except for "by polls" without context, I don't personally mind those changes, but that those pieces are there because it's the consensus version. I understand retaining "highly." And I know why "scientific polling methods" is there, although it would be better if one or more reliable sources support the "scientific polling methods" wording. But since Todd VanDerWerff's views are shared by others, and those other sources are in the section, I don't see a need to mention him specifically in the text unless he's stated something that the other sources don't state. That text can be summarized the way that Popcornduff summarized it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:34, 3 December 2018 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:40, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't a better summary be Several reviewers found that dissatisfied fans saw the film as too progressive, disliked its humor, plot, or character arcs, or felt betrayed that it ignored fan theories.? Even if it is specifically Todd VanDerWerff who made these observations, it doesn't seem like a problem to me to change it to this if the other reviewers said similar things (the word "or" already implies that much). Sandrobost (talk) 10:04, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I understand the reasoning for "scientific polling methods", but it doesn't clarify what it's supposed to clarify. Even I, who knows all about Rotten Tomatoes, had no idea what the "scientific" part is supposed to mean, and it sounds suspiciously like puffery. Popcornduff (talk) 10:16, 3 December 2018 (UTC)


 * That may be what you intended to communicate, but I can personally assure you that the attempt at communication was far from a resounding success. I would never have imagined such an intended meaning. Antinoos69 (talk) 10:21, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not getting into another argument with you about intended meanings and comprehension. People usually know that "I don't necessarily object" or similar means that the person hasn't taken a hard stance on the matter. Next time, just don't speak for me, and there won't be such a supposed interpretation problem. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:58, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Fact: one actually communicates when one’s intended meaning is successfully conveyed to one’s intended audience. Your intended meaning was not successfully conveyed to me, part of your intended audience. Therefore, your attempt at communication was not a resounding success. Period. It’s quite a simple matter. Furthermore, the addition of the adverb “necessarily,” when it could simply have been omitted, suggested that your objection was contingent on facts or matters left unspecified. That lack of specification left your sentence substantially meaningless for me. Antinoos69 (talk) 11:17, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Fact: People state things like "I don't necessarily object" or "I don't strongly object" all the time, including on Wikipedia. And people know that this means that the person hasn't taken a hard stance on the matter. Simple, really. If one thinks the person who hasn't taken a hard stance on the matter might object to some aspect of the potential change, then they ask. But, really, if I felt the need to clarify when stating "I don't necessarily object," I would have. I don't see how it couldn't have been clearer to anyone that "Flyer22 Reborn is saying that she doesn't mind, or strongly object to, Popcornduff's changes." When you conveyed that "I don't necessarily object" was unclear to you, I noted that the only thing I have pause about is "polls" without context. Before that, I was clear that I don't want Popcornduff's change to the VanDerWerff part to leave behind citation overkill. Stop always arguing just to argue. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:39, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * It is a tenet of good writing that what is obvious to some may not be obvious to others, especially when people are using language with different intended degrees of precision and conscious deliberation. “People state” all manner of “things” that they would do better not to state, as had obviously happened here. We simply don’t and likely won’t use the disputed phrase in the same way. Get over it. Antinoos69 (talk) 14:47, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You seriously came back a month later to argue this, thus proving my point about always arguing to argue? You were/are wrong in this case. Since I had moved on a month ago, and it's not like you hadn't been on Wikipedia since my previous reply to you, it's you who needs to get over it. Not me. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:04, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Physician, heal thyself—you know, the one who said, “I'm not getting into another argument with you.” In actuality, I was entirely unaware this whole discussion had moved beyond my last comment of December 4th until I took another look at this page a couple days ago or so, when I discovered both that my original editing objections largely had been vindicated by the subsequent work of other editors and your ludicrous little post here. As I cannot but be the world’s leading expert on how I do or do not use a phrase, I was and am obviously quite correct; you are absolutely nobody in that regard. Your attempt at communication clearly was not stellar. Get over it. Antinoos69 (talk) 11:26, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It matters not that you somehow only recently became aware of the fact that "this whole discussion had moved beyond [your] last comment." It's a fact that you chose to reply to a month's old comment to try to win an argument you can't possibly win. As usual, you have taken on your childish challenge of trying to get the last word. Your "my original editing objections largely had been vindicated by the subsequent work of other editors and your ludicrous little post here" argument is what is ludicrous since I was not on any "side" and since you did not win a thing. I clearly noted what I objected to. It is you, and only you, who decided to focus on "don't necessarily object to," and all because I didn't completely object to Popcornduff's changes and you are hellbent on starting any argument you can with me. Your grudge is one of the most childish, if not the most childish, I've ever seen on this site. And your superiority complex is asinine. You aren't schooling me. You haven't schooled Popcornduff on a thing either. Move the hell on. And in the future...don't speak for me, or attempt to speak for me. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:01, 20 January 2019 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:06, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh, dear. Not only is this post of yours a singular way of “not getting into another argument” and getting over it, but it’s at least borderline deceitful, too. If “[i]t matters not that [I] somehow only recently became aware of the fact that ‘this whole discussion had moved beyond [my] last comment,’” then why did you write, “and it's not like you hadn't been on Wikipedia since my previous reply to you”? You might find it helpful to reread your disputes with other editors in their entirety before replying further. Doing so may help you keep track of … things. As for my reference to my original editing objections, it was not an argument; it was a tangential, parenthetical observation. You also misquoted me, changing my grammar and meaning. What I actually wrote was, “when I discovered both that my original editing objections largely had been vindicated by the subsequent work of other editors and your ludicrous little post here.” See the difference? You quoted me as saying my objections had been vindicated by both subsequent editing and your little post, whereas I used a both…and construction parenthetically to say I discovered both vindication and your little post, two different discoveries. When one quotes, one must preserve meaning. As far as the observation goes, you will note that I defended three bits of text in a post of December 4th appearing below. You will also note those three bits of text remain in the article. I don’t see how that could fail to constitute vindication of my original editing objections. Just saying. Perhaps you’re merely continuing to experience difficulty with communicating successfully to your audience. Increasingly unsurprising, I’m afraid. Antinoos69 (talk) 08:52, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for proving my point with all of your latest nonsense, including your ridiculous "why" question. The answer is directly after my "it matters not" sentence. My "you chose to reply to a month's old comment" sentence directly aligns with my "and it's not like you hadn't been on Wikipedia since my previous reply to you" sentence. It had been a month. You knew that regardless of supposedly being unaware that "this whole discussion had moved beyond [your] last comment." You replying after a month would have been more understandable if you hadn't had significant opportunity to reply before that point. You had ample opportunity to reply before January 17, 2019. And, from what I've seen, this page is on your watchlist. So you don't even have the "it's not on my watchlist" excuse. If you actually missed all of the discussion since you'd last posted, despite the page still popping up on your watchlist, what did you think happened? That you got the last word and that was it? It's easy for anyone to see that your initial comment after a month was not beneficial in any way. It's easy to see that you should have kept the past in the past. Editors were discussing a different matter, and you, after seeing this page pop on your watchlist, decided to focus on a month's old discussion just to try to teach me a lesson even though you could replied much earlier. You deciding to reply to my month's old comment, which wasn't a decision that had anything to do with you simply not having had the chance to continue the "discussion," is the type of judgement you lack. You made that initial comment for the exact reasons I stated above. I didn't misquote you; I focused on a part of your comment and quoted it exactly. It is not like anyone cannot see the entire context before that. You weren't largely "vindicated" in any way. That whole "not about winning" thing clearly went right over your head. I suppose now I know why you didn't show up back to continue your nonsense in the "Suitability of the 'Sexuality' section" discussion you started at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography. Surely, you missed the last comment in that section. Otherwise, you would have fired back. In that discussion, you told an editor "I must insist you check your insulting and abusive tone. You are absolutely nobody to be insulting me." Pot meet kettle. Not that I think that the editor was in any way abusive to you. Anyway, go ahead and get your last word now. I won't be responding to you again in this section, and I hopefully won't have to interact with you again. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:19, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

I see the physician is utterly incapable of healing herself. I’ll try to spell everything out for you to overcome your chronic difficulties with logic and reason. Back on December 4th, I became annoyed with how the talk-page discussion was going, so I decided to take a break, before anyone had responded to my last post. When I become annoyed with discussions or editing and decide to take a break, I will often make a point of refraining from checking out my watchlist, as happened here. I may also avoid my contributions page, at least for a while, until I can zero in only on certain pages while not having to notice others. That, too, happened here. I may even avoid signing in very often, if at all. (Yes, some of us possess such discipline.) So I actually had no idea what, if anything, had happened here, until very recently, when I decided to check out what had come of editing. I saw that my desired texts had all remained, very obviously vindicating my original objections, much to my surprise. So I decided to glance at the talk page to see how that had happened, and discovered quite elaborate developments since my last comment, including your little bit of tangential nonsense. That was my first actual opportunity to respond to it, such as it was, which I then did. Obviously, there was no need for me to address anything substantive, as matters had turned out as I desired. Clear? Now, you can choose to believe whatever little fairy tales and fantasies please your little heart and mind, such as they are, but none of that will change the facts I just explained. Get over it. Furthermore, when you go about saying things like “and it's not like you hadn't been on Wikipedia since my previous reply to you”—and you are continuing to obsess over that misguided drivel—you should expect to have that addressed, rather than feigning surprise and outrage when it is. Get over that, too. Finally, as you seem unaware of the well known scholarly principle, when you quote people/sources you are expected to preserve their original meaning, anything else constitutes misquoting, whether you’re using the exact words or not. You must quote enough so as not to alter the original meaning. You are not to expect readers to look up the original context in order to understand the actual meaning; that is misrepresentation. As I explained previously, “when I discovered both that my original editing objections largely had been vindicated by the subsequent work of other editors and your ludicrous little post here,” my original statement, and, “my original editing objections largely had been vindicated by the subsequent work of other editors and your ludicrous little post here,” your misquote, do not mean the same thing. To repeat, “You quoted me as saying my objections had been vindicated by both subsequent editing and your little post, whereas I used a both…and construction parenthetically to say I discovered both vindication and your little post, two different discoveries.” Clear? Learn the general principle well, or you may find yourself getting in trouble. If people choose to be kind, you’ll merely be considered a clueless amateur, but the consequences can be substantially worse. You need to get over that, too. Antinoos69 (talk) 03:21, 23 January 2019 (UTC) Snough with the pissing contest, both of you. It keeps clogging up the watchlists of me and everyone else that has this article watched. And it's doing nothing except showing that neither of you are being particularly mature. Just stop talking to each other. oknazevad (talk) 10:35, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oknazevad, I'll move on now. As for maturity, repeatedly addressing the type of editor I've addressed above has to do with frustration. He does this everywhere, including in the Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography discussion I linked to above. But, yes, I should not take the bait. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:19, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Way to entirely disregard the post while responding to it. I, of course, choose to dispense with the pretense. Antinoos69 (talk) 03:21, 23 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Note for others: For anyone who thinks I'm a physician, I have not revealed my professions on Wikipedia. Being a WP:Med and WP:Anatomy editor, and working with James Heilman (Doc James) on Wikipedia, does not make one a physician. Obviously. But, as noted in the Physician article, the meaning of "physician" does vary. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:49, 23 January 2019 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:08, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Funny. You should take it on the road. Additional note for others (just in case): The reference, of course, is to the ancient proverb, made most famous by and in the version of Luke 4:23. Antinoos69 (talk) 06:58, 23 January 2019 (UTC)


 * In any case:
 * The “scientific” bit, or something like it, needs to be there to differentiate the more objective polls from the more subjective and meaningless ones, like Rotten Tomatoes. I recall substantial prior discussion on this matter.
 * The subsequently cited sources, as secondary sources, don’t actually say everything that VanDerWerff says. For example, the “progressive” bit is supported by only one of the subsequent sources. The point must be made more narrowly.
 * Something like “highly” is appropriate. Otherwise, describing an “A” and “a rare five-star rating” as merely “positive” would be rather misleading.
 * I believe this current dispute may indicate just how tenuous and delicate the previous consensus and compromise was. Some of us never really bought into the various premises of the entire section to begin with, and still don’t. Perhaps pinging the previously involved editors would be best, even at the risk of rehashing all the previous disputes. Antinoos69 (talk) 11:17, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * "I believe this current dispute may indicate just how tenuous and delicate the previous consensus and compromise was". Hmm. Not convinced. Antinoos69, you reverted my initial change on the basis that the change would be controversial. Several days later, we have two editors supporting my changes, and one who says they have no objection to them. You're the only one who's actually voiced any opposition, and it took you several days to produce it.
 * "The 'scientific' bit, or something like it, needs to be there to differentiate the more objective polls from the more subjective and meaningless ones, like Rotten Tomatoes." If there is a need for this - and I'm not convinced there is - then it needs to be explained. Right now, the prose doesn't serve the purpose you think it needs to serve. it isn't clear what a "scientific" poll entails versus a non-scientific poll. Nor is it clear that this is as opposed to Rotten Tomatoes, or how Rotten Tomatoes works differently.
 * Regarding the reporting of VanDerWerff et al, I believe this reflects the sources accurately: Dissatisfied fans saw the film as too progressive,[1] disliked its humor, plot, or character arcs, or felt betrayed that it ignored fan theories.[2][3][4] Popcornduff (talk) 13:27, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * "Audience reception measured by scientific polling methods was highly positive" should be removed. There is nothing scientific about the polling methods used and highly positive is unnecessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sgreenef (talk • contribs) 11:21, 3 December 2018 (UTC)  — Sgreenef (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

When it comes to polls, a distinguishing characteristic of a "scientific poll" is when the sample of respondents are randomly selected. They also use statistical methods that ensure their small sample sizes reliably represent the results expected from a much larger sample size (within a reasonable margin of error of course). These sources explain that in more detail: I don't recall how we arrived at the inclusion of "scientific polling methods" (I didn't suggest it), but it's not an absurd, inapplicable description of these polls, and in fact, it helps distinguish them from unreliable polling methods. If there's a better way to describe them, I'm open to suggestions, but simply calling them just "polls" is lumping them together with the unreliable online, self-selected methods and does them a disservice. As for the "dissatisfied fans" bit, I don't feel too strongly about the opening sentence in that paragraph, but I would caution against simplifying it too much. Just saying "Dissatisfied fans..." as opposed to "Several reviewers found that dissatisfied fans..." can imply two very different things. The latter adds a quantifier to the statement, while the former can imply it's a statement of fact and not just an observation. Either option, however, would likely be an improvement over what's there now. --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:30, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * 20 Questions A Journalist Should Ask About Poll Results – NCPP.org
 * Why You Shouldn’t Trust ‘Polls’ Conducted Online – NY Times
 * Deciphering Online User Reviews From Exit Polls – Deadline.com (this one specifically calls the polls in question "scientific")
 * Re: polls. This all explains why "scientific polling methods" was arrived at, but doesn't make it any clearer to readers. Popcornduff (talk) 15:48, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how the term "scientific" is unclear. This article is not about scientific polling, so we shouldn't be expected to give a paragraph of what a scientific poll is. One or more of the sources above can be cited if deemed necessary, but I don't think it's absolutely needed. If we'd like to provide a little more context in the same sentence, I'm sure there are ways of doing that we can agree on, but outright dropping the description "scientific" without an adequate replacement is unreasonable.By the way, after some digging, it was this edit that added the term. Also despite being mentioned several times on the talk page of that draft, no one objected to the phrase, and that includes participants from this discussion. It also passed an RfC without objection, which isn't a minor detail either. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:04, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * If there were such a thing as a "scientific poll", like if this were a concept with its own wiki page we could link to, I would be satisfied. But it's not a term in general use and its implications are unclear. A poll conducted by scientists? What is an unscientific poll? How do I, the reader, know that this is distinct from Rotten Tomatoes, whose polling methods are not explained?
 * I am confident that it isn't doing its intended job, and to someone sensitive to copyediting, it even sounds like puffery - the sort of mostly meaningless, imprecise word you put in front of words to make them sound more important, like "respected" or "official". Ooh, it's a scientific poll, so what, what does that mean?
 * It's just overkill. If we didn't write it, readers wouldn't be confused or misinformed, or feel something was missing. So what if different polls work in different ways? All that matters is that one poll found some audiences (not important which) liked the film and later a different poll found some other audience didn't. Popcornduff (talk) 16:17, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Puffery? Really? That's a wild stretch at best. After all this time of being in place, I haven't seen or heard of any so-called confusion until this thread popped up many months later, so I'm not convinced there's any basis for the claim. Posturing that something could be confusing is not any reason for a knee-jerk reaction, but I can understand why you'd want to have this discussion to feel that out. I reaffirm that the purpose of describing the poll as scientific (or using a similar descriptor) would be to differentiate it from the user-generated, unreliable poll description that follows in the next paragraph. They are all polls, but we are not holding them to the same standards (in line with the sources), and that shouldn't be lost on the reader because we're concerned some might be confused. There's clearly a source above that specifically names these polls as scientific. What more do you need? --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:43, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * It's absolutely not puffery in intent - but to the uninformed reader it could be interpreted as a weird boast about the polling method. As I'm arguing, the actual intended meaning isn't clear right now. Popcornduff (talk) 19:00, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I disagree that the average reader would misinterpret "scientific", especially with its close proximity to the term "method". Anyone with at least some high school education has learned about the "scientific method". They should be able to deduce that a "scientific polling method" follows some systematic process to reach its conclusion, even if that process isn't directly related to the field of science. Knowing the specifics of what that process entails isn't crucial to having a basic comprehension here. Can it be improved? Sure, there's always room for improvement, but axing "scientific" isn't the answer. As a sidenote, I've added the Deadline source above to the article for now, which at least backs the use of the term "scientific". --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:45, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't mind "scientific" but I don't mind a change, either. I do think a descriptor is necessary because I agree with what was said above, that it needs to be differentiated from online uncontrolled polls, especially when we get into the commentary of fans' complaints later in the section. So I guess candidate descriptors could be "controlled", "organized", or something like that. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 13:07, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * 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, including a rare five-star rating. User-generated scores on Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic were more negative, achieving ratings of 45% and 4.5/10, respectively. Why do we need the bolded sentence at all? The rest of the paragraph explains that the RT and Metacritic scores are user-generated and the rest were polls sound exactly like, well, polls, which require no further explanation. There's no need for the "scientific" stuff, and there's no need to summarise that the polls were positive because we give that information as concrete data afterwards. It's just been overthought. Too many cooks. Popcornduff (talk) 13:48, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Summaries are definitely appropriate to have at the beginning. The beginning of this article's "Critical response" is pretty awful for lacking a summary. It is a mistake to think simply reporting RT and MC is okay. There can be sources available that summarize the critical reception in prose, rather than slogging through numbers in an ahistorical approach. (Think a hundred years from now -- will having these figures at the beginning make sense to most readers, compared to saying "Critics loved the film because so-and-so"?) Really, both critical and audience reception sections need a summary sentence of sorts. It doesn't have to be "scientific", but there has to be something to differentiate it from the abused online film ratings. (We need an article about that, anyway...) Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 13:58, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Then I return to my first suggestion, which is to delete "scientific polling methods" as it's 1) wordy and 2) unclear in intent. We explain in the goddamn prose that we have a set of polls that say one thing and a set of user-submitted scores said another thing. It's already clear that they gathered information in different ways ("polls" vs "user-submitted scores") and specifying that one of them uses "scientific methods" (??) clarifies fuck-all, 'scuse my language. I'm just repeating myself at this point, so that'll be the last I say here - if other people like the wording then I'll bow to that, but you're all nuts. Popcornduff (talk) 14:13, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, immediately going back on my "last I say" promise, famous last words, but one last suggestion occurs. If the concern is making clear that user-submitted polls are a flaky way of determining how audiences feel about a film, or you just want to make clear why the results between polls and user-submitted scores might be different, then write that. Write something like "User-submitted scores may bias results as they are self-selecting", etc etc, you get the picture. This should be possible to source, and to summarise in a single concise sentence. That would distinguish the difference everyone is killing themselves defending. Popcornduff (talk) 14:19, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * You are completely missing the point. No one is saying "scientific polling methods" is the best choice here. You originally wanted to change it to "scientific polls" dropping "method", and then later suggested dropping "scientific" as well remove "scientific" and "methods". Now you're saying the entire introductory line isn't necessary. You're sliding backwards away from compromise. If you're getting frustrated here, it's because of your own doing. The key to a productive conversation, where every party comes out somewhat satisfied, is to find a way to improve existing content, not fight a stubborn battle hell-bent on removal. With all the effort you've committed to pointing out how wrong it is, that time would have been better spent writing a proposal that would have had a chance at compromise.As for your last suggestion, I'm not sure I'd be on board with that, but I would encourage you to do the work and submit a proposal we can all look at. That burden lies on the editor pushing for a change. Don't just stand there and criticize. --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:56, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * That's not just unfair - it's untrue. My first edit was to remove both "scientific" and "methods". Popcornduff (talk) 17:01, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * My comments are based on your suggestions in this thread, so yes, they are accurate. Now that I've looked at your first edit, I'm extremely pleased that it did not stand. In this discussion, we've exposed a number of reasons why that was definitely not a good change. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:05, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Am I drunk? My first comment in this thread was: "Not clear what "scientific" means here and the source doesn't explain it. "Methods" is unnecessary. Just write "polls"." We disagree, fine, but you're saying I've done things I haven't done. Popcornduff (talk) 22:58, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * It wasn't clear to me from that statement that you wanted both "scientific" and "methods" gone (I was thinking only "methods"). After seeing the edit link you provided above, it became obvious that you wanted both gone from the beginning. Fine, but that doesn't negate the rest of what I described. I've made the minor correction above. --GoneIn60 (talk) 00:10, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Popcornduff (talk) 00:14, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * "Don't just stand there and criticise"? I don't think I can be accused of laziness here. I've explained my rationale several times and proposed different solutions, but failed to build a consensus. That's fine. Wikipedia is volunteer work and I'd rather spend my time on stuff that involves fewer arguments. Popcornduff (talk) 17:01, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Your "proposed solutions" consisted of different ways of removing that phrase. You didn't explore substitution or rephrasing, and you didn't even bother searching for sources that supported the current phrasing. I think it's clear you had your mind made up going in that you simply didn't like it, so for you, removal was the only option. Such an approach rarely leads to compromise. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:05, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Combining this thread with the one below, we can probably remove "scientific polling methods" from the first paragraph and insert into the second. The source even states "Simply put [user scores] are all unscientific means of measuring audience reactions." DonQuixote (talk) 17:38, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'm confused. Would you mind elaborating? --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:23, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Something like Audience reception measured by scientific polling methods was highly positive...User-generated scores on Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic, which lack controlled sampling did not use scientific, statistical methods, were more negative, achieving ratings of 45% and 4.5/10, respectively. (strikes and underline used to highlight the changes). That is, we can mention the polls in the first paragraph in the same way it's mentioned in other articles, and then we can mention the scientific method of polling and the lack thereof for the user scores in the second paragraph. DonQuixote (talk) 21:35, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the suggestion, but I'm not so sure about reducing the opening line to just "Audience reception was highly positive". Also, we'd be essentially kicking the "scientific" can down to the next paragraph, and we already have a source for its use in the 1st. However, I like keeping our options open and this is a good start. --GoneIn60 (talk) 00:27, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Then let's kick the whole "scientific" out. One was audience exit polling, other was user-generated score that lacks control sampling. When I first saw the reference, aside of chuckle, I thought it will redirect me to article that will link to some study of statisticians regarding this movie. Instead I got buzzwords in the article. And just because sources like to be liberal with their labels sometimes, doesn't mean that Wiki should follow the suite. Keep the language simple. Eg:


 * Audience reception measured by scientific polling methods was highly positive. Audiences randomly etc.


 * ...User-generated scores on Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic, which lack controlled sampling, were more negative, achieving ratings of 45% and 4.5/10, respectively.


 * EllsworthSK (talk) 09:37, 19 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is a reflection of what exists in reliable sources, and I don't believe anyone here would challenge using material from Deadline on Wikipedia. I've also provided sources above that demonstrate that this is not some random buzzword. For the third time, I'm open to a change here, but completely removing "scientific" from this section without an adequate replacement is not a path forward, IMO. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:54, 19 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia also isn't compilation. Its articles are not copy-paste of lines within RS, but edited down for purpose of readability. I fail to use single reason why work "scientific" should be used, aside of the buzz. It confuses the reader, its utterly unnecessary, it does not serve any purpose at all. Look at my proposal and then look at current state and give me proper reason why the later is better. I fail to see it. Give me reason why that word should be there. Not the line that is there, not the statement of fact, that is there, but that word that you are insisting should be. Because I fail to see that reason.


 * PS: To that end, I also question the validity of the article in question itself. It is comparing audience review at Rotten Tomatoes, which were submitted since the day of premier until today, with polling at opening night. It fails to take into account the different demography and interest of audience of those who see the movie at Day 1 compared to total audience. In layman terms, its comparing apples and oranges and later declare one scientific and other not so. Seems rather strange, especially in case of movies (this is stuff that generally reserved for elections and referendums). And yes, I realize that its OR, however that is the reason why reader when seeing scientific in the article gets a very different idea from what actually happens when one clicks on the link. EllsworthSK (talk) 02:15, 21 December 2018 (UTC)


 * "Its articles are not copy-paste of lines within RS"
 * Who is copy-pasting lines from reliable sources? This is a rather bizarre statement that doesn't apply to this discussion.
 * "It confuses the reader...that word that you are insisting should be"
 * I'm not convinced you've read through this discussion. If you had, you'd understand that #1, I didn't add "scientific" to the article, and #2, I've repeatedly stated that replacing "scientific" with a better word or phrase has always been on the table. Removing it altogether, however, seems detrimental to the opening line of the section's opening paragraph.
 * "I also question the validity of the article in question...and later declare one scientific and other not so"
 * You are only questioning it, because apparently you don't understand that one poll has volunteer respondents that self-select themselves for participation, while the other randomly selects its participants. That's an important distinction to know in order to understand the comparison. The article points this out, so I'm not sure how you missed that. Since it doesn't seem like you've read all the responses above, you might have also missed this source, which explains what it means for a poll to be considered "scientific".
 * "Look at my proposal and then look at current state and give me proper reason why the later is better."
 * That's not how this works. You want the change, then you need to convince the consensus of why your proposal is better; not the other way around. I don't think the proposal is bad, per se, but I'm not convinced it's an improvement or a necessary change. --GoneIn60 (talk) 06:37, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Broom Kid in plot section
Unless there's an RS saying that the broom kid on Canto Bight is part of the plot, it feels unnecessary and probably should be removed. It's thematic content relevant to the series as a whole, not a subplot that matters to The Last Jedi. I don't think the kids were even given names in the movie. UpdateNerd (talk) 22:39, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I completely agree; if he turns out to be an important character later we can perhaps retro him into this summary, but for now, mentioning him is trivial.— TAnthonyTalk 00:54, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I completely disagree. A little kid able to manipulate the Force to the point of moving objects, without the slightest training, is a first in a Star Wars film. It ties into Luke’s desire to take the Skywalker legend out of the Force and into the continued evolution of the Force. It’s important. Antinoos69 (talk) 05:30, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Then we should add some sourced explanation of why it's relevant. It feels troll-like in the article right now if you ask me, and I "got" the scene when I saw the film. UpdateNerd (talk) 05:44, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * So the character is a bit younger than Rey or Luke were at the beginning, is this that much of a big deal? Even if this is a notable development, it should be discussed in an analysis section of some kind, with sources establishing its notability. Without that, the reasoning for the inclusion of this character in the plot summary is just POV. The casual reader is not going to get the "importance" of this tidbit when they're reading the summary, because it's interpretive.— TAnthonyTalk 13:14, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * So, it's a limited pool, but 2 against 1 in favor of removal is still a majority. Please note that the information as it relates thematically to the series now exists at Star Wars, but without a RS that the short scene is relevant to this film's plot is particular, the defense in favor of keeping it falls rather flat. The arguments in its favor so far have been WP:POV interpretations of the film's meaning and unsourced WP:CRYSTALBALL arguments that it will somehow be relevant to the next film's plot. See also WP:NOTEVERYTHING. I'll give this a couple of days for other editors to chime in, but again, only 3 people have spoken since this content was contested earlier this month. UpdateNerd (talk) 23:55, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd express soft support for its continued inclusion. My position is generally along the lines of Antinoos69's second sentence, Broom-Boy being a first in Star Wars, and breaking Lucas's rules of the lore ("You have to come to learn it." ). But my opinion isn't strong enough to argue either direction. A145GI15I95 (talk) 00:24, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It supports the lore, since the servant kid merely chooses to practice the Force. It's never been exclusive to Jedi, if that's what you were led to believe by Lucas's comments. The same point is made by Yoda saying that Rey "has all she needs to learn" without the sacred texts. Most importantly, without a sourced explanation of why it's important, it raises more questions than answers. As a good example, Star Wars (film) addresses the much more uniquely not-seen-before "Obi-Wan sacrifices himself" without going into 'why' he vanished. "Leia tells the surviving Resistance that it has all it needs to rise again" is a much better closing statement of the film's plot.
 * Perhaps the article on The Force or Star Wars theme section could go into more detail on who can use the Force and why, but this isn't the right place. UpdateNerd (talk) 00:44, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The full article that I linked includes Lucas's assertion that Force abilities aren't exclusive to Jedi, they're exclusive to those who study and work for years. Broom-Boy breaks this in that he's had no opportunity to train; he could have potential to develop Force skills, but he's a child and a slave. Events from non-Lucas material (Rey and TLJ Yoda) are irrelevant to what is Lucasian lore. In addition to breaking lore, Broom-Boy is another example of the goofiness of this picture, which leads me to support its inclusion. But again, my opinions on this detail aren't too great to press for keep or nix. And I'd personally prefer not to argue the surrounding issues of Disney canon versus Lucas canon, please. I merely wanted to go on the record with support for inclusion. Thanks. A145GI15I95 (talk) 01:06, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You seem to assert that to use the Force you have to train as a Jedi. Including something to illustrate "the goofiness of this picture" with no sourced explanation affirm my earlier point that it feels troll-like, and not encyclopedic. Thanks for your input, and please don't interpret my seeking clarity on your position as arguing said canon; sticking the subject at hand here. The many different points of view that can arise surrounding such subjective information is another reason not to include it without a source. Thanks, UpdateNerd (talk) 02:19, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I never asserted "to use the Force you have to be a Jedi". I didn't even use the word "Jedi" until you did. All I said was that Force abilities require study, training, work, per the Maker, with citation. Otherwise, I saw a call for opinions about including something, I gave an opinion with qualification that I don't feel too strongly to argue further for its inclusion. It wasn't my intention to inspire this tangent. A145GI15I95 (talk) 02:26, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Regardless of anyone's interpretation of the scene and its meaning to the saga, the question is really whether it's relevant to this film's plot. The content of plot sections is still meant to represent reliable sources with the appropriate balance, even though such common knowledge usually doesn't require actual citations. This is certainly one tidbit that would be hard to find a source for its relevance in any other context than thematic relevant to the saga overall, as with this Inverse article. (Its assumption of the audience thinking "who the heck was that kid" and that the kid won't appear in IX is a sourced perspective of why not to include it here.) UpdateNerd (talk) 04:01, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You've edited your claim of my "assertion" above to change the words "be a Jedi" to "train as a Jedi". Please don't edit history after a reply. And please, I never said "train as a Jedi" either. Please read the linked quotations from George Lucas if it's of such great concern. The lore states that Force abilities require years of study/training/work. Whether that's as a Jedi or Sith or another discipline isn't required. And again, please, I indicated that I don't wish to argue this here at all. This is Wikipedia, not a Star Wars fan theory page. You asked an opinion on article content, I stated an opinion of support for the content, while making clear that I neither seek to oppose the content's removal. Please stop arguing against or misconstruing my statement. Thank you. A145GI15I95 (talk) 04:14, 31 March 2019 (UTC)


 * There is no reason for this scene to be mentioned. It's a thematic end to the movie, but not a plot scene of any importance. Toa Nidhiki05 19:33, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I would argue in favour of keeping it. Even if it's not related to the plot, the last scene is often significant. Anywikiuser (talk) 12:54, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
 * We shouldn't be including material because it may be important in the future.— TAnthonyTalk 14:17, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
 * And all this discussion about the "lore" has no relevance; it may or may not be significant that this kid uses the Force, but it's interpretive (no matter what Lucas may have said in the past), so it has no place in the article without a source. Further, presenting it in the plot summary in this manner does not (and really cannot) convey to the reader that it is an important development in the saga, so I don't see how its inclusion can be justified.— TAnthonyTalk 14:17, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I completely agree with that last comment, and I shouldn't have even responded to a lore-based argument. The most important reasons are simpler than that—I'll reiterate: there's no proof it's part of the sequel trilogy's plot. Purely thematic content shouldn't be included, which is why there's also no mention of the Jedi Temple nuns or porgs. UpdateNerd (talk) 01:29, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't see a very strong argument for removing it. It's a scene that happened, it's doesn't take up much article space, and the scene has been discussed by other sources. Excluding it would seem like a strange, intentional omission, and do more disservice to the reader than including it ever could. Scoundr3l (talk) 17:25, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I very much agree with Scoundr3l. The plot section should just present what happens, not resort to interpreting a scene as unimportant. Yes, we must avoid getting bogged down in trivial detail, but to completely omit an entirely separate scene is the real act of original interpretation that we should avoid. oknazevad (talk) 18:23, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * But do those sources say it's part of the plot per se? Just because a scene "happened" doesn't make it relevant. There's no mention of Paige Tico, Finn waking up in his bacta suit, the fathier escape sequence, Rey's trials (not even the mirror cave scene), or the crystal foxes, all more relevant to the plot than a thematic endcap featuring an essentially unnamed character. UpdateNerd (talk) 06:33, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Just to give an example of a similar page with a similar ending: we don't end the article for The Empire Strikes Back on "everyone stares at a galaxy". Thematic endings generally aren't included. Plot covers plot, and that's not a plot-based scene. Toa Nidhiki05 00:38, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Pick an article and you could find parts of the plot summary that aren't necessary. If that's the only criticism you can level against it, I still say include it. What are the Cons? Someone reads an extra sentence and learns a little bit more about the movie? Doesn't seem like including it raises nearly as many eyebrows as its intentional removal. Scoundr3l (talk) 20:38, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Plot summaries are meant to be concise. We constantly remove extraneous and tangential detail. If this is just "an extra sentence", there are several other plot points more worthy of inclusion. And again, including something interpreted as important by editors but no reliable sources is not a thing we do.— TAnthonyTalk 20:55, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * That's absolutely what we do, though. Plot summaries are supported by the primary source and what we include is determined by discretion and consensus, which is why we're discussing it. You might disagree, but you thinking it's unimportant is no more an issue of reliable sources than others thinking it is. Scoundr3l (talk) 21:07, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Plot summaries usually don't have references because editors are going off the primary source, but they aren't exempt according to any policy I'm aware of. But at this point, the wording has been copyedited to be a short as possible, and I'm pretty neutral about it. UpdateNerd (talk) 11:00, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree and I also think the reference was unnecessary. I only restored it because it was part of the previous state that we were discussing. Recent changes have removed the need for it and it looks good, thank you. Scoundr3l (talk) 19:49, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Another thing to consider: currently the plot section is too long. Plot sections are supposed to be between 400-700 words, and the plot is currently at 711 words. Removing broom kid - an 18-word sentence that is the least important sentence in the plot summary - would reduce the plot section to below 700 words. There are also other phrases we can remove to get below 650, but this would be a good start. Toa Nidhiki05 16:13, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment – Scoundr3l is correct in saying that a plot detail does not need to be directly tied to a reliable source other than the primary source, which is sufficient as long as an interpretation isn't being made (interpretations don't belong in the plot summary anyway, but that's another topic). Whether it's important enough or not is typically determined through editing consensus and escalated to some form of dispute resolution when the decision is relatively divided. I personally don't see a problem with leaving it in, unless the plot summary length becomes an issue. As Toa Nidhiki05 just identified, it was running over the 700 word limit, but recent changes remedied that. If it ever becomes an issue again, it would be one of the first less-essential details to be put on the chopping block. --GoneIn60 (talk) 12:10, 14 April 2019 (UTC)