Talk:Star Wars: The Last Jedi/Archive audience response 2

Fan theories and fan expectations
The following piece is vague when it comes to what fan theories and fan expectations we mean: "Todd VanDerWerff of Vox grouped the negative social media reaction into several categories, noting that many thought the film was too progressive, had poor jokes and was uninterested in fan theories; others criticized the film for plot lines and moments that they felt did not make sense and character journeys that broke with fan expectations."

We should mention some of the examples I pointed to at Talk:Star Wars: The Last Jedi. We should at least mention that there was audience dissatisfaction regarding the reveal of Rey's parentage and Luke's arc. Snoke being killed is also a common complaint. These mentions would only take up a little space. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:10, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Those plot choices were also discussed positively on the net. See this link. Alaney2k (talk) 15:55, 7 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I know that the choice for Rey's parents to be nobodies (which some sources still doubt is true) was complimented by some reviewers; I included mention of that at the Rey (Star Wars) article. But among fans, it is a major point that they are not satisfied with. Same goes for Luke's arc and the death of Snoke. The section is not about reviewers' views; it's about the views of the general audience/fans. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:30, 7 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Also, when it comes to including examples, I simply meant small, clarifying examples; for instance, changing "uninterested in fan theories" to "uninterested in fan theories (such as Rey being a Skywalker or Solo)" and changing "character journeys that broke with fan expectations" to "character journeys that broke with fan expectations (such as the development of Luke and Snoke). Further detail can go in the character articles, like discussion of Rey's parentage. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:00, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * If this is going to be audience reception, not negative reception only, it needs to be fairly noted that this is a complaint some, not all, had. At this point we are verging on surpassing the size of the box office section and not far under the critical reception sections - two that are undoubtedly more important. WP:WEIGHT needs to be considered here - are all random complaints worth noting, or maybe more general complaints (Canto Bight, fan theories, resolution)? Toa Nidhiki05 01:06, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Some is WP:Weasel wording. Unless "some fans liked [so and so]" is mentioned by the source (or sources), we should not qualify the matter by using the word some. Before your recent edit to the draft, the text for Todd VanDerWerff stated "many." If the source states "many," so should we if we are going to use a qualifier. It goes without saying that "many" does not mean "all." And to reiterate, a reviewer stating that he liked things that fans disliked is obviously not the same as fans liking it. The audience reception is not supposed to be about whether reviewers liked or disliked the film or aspects of it; the Critical response section is for that.


 * The current draft section is only three paragraphs at the moment. And like I stated elsewhere, "There is no need to limit the section at the risk of leaving out important content. [...] But, yeah, although the current draft needs more work, I think that three paragraphs is enough. If four are needed, I am not opposed to that, however." The Box office section is also currently three paragraphs long, but it should perhaps be four paragraphs long since its middle paragraph is hefty. And given the length of the Box office section for The Force Awakens article (and that includes its Commercial analysis section, which I helped write), the Box office section for the Last Jedi article is likely to be significantly expanded as well. Either way, we should not be basing WP:Due weight for the Audience response section on how big the Box office section is. And it's not like the draft is even close to as long as the Critical response section. All we need to do is cover all of the important points for the audience response. It is not up to us to state that box office material is more important. There also is no need to be unnecessarily vague regarding the aspects I noted that we are currently being vague about. We should give a few examples as to what we are talking about. And adding one or two examples in parentheses is simple enough. If no one else does it, I will edit the draft so that a few examples are included. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:45, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The size will sort itself out. The main points of polarization are the plot decisions; and viewer's own politics. Alaney2k (talk) 05:39, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

We should all at least agree that the 3rd paragraph needs to be more than one sentence. Todd VanDerWerff's piece on Vox categorizes the negative reaction, so why not expand with a sentence or two that lists a few of the most prominent examples? This paragraph (or another subsequent paragraph) can also list positive feedback from fans as well. After all, the entire section opens by saying how polarizing the reaction has been; we imply the opposite if we only include the negative aspect. --GoneIn60 (talk) 07:17, 8 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I see that Alaney2k added the examples I mentioned. Thanks, Alaney2k. I tweaked it. I removed "These choices were also applauded by some" because it wasn't sourced. Instead, I simply let the Screen Rant source do the talking for the Snoke part being a good twist. We can add different sources noting that some reviewers disagreed with fans on the dissatisfaction examples. We could state, "Conversely, these choices were applauded by some reviewers. Screen Rant considered the death of Snoke 'to be the best movie twist in years.'" I will add sources for the examples being points of dissatisfaction among fans. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:55, 8 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Considering this section's primary focus is on audience reaction, should we be spending valuable real estate contrasting it with critics' analysis? Surely there's some positive fan reaction sourced out there that we can use instead? --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:17, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I did state above that "The section is not about reviewers' views; it's about the views of the general audience/fans." and "a reviewer stating that he liked things that fans disliked is obviously not the same as fans liking it. The audience reception is not supposed to be about whether reviewers liked or disliked the film or aspects of it; the Critical response section is for that." But Alaney2k wants some contrasting information there. And since the section is partly about the professional critics' (or reviewers') views contrasting the fan reception, and some professional critics appreciated these aspects that many fans dislike, it makes sense to note that some critics liked these aspects. It's better than having the content in both the Critical response and Audience response section. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:24, 8 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Okay, with this edit, I noted that some fans liked the things that many fans have complained about. The BBC News source seems to be talking about "some fans" rather than "some reviewers" for that part. The Screen Rant piece now seems out of place there, but I've left it for now. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:33, 8 January 2018 (UTC)


 * These were great additions, and I expanded/modified them a bit. Feel free to discuss/revert some of the changes I made if you disagree. The next step may be to trim things up a bit, but I have to say I think we're getting close! --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:24, 9 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Your tweaks were good. You blended in the Screen Rant piece well. I'll likely add an additional source (just the source, no extra wording) for the "was appreciated by critics" part. I made two small changes to your latest tweaks. I'm not seeing anything that needs to be cut (at least regarding the final paragraph), except for the unnecessary "the same rating audiences gave The Force Awakens and Rogue One" line in the first paragraph. I think that final paragraph is very solid and that no more text needs to be added to it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:13, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

The Shape of Water comment
In an earlier version of the draft, the HuffPost statement improperly summarized that there were "matching negative reviews" discovered in the user review section of The Shape of Water. Now that the statement is more accurate, I'm not sure it's really adding any value. RT's vice president offers a very plausible explanation as to why this discrepancy occurred. Unless we mention that explanation in some fashion, the statement should probably be removed altogether. Thoughts? --GoneIn60 (talk) 07:30, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It's plausibe evidence of an effort to hack RT. I think RT has been on the deny,deny,deny path. Do you have a link? Alaney2k (talk) 15:59, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Perhaps change

"The legitimacy of the user-reported scores from Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic has been contested, with some analysts attributing the low score to vote brigading or bots. Scott Mendelson of Forbes considered the audience polling numbers on Rotten Tomatoes to '[have] been gamed by the same kind of trolls who brought down Ghostbusters’ score and downvoted the hell out of its trailers last year.' An alt-right Facebook group claimed to have manipulated the user score on Rotten Tomatoes, alleging a perceived feminist bias in the film as the motive. Rotten Tomatoes released a statement that their experts monitoring the website did not detect anything 'unusual with The Last Jedi, except that there has been an uptick in the number of written user reviews submitted.' HuffPost reported instances of positive and negative reviews of the Star Wars film appearing in the user reviews section for The Shape of Water."


 * to

"The legitimacy of the user-reported scores from Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic has been contested. Some analysts argued the online scores could be attributed to vote brigading or bots, citing an alt-right Facebook group that claimed to have manipulated the user score on Rotten Tomatoes as well as noting that some reviews seemingly intended for The Last Jedi were instead posted on the pages for other films. Rotten Tomatoes released a statement that their security team did not detect anything unusual with the score except the number of reviews that had been submitted to the website was larger than normal."


 * The reason I cut the Mendelson quote is that it isn't really needed; we should focus broadly here, not on specific analysts. If we quoted every analyst's opinion on this, we'd be here all day. Toa Nidhiki05 16:01, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with the desire to focus less on comments from specific analysts, though an exception or two may be warranted at some point. I like the rewrite you suggested which is a decent improvement over what we have now. However, we should still look more closely at the observation surrounding reviews landing on the wrong films (which probably shouldn't be plural; the cited source only mentions one film, The Shape of Water). The article clearly states that both "positive and negative" reviews were found, so if an automated process such as a bot was manipulating the negative score, it wouldn't make sense that positive reviews were involved. It's clear from the observation itself that there must have been some truth to RT's explanation that some users were simply confused. It's highly likely that a significant number of users were clicking on the wrong link as the "Featured Movie" module was still loading. In light of this, I'm not sure including this tidbit of information is all that helpful, and the rewrite seems to imply only negative reviews landed in the wrong spot. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:04, 8 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Feel free to weigh in here as well, as your recent addition to the draft does the opposite by focusing on one analyst's specific comments. Even if it was decided to include them, I don't think they belong in the first paragraph. That paragraph should simply lay out the observations reported in the media without injecting any analysis until the following paragraph. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:13, 8 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Just letting you know I've removed those analyst's comments for now. I apologize in advance, as it wasn't my intention to completely undo your contributions so far. However, in light of Toa Nidhiki05's comments above, I agree we need to try to avoid cherry-picking individual commentary for now and see if there's a better way to express the same sentiments from a broader perspective. If consensus goes the other way, we can always reinsert those comments (hopefully in a better spot). --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:45, 8 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I went ahead and instituted some of your proposed changes which were very useful. Thank you. --GoneIn60 (talk) 12:22, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Section break: WP:Weasel wording and WP:Undue weight

 * I also agree that we should focus less on comments from specific analysts, but that including the occasional excerpt is warranted. And I agree with GoneIn60 making this edit to an addition by Antinoos69. We should not state "According to some." Not only is it WP:Weasel and will sooner or later result in someone adding a Template:Who or Template:According to whom tag to it once it's included in the article, it contrasts WP:Weight. Many sources note that The Last Jedi has been polarizing among audiences and fans (especially professional critics vs. fans), with some sources calling it the most polarizing Star Wars film ever. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:55, 8 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Good point, Flyer... If you beat me to the punch, please insert some of those sources as references in the opening line. Thanks! --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:20, 8 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I adamantly disagree. There are serious questions as to whether there actually is any disproportionate backlash. Sources merely assume that there is, citing no objective evidence to support their assumptions, and often in the face of the most objective available evidence. This must be presented in the article. I provided a reliable source on the matter. That source proves there is no universal view that this backlash exists, requiring a qualification of the claim as a mere claim. As is, the section is ridiculous, anti-intellectual babble — a quintessential example of the internet at its worst. I will restore the material, more or less, and expect editors to finesse/massage rather than entirely delete it. Antinoos69 (talk) 07:27, 9 January 2018 (UTC)


 * You can adamantly disagree, but there are guidelines and policies to follow. So reverted again. I would hate to think that we need another RfC, this time on which version is rule-compliant. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:44, 9 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Regarding this, sighs. Another RfC it may be then. But just know that per WP:Weasel and WP:Due, "According to some" will not be staying. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:52, 9 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Antinoos69, as you saw, you were also reverted by Popcornduff. Are you going to sit here and WP:Edit war with everyone? This edit does not help either. It is a misuse of WP:In-text attribution because you are making it seem like only those reviewers stated this, when in actuality, many reviewers have stated this. The view that there is no real backlash or divide is a minority view. And this edit by you is also more unnecessary bloating, as if we do not already make it clear that a lot of the audience liked the film. Your it's just "ridiculous, anti-intellectual babble — a quintessential example of the internet at its worst" bias is showing, and it is not the way we are supposed to write Wikipedia articles. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:38, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Putting aside arguments about neutrality etc, opening a paragraph with "According to some" and equivalent is a bad reading experience - it appears weaselly and non-committal even if you think it's justified. Popcornduff (talk) 08:47, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Then I don’t understand why you thanked me privately for my latest edit providing attribution. In any case, when sources are in disagreement and the existence of an alleged phenomenon is in question, attribution must be provided and the question presented. To do otherwise is to misrepresent reality. Antinoos69 (talk) 09:07, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Because you partially reverted me but without using the weasel words "According to some". I saw that as a constructive effort to reach a compromise while recognising the major problem in your revision. And btw, as far as I know, thanks sent with the thank function aren't private; anyone can see them (unless someone wants to correct me there?). Popcornduff (talk) 09:33, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * They're private in the sense that you can't see them in the page history, but they are technically public as shown in the Thanks log. --GoneIn60 (talk) 11:34, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Antinoos69, per what I stated above and below, our guidelines and WP:Neutral policy disagree with you. WP:Neutral is clear that we present both sides with due weight. And in the case of a backlash, the media is very clear that it exists. You speak of distorting reality. How about accepting it? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:17, 9 January 2018 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:18, 9 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Popcornduff, I changed it to this for now, but it still gives the impression that just these three reviewers stated this. When the vast majority of reviewers have stated that there is a backlash, and they have, there is no need for WP:In-text attribution. The WP:In-text attribution guideline is clear about this. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:05, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I know of no reliable evidence that a disproportionate “backlash” exists, and no source has provided any. We need to grapple with the reality of the dubious nature of many of these sources, many of which nevertheless do raise doubts about the state of affairs. I’m an academic. I’m intellectually offended by the dubious, sometimes accidental assumptions being peddled as fact by these internet “sources.” In any case, contrary sources do exist, and of generally better quality, as far as internet sources go. If you want to argue about internet consensus, such as it is, provide a source explicitly stating what that consensus is, using terms like “consensus” or “most commentators” or some such thing. I’m thinking of WP:RS/AC as it might apply here. Given the relative force of the more scientifically objective measures and Mark Hughes’ arguments, we can’t just pretend anything has been established here. In actual fact, we don’t know what’s going on here, so we should alert readers to the range of articulated possibilities. Antinoos69 (talk) 09:44, 9 January 2018 (UTC)


 * You are going by your personal opinion. And that's not the way we are supposed to work, nope. For the last time, we follow what the WP:Reliable sources state with WP:Due weight. Not your idea of what reliable sources are what a real backlash is. And your "disproportionate" qualifier does not factor in at all. The sources state "backlash" and similar. They do not need to state "disproportionate backlash." Your WP:RS/AC argument makes not a bit a sense. And I'm not going to keep arguing with you about this. You were wrong regarding "the inclusion" RfC and you are wrong now. And if you keep edit warring on this matter, the WP:Edit warring noticeboard is likely the next step. I don't see why I should waste the community's time by starting an RfC on this latest dispute when we should be following the rules and an editor not following them can be dealt with in other ways. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:00, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually, I’m going by reality, always my guiding principle. If you’ll bother actually trying to understand the sources, the premise is that there is something special or unusual about this “backlash,” over and above that against other SW films, especially The Force Awakens. I use disproportionate to get at this glaringly obvious point. The sources each have their own ways of conveying the point. In accord with OR principles, we take pains to avoid relying on editors’ views on what consensus on the subject is. We go by what reliable sources explicitly say about consensus. So, if you can find such a source, you can cite it to establish whatever consensus may exist. That doesn’t mean we should avoid other views regarding an issue as muddled and sloppy as this one. Putting Wikipedia’s voice behind this bloody mess is, well, downright embarrassing — though I do suppose it would contribute to Wikipedia’s already firm reputation among rigorous thinkers as an unreliable source, even by Wiki standards. Antinoos69 (talk) 10:28, 9 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I and a number of other editors very much understand what the sources are stating. You are putting on your own interpretations on them, which is why it is odd that you are now speaking of WP:OR. You did this -- use odd interpretations of Wikipedia's rules -- in the RfC when arguing to exclude the material as well. Furthermore, no one has been adding "consensus" wording in the article. So your "going by what the sources explicitly state" argument is off. It is also off because three editors so far (GoneIn60, Popcornduff and myself) have tried to go by what the sources explicitly state by challenging your "According to some" and similar wording. The sources do not state "According to some." When it comes to the WP:Due weight policy, all one has to do is follow what the preponderance of reliable sources state. That policy is clear about this. There is no need for a reliable source to report that "the preponderance of reliable sources state that there is a divide between critical and audience reception." You are so biased that you reverted my logical regrouping and order for one that is less organized and returned an unnecessary, unsourced line. But like I stated, I am not going to sit and continue arguing with you about this. You will be following our rules (namely WP:Weasel and WP:Due) one way or another. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:55, 9 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Antinoos69, it is unnecessary to quantify or paint the backlash in a negative light, especially in the opening line. Once we finish fleshing out this section with a number of sources that have analyzed it, it will become obvious to any reader that there are serious doubts behind the significance and validity of this backlash. We are not here to take sides in the reports that have circulated in the media, and we need to maintain a neutral point of view. Inserting "According to some" or the direct quote from Mark Hughes is contradicting the effort to present this controversy in an unbiased manner. These changes need to remain out of the draft at this point until there is a clear consensus to include them. There's plenty of room to compromise, so I suggest you come to the table willing to do so. Stating how "adamant" you are that your preferred version gets rammed into place isn't helping. --GoneIn60 (talk) 11:56, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Versions of the draft
With the exception of "According to some" or "According Todd VanDerWerff, Ian Youngs, and Scott Mendelson" and the "According to Mark Hughes" material, I think this version, which includes some of Popcornduff's copyedits (such as the ones made to the final paragraph) is a decent setup because it keeps the "divide" material in one paragraph, the scientific polling methods in another, and the the analysis of fan discontent in another.

And I think this version (which also includes some of Popcornduff's copyedits) is good because it keeps the straightforward survey material in one paragraph, the "legitimacy of the user-reported scores from Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic" material in another, and the the analysis of fan discontent in another. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:34, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Summarizing
I've made a BOLD and perhaps harsh summary of this draft that completely eliminates the long and rather undue discussion on surveys and rotten tomatoes reviews. While a mention to them might be warranted, I think just presenting a summary is best. Moreover I also added a paragraph on the petition, that summarizes a particularly discontented audience reaction. Boundarylayer (talk) 18:49, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The Change.org petition is utterly valueless. It's not important. These things pop up for everything and really don't matter at all. No way we should include this in a section that is already getting too large. Toa Nidhiki05 19:24, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd recommend you stop reverting, you are at your third revert in the last hour and it is disrupting normal editing here. Toa Nidhiki05 19:34, 9 January 2018 (UTC)


 * A change.org petition was started by a member of the public audience who strongly disagreed with how the character of Luke Skywalker was presented. The petition requests that the movie be removed from official Star Wars Canon. As of January 2018, the petition has received close to 100,000 signatures. 


 * The Petition has close to 100,000 signatures as of writing <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i>. So your narrative that "these things crop up all the time", is pretty laughable. Can you actually give me even 1 case were an audience reaction to a movie, a public review, has generated close to 100,000 signatures? Only for it not to be included in the wikipedia article for it? I didn't think so. Secondly, I've added 2 notable WP:SECONDARY sources that corroborate that this petition is generating news, even in its own right with the author changing the focus of the petition and that generating its own write-up by the resident entertainment journalist on the Huffingtonpost.uk. Therefore, again, your claim is unsubstantiated. Thirdly, having started this talk page discussion and not receiving any notification that anyone began responding, the claim that I'm edit warring is superlatively hypocritical. Especially given the manner in which I've catered to your every argument to remove this mention to the petition. Boundarylayer (talk) 19:47, 9 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I have a feeling you're being disruptive for the sake of doing so. It's pretty clear you don't have consensus to make the changes you're trying to make, which are pretty drastic. Time to discuss. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:49, 9 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I have a feeling that you just WP:IDONTLIKEIT. As to re-iterate. The petition is notable. Secondary sources cover it and it has near to 100,000 signatures. So please give an editorial rationale, other than this, GoneIn60 your appeals to consensus for its exclusion?
 * Boundarylayer (talk) 19:55, 9 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Agree with Toa Nidhiki05, GoneIn60 and Alaney2k's reverts to Boundarylayer's edits. This is not summarizing. It's simply chopping. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:59, 9 January 2018 (UTC)


 * ...Why didn't you reply to the editorial matter at hand? We were discussing the petition Flyer22 Reborn, though if you wish to discuss the conspiracy theory that needs to be chopped, then I started a discussion on that below. Here however, can you give your comment on the petition? Could you specifically cite a editorial rationale for censoring the petition that received close to 100,000 signatures? Thanks.
 * Boundarylayer (talk) 20:12, 9 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I think it is somewhat extraordinary to set up a petition like this. This is sort of the opposite of what went on with Firefly (TV series). It's worth a sentence, but I think, again, that we have to be concerned that the count is valid. Alaney2k (talk) 23:30, 9 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's extraordinary at all. Petitions against film studios do crop up all the time and are quite commonplace. Take a recent one to get Zack Snyder's Director's Cut released for Justice League. 160,000+ signatures and counting. Nope, not mentioned at all in the Wikipedia article. Even ridiculous petitions such as this one to shut down Rotten Tomatoes gets 22,000 signatures. That last example has nothing to do with film studios of course, but the point is that if something as insignificant as this can get into the thousands, we need to look past the numbers. The final nail in the coffin might be Henry Walsh's comments here. The petition was practically a joke to begin with. --GoneIn60 (talk) 03:13, 10 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Oh, and let's not overlook the fact that links to Change.org have been blacklisted from Wikipedia. Another reason to steer clear. --GoneIn60 (talk) 03:20, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Chopping/axing of conspiracy theories please
As it stands now again, this draft meanders into la-la land with conspiracy theories about an alt-right campaign, talk of another movie, Thor and in sum, presents a whole lot of unsubstantiated fluff. In reality, as already mentioned in the following section: Talk:Star_Wars:_The_Last_Jedi.

If there had been any wide-scale review fraud, then Rotten Tomatoes would have detected it. They issued an authoritative response to this tenuously connected conspiracy theory and said...drum roll... it holds no water, therefore WP:UNDUE applies. We therefore need to remove the absolutely tenuous and conspiratorial nonsense that is clearly based on nothing but a whole lot of apophenia and perhaps also, making mountains out of mole hills. As again, Rotten Tomatoes are the ultimate arbiters on if there had been "vote stuffing" or whatever other notion some editors here, have in their heads.

''The legitimacy of the low user-reported reviews for the film on Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic has been contested. In response to tampering claims, Rotten Tomatoes released a statement that their security teams did not detect any unusual activity aside from a noticeable "uptick in the number of written user reviews submitted" on The Last Jedi. '' Boundarylayer (talk) 20:10, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * This is not how encyclopedias work. We present multiple points of view, and the fact Rotten Tomatoes says there is no issue doesn't mean there isn't one and doesn't invalidate concerns that led them to comment. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 20:22, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * RT saying there was no security breach does not mean that people did not stack the results. It is sort of like "was the right question asked"? These are not conspiracy theories. This whole draft section is trying to summarize based on reporting, aka reliable sources. We can't eliminate one specific section of reporting. That's not fair. Alaney2k (talk) 23:25, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * @Boundarylayer: This is another fundamental misunderstanding of what's being stated and how Wikipedia policies apply. The statement(s) you are contesting should remain. --GoneIn60 (talk) 03:31, 10 January 2018 (UTC)


 * The understanding from WP:SUMMARY and WP:DUE are that you do not descend into giving a massive amount of text to what amounts to conspiratorial rumor. Especially when that rumor meanders on-and-on mentioning another movie and then ultimately gets slapped down as absolute nonsense by an authoritiative body. So GoneIn60 you do therefore appear to have a fundamental lack of knowledge on policy, if you genuinely consider that long-conspiracy-paragraph as totally A-Ok. Just summarize the whole thing The legitimacy of the low user-reported reviews for the film on Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic has been contested. Full stop. Don't go on-and-on about a WP:FRINGE theory.
 * Boundarylayer (talk) 18:34, 10 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Being a controversial and speculative subject does not mean it automatically violates WP:DUE. What you are calling "conspiratorial rumor" is being presented as an observation, not as conclusive evidence, and therefore we leave it up to the reader to dig further and draw their own conclusions. Furthermore, the information has received significant coverage in a healthy amount of reliable sources, so summarizing it in a few sentences is very much in line with WP:DUE and wouldn't be considered "a massive amount of text". You might be able to argue the need for fewer sentences (or shorter ones), but removing the content altogether is counterproductive at this point. --GoneIn60 (talk) 10:56, 11 January 2018 (UTC)


 * That's not usually how these types articles are edited, however. For pages about things such as 9/11 or the JFK assassination there's reason to have a section dedicated to odd theories about the events, but this is merely a movie. I think it's time to admit a lot of people just didn't like the film, there are tons of reasons the cinema surveys could be different from the online scores; different audiences in different nations; the surveys were mostly in the United States, audiences outside of big cities; the surveys were mostly conducted in places like LA and NYC, the sample size online was much larger, people illegally watching the movie online also rating, people watching the movie after its opening week; the surveys were almost entirely conducted in the first few days. These are all things the surveys don't account for, there's no need for fringe theories. Just read the Indiewire article cited, there's absolutely NO evidence presented beyond Down With Disney claiming they did it, it flies in the fact of RT themselves confirming the score is legitimate; just because somebody wrote about something doesn't mean it's true or a valid citation. Things as trivial as this don't need "both sides of the story" when the other side is mostly upset fanboys trying to convince everybody a massive conspiracy is going on to suppress a movie's online rating, otherwise you get WP:FALSEBALANCE. 51.37.58.197 (talk) 06:02, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

It's absolutely atrocious piece of WP:FRINGE that is getting WP:UNDUE. GoneIn60. Rotten Tomatoes vice president Jeff Voris explained the company’s theory to HuffPost: (the moderator of the facebook group "Down With Disney"), is retroactively finding “evidence” he can use to claim that he’s responsible for the negative “Last Jedi” reviews.

[https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/rotten-tomatoes-last-jedi-ratings-bots_us_5a38cb78e4b0860bf4aab5b1?jqf “These things happen from time to time where somebody opportunistically seizes on a moment and says, ‘Oh, that thing? Yeah, I did that,’” Voris said.'']

There is therefore, absolutely no real evidence for this alt-right conspiracy theory. A group that is well known for pranks and "claiming we haz skillz". Should not be given any WP:WEIGHT. When again, there is literally zero evidence for their claim. Just specious nonsense.

Boundarylayer (talk) 01:52, 13 January 2018 (UTC) ___

Mark Hamill response
I'd suggest putting more emphasys on fan criticism towards Luke's character, including Mark Hamill's comments and the attention they were given by both fans and press. Two articles that mention that: The Independent and AV Club. κατάστασ η  22:12, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Hamill had some initial concerns, then he accepted Rian Johnson's direction and script. There is nothing there. Alaney2k (talk) 22:19, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * He did it on Twitter aftewards, but his concerns were still reported by news media. He also maintains that he has disagreements with Rian on the character's development. κατάστασ  η  22:23, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * If anything, this is still of no relevance to the audience response though. Alaney2k (talk) 22:35, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Good enough, lets move it into the article
Although not perfect, this draft is a good start (thanks to the efforts of everyone here!). Let's move it to the main article, in accordance with the outcome of the RfC. AfD hero (talk) 01:07, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Is adding a controversial section grounds for a semi-protection request? I do mean that seriously. Alaney2k (talk) 02:03, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't believe it justifies preemptive protection. There usually needs to be evidence first of persistent vandalism or disruptive editing. --GoneIn60 (talk) 03:33, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * @AfD hero: Thanks for the feedback. I'm happy with the current version as well. Others may want to take one last look before porting it over though. --GoneIn60 (talk) 03:41, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Opening line

 * You're correct that my last edit didn't exactly avoid the problem I was hoping to. Oops! Originally, I had "identified" in that line, but it was lost in last minute changes. Figured I'd discuss it here at this point. We could try this instead:
 * "A divide identified between critical and audience reception over The Last Jedi became a topic of debate."

We could also try:
 * "A divide that emerged between critical and audience reception over The Last Jedi became a topic of debate."

Either might work better than simply saying "The Last Jedi divided..." which sounds more like a statement of fact. A lot of real estate in the following two paragraphs is dedicated to showing how the divide has been questioned, so it seems a change is needed. Thoughts or other suggestions? --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:13, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * GoneIn60, can you explain why you reverted me? You wrote "Yes, it's needed. It shows that the reviewers noted positive and negative reaction, so we need to represent both sides", but the text you restored doesn't seem to do that. I don't understand. Popcornduff (talk) 05:34, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Check again. I undid one of those reverts right as you posted this. My apologies for the mistake. --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:36, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, at least some of this is the fault of my own confusion - trying to do too many things at once. I can't work on this right now but I'll come back to it in a few hours. Popcornduff (talk) 06:32, 10 January 2018 (UTC)


 * When it comes to "The Last Jedi divided critical and audience reception." vs. "A divide between critical and audience reception over The Last Jedi became a topic of debate.", I definitely think that the previous is better. Also, regarding this edit I reverted Sebastian James on, it makes more sense to state "The Last Jedi divided critical and audience reception." than to state "The Last Jedi divided audience reception." The sources are stating that reception is divided between critical and audience response, or specifically critical and fan response; they mostly are not focused on viewers vs. viewers. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:07, 10 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the feedback, Flyer22. The lingering concern for me is that we know – from reading the rest of the section – that reasonable doubt has been cast on whether the low RT and MC scores are legit, and that they might have been gamed or hacked. The amount of backlash from fans has has also been questioned. Although we know the type of issues they had with the movie, we begin to wonder by the end of the section if all the negative controversy is really being pushed by a small minority of viewers. It's a reasonable conclusion to draw at the end. Therefore, to say the film "divided" something only to be told later that the divide may not be legit, seems like confusing introduction that doesn't match its body.The examples I listed above may not be the best solutions, but it still seems like something with that line needs to change. Any further thoughts on that, or are you convinced it's fine? --GoneIn60 (talk) 22:12, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm convinced that it's fine. There are a number of reliable sources that have called the film divisive, with some calling it the most divisive Stars Wars film. That it may be that only fans rather than the general audience are upset by the film does not negate that divide. We could, however, change the line to "The Last Jedi has been polarizing among audiences." Or "The Last Jedi has polarized audiences." By "audiences," I am considering the fans, general audience, and critics...since "polarize" means "to break up into opposing factions or groupings." Some sources restrict "polarize" to mean "two sides that are so different" (or similar wording). But these are two different sides. We have the fans and then we have the general audience/critics, which count as one side since they are in general agreement. We could also change it to "The Last Jedi has been divisive among audiences." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:19, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I think you'll find later on that this opening line might be the most contentious part once we release it to the wild, since there are sources cited in this same section that disagree with the statement (CinemaScore, PostTrak, SurveyMonkey, etc.). I do like "The Last Jedi has been divisive among audiences" more than "The Last Jedi divided critical and audience reception" if it's any consolation, however. --GoneIn60 (talk) 10:36, 11 January 2018 (UTC)


 * CinemaScore, PostTrak, SurveyMonkey aren't really disagreeing with the statement; they simply indicate that the general audience liked the film. But like I stated above, "We have the fans and then we have the general audience/critics, which count as one side since they are in general agreement." There is one side that is satisfied with the film (critics/general audience) and another side that is not. Let's go with "The Last Jedi has been divisive among audiences." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:38, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

GoneIn60, re your edit summary reverting my rewrite: "Way too drastic, and please keep in mind that a lot of editors have invested their time on this. Subtle small changes at a time are preferred."

In my view the draft we had needed to be mostly rewritten, so that's what I did. The alternative would have been to make the same changes over the course of about 20 minutes in a bunch of quick incremental edits, amounting to exactly the same result. That an edit is "drastic", or that it removes the work of several editors, aren't good rationales for rejecting... the best version should survive, whatever it was written by 100 or 1 people. Popcornduff (talk) 11:47, 11 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Please look at the final product, not just that single revert. I retained a good portion of the changes you proposed. However, I disagree with some of the content you removed and retained that as well. If this compromise isn't acceptable to you, then let's hash it out here. I'm willing to continue working on it either here or after we move it over to the article. Would you not agree that it's good enough to move at this point? --GoneIn60 (talk) 11:53, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * By the way, I do like some of the grammatical changes you made. While I admit it's not perfect, the draft is a lot more concise now. This is what's it's all about...getting past minor disagreements to form a better product. --GoneIn60 (talk) 12:01, 11 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I recognise that you incorporated some of my changes and that's cool - I just take exception to the logic you expressed in your revert. "Lots of people worked on this" and "this edit is scarily different" aren't good reasons to revert something. Then again, I knew it'd be contentious and I said in my own summary to feel free to revert... I just hoped there'd be a better reason for it when it inevitably came, cough cough.


 * As for the question of whether it's good enough to add to the page right now - sure, why not? I prefer to get stuff out for public consumption, where it's useful, asap, and then improve from there. Popcornduff (talk) 11:59, 11 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Glad we're able to find some middle ground, and no I admit it wasn't the best edit summary that I left on that revert. There was too much to try to cram in 250 characters! In the last section below, I think we're just waiting for someone to pull the switch. Maybe another 24-48 hours sounds reasonable. --GoneIn60 (talk) 12:05, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Regarding this vs. this, I prefer the latter version, especially when it comes to the last paragraph, but I appreciate Popcornduff's edits that were incorporated into the latter version and Popcornduff trying to get rid of the Screen Rant piece, which as noted in the section below, is viewed as floundering. All I ask is that we keep "had expected her to be Luke's daughter" since the main hope for Rey's parentage, as made clear in her Wikipedia article, is that she would be Luke's daughter. Some sources, such as this IGN source used in the draft, are clear that it's still not accepted that Rey is a nobody. Critics are skeptical that she is a nobody as well (also made clear in Rey's Wikipedia article). I also changed "saw the film as too progressive, disliking its humor, plot, and character arcs, and felt betrayed that it ignored fan theories" to "saw the film as too progressive, disliked its humor, plot, or character arcs, or felt betrayed that it ignored fan theories." I changed it by using "or" since the original wording separated the aspects and since "too progressive" does not automatically equate to disliking its humor and so on. And, really, many fans felt that the film had too many jokes; it was not solely about disliking its humor unless "disliking its humor" covers "too many jokes" as well. In Popcornduff's version, "excessive humor" was included.


 * As for putting the content in the main article, we are going to get POV-pushers tampering with it, and editors adding more to it, no doubt, but we'll have to handle that like we always handle such matters. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:38, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Appreciate the recent tweaks you made. As for "disliking its humor", I think it encapsulates what the source is saying just fine. The subheading in the source is "The jokes are too jokey", which focuses on the type of humor, not the amount. The author does say "And there are a lot of jokes", but that is taken out of context if you're looking at that in a vacuum. This was his opinion and not necessarily one that fans shared. Does that help, or are you referring to a different source? --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:39, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I haven't looked for reliable sources that state that the jokes were excessive, but I suspect that some exist. I've seen some YouTube videos complaining about the humor being excessive. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:48, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Alaney2k posted the draft in the talk page. Erik took issue with the opening line. Erik, see above. How is the opening line WP:Undue, given the sources on this matter? The "divisive" aspect is not simply about polling. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:45, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Since controlled polling shows that audiences had a positive reaction to the film, it is a false balance to elevate the minority view (solely derived from uncontrolled polling) to be on the same level and eradicate the significant viewpoint that there was an overall positive reaction. The first paragraph needs to be completely focused on the reliable metrics that we have. The user-score matter can be unpacked in the second paragraph. I'm appalled that this "equal validity" is being approved at all. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 17:01, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Erik, I respect WP:False balance very much, but I disagree. We have numerous reliable sources stating that the film has been divisive. And by the very definition of divisive, it has been. Even if the fans who dislike the film are a significant minority, the media is not treating them like a significant minority. And as you know, the fan discontent is not simply about the polling. The "divisive" sentence is meant to refer to the overall reception, not just to the poll aspects. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:10, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Final impression
I've read through the draft multiple times, and while it's very well put together, here is my final impression: While I agree that every point of view should be addressed in this section, I feel that this draft for audience response more reads like a defense of the positive reception, and not a presentation of the actual audience response. It also feels like the only big criticism of the movie comes down to fan theories not being realized the way fans wanted. I feel this is wrong on multiple leves; while the section as of now mentions other criticism (such as overuse of humor) for the most part it seems the fan theories is presented as the main criticism - all the negative reviews I've seen for this movie goes into much more detail than this. Therefore this is a skewed impression, and just a typical example of professional critics trying to ridicule the audience reception as simply being a bunch of fans whose theories didn't turn out to be true. Jonipoon (talk) 11:15, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * For example, the last line of this draft "The unpredictability of the plot was appreciated by critics such as Alex Leadbeater of Screen Rant, who commented specifically that the death of Snoke was "the best movie twist in years" is a typical example of 'defense of the positive reception. I feel this sort of stuff shouldn't be included in a section about criticism. Jonipoon (talk) 11:18, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The problem here is that fan reception was not universally or mostly negative. Either we include both sides or we include none. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 15:43, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The positive response to the movie is overwhelming. If the negative response is under-supported in this text it's because proportionately it's small and many of the complaints are trivial. Alaney2k (talk) 15:46, 10 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I agree with Jonipoon about noticing a sentiment of defending the positive reception that runs throughout this draft. I would even go so far to raise the possibility that perhaps there are editors here with a Conflict of interest, who continuously push this positive slant that you bring up. As I had likewise previously noticed this issue you have and then attempted to re-word that exact offending sentence but as expected it was reverted back to the problematic format that you, another independent editor, see. I wrote -
 * A preceived "unpredictability" of the plot was appreciated by some critics, such as Alex Leadbeater of Screen Rant, who opined that the death of Snoke was "the best movie twist in years".


 * Boundarylayer (talk)
 * I don't think the part with Alex Leadbeater from Screen Rant should be included at all. The section is about what the audience thinks, not the critics. The section as of now is still written through the perspective of critics. Jonipoon (talk) 20:12, 10 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Jonipoon, similar arguments that the section should focus on audience response have been made in the section above. I also questioned including the Screen Rant piece, but I felt that GoneIn60 blended it in nicely. The section is mainly about what the audience thought. Having such a section doesn't mean that we shouldn't include reviewer analysis of the fan discontent. And, indeed, some of the reviewers have agreed that some of the fans have made valid points. The fan complaints are mainly about fan theories not being fulfilled and character arcs (like Luke and Snoke's) not going the way fans felt they should have.


 * Boundarylayer, GoneIn60 and I are two editors who voted "yes" to including fan discontent with the film. I'm certainly not biased toward positive reception to the film. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:14, 10 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I mostly agree with you (Boundarylayer) and Jonipoon, but I also think we should assume good faith about our fellow editors. From my reading of the secondary sources, the plot points mentioned represent only one of many complaints about the film. Also, although I'm not a-priori against including some limited critical commentary in this section, I do agree that the quote about Snoke's death creates a strange tone and sounds defensive. But these are small issues that will work themselves out over time, and I support merging this section into the main article at this point. AfD hero (talk) 20:40, 10 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment – Jonipoon brings up some valid concerns about balance, but taking into consideration that this is just a draft, I think we want to just focus on getting it to the point we can copy it into the article. I'm sure it will change significantly in a short period of time after we move it over. More importantly, we can begin to have some of these lower-level conversations on the main article talk page, where they really need to be retained for future reference. If there's something glaringly bad (not borderline bad) with the draft, let's definitely fix them now. Perhaps suggest what changes you want to make if you feel this is the right time to make them. --GoneIn60 (talk) 22:22, 10 January 2018 (UTC)


 * But what fan criticisms are there other than the ones already mentioned in the draft? I'm speaking strictly of fan and/or general audience criticism, not criticism by reviewers. And 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. And with the exception of the Screen Rant piece (which, again, I don't mind much in its current state), I'm really satisfied with that final paragraph. I'm really satisfied with the current draft. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:19, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I hope it doesn't change too much, but it is probably time to integrate into the main article. Who pulls the switch? Alaney2k (talk) 23:47, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I hope it holds up as well, and I'm fine with pulling the switch any time. Maybe give it another 48 hours for to respond? I tend to agree with Flyer at this point that there probably isn't a whole lot we can add without removing content in the process. It's already 3 decent-sized paragraphs. --GoneIn60 (talk) 10:43, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd agree on everything except for the very last sentence, which I feel tends to overlap into critical response instead of audience response. Also I would suggest for the article to put a temporarily lock on editing for non-registered users, since we should expect vandalism from people trying to delete the Audience Response section repeatedly. Jonipoon (talk) 21:18, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not strongly opposed to its removal at this point. Does anyone else object? Speak now or forever hold your peace! ;-)You can certainly request temporary protection, but the request may get denied; they like to wait for evidence. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:54, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I like it as an ending to the section, but it doesn't need to be that exact sentence. Granzymes (talk) 22:03, 11 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I disagree with the last sentence as well. It's obviously meant for the critical response. Can we just shift into the critical response section? Appears not as it's not even a full review. Still seems inappropriate. starship.paint ~  KO   03:11, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * We should go ahead and remove it then. It and other reviewers' opinions on Snoke's role in the film, including his death, can go in the Critical response section. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:19, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * In this context, the person is not a critic. The website's review is on a different web page. The comment has some context in this section. Alaney2k (talk) 19:48, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * He is reviewing matters concerning the film. In this context, he is a reviewer. And as made clear in previous MOS:FILM discussions and a recent one, the Critical response section is not solely for professional critics. The point is that we have more editors than not who are either fine with the piece being removed or want it removed, and the piece can easily go in the Critical response section where one or more reviewers commenting on Snoke should probably be added so that the piece fits better in that section. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:42, 12 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Also, there can be more than one reviewer from a website. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:48, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I've moved it to the main article. Alaney2k (talk) 21:01, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I saw. Thanks for that, Alaney2k. It looks like we can go ahead move the draft to the main page. This section currently reflects consensus. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:46, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

FallingGravity, do you mind discussing changes like this? As seen above, editors were pretty much in agreement that the current draft is fine and we were gearing up to put the draft in the main article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:28, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * For one thing, I was trying to address 's concerns about giving too much weight to aFRINGE claim from the alt-right. In the edit you mentioned, both Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic's user scores were mixed, so I think it's better to say that. Plus, the Rotten Tomatoes user score has an Average Rating of 3/5, something not conveyed by the previous text. FallingGravity 23:54, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Regarding that edit, I think it's better to keep the direct user score data in the first paragraph, which begins with a topic sentence noting that the film has been divisive among audiences, or to place the "However, the film got a more mixed reception in the user-generated review sections of Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic." sentence you added in that first paragraph. I don't like the idea of it being in the second paragraph and the paragraph beginning with "However." I also don't think it's for us to state "a more mixed reception" unless the sources do. I think that the second paragraph should focus solely on the speculation regarding the user scores. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:05, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

It's still an absolutely atrocious piece of WP:FRINGE that is getting WP:UNDUE. FallingGravity. Rotten Tomatoes vice president Jeff Voris explained the company’s theory to HuffPost: (the moderator of the facebook group "Down With Disney"), is retroactively finding “evidence” he can use to claim that he’s responsible for the negative “Last Jedi” reviews.

[https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/rotten-tomatoes-last-jedi-ratings-bots_us_5a38cb78e4b0860bf4aab5b1?jqf “These things happen from time to time where somebody opportunistically seizes on a moment and says, ‘Oh, that thing? Yeah, I did that,’” Voris said.'']

&

[https://www.forbes.com/sites/robcain/2017/12/20/rotten-tomatoes-confirms-its-55-last-jedi-audience-score-is-100-authentic/#4224afa34231 One widely circulated story about an anonymous individual who runs the Facebook page “Down With Disney’s Treatment of Franchises and its Fanboys” claims that this person created bots to manipulate the Rotten Tomatoes score. But Benson and other company reps I spoke to dismissed such claims as nonsense. Although anyone can post whatever they want on the site in the effort to drive ratings either up or down, Rotten Tomatoes has nearly two decades experience at identifying and controlling for such efforts to push the scores in one direction or another.]

There is therefore, absolutely no real evidence for this alt-right conspiracy theory. A group that is well known for pranks and "claiming we haz skillz". Should not be given any WP:WEIGHT. When again, there is literally zero evidence for their claim. Just specious nonsense.

Lastly, I find it especially curious why the "A rating and the 89%" ratings are within the draft yet the scores on Rotten Tomatoes and metacritic go totally unmentioned, ~50% and whatever the metacritic number is. This is really something User:Falling Gravity and myself have noticed and indeed harks back to the general systematic biasing that Jonipoon and I see, the draft consistently being formulated towards. Boundarylayer (talk) 01:48, 13 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Boundarylayer, as others have told you, what we have included is WP:Due. The alt-right mention isn't even there at the moment; this is because Falling Gravity removed it. And as for the user rating scores no longer being there, Falling Gravity removed that too. I stated above (in response to FallingGravity) that I think we should retain that. And Jonipoon noted above that he was ready to implement the draft, except for the Screen Rant piece, which was removed by Alaney2k. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:23, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I strongly object to the removal of the alt-right mention. This group's claim was notably mentioned in multiple sources and is just as worthy of inclusion as miscellaneous fan complaints from a single source. Like it or not, the claim is one of the reasons RT was pressed into a reply. There is no reason to remove it. It's not a conspiracy theory, it's a claim of hacking from an internet group - a claim that warranted a rebuttal from the organization itself.
 * I also object to Boundary's claim of bias. There is a very fair mix of people who both wanted and did not want a section here (myself in the latter) who are working. Boundary needs to assume good faith of his fellow editors rather than accuse us of bias. It is also concerning that his edits here have been generally disruptive, chopping out entire sections and removing reliably sourced content. I think Boundary needs to calm down and rethink what he is doing here. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 02:58, 13 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I strongly reject the removal of the exact RT and Metacritic scores. If they are notable enough to warrant mention of gaming, then they are notable enough to state their exact scores. starship.paint ~  KO   02:52, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Sometimes you have to see the proposed result to evaluate it. I am ok with leaving out the alt-right group mention. No need to leave a signature that they can point to. I do think that the RT user score has been rigged. It seems very obvious to me. I've seen the movie (several times - don't ask) and I have been a SW fan since 1977 and have read lots of the EU books. After evaluating it that thoroughly, :-) I find it impossible to believe that 50% of the RT users who have seen the movie dislike it. I mean, for one thing, if the numbers keep going up then where is the negative word of mouth killing the box office? People don't go to something they are sure they will dislike. Really, it seems like a small but very vocal percentage and I would not doubt that there are personal politics involved. Anyway, the vote rigging is not just my opinion, others have that opinion and reported it. So I think it is important to retain that. The alt-right mention though, is ok to drop. Alaney2k (talk) 05:13, 13 January 2018 (UTC)


 * The "alt-right" malarkey and claims of vote-rigging of any sort is, by reliable references, clearly described as a conspiracy theory, a total WP:FRINGE. Those motivated to defend the movie have jumped upon it as a hilarious form of nebulous scape-goating. If we give it any weight, we'd essentially be giving currency to the delusions of a basement dweller from a facebook chat, who when prompted/steered into it, said had a "friend with bot skillz", it's wishful thinking on their part and anyone who believes this completely unsubstantiated, apophenia-fuelled claptrap. Though it is no surprise the lengths people will go to when their conspiracy theory is challenged. The movie can't be just bad, amongst those who felt like taking the time to write an online review, instead it had to be subject to a grand campaign of subterfuge . Likewise JFK couldn't have just got shot with 1 gun. It had to be a grand multi-pronged umbrella man wearing, highly co-ordinated attack. "Had to be!"


 * The Last Jedi's score decline may not yet be finished. Its Audience Score was in the mid-50s just three weeks ago, and has been falling steadily ever since. The Critics Rating has been dropping too. I wonder what the conspiracy theorists have to say about that.
 * Boundarylayer (talk) 10:58, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Again, I’d suggest you WP:AGF of your fellow editors rather than accuse them of bias. Ironically, your extremely uncharitable comments here actually make it seem like you are the one with a bias here. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 16:04, 13 January 2018 (UTC)


 * It's basically straight-forward. If nearly everyone else who has seen the film, describe it as good, and you don't, you should examine your own opinions. If you dislike the story, that's understandable. You don't like it. But that doesn't make it bad. When there is evidence, like the extreme number of added reviews, like the reviews posted in the wrong film's user reviews section, it smells like tampering, and people have noticed. If there are sources out there that clearly dismiss it as a conspiracy theory, find them, then we can add. The complaint is about two sentences in a Wikipedia article, that's all. There is basically consensus about the current content. I'd say it is time to add. Some complaints will never be resolved with suggested compromise. The main point of the discussion in the talk of the main page was to include a section. It's ready. Alaney2k (talk) 19:05, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Bleeding Cool News
Is this source reliable as quoted in the text? It's not even "Bleeding Cool News" anyway. It's just Bleeding Cool. https://www.bleedingcool.com/2017/12/17/manipulated-audience-score-last-jedi/ starship.paint ~  KO   02:49, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Bleeding Cool and Quartz are both cited, with the latter referencing the former's findings. They both have Wikipedia articles, but I admit, I've never used either one as a source before. Does anyone else know if they're generally considered reliable? I didn't see anything at either site that would lead me to believe otherwise.As for Bleeding Cool News, that's the title used in the Quartz article. We may need to drop News. --GoneIn60 (talk) 12:03, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * For the purposes of this article, the reference is fine. Alaney2k (talk) 14:31, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Quartz has definetely been used in WP articles before, and if Quartz cites Bleeding Cool (which, as is mentioned, has its own WP page), I'd agree with that this is a good reference for this article. J.M.Ike (talk) 03:22, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Alright. starship.paint ~  KO   06:46, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

There is more discussion going on in the section above. 17:10, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

The draft section is still in draft space
The draft of the section is still at Draft:Star Wars Last Jedi audience response. I only moved the talk page, so as to preserve it and its editing history. I have requested that this talk page be moved back to Draft talk. Alaney2k (talk) 17:16, 14 January 2018 (UTC)