Talk:Star Wars: The Last Jedi/Archive audience response: Difference between revisions

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)[reply]

Those plot choices were also discussed positively on the net. See this link. Alaney2k (talk) 15:55, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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."^[1] An alt-right Facebook group claimed to have manipulated the user score on Rotten Tomatoes,^[2] alleging a perceived feminist bias in the film as the motive.^[3] 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."^[4] HuffPost reported instances of positive and negative reviews of the Star Wars film appearing in the user reviews section for The Shape of Water.^[3]

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^[5] as well as noting that some reviews seemingly intended for The Last Jedi were instead posted on the pages for other films.^[3] 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.^[6]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Antinoos69: 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Toa Nidhiki05: I went ahead and instituted some of your proposed changes which were very useful. Thank you. --GoneIn60 (talk) 12:22, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.^[1][2]

The Petition has close to 100,000 signatures as of writing Nidhiki05. 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)[reply]

(edit conflict) 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

...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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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#Change.org_petition.

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.^[3][4][5][6] 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.^[7] Boundarylayer (talk) 20:10, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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. Toa Nidhiki05 20:22, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.

“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)[reply]

The context is being misunderstood. The negative user ratings on RT and MC directly contradicted scores from more reliable outlets – CinemaScore, PostTrak, SurveyMonkey. This contradiction was highly scrutinized by reliable sources. We are simply including that controversy and maintaining a neutral point of view in the process. You may think that including the alt-right claim, for example, is akin to giving undue weight to a fringe theory, but you are mistaken. Out of all the possible explanations that sources give for the low scores, the most prominent example that entered the national conversation is the alt-right claim. Plenty of sources pick it apart, sure, but that's not the point. The fact that it received widespread national attention gives it the prominence required to be included on Wikipedia. And the fact that it was the claim that was cited the most means that it clearly doesn't violate WP:FRINGE. Remember, we are labeling it as a "claim" and nothing more. Content on Wikipedia should be an accurate reflection of what exists in reliable sources, and that's exactly what we're doing here. Do not allow personal opinions to get in the way of its inclusion. --GoneIn60 (talk) 06:02, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

___

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. κατάσταση 22:12, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. κατάσταση 22:23, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If anything, this is still of no relevance to the audience response though. Alaney2k (talk) 22:35, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

• Is adding a controversial section grounds for a semi-protection request? I do mean that seriously. Alaney2k (talk) 02:03, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

Popcornduff: 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Popcornduff: 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 #Final impression 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:01, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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) 17:15, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is no context given in stating what the divisiveness is about. It's immediately contradicted by the following sentences about polling. The opening sentence should be based on these reliable metrics per WP:SUBSTANTIATE: "Avoid the temptation to rephrase biased or opinion statements with weasel words... an exception is a situation where a phrase such as 'Most people think' can be supported by a reliable source, such as in the reporting of a survey of opinions within the group." We can and should say that the audience received the film positively. That is the verifiable truth. The user-score matter is clearly contentious, and we need to attribute who is saying that there was a "divisive" reaction and why. Not roll the opining without attribution to supersede the polling, which is the stronger viewpoint determinant. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:27, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Erik, look at the numerous reliable sources stating that the film is divisive. That is what I am talking about and am going by. It's not just passing mentions either. It's sources analyzing the divisiveness. It is entirely WP:Due to call the film divisive. To give WP:In-text attribution to that aspect is misleading per WP:In-text attribution. It makes it seem like only one or a few reviewers have called the film divisive, when, in reality, many reviewers have. The "official" polls only show what they show, and do not speak for the audience reception as a whole. It's not a contradiction to show that one side is one way and the other side is another. It's presenting both sides. And in this case, I do believe we have presented both sides with due weight. Despite the polling that you want us to give more weight to, there is all this analysis on the film being divisive. The overwhelming majority of the literature is not giving more weight to these polls when reporting on audience reception. An IP also made some points about the polling. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:38, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:POISONOUSFRUIT. If the reliable sources are deriving the consensus from the user scores without scrutiny, and we know that user scores are unreliable sources, then they don't warrant inclusion. We don't put in user scores in general even if a reliable source says that along with the critics score, and sometimes they do mention both in the same breath. We disqualify one and acknowledge the other. The sources that identify the user scores and recognize what we know, that such scores are subject to manipulation, warrant inclusion. If we are to use the ignorant sources' commentary at all, it should come after the proper dissection of how user scores work. It should not be upfront to present "false validity". Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:46, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Erik, per what I've argued above, I still disagree. I do not see that the reliable sources are deriving the consensus from the user scores without scrutiny. And, again, this is not simply about user scores. Reviewers have analyzed specific audience complaints, with a number of them finding validity in the complaints. I think we are appropriately following WP:Due weight. That stated, GoneIn60 did suggest alternative wording above and has not been back online since the 12th. I suggest that we wait for GoneIn60 and others to weigh in. As you likely saw, I left a note in the #Final impression section below about discussion still going on in this section. I can also ping involved editors (the ones who have worked on the draft, and Jonipoon as well) to this section if doing so is needed for more input. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:58, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

IMO Erik is correct here. We have reliable metrics indicating audiences liked the film and on the other side online, unscientific user scores and opinion pieces perceiving a more divisive reception. Proper weighting within the industry and in our policy would be to weigh the scientific scores higher, then mention the user scores and perception - real or not - of controversy. Toa Nidhiki05 18:20, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion has remained consistent; so I'm aware of it. But thanks for commenting so that we can resolve this. Again, in my opinion, the correct thing to do here is to follow WP:Due weight (although, yes, I know we are disagreeing on WP:Due weight). It is not for us to question that due weight by dismissing it as giving unnecessary attention to a portion of the audience disliking the film. To not include the "divisive" aspect would be a significant/glaring omission. And to only give it acknowledgment via some "According to" wording would be a misuse of WP:In-text attribution. Since when do the audience polls get more weight than the commentary from reviewers/critics? I've never known that to be the case, not even in our Audience response sections. We may at times focus more on audience views, but their views themselves are not what following WP:Due weight is about. Covering their views depends on the coverage of the media/literature. And, in this case, the media is very much focused on the disgruntled fans. Even if we remove mention of the user scores, which some editors working on the draft have disagreed with doing, we should note the "divisive" aspect. We certainly have more than enough reliable sources commenting on why the film is divisive and how it became the most divisive Stars Wars film or the most divisive Stars Wars film since The Empire Strikes Back. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:46, 14 January 2018 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:57, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It also appears that you are suggesting rearrangement rather than complete removal of the user scores. I could be open to that. But, yeah, I'm waiting for others to weigh in. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:05, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I support including user scores only because there has been so much debate about them, but they still need to be recognized for what they are. Some sources do that, and that needs to be highlighted upfront. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:15, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We already give due weight to the view that the user scores were manipulated, but that's all that is -- a view. There is no solid proof on the matter. And, also per due, we note that Rotten Tomatoes states that the user scores are legitimate. If you mean including a bit on user scores being weaker, and having that in that first paragraph, I would not be opposed to that if the sources are about the film. But I still object to removing the "divisive" aspect. Also, it's been challenging crafting a section that everyone on this talk page agrees with. So we have compromised and such. It's why I was pleased when we finally reached consensus. While I would not oppose including what you suggest, I do think others might. There was already the view in the #Final impression section below that the draft was doing too much to discredit the disgruntled fans. We worked on the draft a little more after that and reached consensus, although there was still one editor opposing. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:31, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Flyer22 Reborn: Now didn't I warn that the opening line was going to be divisive (pun intended)! ;-)

I still believe that there's a better way to rephrase it without taking sides. As it stands now, we seem to be confirming that a significant divide exists in the opening line, but in reality, we just don't know how significant that divide really is. What if we discovered tomorrow, for example, that only 10% of audiences were truly disgruntled? Would the divide still exist? Yes. Would it be considered significant? Probably not. So despite a significant mention about the divide, we truly don't know how steep of one it really is. The opening line should be more carefully worded in my opinion. Otherwise, this is going to become a point of contention for months to come. If two seasoned editors disagree on what this line is saying, imagine what will happen when you introduce thousands of inexperienced! --GoneIn60 (talk) 07:25, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• How would you be able to discover "that only 10% of audiences were truly disgruntled"? I don't think it's possible to ever truly find out. starship.paint ~ KO 13:28, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It was a hypothetical to illustrate a point. Although we don't know the exact percentage, the point is that a low percentage is certainly plausible. We shouldn't assume that the percentage is high, which is what the opening line implies now. A careful rephrasing of the opening line is therefore in order. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:04, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Reliable sources consider the film divisive/polarising due to the RT/Meta ratings. We are merely reflecting that. Don't see anything wrong with the opening line. starship.paint ~ KO 00:58, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I've added three sources (#4, 5 and 6) saying it's divisive or polarizing without mentioning RT/Meta ratings. starship.paint ~ KO 01:37, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate the efforts here, Starship, but we need to avoid WP:CITEKILL when possible. The most prominent two or three (or possibly four) should be plenty, assuming that consensus decides to retain the opening line. --GoneIn60 (talk) 07:25, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GoneIn60, there are going to be editors who disagree with one or more parts of the draft. As stated by Alaney2k in the "Final impression" discussion below, it's not going to please everyone. And like I stated in that discussion, there will be POV-pushers on either side changing the section. The section will be contentious for as long as it exists. As for "we seem to be confirming that a significant divide exists in the opening line," the abundance of reliable sources on this matter treat the divide as significant. The word significant obviously does not mean that the divide is 50/50 or close to it, and I don't see why it should be interpreted that way. And it is not like we are stating "significant divide." We are stating "divisive" per numerous reliable sources stating the same thing. In reality, we should be including some of that analysis in the draft. But since we are trying to be conservative with how we cover this issue, "divisive" is good enough. As for Starship.paint's citation overkill, I will bundle the sources and add more to the bundle. I'm thinking of stopping at eight references for the line. Bundling is one of the remedies mentioned by WP:CITEKILL. We could also change the line to "Reviewers have characterized The Last Jedi as divisive among audiences." or something similar, as long as we don't use "some" or name reviewers in the text, which will imply that just a few reviewers have stated this. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:05, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An opening line to the effect of - "Reviewers have characterized The Last Jedi as divisive among audiences" is accurate Flyer22 Reborn.

Boundarylayer (talk) 22:52, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Supported and implemented. starship.paint ~ KO 00:17, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As seen with this edit, I removed "have," added the WP:CITEBUNDLE and a WP:Hidden note about not adding "some" in front of the sentence. I've left the citations at six for now instead of adding more. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:02, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like an improvement and possibly the resolution to the last major roadblock. Erik, follow-up thoughts? Anyone see a reason why it's not ready to be moved into the article mainspace at this point? I'm willing to drop the alt-right concern for now. --GoneIn60 (talk) 03:25, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:POISONOUSFRUIT still applies. "Divisive" continues to be misleading because the controlled polls, the only appropriate way to reliably gauge audience reaction, do not indicate that. There is a world of difference between saying the film divided audiences and saying that an immeasurable number of them found the film highly problematic. The proper flow of this section is to prioritize the controlled polls and all commentary focused on them in the first paragraph. In addition, anything that properly samples that positive audience reaction, especially to ensure that the commentary about negative critiques do not get undue weight. The second paragraph should report the user scores and the proper critiques of them as they have been mentioned with this film. (And perhaps "see also" links to wherever user scores have been critiqued in general, e.g., vote brigading.) Then we can explore the commentary of a so-called divisiveness after we have established that the user scores are not reliable gauges. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:31, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:POISONOUSFRUIT is an essay, something you likely knew I would point out. It is not a policy or a guideline. And that WP:POISONOUSFRUIT applies is your interpretation. WP:Due is a policy and WP:In-text attribution is a guideline. Those two things are what we should be following in this case per what I stated above. When keeping WP:Due weight in mind, I reiterate that the overwhelming majority of reliable sources on audience response are focused more on a portion of the viewers being upset by the film. You are arguing that we should ignore that because "controlled polls [are] the only appropriate way to reliably gauge audience reaction." The sources generally are not speaking of CinemaScore, SurveyMonkey and PostTrak. Neither are they solely focusing on user scores. And it is not for us to state, "Well, screw the sources; they have it wrong." There is no policy or guideline-based reason to remove "divisive," or to not specifically attribute "divisive" to "reviewers," or to not have it be the first sentence. Using "Reviewers characterized" is appropriate WP:In-text attribution if we are to use in-text attribution at all. I would hate to think we need yet another RfC, this time about "divisive." I have offered a solid compromise by suggesting "reviewers characterized." I suggest we use it and move on since not everyone is going to be 100% happy with the draft. As another compromise, we could move the "Reviewers characterized The Last Jedi as divisive among audiencew." piece to the beginning of the third paragraph, although I prefer it in the first paragraph. If we do move it to the third paragraph, the words "The Last Jedi" should be replaced with the words "the film" for flow.

As for your organization suggestion, again, it makes more sense to me to begin by stating that the film has been divisive, like so many reliable sources do. What you are suggesting is that we have the first paragraph present only the positive information, have the second paragraph include the user scores and commentary on them, and the last paragraph be specifically about why fans are disgruntled. I'm not completely sure how I feel about that setup, but I know that I don't prefer it. Pinging Jonipoon and AfD hero for their thoughts since Jonipoon started the "Final impression" section below and since Toa Nidhiki05, Starship.paint and Boundarylayer have already weighed in above. Also pinging Popcornduff since Popcornduff has significantly contributed to this discussion. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:34, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry guys, but I'm staying out of this project for the time being - too many cooks. But you're doing good work and feel free to ping me any time. My only comment would be, as ever, to remind everyone of the importance of clear and direct writing... "Reviewers characterized The Last Jedi as divisive among audiences" is a clunker. Popcornduff (talk) 03:25, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The problem here is that fan reception was not universally or mostly negative. Either we include both sides or we include none. Toa Nidhiki05 15:43, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Jonipoon, similar arguments that the section should focus on audience response have been made in the #Fan theories and fan expectations 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I hope it holds up as well, and I'm fine with pulling the switch any time. Maybe give it another 48 hours for Jonipoon 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Also, there can be more than one reviewer from a website. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:48, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved it to the main article. Alaney2k (talk) 21:01, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

For the purposes of this article, the reference is fine. Alaney2k (talk) 14:31, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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 Alaney2k that this is a good reference for this article. J.M.Ike (talk) 03:22, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Alright. starship.paint ~ KO 06:46, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

@Flyer22 Reborn: For one thing, I was trying to address Boundarylayer'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. ^Falling_Gravity 23:54, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. Toa Nidhiki05 02:58, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. Toa Nidhiki05 16:04, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Boundarylayer: Your point has been made and regurgitated over and over. You've plastered some of the same links and text in multiple places. This is becoming disruptive and needs to stop. If you're not here to collaborate productively, then I suggest you move on. I see you were topic-banned and blocked recently with the comments that you often insist "that you and you alone are correct". If you take a closer look at the discussions on this page, you'll notice that quite a few of us disagree on several points, but we are trying to move forward and find common ground. I suggest you take the same approach or excuse yourself. --GoneIn60 (talk) 06:55, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is more discussion going on in the #Opening line section above. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:15, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing the discussion here, as the "Opening line" section above has circled back to solely discussing the opening line. Better to keep this separated anyway.

I'm with Toa Nidhiki05 on this one and disagree with the alt-right removal by FallingGravity. See my comments here. We are merely listing the most common example supplied by reliable sources. Since it is the most common example provided, it doesn't fit in the definition of WP:FRINGE, nor is it a violation of WP:WEIGHT. I believe FallingGravity made a good-faith attempt to appease Boundarylayer's concern, but that concern appears to be in the minority at the moment. If there isn't a clear policy or guideline violation here, then it should be included. --GoneIn60 (talk) 06:55, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GoneIn60 perhaps you need reminding that whatever snide popularity nonsense you drag up is truly irrelevent, this is an encyclopedia, it is not a popularity contest where consensus wins out. WP:RS is all that matters, so when there is a conspiracy theory, regardless of how many people may think the earth is at the center of the solar system, the reliable references are what matters, not consensus. We literally have WP:RS stating the fact, that adherents to this vote-rigging claim are "conspiracy theorists". It is hence by definition WP:FRINGE, despite all the hand-waving you and others may attempt to downplay that fact. Reliable references state that it is not based in any evidence, ergo it's described as "nonsense" by the head of the company who hosts the data. So if you really feel strongly about including this "nonsense" then precisely what is your rationale for excluding the rebuttal. To use your own concerning wording, what "excuse" do you have for consistently maneuvering the presentation, to exclude the fact that this claim, is only supported by "conspiracy theorists"? Why don't you want a summary that describes this as "nonsense" in the article?

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.

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.

By the way, this news reference, Forbes, is well known for having a much higher readership and level of professional journalism than your generally comic-book focused "Bleeding Cool" news, which you seem to have a desire to present, ostensibly to give the impression of WP:DUE for this, by definition, WP:FRINGE "conspiracy theory"?

Boundarylayer (talk) 22:35, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would really suggest you stop referring to anyone who disagrees with you on this as "conspiracy theorists", your lack of good faith is not helping anything here. You've had multiple chances to do so but I hope you take this one and see this as a group effort rather than a confrontation between what you see as your side and whatever you think the other side is.

It is worth noting that the piece you say is Forbes is not their editorial; it is an opinion from a contributor. Opinion pieces are not authoritative or reliable sources of fact. Toa Nidhiki05 22:48, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Erin Mundahl is a reporter with InsideSources. If Forbes contributor Rob Cain, who actually spoke to and quotes Jeff Voris/Benson, the CEO of Rotten Tomatoes, if that is not good enough for you. Here is a quote from Mundahl's "news" editorial. - "On the whole, audiences seem to have given The Last Jedi middling reviews. Rotten Tomatoes’ low reviews have even begun to attract conspiracy theories..." Now, are you still trying to argue this isn't complete WP:FRINGE nonsense? The CEO in multiple venues I might add, is quoted as saying that there is actually zero evidence to support this vote-rigging claim. Journalists like Mundahl and Cain literally use the exact phrases "conspiracy theory" and "theorist" to those who still cling onto and promulgate that narrative. Of which by the way, are there any? Are there any sources still arguing that vote-rigging took place? Sources that continue pushing this "it was rigged" yarn, even after the clear statements of the CEO? Are there any sources? So all this, yet you argue the yarn isn't a textbook case of WP:FRINGE? ...Really?

Boundarylayer (talk) 04:18, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's unfortunate that you're WP:NOTGETTINGIT, but there's not much we can do for you at this point. Time to WP:DROPTHESTICK and move on. The rest of us have. --GoneIn60 (talk) 04:30, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm getting the impression you wish to inject a POV that lends credence to the "conspiracy theory", would you care to clarify this? Also, by speaking on the behalf of every other editor, with the phrase "the rest of us have", does that mean you think of yourself as an editorial leader? Or just that you can read everyone elses mind? Either way, that is unfortunate? Boundarylayer (talk) 06:14, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Several editors have worked on the text you are contesting, and several more weighed in on how close they feel the draft is to being finalized. While you weren't the only one expressing a concern about the alt-right comment, that statement is long gone and is no longer a topic of discussion. Now you are in the sole position of trying to remove content that others are OK with. You were bold, but your edits were ultimately reverted twice by two different editors. Needless to say, I think you know where the burden lies at this point. --GoneIn60 (talk) 06:36, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I do think it is worth preserving this talk page since matters were worked out here. Previously, when it was thought that we were done, Alaney2k decided to preserve the page by moving it to "Talk:Star Wars: The Last Jedi/Archive audience response." I'd never seen this "archive title" approach before.

What we can do is what I did with File talk:Peyton school shooting drawing.JPG and File talk:RogerHowarthToddManning2011.jpg. I had the main pages deleted, but preserved the talk pages by tagging them with Template:G8-exempt. Well, an admin tagged the Peyton Sawyer image since I expressed to him that I wanted to preserve the talk page. And I did the same thing for the Todd Manning image talk page. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:31, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's a good question. Is it acceptable to move these discussions directly into the main article's talk archive (e.g., Archive 1, Archive 2, etc.), or is that considered out of scope since technically the discussions didn't occur at Talk:Star Wars: The Last Jedi? We did publish the draft page on the article's talk page, so I'm wondering if that's the loophole we'd need to allow these in. Participation was adequately advertised IMHO. --GoneIn60 (talk) 08:12, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think moving them directly into the main article's talk archive is out of scope. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:55, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In the edit summary, User:GoneIn60 states that "Multiple discussions have led to the[SIC] this text." Yet upon checking here on the talk page it reveals, unsurprisingly, that no discussions really occurred on this quotation. Perhaps the alleged "multiple discussions" were conducted in a different forum?

The manner in which the edited paragraph is written, pushes a pretty clear POV WP:SYNTH by (1) first laying the notion of vote rigging on readers, then spending time going off on a wild tangent, by discussing the minutiae of the claims of this rigged "conspiracy theory", essentially in the middle of the paragraph, it dedicates itself to waffling about reviews on another movie, called Thor Ragnarok. As though the two movies are somehow connected? As the paragraph closes for its finale, as the proverbial cherry on the fruit cake, the paragraph ends by (2) Wholly micharacterizing the primary message of the person being quoted, a micharacterization that is done in a manner that is ostensibly designed to leave the "was it rigged"" question open to reader intrepration. An "uptick of reviews was detected"(full stop). oh dear me. Wow, gosh isn't that fishy, "an uptick".

Except, in realty, Benson follows that fact up by describing how that's pretty normal "and we don’t see any unusual activity". Though of course, readers are maneuvered away from having this certainty.

So as the paragraph is constructed to give credence to this "conspiracy theory". I was bold and made the following edits to the paragraph to remove this SYNTHy POV and better reflect what reliable sources state. Particularly to reflect what Benson was actually communicating.

The User: Toa Nidhiki05, in their revert summary said this "changes wording in ways that are not acceptable", though how exactly is it unacceptable? Benson didn't dwell on the "uptick", so why are some editors here, trying to get our readers to do so? By ending on that note?

• Several reviewers claimed that the low user scores are the result of manipulation, either by coordinated vote brigading from internet groups or from bots.^[1][2][3] The low user scores would continue to attract a number of "conspiracy theories".^[4] Which resulted in the President of Communications of Rotten Tomatoes to release the statement that "We have several teams of security, network, and social database experts who constantly monitor reviews and ratings to ensure that they are genuine...everything is normal and we don’t see any unusual activity".^[5]

Boundarylayer (talk) 06:56, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To address your "missing discussions" dilemma, you should read the "Final impression" and "Bleeding Cool News" sections above. You will find no less than eight editors weighing in positively on either the sources you are contesting, the content of the draft (which includes content you are contesting), or both. There might even be more on the rest of the page, that at some point said they were happy with the current state of the draft. Furthermore, the edit history of the draft will show multiple editors touching/reformatting/modifying the content you are contesting, but not removing it as your edit proposed. These actions imply consensus to keep.

Also, you keep creating redundant sections on this talk page, which is probably why you missed my reply earlier. Either that or you ignored it. Your unhappiness with the 2nd paragraph of the draft should all be in one section, but instead, canvassing this page is confusing to anyone trying to follow what has been said or how your argument has evolved over the past week.

And finally, your latest argument is baffling. You allege that the "uptick" comment in the quote is being cherry-picked, yet your proposed solution can be seen in the same light; you are cherry-picking what content you want to include. Since it is a long quote, it is best to summarize with only a portion of the quote, which is what that draft contains now. Your solution hides a significant part of the quote, and that is unacceptable. The uptick in activity is the only unusual thing they noticed and should be included. --GoneIn60 (talk) 07:56, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I just realized that WP:USERG hasn't been pointed out to you, and it probably should be. By default, we are skeptical of user-generated scores. They are not typically permitted on Wikipedia as the guideline cautions, simply because they are unreliable. The only reason they're being included in the SWLJ article has to do with the amount of coverage it's receiving in the media. The coverage is high, but that doesn't make the scores any more reliable. We need to keep the audience reception balanced, but with a healthy skepticism that user-generated content is not on the same level as CinemaScore or PostTrak. The media has been highly skeptical as well, so this isn't just a Wikipedia stance: it's a reflection of what reliable sources are saying as well. --GoneIn60 (talk) 08:20, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So in sum, the selection of and emphasis put on the "uptick", actually wasn't discussed at all, you're instead claiming that essentially as no one objected, then that's a form of "discussion" in of itself? Right. I see what you mean? In any event, your comment contains another major mischaracterization. "Reliable sources have in reality, not been highly skeptical[of the user score]" nor is it "a reflection of what reliable sources are saying". BleedingCool is not a particularly reliable reference, considering it spends most of its time on comic-book news. Nor is it up-to-date. Indeed the level of reliabilty of this site has been questioned, by editor starship. While on the other had, actually newer reliable news sources such as Inside Source and the CEO and spokesperson of Rotten Tomatoes itself, have described this-skepticism-as a "conspiracy theory" and "nonsense". Furthermore to ask the important question again, what references actually continue to push this-skepticism-since the statements made by the spokesperson of RT? Do you have any? The score continued to drop below the 50% mark after their statement, yet the skepticism seems to all be contained within dubious references pre the statement issued by RT. Do you have any reliable references that have continued with this-skepticism-narrative, even after the statement made by RT? Any that are UpToDate?

Boundarylayer (talk) 02:56, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]