Talk:Star Wars: The Last Jedi/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

User Generated Content

Much of the audience response section deals with Rotten Tomatoes. Given that it's WP:USERGENERATED I would argue it's practically useless for determining what people think and the article even mentions that Rotten Tomatoes admitted it was vote bombed. It could be included in a section decided to online activity in regards to how some fans reacted online. There's quite a bit of coverage surrounding vocal fans online, the vote brigading on sites such as Rotten Tomatoes, and the harassment of actors who were in the film. I just don't think user generated content deserves inclusion when specifically discussing what actual audience thought of the film. Thanks Nemov (talk) 02:52, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

I would agree with this as well; it's very clearly outdated and was drafted before the Rotten Tomatoes review bombing was even admitted by RT, let alone before the rule change on audience scores. The entire section could be trimmed to just include a mention that the film was reviewbombed on Rotten Tomatoes upon its release. My proposal:

Following its release, The Last Jedi was targeted by a review-bombing campaign on Rotten Tomatoes, Similar review-bombing campaigns were waged against films like Captain Marvel and Black Panther, and in 2019, Rotten Tomatoes would change its user review system to prioritize reviews from users confirmed to have bought a movie ticket.

Toa Nidhiki05 03:34, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

• Comment – MOS:FILMAUDIENCE existed as far back as 2013, and some form of it likely existed even longer. Same with WP:USERGENERATED, although prior to 2016, it gave examples like IMDB but did not specifically call out Rotten Tomatoes. So to be clear, there wasn't some recent guideline change that didn't exist prior to Last Jedi's release. For as long as I can remember, user ratings have always been frowned upon. However, there was an RfC that debated this and decided to allow it primarily on the grounds of WP:DUE, given the significant amount of coverage the user ratings received (link to 1st RfC). A drafting session for the Audience section soon followed, which involved a handful of editors, and then another RfC to lock it in (link to 2nd RfC). Given all the work, collaboration, and participation that went into its formation, I'd say it has a fairly strong consensus in its present form.
  And although RT eventually admitted to seeing evidence of review-bombing, we don't know the extent of what they found or how conclusive it was. And really, it doesn't matter. The details reported prior to RT's admission are still relevant, as they provide a historical narrative of the events surrounding the controversy. I don't believe they should be removed, and definitely not for the reasoning given so far. Consensus can change, sure, but a stronger argument is required. --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:20, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

  I would argue this should be reviewed again. It's already in Wikipedia guidelines that WP:USERGENERATED content is bad. In this case, it was included anyway after a debate link to 2nd RfC. Then later on Rotten Tomatoes admitted that it was vote bombed. The consensus was formed before that important piece of information came to light which I argue would have significantly changed the discussion. If it's to be included here it should be reworded precisely that user generated scores on line were targeted for vote bombing. This isn't a conspiracy theory. It has been covered[1].

  The details reported prior to RT's admission are still relevant, as they provide a historical narrative of the events surrounding the controversy.

  This isn't a controversy section. It's a section dedicated to audience reception. Wikipedia is supposed to cover this based on reliable sources. This section presents an even handed approach that puts scientific, industry sources against WP:USERGENERATED sources. If Rotten Tomatoes and other easily manipulated data is going to be included then it needs to be clearer that in the case of The Last Jedi that data was even more unreliable than usual. Nemov (talk) 12:41, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

  "Wikipedia is supposed to cover this based on reliable sources." That's exactly what we're doing here. Reliable sources overwhelmingly discussed the user scores, so Wikipedia should reflect the same in its coverage. If it was only covered by Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic, then you'd have a valid point; other films generally do not and should not mention them. Last Jedi, however, is an exception.

  The Audience section as written covers the chain of events surrounding user score coverage in secondary sources. We begin by describing the user ratings as "user-generated scores" and even prominently display a disclaimer that states: "Audience scores on such sites require only registration and do not ensure that contributing voters have seen the film." This is followed by several statements from sources that pick apart the scores, further adding to the notion they can't be trusted. Anyone reading this paragraph is not going to miss the obvious; that these scores are not trustworthy. More importantly, it documents RT's knee-jerk denial that there was a problem and shows them backpedaling a year later admitting there was. The likelihood that review-bombing occurred (which I 100% agree with) doesn't diminish the historical importance of how the coverage of this unfolded.

  Perhaps there's a way to trim it down a bit or make slight modifications, but reducing it to rubble of only 2 sentences goes way too far IMO. Also keep in mind that WP:DUE is policy while WP:USERG is a content guideline; the interests of policy will always override guidelines, especially when backed by RfC consensus. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:25, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

  Note: I dropped a discussion notice at WT:FILM#Last Jedi audience reception revisited. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:48, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

  I agree there's enough coverage to mention it. Perhaps something like this is a better description? This is in place of the current 3rd paragraph:

  User-generated scores at Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic were controversial. At Rotten Tomatoes, 42% of users rated the film 3.5 stars or higher, however, a Rotten Tomatoes spokesperson said the film had been "seriously targeted" by a review-bombing campaign., At Metacritic, the average user score is 4.2 out of 10. Audience scores on such sites require only registration and do not ensure that contributing voters have seen the film. Several reviewers speculated that coordinated vote brigading from internet groups and bots contributed to the low scores. Quartz noted that some new accounts gave negative ratings to both The Last Jedi and Thor: Ragnarok (2017), while Bleeding Cool stated that reviews for Thor: Ragnarok had tapered off but then "skyrocketed".

  The initial denial by RT doesn't seem relevant now to this article and just clutters the main points that are reliably covered. The main points are scientific measures showed audiences enjoyed the film and user generated polls were low because they were targeted with vote brigading. Nemov (talk) 20:13, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

  RT's early rebuttal fueled a significant amount of the coverage, which grew exponentially following RT's premature claim. I think their knee-jerk response played an important role. I'm not taking it off the table though. I'm also not sure if mentioning RT's 2019 confession prior to the 2017 media observations is the right path forward. Someone reading that for the 1st time may wonder why sources bothered to publish their findings after RT already said they were bombed. We may need to keep that chronological to avoid confusion.

  Curious to hear what others think. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:31, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

  I'd also suggest we need to rework the section on the fan critiques of the film. Many if not all of these articles were published in the interim before RT officially admitted the score had been tampered with, and so are based on a false dichotomy of "fans hating it, critics loving it". Toa Nidhiki05 12:17, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, and the reason why most were published in the interim has to do with the fact that it took RT more than a year to release an updated statement. By then, many of these sources had moved on with very few circling back to re-analyze. Remember, we are describing the chronology of events from a 3rd-person perspective. We are not saying fans hated it. We are saying, "Hey look at all the coverage generated about Last Jedi's user ratings". We then describe how they're unreliable and finish by saying RT first denied review-bombing suspicions before eventually admitting they were "seriously targeted". At no point do we take sides. We are simply documenting what someone would find were they to research the history of the film's reception. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:56, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

I have some minor concerns that this article is listing the Audience scores as they stand now, (and editors seem to continue to change them) instead of listing the fixed audience scores as they stood when the WP:SECONDARY sources reported them as noteworthy at the time. These scores should not be updated, the most noteworthy version of the scores should be included (if the specific score should be included at all, rather than merely reporting on the discrepancy as a whole without any specific figures), same as we normally include only the top ranking the film achieved in a chart. -- 109.79.70.46 (talk) 10:39, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

They're about to be removed. See below. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 13:31, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

I did see the comment "I removed the scores completely" and looked at the article edit history for the relevant diff as I could see the scores were still included. I realize now you only meant that you removed the scores from the proposed text below that was suggested on July 5, but as of July 12 that change has not yet been made to the actual article. If those changes do go through my minor concern will be moot, but if the scores stay for some reason then they should not be updated and should be fixed based on what one of the reliable sourced reported at the time.[2] -- 109.79.70.46 (talk) 16:08, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

No problem. To clarify, I suggested on 7/6 that we wait a week to see if there would be any additional feedback before implementing. Getting close now! ;-) -- GoneIn60 (talk) 16:31, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

References

Recent analysis

Instead of subtracting content from this section, it might be worth adding an additional sentence or two based on this Forbes source supplied by Nemov above. Mendelson blames the "attention-seeking trolls" and those that were either racist or sexist for the negative reactions online, and he even blames Disney for attempting to placate a "vocal minority" in its marketing approach and production of Rise of Skywalker. He essentially calls all the published backlash irresistible click-bait that didn't explain the financial success, which included the selling of more Blu-rays than even Avengers: Infinity War. Perhaps a slight expansion here is warranted. --GoneIn60 (talk) 22:18, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

What about something like this?

User-generated scores at Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic received significant coverage for being more negative. Audience scores on such sites require only registration and do not ensure that contributing voters have seen the film. Several reviewers speculated that coordinated vote brigading from internet groups and bots contributed to the low scores, including analysis provided by Quartz and Bleeding Cool. In response to tampering claims, a Fandango executive claimed that Rotten Tomatoes detected no unusual activity on The Last Jedi aside from a noticeable "uptick in the number of written user reviews". In 2019, however, a Rotten Tomatoes spokesperson said the film had been "seriously targeted" by a review-bombing campaign. Scott Mendelson of Forbes labeled the negative reaction "alleged" that was based on "easily trolled online user polls", and he criticized Disney for placating the "vocal minority" in its approach to the sequel, Rise of Skywalker.

I removed the scores completely, as the numbers have changed a lot since they were first analyzed. The overall point is that they were negative, despite what the numbers actually were/are. I even shortened the parts concerning Quartz and Bleeding Cool. For Mendelson, I also pulled info from this source. Thoughts? --GoneIn60 (talk) 23:35, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

This is exceptionally reasonable. I'd support this wording. Toa Nidhiki05 23:48, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. Waiting on a response from Nemov, and we should probably let this marinate for a week before inserting. --GoneIn60 (talk) 00:08, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Good work. This is an improvement over the current version. I still don't think Rotten Tomatoes' original denial of vote bombing is relevant for this article. The fact of the matter is the site was a target of brigading and they eventually confirmed it. That's all that matters in terms of the discussing of audience reception to The Last Jedi and Rotten Tomatoes. Nemov (talk) 00:34, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Appreciate it. What if we combine those RT statements into one: "After initially rejecting tampering claims, Rotten Tomatoes later said in 2019 that Last Jedi had been "seriously targeted" by a review-bombing campaign." That essentially reduces the entire sentence to 5 words. I still think it's important to show the denial in some form, as it is related to (and part of) the "significant coverage" stated in the opening line. --GoneIn60 (talk) 01:08, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, that's an improvement if the initial RT denial remains. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 01:29, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

 Done --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:26, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

I suggest we also write Mendelson's criticisms of the trolls being racist and sexist in the same sentence. We could have a brief sentence succeeding it mentioning how Black Panther and Captain Marvel were similarly targeted, and it would structure the article cohesively considering the 'Harassment' section is next 78.149.121.207 (talk) 09:58, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Lengthening it any more probably crosses into WP:UNDUE territory. The current sentence is already straddling the line if you ask me. We need to keep in mind that audience reception is only one aspect of reception, and reception is only one aspect of the overall topic. The audience section is already consuming 10% of the entire article. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 14:56, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

From my point of view we could add a mere few words, like "Scott Mendelson of Forbes labeled the negative reaction "alleged", saying it was based on "easily trolled online user polls", and he criticized Disney for placating a racist, misogynistic "vocal minority" in its approach to the sequel, The Rise Of Skywalker. Black Panther and Captain Marvel were later confirmed to have been review-bombed as well." That's only 15 words added and doesn't seem too much to me. 78.149.121.207 (talk) 15:21, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

The main point of Mendelson's criticism is that Disney placated a vocal minority. This vocal minority, according to Mendelson, is made up of some combination of racists, sexists, and attention-seeking trolls. Your suggestion assumes the entire vocal minority is racist and sexist, but that's not what he's saying. Furthermore, I don't see a reason why we need to break it down to that level. Readers who get to this point in the article will simply read the source for themselves to learn more of the minor details. I also don't see a convincing reason to mention Black Panther or Captain Marvel in this article. Mendelson doesn't, and neither should we. Such details would be more suitable in an article covering RT's mishaps with trolling. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:11, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

You misunderstood what I meant :) I was trying to say Mendelson attributed the review-bombing to trolling, partly but not entirely comprised of bigots - like u said he did. I think breaking down to that level is vital information to the section, and I now agree that mentioning Black Panther and Captain Marvel is unnecessary. 78.149.121.207 (talk) 17:35, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

OK, so we've crossed the last sentence off the list. As for describing the vocal minority in more detail, let's see what others think. The sentence already states "easily trolled online polls", and breaking down the vocal minority further would likely repeat "troll" again and make the sentence longwinded. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:48, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree with GoneIn60. The audience section probably doesn't need to be any longer. There's probably enough coverage out there to justify an entire article just on Star Wars toxic fandom. If that was mentioned briefly in its own section it here could link to the main article. Nemov (talk) 00:34, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

What about "Scott Mendelson of Forbes labeled the negative reaction "alleged", saying it was based on "easily trolled online user polls" - and he criticized Disney for placating a "vocal minority" in its approach to the sequel, The Rise Of Skywalker - some of whom were racist and misogynistic". That seems concise to me in a way that adds only 7 words in the same clause. 78.149.121.207 (talk) 00:38, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Grammatically, you want to place the description closest to its target. So "some of whom were racist and misogynistic" would have to be positioned right after "vocal minority". When you do that, it looks messy and feels longwinded. Just my 2¢ --GoneIn60 (talk) 01:29, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion :) I agree with u.

Wb "Scott Mendelson of Forbes labeled the negative reaction "alleged", saying it was based on "easily trolled online user polls". Mendelson criticized Disney for placating a partially racist and misogynistic "vocal minority" in its approach to The Rise Of Skywalker."

This gets across the point concisely and coherently with even less words than the original revision, in my view. Repeating that TROS was the sequel is unnecessary since it's already established, and "partially" gets the full scope of his problems across without crossing into WP:PEACOCK. Wdy think :D 78.149.121.207 (talk) 01:47, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Lead

I've reverted @109.79.163.154's previous edit, but I wanted to discuss our dispute over the line "It is frequently listed by critics on lists of the best films of 2017 and the 2010s" over here to prevent an edit war. That line does not seem like undue weight to me. Not only are the sources reliable, but they contain a plethora of other sources in them that support the lead's claim. The lead was edited beforehand to include multiple citations to the various sources within - before another editor took that out because they thought the source were already given in the body. This clearly shows other editors agree with me and think the sources are not undue weight. Also, your line about Mad Max: Fury Road was vague and didn't provide a proper explanation for the revert. Why do you think that line is supported by undue weight? Gabrielle103 (talk) 00:32, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

That line was only very recently added[3] and puts a different emphasis on things, and feels like WP:PUFF when the older wording seemed more like WP:NPOV. The older wording was "and featured in several "best of the decade" film lists" which was fine, stable, and until recently very well sourced.[4] I don't think the change was justified and I would welcome returning to the WP:STATUSQUO before May 9. -- 109.77.202.118 (talk) 00:02, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

There were various lists of top films of 2017, and the Metacritic list of lists does show that Last Jedi was included on various lists[5] but it was not near the top of those lists. I mistakenly compared it to Mad Max Fury road, which was the film unequivocally topping film critics polls in 2015[6] but that was two years earlier at the time of The Forces Awakens not 2017. -- 109.79.70.46 (talk) 16:28, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Again Metacritic did a list of critics list and TLJ was 25th of 25 on that list.[7] It is an overstatement to say it was "widely considered to be one the best films of the 2010s"[8] when it was only narrowly on the best of the best list for the year 2017, nevermind widely over the whole decade (22nd of 25).[9]). -- 109.78.202.76 (talk) 10:40, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Still on the list is still on the list. We have this lead sentence for every other film included there regardless of whether they're in the Top 10. It's not up to us to decide where the cutoff is Stephanie921 (talk) 16:22, 6 August 2022 (UTC) Striking Gabrielle103's sock's comment (SPI). 82.132.187.238 (talk) 22:06, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

That other articles have done it does not mean this article should do it too, that's the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument right there, and scraping in last on the list doesn't deserve the same emphasis as being in the top ten on the list. Maybe instead of WP:PUFFERY it might have been better to say that it was not taking a WP:NPOV neutral point of view, but either way saying it was "widely considered" the best of the decade, still seems far too much to describe what this actually is happening here.
I'm only really arguing to restore the WP:STATUSQUO here.[10] Bring back the more neutral wording. -- 109.78.202.76 (talk) 23:03, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Agree with @Stephanie921. Current version of the lead is fine. Nemov (talk) 23:51, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

I have to agree that "widely considered" is misleading. First, keep in mind that in order to score points, the film must be ranked in the top 20 of any given list. Last Jedi scores points in 11 of 105 lists, which is only about 10% of the time, leading to a final ranking of 22. So while the film had to be in the top 20 to score points, it doesn't ultimately land in the top 20. So I can understand 109's viewpoint here; appearing in a list 10% of the time doesn't exactly equate to "widely considered". Metacritic also doesn't use that phrase when describing this list, so perhaps we should tone that down a bit. Maybe change it to something like, "For films released in the 2010s, Last Jedi ranks in the top 25 among critics." --GoneIn60 (talk) 04:10, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Just remove "widely" from the current version. That would work. Nemov (talk) 13:36, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Fine by me. Any objections @GoneIn60 @109.78.202.76 ? Not adding til consensus Stephanie921 (talk) 21:03, 9 August 2022 (UTC) Striking Gabrielle103's sock's comment (SPI). 82.132.187.238 (talk) 22:06, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

FYI...the only way to notify an IP address is to leave a message on their talk page. --GoneIn60 (talk) 07:14, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

I wish it hadn't been so complicated but I did feel it necessary. Removing the recently added superlative "widely" (or "frequently") more or less brings the wording back to where it was before, which was all I was asking. -- 109.78.207.156 (talk) 18:25, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Seems like we're in agreement that "widely" needs to go, but that's really the bare minimum. The sentence would then read, "It is considered to be one of the best films of the 2010s". Considered by whom? If we look at how some other articles do this (e.g., Boyhood and Inside Llewyn Davis), it would be best to attribute the ranking and/or list to the entity who created it. Here are a few more suggestions:

• Metacritic lists Last Jedi as one of the best-reviewed films of the 2010s decade.
• Metacritic ranks Last Jedi in the top 25 among best-reviewed films of the 2010s decade.
• The film ranks 22nd in Metacritic's best-of-the-decade list, compiled from various film and entertainment publications.

Or simply find a way to blend these suggestions. The point, however, is that we need to provide context for what "best film" means and clarify who ranked it. --GoneIn60 (talk) 07:14, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't think further context is needed in the lead. Just link to your choice...[11][12][13][14][15]. Nemov (talk) 12:47, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Nemov, it is actually policy that we provide more context, see WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. The statement in question is considered a biased statement of opinion, which requires us to do one of two things. Either we rephrase the statement to include its exact ranking or we say exactly who is making this claim (the "by whom" concern I raised above, that in this case is Metacritic). Or even better, we do both, as I've demonstrated. More info with examples at WP:INTEXT. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:35, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

@GoneIn60, Mad Max: Fury Road uses similar language in the lead. Considered one of the greatest action films of all time and one of the best films of the 2010s. As long as this is explained in further detail in the article the current wording is perfectly fine summarized in the lead. Nemov (talk) 17:24, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

It was never backed by WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS at that article. We could go back and forth all day citing the phrasing used in other articles, but at the end of the day, this boils down to policy-based reasoning and common sense. ATTRIBUTEPOV and INTEXT are not limited to only the body of an article. I understand your concern about "further detail" being reserved for the body, but we're talking about adding 1, 2, or 5 words to the lead. It's still not clear why there is opposition to such a minor change, especially considering the benefits. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:02, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Off topic discussion about audience reception

If just Metacritic ranks it in the top 10, that is only one source. It does not mean it is "widely" considered among the best films of the decade. The statement itself is inaccurate because even though critics really liked it, it received a divisive fan response. Sideleswar (talk) 17:21, 10 August 2022 (UTC) Top 25*, I mean Sideleswar (talk) 17:22, 10 August 2022 (UTC) There are several sources that listed The Last Jedi as one of the best films of 2010s.[16] Fan reception is irrelevant to this discussion, but the current audience reception section is a good summary of what fans think of the film. Nemov (talk) 17:33, 10 August 2022 (UTC) Agreed that audience reception is irrelevant in this discussion, but your statement addresses the concern I've been preaching. The phrase "it is considered" does not clarify by whom, an omission that seems unnecessary given the options at our disposal. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:02, 10 August 2022 (UTC) It is important that we clarify "by whom". Are these critics' opinions? Sideleswar (talk) 18:38, 10 August 2022 (UTC) Exactly. Any of the three suggestions I listed would resolve that concern. Open to hear other suggestions as well. Perhaps 109 will weigh back in. --GoneIn60 (talk) 04:51, 12 August 2022 (UTC) @GoneIn60 I don't think is necessary at all and agree with @Nemov's approach. Just like leads in every article provide a summary only to be expanded in the body, the same applies here. Take the Stanley Kubrick article for example. It says: "Widely considered one of the greatest filmmakers of all time, his films, almost all of which are adaptations of novels or short stories, cover a wide range of genres and are noted for their realism, dark humor, and extensive set designs, and innovative cinematography." But it doesn't say who specifically holds him in that high regard - and who has noted his films for those elements. Because the main contents of the article clarify that - and including them in the lead would just repeat the body and make the lead unnecessarily long. For the majority of films held in high regard - like The Godfather: Part II - we do not say who claims the film is great in the lead, but we do in the body.Stephanie921 (talk) 19:26, 13 August 2022 (UTC) Striking Gabrielle103's sock's comment (SPI). 82.132.187.238 (talk) 22:06, 12 September 2022 (UTC) If u want to include it in the lead, you'd have to cut out the same info in the critical reception section to avoid redundancy. And that's just counterproductive imo Stephanie921 (talk) 19:29, 13 August 2022 (UTC) Striking Gabrielle103's sock's comment (SPI). 82.132.187.238 (talk) 22:06, 12 September 2022 (UTC) "If u want to include it in the lead, you'd have to cut out the same info in the critical reception section to avoid redundancy". No, we wouldn't. The lead is an introduction that summarizes the body, so naturally some information will be repeated. See WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY. Stanley Kubrick isn't a good example either. That info was just added last month by a newer editor with less than 500 edits. As I said earlier, scavenging Wikipedia in hopes of finding content you approve of and then turning that into some kind of justification for your argument is the wrong approach. Most articles are not heavily scrutinized. Two basic things matter here: 1) policies and guidelines and 2) common sense. I've already explained how I feel about both. This conversation isn't likely to advance without more participation. --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:56, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Follow-up

Nemov, looks like our discussion here stalled with only you and I on opposing sides, but I had asked a similar question at WT:FILM (which is now archived at WT:WikiProject Film/Archive 80#One of the best films in year or decade). Turns out all but one participant disagreed that the Metacritic claim should be placed in the lead, and the one that thought it could be acceptable still argued it should properly attributed. That editor stated, "I think we should state in the lead section that it was Metacritic's assessment especially because it is not a straightforward count." So at the very least, it needs attribution, but now I'm leaning toward complete removal given the feedback. Anything you'd like to add to the discussion? --GoneIn60 (talk) 07:52, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

@GoneIn60 Yeah, remove. I'm fine with that as long as that's the consensus. Nemov (talk) 11:25, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Appreciate the understanding. Since participation was limited, I wouldn't take it as a strong consensus, but I'll remove for now pending further discussion. If you ever decide to revisit, just ping me, thanks. --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:08, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Fan Reception

I think we should mention the divisive response among fans because it is important in the context of history. The divisive fan response is widely considered to be the reason for the pivots made in the Rise of Skywalker which "undid" plot points in this film to appease fans. The divisive fan response is evident in various online audience scores and the IMDB score. Sideleswar (talk) 17:37, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

You should read the article. It's already mentioned with proper citations of reliable sources. DonQuixote (talk) 17:45, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

This is been discussed extensively as you can see by reviewing this article. Is there something specifically you take issue with in the current audience reception section? Changes to that section would require reliable sources and the user generated scores like IMDb aren't considered to be very useful for determining what audience think. Nemov (talk) 17:46, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

There is an entire paragraph in the Audience Reception section explaining that the fan response was divisive. Do you understand what I mean when I say it is important to mention that in the main article because that is what led to the plot departures in the Rise of Skywalker? Sideleswar (talk) 18:23, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

First, please indent your replies using colons (:). It is debatable as to whether or not plot departures should be covered in more detail here as opposed to the The Rise of Skywalker article, but there are elements of that mentioned in the Audience response section. A Forbes source actually downplays the so-called divisiveness by calling it a "vocal minority". It is also debatable as to what facts we know about the plot departures: if and why they were made. I recommend you offer a suggestion on what you'd like to change and how you'd change it, and provide the sources that support your suggestion. Then we can weigh in on whether or not that's needed at this article. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:40, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

The Audience reception section is part of the main article. Do you mean the article summary aka the lede? DonQuixote (talk) 18:47, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

The divisive fan reception needs to be in the lead. It's the single thing this film is most remembered for five years later. Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 06:48, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Are you the arbitrator of what is remembered five years later or is there another source you would like to cite? Nemov (talk) 11:45, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Basil the Bat Lord, did you read any of the above comments? We need more than a WP:ILIKEIT vote, and keep in mind that sources currently cited also downplay the so-called "divisiveness". If anything, there's controversy about the film being divisive, not that it actually was. If you want something in the lead, suggest the wording you'd use and provide the sources you'd cite for it. --GoneIn60 (talk) 14:27, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

GoneIn60 Nemov I agree with Basil the Bat Lord, he's absolutely right here. A quick Google search found me multiple mainstream articles that still refer to the movie as divisive even now, like this Variety article from August 2022 ("While 'The Last Jedi' achieved widespread critical acclaim, the middle chapter of the 'Star Wars' sequel trilogy proved to be very divisive among fans"). I would thus like to challenge the consensus not to mention the fan reception in the lede, we're leaving out pertinent information if we don't mention it. Shivj80 (talk) 17:51, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

This has been thoroughly discussed and nothing has changed except it seems like less people are coming here to complain. The third paragraph of the audience section is perfectly fine for "online discussions" which are not necessarily representative of the general public. Nemov (talk) 18:06, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

The main reason why fan reception should be mentioned in the lede is that it provides context for why the movie's sequel, Rise of Skywalker, so explicitly diverged from the themes of the Last Jedi (something that is mentioned in the lede of the other Wikipedia article: "It received mixed reviews from critics, who criticized...perceived departures from the plot and themes of The Last Jedi"). Clearly, the fan reception had a big enough impact to change the course of the sequel trilogy, so the fact that fan reception is not representative of general audience reception is a moot point. Shivj80 (talk) 18:39, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

FWIW. JJ pitched the story for IX[17] the same week The Last Jedi was released. The idea that JJ's story was influenced by fans doesn't really make much sense from that perspective. That doesn't stop people from creating that narrative, but it's not really founded on fact. JJ was scrambling to get that movie made for Disney and reusing Carrie Fisher footage. He basically took one for the team. Nemov (talk) 18:53, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Hm, alright, but even so, it was Disney that made the choice to go back to JJ Abrams (ditching Colin Trevorrow), partially since they were scared of the fan backlash to the Last Jedi and thought JJ could make a more "palatable" movie. JJ himself made plenty of subtle critiques of the previous movie in the leadup to Rise of Skywalker.[18] When it gets to a point that the directors and actors have to comment on fan reception, I think it's important enough to mention in the lede. Shivj80 (talk) 17:11, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

The decision to move on from Trevorrow was made months before the release of Last Jedi. The claim "scared of the fan backlash" is unfounded and nothing more than conjecture. As noted below, the best way to avoid wasting time here is to suggest what you'd change, how you'd change it, and provide the sources that support your change. Let the sources connect the dots for us. Also keep in mind that WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY. Before something can graduate to the lead, it needs to first appear in the body. Focus on winning that fight first. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:58, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

What I want to appear in the lede is already in the body, in the Audience Reception section: "The Last Jedi was also characterized by reviewers as divisive among audiences." That sentence includes multiple citations, and as mentioned I have also found sources from 2022 that still refer to the film as divisive. My simple suggestion is to change slightly the "film was well received by critics..." sentence in the lede to something like this:

"The film was well received by critics for its ensemble cast, direction, musical score, visual effects, action sequences, and emotional weight, though some observers noted that the film was divisive among the fan audience due to certain plot and character elements." Shivj80 (talk) 01:04, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Right, but here's the thing. The "Audience reception" section is divided evenly between those observations and those that show positive reception by reputable surveys. Adding that to the lead would result in a statement that does not accurately reflect all significant viewpoints covered in the section that it attempts to summarize. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:55, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Okay, that's very easily addressed. Here again:

"The film was well received by critics for its ensemble cast, direction, musical score, visual effects, action sequences, and emotional weight. While surveys suggested the film was also received positively by general audiences, some observers noted that the film was divisive among the fan audience due to certain plot and character elements." Shivj80 (talk) 21:11, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Online observers aren't a significant viewpoint. It's not backed by any data. It's just commentary on online chatter. Online observers also wrote about how "no one cares about Avatar"[19][20]. What people are talking about online isn't always reflective of reality. The commentary about what people are talking about online is reliably sourced and is included in context in the body of the article. Given it's speculator nature it doesn't belong in the lead. Nemov (talk) 21:27, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

And that's where the problem sets in. This becomes a very wordy synopsis, presented as a contrast between two equal perspectives. That's misleading, because the most prominent viewpoint is the one portrayed by the surveys. We had a lengthy RfC years ago discussing this very issue, and a majority agreed that the divisiveness was better off in a less prominent position in the body. Putting that in the lead ups the ante big time, and changes the whole dynamic. At the very least, we'd need some reputable sources that compare the two perspectives before we can even consider that kind of presentation in the lead. Right now, the body is written in a way that doesn't attempt to compare them. There's no good way to move that to the lead without disrupting that balance. --GoneIn60 (talk) 22:19, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm not really understanding your point. Why would we need additional sources comparing the two perspectives when the whole Audience Reception section already makes the comparison between the two?

And if wordiness is an issue, I don't see any problem with my original edit suggestion which specifically notes the *fan* reception as divisive. The reputable surveys you speak about are surveys of the general audience. As I've noted, if journalists are still asking the director himself about the divisiveness of his film five years after it came out, it's important enough to mention in the lede. Shivj80 (talk) 23:37, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

It's already presented with due weight. You're trying to give it more weight than the currently cited reliable sources are providing. In order for that to happen, you need to cite additional reliable sources showing that it's more than just a mole hill. DonQuixote (talk) 23:57, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

The Variety/Empire source I have already cited covers this point, as it suggests that the discussion about the Last Jedi's divisiveness has permeated the discourse around the film enough that journalists are still asking Rian Johnson about it in 2022. Combined with the very existence of an Audience Reception section in this article (most movie articles don't have this, they only have a critical reception section), due weight should actually imply the inclusion of audience reception in the lede. Shivj80 (talk) 01:11, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Your Variety article doesn't actually say much. The weight it adds is negligible at best. Seriously, if you have to bend over backwards to find a source like that, then it probably hasn't changed that much. DonQuixote (talk) 02:52, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Negligible at best? This is now feeling like unnecessary obstruction. The source shows that, on the film's five year anniversary, the main subject of discussion is the film's divisiveness. If the film's divisiveness is still the main subject of discussion, it logically follows that it is important enough to mention in the lede.

To restate my point, I do not see a need for additional sources given that:

A. There is already an Audience Reception section in this article with numerous sources.

B. The mere presence of an Audience Reception section is unusual for most Wikipedia media articles, suggesting that there is something unique and noteworthy enough about the Last Jedi's reception. Certainly noteworthy enough for the lede.

All in all, this would a minor change grounded in already existing evidence. To compare, the article for The Last of Us Part II, another piece of media that has been noted for its divisive fan reception, clearly mentions that fact in the lede. There's no good reason why we shouldn't mention it here. Shivj80 (talk) 03:37, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

It's probably time to WP:DROPTHESTICK and you can also stop with the accusations of obstruction. There's a consensus already in place and it's up to you to convince others that something has changed. If it's not happening it's time to move on. Nemov (talk) 03:55, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

I am disagreeing with the consensus because it is inconsistent with the article itself. If audience reception is important enough to warrant its own distinct section in the body, then it is important enough to mention in the lede (see: The Last of Us Part II). Shivj80 (talk) 04:10, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

• "Why would we need additional sources comparing the two perspectives when the whole Audience Reception section already makes the comparison between the two?"

What? Where is this comparison you speak of? There are 3 general aspects discussed in "Audience reception": general audience reception, review-bombing of RT scores, and fan divisiveness. Fan divisiveness is not being compared to anything in this section.

• "...due weight should actually imply the inclusion of audience reception in the lede"

Those who are considered fans represent a slice of the general audience pie. We don't know how large or how small that slice is, because the only reliable metrics we have – CinemaScore, PostTrak, and SurveyMonkey – analyze the general audience as a whole. This means the level of divisiveness is speculative, and sources have even described it as the "vocal minority". The conversation surrounding divisiveness was only marginally significant, so marginal in fact that it took an RfC (in which there was plenty of opposition) to get it inserted into the body. You're now trying to say that the existing sources in the article are enough to conclude that it's a major aspect, but on the contrary, those same sources were barely enough to get it into the body to begin with. So reasonably, editors have requested additional sourcing that shows it is more significant today that it was in 2018 when we had our last RfC: Talk:Star Wars: The Last Jedi/Archive 7#RfC: criticism in the lead.

Another point to consider is that film reception includes professional critic reviews, general audience feedback, financial performance, and accolades/awards. The sliver of discontent some observers noticed holds a small amount of WP:WEIGHT in comparison to these other factors. Even if we deem it significant enough for the lead, we have to be careful about unfairly painting it in a negative light. Being divisive is not necessarily equivalent to being received negatively. Divisive storylines that walk the edge can be considered interesting and captivating, especially when reevaluated years or decades later. Empire even praised Rian Johnson's approach to Last Jedi this year when they wrote, "There's a spark of hope, then...all it took was a spark to light the fire...We're more than willing to wait for a fresh batch of Rian Johnson Star Wars stories to ignite."

• "The Variety/Empire source I have already cited covers this point...enough that journalists are still asking Rian Johnson about it in 2022"

Let's dig a little deeper. At the heart of sources like that one from Variety is the interview conducted by Empire with Rian Johnson. The Empire source describes Johnson looking back and reflecting on Last Jedi. Was he specifically asked about "fan divisiveness", or was he asked a general question that caused him to reflect? I haven't read the entire interview, so it would be helpful to know more about the questions asked before one assumes "journalists are still asking". --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:42, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Hm I see, reading the past discussions on the same topic is quite illuminating. It seems you and others had much of the same debates we are having now so I can now understand the wish to have additional sources. I can do some further research to try and find the full Empire article and other recent sources, but I'll drop this discussion for now.

By the way though, if you're concerned about "drive-by commenters" coming to this page and repeatedly bringing this topic up, well it's probably going to keep happening as long as the lede isn't changed. As Basil the Bat Lord noted earlier in the thread, the controversies surrounding this movie are a major part of what people, especially people online, remember about it. Shivj80 (talk) 04:37, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

"it's probably going to keep happening as long as the lede isn't changed"

You'd think, but the door often swings in the other direction as well. Update the lead, then the drive-by comments will shift to wanting it removed. Best to have it thoroughly discussed and well-sourced before making any changes. Thanks for your understanding. --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:45, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Also, well-sourced will likely require strong, secondary sources that have evaluated Last Jedi's audience reception over time. Industry research/journals, books, and print magazines (in that order) would be considered the strongest and most preferable. We have to remember that a lot of short online articles written on the subject like to spin and headline controversy to garner a few extra clicks. An author's personal findings or analysis based on something they've discovered would also be considered a primary source. Just a few things to keep in mind when deciding which sources to bring to the table. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:01, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

• For all the drive-by comments/commenters (some of which are from newer accounts that just so happen to have stumbled to this talk page), this excerpt from Screen Rant sums it up quite nicely:

The reason, of course, that this Star Wars movie is so misunderstood is that no one will ever agree on what Star Wars is in the first place. It is many things to many different people, spanning ages, social backgrounds, ethnicities, political views, genders, when they became a fan, and more. For instance, one person can look at Star Wars and see Lucas' politics clearly on display, and another insists that Star Wars should be apolitical.

This is an issue that's long been prevalent in Star Wars – it's one reason why the Expanded Universe became messy and its quality and stories could differ so wildly, and it's apparent in the sequel trilogy too: J.J. Abrams and Rian Johnson seemingly have different notions of what a Star Wars movie should be. When that's then extrapolated across millions of fans, a minority of whom are incredibly vocal dissenters (which applies not to anyone with a negative opinion, but those areas that turned toxic and nasty online), then it's even clearer to see how the problems manifest. Star Wars: The Last Jedi was likely always going to be a difficult movie to get right and would never please everyone – it's too big a blockbuster, and was coming after two years of The Force Awakens theories. But when it's a movie that offers fundamental challenges to the history of Star Wars, its fans, and what the franchise should be – even if, ultimately, its core takeaway is a celebration of the saga's heroes and an offering of hope for the future – then it maybe isn't too surprising that it's so misunderstood and divisive.

Sure, it's divisive to some extent, and this is covered in the Wikipedia article. But as the SR article points out, this is hardly a shocking revelation. The Star Wars franchise and property as a whole has and always will be divisive, regardless of who's at the helm and what storylines make the final cut and appear on screen. Star Wars means something different to each individual; you can't please everyone. As a result, there's nothing really out of the ordinary here. If you think something needs to change in the article, you need to be specific. Suggest what you'd change and how you'd change it, and provide the sources that support the change. Anything else is just a waste of time. --GoneIn60 (talk) 03:18, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

I will engage with your other response to my comment in due time, but I just want to note here that the argument that "The Star Wars franchise and property as a whole has and always will be divisive" does not feel particularly relevant on this specific topic, considering that the Last Jedi was very obviously the most divisive movie in its trilogy. I mean, did anyone really consider the Force Awakens divisive? Shivj80 (talk) 00:18, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what you or I think. Wikipedia is a tertiary source that cites what secondary sources think. Unless you start citing secondary sources that discuss this in detail, nothing's going to be done. DonQuixote (talk) 00:26, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Ditto, it doesn't matter what we think. There was plenty of nasty online discourse after The Force Awakens was released.[21][22] However, the YouTube faux outrage algorithm machine around films really started turning into a thing in 2016-17. Nemov (talk) 00:46, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Hmm, even just comparing the plots of the films alone, it seems doubtful that the outcry over the Last Jedi was larger than the one for the Force Awakens simply due to a larger number of "faux outrage" YouTube channels. The structures of each film were clearly trying to accomplish different things (nostalgic crowd-pleaser versus deconstruction). But anyway, I digress, I'd rather not engage here further and keep things focused on the main thread. Shivj80 (talk) 04:23, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Another way of looking at this is that if the property or franchise we know as Star Wars is considered divisive in and of itself (as indicated by that source above and others out there), then maybe Last Jedi isn't the right article to be discussing it. Maybe the discussion belongs in this one. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:08, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

References

"Audience reception measured by scientific polling methods was highly positive."

I was wondering when we can stop blatantly lying in this article? Skcin7 (talk) 21:29, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

And the rest of us are wondering when you'll start being more specific. That opening comment is not exactly a conversation-starter, lol --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:47, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 June 2023

Requested addition: after the mention of the critic scores, a mention of the mixed audience scores on rotten tomatoes would be helpful to prevent misinformation about the public’s view of the movie. Editor for this specific article to fix one specific thing (talk) 21:49, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

 Already done Check out the article. There is already a whole 3 paragraph section on Audience reception, one of which leads with "User-generated scores at Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic received considerable coverage for being more negative." Cannolis (talk) 22:06, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 June 2023

Requesting to edit page (Star Wars: The Last Jedi) to add a sub-bullet point under Mark Hamils credit to show him playing two characters. SamDavies47 (talk) 19:43, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

 Already done Tollens (talk) 21:28, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Fan backlash

I'm not seeing the problem with describing the reaction to Tran's casting as a "backlash". This wording is supported by several RSes, including Quiroga (2022): following the release of The Last Jedi, racist backlash again occurred due to the inclusion of the character Rose Tico, played by Asian American actress Kelly Marie Tran and Kempshall (2023), who describes harassment of Tran in the context of the most recent version of fan backlash relating to Star Wars. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:46, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

It's too broad of a term. She was indeed harassed, but the film itself was generally well received so I wouldn't characterize "fans" of the film harassing her. Your edit makes it sound like most fans of the film were harassing Tran so I don't see that an improvement to the article. Nemov (talk) 19:52, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

How you or I would characterize it is beside the point. We're here to summarize published, reliable sources as fairly and accurately as possible. and both these academic sources use the term "backlash". We could remove "fan" from the section heading if you think it unduly implies that most fans were involved, but frankly I think that's reading too much into it. There was a backlash among people described as "fans", so it was a "fan backlash" by any sensible definition. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:58, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

I've changed the heading to Backlash against Tran's character. How does that work for you? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:12, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

It's been described as harassment from online trolls by the Hollywood Reporter ane the New York Times. That's how it was characterized by reliable sources before you made changes. There was nothing wrong with the section title and there was no reason to change it based on your additions. Nemov (talk) 20:19, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Harassment from online trolls and a "backlash" are not mutually exclusive. Besides, academic monographs are generally regarded as more authoritative than in-the-moment news coverage; see WP:SOURCETYPES. The article (and headings) should reflect the most reliable sources. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:06, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

If anything, the term "harassment" is too broad in that it fails to convey the unfavorable reaction to the character that drove the harassment in the first place. "Backlash" more accurately connotes "a strong adverse reaction". —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:10, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Please restore the section title to the status quo until there's support for your change. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 21:12, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Done. Now please respond to the points raised in this discussion. To elaborate on the trolls-vs-backlash angle, here are a couple quotes I just came across (my bolding):

• "In the weeks after The Last Jedi, the big story was the backlash ... Kelly Marie Tran, who made her film debut in The Last Jedi ... promptly became the target of an overwhelming wave of online harassment." —AV Club
• "Tran was attacked for months by racist, and misogynistic trolls ... The backlash eventually became organized enough to warrant responses from Disney and The Last Jedi director Rian Johnson himself." —Esquire

As we can see, there's absolutely no contradiction. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:46, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, there are strong sources that call it harassment that stemmed from a backlash. Fair enough, but the section primarily focuses on Tran's harassment. If you rename the section "Backlash" or "Fan backlash", that's a more broad subtopic than what the section actually entails. It is narrowly focused on Tran's treatment, and therefore "Harassment" seems like a more accurate title for this section, considering it doesn't cover other aspects of the backlash. As for your recent additions, I think they are totally fine and appropriate. --GoneIn60 (talk) 02:57, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

The material added actually says: The casting of Asian-American actress Kelly Marie Tran as Rose Tico spurred both a racial and misogynistic backlash against the film, including sexist and racist commentary about both Tran and her character. The bolded phrases describe more than just harassment of a single person. So I don't think you can actually say the text is narrowly focused on Tran's treatment. The subheading "Harassment" for a single paragraph in the § Audience reception section seems rather bizarre and unnecessary; it could mean harassment by the audience or harassment of the audience. Maybe the backlash-and-harassment paragraph should just be merged into the reception section, which already mentions the review-bombing campaign and the film's reputation as too "progressive". The latter complaint, which Kempshall (2023) alludes to as focusing on Tran's race believing her to be an indication of forced diversity by 'Socal Justice Warriors' (left-wing individuals who advance social progressive ideologies) a rallying call emerging directly from GamerGate, is included in the cited Vox source as part of a "backlash". —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:40, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

"So I don't think you can actually say the text is narrowly focused on Tran's treatment." – So here's where you're losing me. Your proposed title for the subsection is "Backlash against Tran's character", yet in the same breath, you are saying this isn't only about Tran. That's not making any sense to me. Also, part of what you quoted, "about both Tran and her character" would indicate that the actress was one of the targets, not just her character, which is another issue with the proposed title. I don't have any issues with the term backlash per se, as long as the title accurately reflects the scope of the section. What about a simple change to your proposal: "Backlash against Tran and her character"? --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:08, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm now proposing we ditch the subheading and just merge the backlash-and-harassment material into the § Audience reception section. We don't need a separate subsection for just one paragraph. We can ditch the {{Further}} hatnote at the same time; readers looking for information about Tran can just follow the link to her bio. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:56, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm leaning oppose, mainly because that section covers the broader topic of audience response as a whole. If merged, the Tran-related statements would need to be put in the proper context that a subset of the audience generated this backlash. We can't really quantify it or make it appear as if it was a significant percentage of the audience, and the subsection helps create that divide. An alternative approach would be to slightly expand the Tran section by 1-2 sentences and split into two paragraphs if one paragraph is the primary concern. Let's see what Nemov and/or others weigh in with. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:06, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

I would oppose as well. The Tran section really doesn't need further expansion. That could be addressed on that biography. I believe I've mentioned this before, but an article about this part of fandom could be created. This hate and harassment's is well documented on a variety of Star Wars projects. The Last Jedi wasn't unusual in that regard so adding more to that Tran section would be undue. Nemov (talk) 17:21, 8 June 2023 (UTC)