Talk:The Acolyte (TV series)

Review bombing ?

😂 so that’s what we call unpopular shows now ? It wasn’t bombed. It just wasnt liked . 208.118.203.144 (talk) 23:56, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

There are numerous sources confirming it was review bombed, as included in the article. Reception ultimately did become mixed on the series on the whole (also added in the article), but that doesn't negate that a large part of it, at least initially, was because of review bombing efforts. - Favre1fan93 (talk)

No, there were some pages, crossreferencing each other as sources *claiming* it was review bombed. To this day no actual evidence for this was presented... 2A02:908:190:AF80:2500:8D0E:60CC:8234 (talk) 18:25, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

After going through the "sources" for the review bombing, there are only 2 who even try to make an argument. The others simply state it as facts, unsourced.

Screen Rant, as the original sinner in this case, also makes up a story of "AI generated" negative reviews without even giving ONE example of this.

The Mary Sue only says "if you call it woke in a review you can be ignored" - no actual example given here either.

I read a lot of the comments, positive and nagative, and there were cases that looked like AI to me, yet - they gave the show the best possible rating all throughout. So, if there is a case for review bombing, it would be AGAINST the negative rating.

All in all this is a prime example of "just because some journalist wrote it", doesn't mean it is a fact.

Should we mention that there were journalist out there claiming The Acolyte was review bombeb? Yes, absolutley. It is well sourced and factually correct.

Can we say that the show was review bombed as a fact? Absolutly not.

2A02:908:190:AF80:74FA:BE6E:9A2E:8346 (talk) 17:13, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

It was not "reviewed bombed". Seems like someone tried to remove that inaccuracy but it was reverted and the page was locked. Alchemy420 (talk) 01:20, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

@Alchemy420 Agreed. There are one or two rabid users on this page, who knows who they are, that are trying to create a narrative about "review bombing." The sources are solely opinion articles and bloggers who are defending the series from negative audience reception.

And nobody is saying that those sources shouldn't be used. All it takes for this intro to comply with WP:NPOV is to have it say that "critics claim that the series was review bombed" or something similar. Right now, it reading as an objective fact is misleading and relying on a collection of opinion pieces. Map42892 (talk) 04:28, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

It's insane they are able to post false information and then prevent others from correcting. Alchemy420 (talk) 15:01, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Is there any actual reason to doubt what they're saying about review bombing? You need a source to dispute a claim like this. Harryhenry1 (talk) 15:26, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Series Cancelled.

There are multiple outlets reporting on this.

It is now a confirmed "was" not "is". Fact.

- Tallaussiebloke (talk) 03:00, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Deadline reported it, all the other outlets are posting off their information. There are no direct sources in their article. Will probably have to wait for an actual announcement from Disney or the showrunner. 71.164.80.75 (talk) 14:52, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Ah, now it suddenly *is* relevant that they all crossreference each other? Oh, the irony... 2A02:908:190:AF80:2500:8D0E:60CC:8234 (talk) 18:26, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, because you're talking to different editors here. The removal of Acolyte merchandise from an online Disney store does seem to indicate it's been cancelled, but we can't just use that as 100% proof. Harryhenry1 (talk) 08:10, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, we can't. In the same way we never should have used the self referencing network of IGN and cohorts on the baseless accusations of negative review bombing. Double standards live at work. 2A02:908:190:AF80:74FA:BE6E:9A2E:8346 (talk) 16:50, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Synthesis and a questionable source

• WP:SYNTH: "Do not combine different parts of one source to state or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source."

This RT source explicitly states: "Critics say the latest Disney+ series delivers a refreshing new spin on tried and true Star Wars elements with solid performances and incredible fight scenes. [...] Most reviews point out how different the series is while still Star Wars enough for the fans, but it’s far from perfect."

The information in the article was therefore modified as: Initial reviews praised the series's different take on familiar Star Wars elements, performances, and action scenes, but suggested that it was "far from perfect."

However, this and other additions, were reverted by User:Adamstom.97, claiming that it was unexplained and not an improvement, to Initial reviews praised the series' action sequences but were mixed on whether it was a fresh entry for the franchise or if it overused prior elements.

One positive and one negative review quote is cited as the reason for the removal of the series's new take and the performances part, reverting to "mixed" and "overused" or not claims, which are not explicitly stated by RT.

In addition, The Indiependent is cited, which is a completely dubious source with no evidence that it is reliable and/or notable. The justification is that the reviews for the whole season are actually "mixed" and that WP:DUEWEIGHT should be used to show this "mixed" state, but since there are few reviews for the whole season, such sources should be used even if they are not notable/reliable.

As can be seen, these do not reflect any truth and are personal opinions (that are completely invalid for an encyclopedia).

(I've also added this topic because of concerns about User:Adamstom.97's ownership of the page from the discussion above.) ภץאคгöร 11:36, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

WP:NPA. Please stick to the topic and stop your continued personal attacks against me. You and I disagree on our interpretations of the sources but that doesn't make your personal opinions correct and mine "invalid".

I disagree with the suggestion that the wording we take from that RT source can only come from the opening paragraph. The rest of the article has details that are also relevant to the conclusion we are trying to draw. You say "Initial reviews praised the series's different take on familiar Star Wars elements", but later in the article it says "Does it take Star Wars in a new direction [and] Is this a good thing?" and then presents one positive comment and one negative comment from reviewers. So the actual article does not support what you are trying to say. You can't just cherry pick which parts of the article you like and ignore the rest.

The justification is that the reviews for the whole season are actually "mixed" and that WP:DUEWEIGHT should be used to show this "mixed" state, but since there are few reviews for the whole season, such sources should be used even if they are not notable/reliable. This statement is ridiculous, I never said anything like this and the fact that you are trying to make it out that I did is very concerning. What I said is that most of the reviews we have for the series are just for the first few episodes and that is a WP:DUEWEIGHT issue because we are constructing an overview of the reception to the entire series using sources that only apply to the first few episodes. This is a problem that most TV shows have due to the majority of publications only reviewing the initial episodes. To solve that WP:DUEWEIGHT issue and ensure we are providing a more accurate picture of the reception to the entire series, we need to include reviews of the entire series in the section. At the moment we have the IGN series review and the Indiependent series review. If others can find more out there then I would welcome their addition as only having two is still not great. But in the meantime they are the two that we have. If we had a whole bunch of full series reviews from noteworthy outlets then I wouldn't push to include the Indiependent review, but we don't and I think it is better to have a less noteworthy outlet that is a full series review than to have only one series review in the section. - adamstom97 (talk) 13:13, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Nothing I added is "my personal opinion". I'm directly quoting WP:SYNTH, RT ref, the additions/reverts, and the questionable source. Please stop acting like I'm attacking you personally. Also what you wrote after "You and I disagree on our interpretations of the sources but that doesn't make your personal opinions correct and mine "invalid"." does not invalidate what I wrote, on the contrary, they prove my points: you ignore RT's explicitly stated "consensus" (in your own words), which is a blatant violation of WP:SYNTH (see above), and support the usage of a random source just because there is one review for the entire season and that review from the reliable source cannot be used alone. ภץאคгöร 13:47, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

I support reading the entire source and representing it accurately, and I support the usage of a perfectly fine review of the season because we need it. Neither of those things goes against Wikipedia policies or guidelines. You support ignoring half of a source and having undue weighting on initial reviews. Those are both problems. - adamstom97 (talk) 14:23, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Except you haven't accurately represented what is explicitly stated in the source and we definitely don't "need" a review from an unreliable source. Here we go again... ภץאคгöร 14:29, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

If you look at the viewership section, you will find a similar issue with WP:synth. where the sources never say "most watched" but he decided to add "context" in his opinion to what the sources meant. it is an inaccurate representation of what the sources carefully avoid saying because it is not true Holydiver82 (talk) 15:54, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't see much of a problem with that, the source lists the show at the top of the TV chart for the week ending June 9, but "most watched" can be changed as the list activity includes "clicking on a streaming offer, adding a title to a watchlist, and marking a title as "seen", not just "watching". ภץאคгöร 16:14, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

That is why I attempted to change it to just "top the charts" and removed the wording of "most watched", which as you said the source clearly states that they count any kind of "engagement" and whip media is not a source for tracking how many people actually watched the show and actual viewership numbers like Neilson does. perhaps you will have better luck editing the page to more accurately reflect the sourced information Holydiver82 (talk) 16:18, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

I removed the obvious synthesis and added "top". It is clearly not the "most watched" data as the source states. ภץאคгöร 20:43, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

• I'll just chime in here and note that I dropped a comment in the talk section above related to this. I agree that we should not be concluding "mixed" or "less positive" (or anything else) for the full season reviews. We need a strong, reputable source drawing that conclusion for us. Posting snippets without analysis, which includes an open-ended question within the RT article, is insufficient support for the claim.

"...because we are constructing an overview of the reception to the entire series..."

We need a full stop right there, adamstom97. Perhaps you can explain this in different terms in case I'm misinterpreting you, but we should definitely not be "constructing", compiling, or piecing together an overview of critical reception. If our claim in the article says something that no individual source supports explicitly without question, then either change the claim so that it is quoting the source or leave it out altogether. Otherwise, it will continue to be perceived as original research. --GoneIn60 (talk) 07:27, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Note: For discussion sake, we should probably keep future comments in one place. I suggest continuing this in the Critical response in lead section. --GoneIn60 (talk) 07:27, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Proposed change

I'd like to propose a straightforward change to the lead. I can't do it myself as the page is semi-protected. The relevant part currently reads as follows (I am proposing deleting the marked text):

Due to low ratings and the online response to the series, The Acolyte was canceled after only one season in August 2024.

My reasoning is simple. The body of the article nowhere suggests that the 'online response' was a factor that caused or contributed to the cancellation. Rather, the body says (sources omitted):

In August, the series was canceled after one season when Lucasfilm opted not to continue with the series. This was reportedly due to low viewership, with Disney+ having a "high viewership threshold for renewing high-end, big-budget series".

Accordingly, the claim that the 'online response' played a part in this appears to be unsourced. Eurobleep (talk) 10:22, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

So far there's not much information on the reasoning other than the trades speculating. The ratings for this series were the lowest for a Star Wars series, but they were far from bad in comparison to everything else. I suppose the trade's reports are good enough to say something like the "The Acolyte was canceled after one season, reportedly due to low ratings and poor response by fans." Nemov (talk) 13:19, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Poor online response never has cancelled anything in Hollywood. The only reason it got cancelled is it didn't bring the money to justify a second season. Basic economic necessity is returning even to Disney. We may have no Wiki-usable proof yet, but it will come. Just give it some time. 2A02:908:190:AF80:74FA:BE6E:9A2E:8346 (talk) 16:55, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

agreed with your suggestion, and updated the lead. best to only include what is stated in the sources not extra opinions Holydiver82 (talk) 15:25, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

@Holydiver82 I rolled back your change that had zero to do with this discussion. Nemov (talk) 17:28, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

my second edit has nothing to do with this. it had to do with people removing important wording and context from the article. it is possible to make 2 separate edits to an article that dont involve you. hard to believe i know, but that edit was fixing changes made by a completely different person making completely different edits to the article. the fact that you go out of your way to revert any change i make and try to start an edit war is comical Holydiver82 (talk) 17:38, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

another suggested change

Continuing on with the previous request, there's no evidence that "low ratings" was involved in the cancellation of the show. This is false information, and can't be sourced. Whether that is why or not is unknown, and there are *many* theories as to what lead to the cancellation. I believe this should be removed as it is stating an assumption as fact. 24.113.75.199 (talk) 20:29, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Seconded. As for the same reason I gave nemov one thread up. 2A02:908:190:AF80:74FA:BE6E:9A2E:8346 (talk) 16:56, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

On the contrary, the Hollywood Reporter (widely accepted as a reputable source) has reported that "viewership data was not strong enough to prompt a season two, according to sources." This is the source that the article currently cites. Eurobleep (talk) 17:22, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

You do know that low ratings and viewership data are two completley different things, right? 2A02:908:190:AF80:74FA:BE6E:9A2E:8346 (talk) 18:41, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

In what world? The term "ratings" is synonymous with "viewership data" and both are often used interchangeably in regard to TV ratings. For your reference, you can see that called out here and here. I see no reason to change it, and I don't think we should, but an alternative is to change the text from "low ratings" to "low viewership". I have a hunch that wouldn't satisfy you though. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 19:40, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

You have a point. I always forget that some people use ratings synonymous with viewership.

As it was cancelled due to low viewership - and only that reason, the only thing that matters to a corporation that must make money at the end of the day - that change is the correct way, IMO.

2A02:908:190:AF80:D5F6:9AF0:F7E6:75B4 (talk) 01:01, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

The Stranger / Qimir article?

Should we make a character article for the Stranger / Qimir? HiGuys69420 (talk) 19:55, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

And why exactly is the potential casting of a high-profile actor like Keanu Reeves "not relevant enough"

... for inclusion here? It was part of casting considerations, and the dude is a noted name enough. I can understand keeping the stuff out of the Cast list, but Cast[ing]? That would be perfect to put there. BarntToust (talk) 22:02, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

It's trivial. Reeves wasn't cast and the report comes after the show has aired. It's not central to this article and it's basically a rumor that's been picked up for web traffic. This isn't an article about what parts Reeves may or may not have taken. Nemov (talk) 22:07, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Look, I get not seeing it in the cast section at the above in the page, just the same as why "Mahershala Ali and Matthew McConaughey were considered for the role of Joel in The Last of Us (TV series)", would belong in THE CASTING section of their article, not the top. Of course, The Last of Us season 1 is where this info would be since that was renewed. This is indeed WP:OTHERSTUFF, but the idea of it works, and is applicable, and has been applied.

This is not some "Internet Rumor". It is a report that someone was considered. In fact, if you don't like Sneider, there's /Film, Screen Rant, and other sources which cover this. This isn't baseless, and it definitely constitutes merit. BarntToust (talk) 22:12, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

It has been reported enough in other sources, including someone who is known to Wikipedia as a perennial source (That would be InSneider, you will find his reports cited ceaselessly in the scope of WP:MCU), such that it is meritorious enough for inclusion here. Please keep "internet rumors" distinct from reliable reports. BarntToust (talk) 22:19, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

You're damn right this isn't an article about Keanu Reeves or his potential roles. This is an article about a canceled Star Wars TV show that happens to have a #Casting section where this information is considered relevant. BarntToust (talk) 22:21, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

And if being reported after the show has aired means that a given piece of information is irrelevant, hell, I might as well start deleting everything in this article published after July 16. BarntToust (talk) 22:23, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

@Nemov and Pbritti: as I said in my edit restoring this info to the casting section, other actors up for consideration for roles are notable to include, and doing so in the casting section is appropriate. Is doesn't just have to be the actors who were cast, as showing others reflects the nature of the casting process. Additionally, Jeff Snieder is a subject-matter expert, so his newsletter is allowed as a source per WP:EXPERTSPS. That should not be grounds for removal of the info. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:03, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

It's trivial information that's not central to the series in any way, shape, or form. I'm not moved by argumennts of WP:OTHERSTUFF either. It's not notable and would need a lot more coverage than one one guy pushing info on his website for subs. I'm also perplexed that this has been added back to the article when there are several goof faith objections to inclusion. Nemov (talk) 01:40, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm with Nemov here. Besides being unconvinced at present that this guy qualifies for EXPERTSPS—especially since the relevant expertise would be industry gossip—I don't see the relevance of an otherwise marginal detail. If we had multiple RSs noting Reeves's possible inclusion in the series, maybe I could be convinced that it's important. ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:11, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Favre1fan93, I'm not sure why you would restore a bold edit after two editors already opposed, especially since your entrance did nothing to break the stalemate. In fact, you brought the debate to a dead even 2 vs. 2, which is a clear indication there is no consensus and that discussion is required. Repeating the same bold edit only raises the temperature in the room. I haven't looked at the source in question and have no opinion on the matter (yet), but that needs to be said. This page has already had its fair share of WP:OWN and other behavioral issues, so let's try to encourage more discussion, shall we?

BarntToust, can you or anyone else show past discussion where the SPS author was previously discussed on Wikipedia and deemed a subject-matter expert? If so, that might quickly close out this debate. If not, then maybe it's time to have that discussion and stop letting it slide. --GoneIn60 (talk) 04:08, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

WP:MCU uses Sneider EXTENSIVELY. The Fantastic Four: First Steps for one, uses his reports because he has been reliable for stuff in the past, believe us. But, since I don't wanna argue with any of you about that, here are a few below. BarntToust (talk) 12:29, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

ComicBook.com, SlashFilm, Screen Rant.

I don't feel like arguing with any of ya'll about Sneider. Take these and be happy. If you REALLY REALLY wanna have that debate, I guess that is something we can unfortunately have. BarntToust (talk) 12:32, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree with BarntToust that inclusion is relevant to the casting section because it highlights the development of the project. MOS:TVPRODUCTION simply says "Casting: This can cover the hiring of actors or personalities associated with the series or episode" while MOS:FILMCAST is a touch bit more detailed: "Real-world context may be about how the role was written, how the actor came to be cast, or what preparations were necessary for filming". I don't want to make an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, but I also ran into Sneider being used as a casting source in aforementioned The Fantastic Four: First Steps article in a similar fashion (ie. X & Y actors were initially considered, events occurred and then they landed on their final choice) so it appears that film is simply following the MOS guidance. Sariel Xilo (talk) 17:09, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

About InSneider viability as EXPERTSPS

---

Jeff Sneider being used as a source in Hollywood reporting.
Jeff Sneider's reports, found in his TheInSneider blog and also Above the Line, have been covered in several other reliable sources. His career besides his self-published blog: He has had two notable tenures at TheWrap, and in between those two tenures, he had a stint at Variety covering the film industry. This is confirmed here, with information here on his tenure at Variety. Collider also has him listed as Senior Film Reporter, and says he did work at Ain't It Cool News before his venture into trade publications, and at one point he contributed reports for Mashable.

These following perennial sources have cited his self-published blog:

• Forbes, including here and here BarntToust (talk) 14:24, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
  

Forbes describes him here as, "Jeff Sneider, an[] industry insider and reporter", and covers his reporting, even providing a link to another site he contributes to, Above the Line. BarntToust (talk) 14:58, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

• HuffPost covers his reporting here

• NME covers his reporting here BarntToust (talk) 14:35, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

and here's him reporting that Kaitlyn Dever was chosen to play Abby in the second season of The Last of Us, which ended up being spot-on correct, via NME: [1] BarntToust (talk) 14:42, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

• per a Vox Media publication, New York (magazine)'s own Vulture, covers one of his reports here BarntToust (talk) 14:49, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

• Screen Rant, {noted as considered reliable for entertainment-related topics (but not for controversial statements related to living persons), which in this case, we aren't concerned with Keanu Reeves himself, but rather a role he was considered for in a show, this is the definition of an entertainment-related topic} covers Sneider in many, many instances. [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]
  

and reported by Screen Rant here is an InSneider report that The Bikeriders, (a film with Austin Butler and Norman Reedus) was dropped by Disney's 20th Century Studios. Sneider's report ended up being true, as Disney let the rights go to Focus Features. BarntToust (talk) 15:09, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

• And Variety, reporting on the InSneider report mentioned above concerning Bikeriders, right here. Variety uses his reports. BarntToust (talk) 19:15, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

---

• Feedback – Don't view it as an argument per se. When someone challenges a self-published source, it is standard procedure to show why it is reliable if it has not already been shown before through discussion. I had assumed it was shown before, given how accepted you say it is in MCU articles. Also, I am not challenging. I'm simply trying to bring a swift end to the debate by focusing on the core of the disagreement.
  Thanks for providing those details. On the surface, that seems to indicate (to me) that he is a subject-matter expert within the industry. Nemov and Pbritti, do you have any further comment regarding the source's reliability, given the data provided above? I also realize there are still concerns regarding whether or not the information belongs in the article, regardless of reliability, which is something Nemov brought up. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:25, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Actually, GoneIn60, reading through the sources provided, I'm getting the sense we still shouldn't consider the blogs EXPERTSPS. While covered in RSs, his statements are described as "rumors" and often are presented in such a way that no one can disprove what he is saying ("X actor turned down a role"). Again, even if it was EXPERTSPS, that Reeves was offered the role is almost certainly not relevant, considering that there is no evidence the role was written specifically for him. Instead, it was likely a typical offer that many actors received. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:32, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Fair analysis, but do you concur that the source is generally considered reliable moving forward? -- GoneIn60 (talk) 16:34, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Independently, probably not (save for certain details that can color an article, like quotes). That said, I am hesitant to characterize my opposition in this case as a blanket statement about his blogs on the grounds that I'm only involved in this article due to noticing some vandalism on it and deciding to keep it on my watchlist. I'm not a movie/TV content expert. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:35, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Sneider's statements are reports. They aren't baseless bullcrap, they come from an informed perspective. I will say again, this is entirely relevant to the Casting process, not the cast section. BarntToust (talk) 16:35, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Look, I don't think the information I have come forth with merits inclusion in the cast list. Casting, however, is not just the cast, it covers the casting process, as well. Otherwise, it would just be a repeat of the information in the cast list, which is not encyclopedic. Hence why it is the casting section. Look, I was stupid to put it in the cast list with my prior edits. That is not relevant to the cast of the show. But to Casting, it remains completely relevant to detail seriously-considered processes in there. BarntToust (talk) 16:33, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't have an issue with Sneider, but he's the only source for this and my bigger issue is this trivial and not really important to the article. Nothing provided so far has changed my opinion in that regard. Nemov (talk) 16:36, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

This is not "trivial", this is relevant to the casting process. please stop your WP:ICANTHEARYOU argument against this. Casting processes are entirely relevant and encyclopedic and merit coverage. BarntToust (talk) 16:37, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

It appears you're unable to discuss this in a civil manner and I'm not obliged to satisfy you. Nemov (talk) 16:54, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

You seem to dismiss encyclopedic content as "not relevant" as if you were trying to write a header and not an article. We are not talking broadly in this sense, we are talking about a section that requires information. You refuse to recognize encyclopedic content as encyclopedic. Believe me, I could choose to call you a moron but instead I have been pointing out the flaws in your thought processes and presenting encyclopedic content. What part of this is uncivil? BarntToust (talk) 17:05, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

How about the part where you just said, "Believe me, I could choose to call you a moron..."? Although it is phrased as a hypothetic example, the hidden tone and message is clear. That is the kind of stuff that derails civil conversation. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:36, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Do not[e] that I have not called anyone a moron, and I hide nothing from any of you. I have, if anything, added a metric ton of sources, not attacked any of your points personally, instead I have addressed logic. (in my claim, lack thereof). Where in this did I even address the bare the hypothesis of going after any of you before Nemov said I was not being civil? BarntToust (talk) 17:42, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Do note that this sidebar is a waste of time, and the cause of the sidebar (the hypothetic example) was uncalled for and unnecessary. I am not the target, nor am I making any "points" for you to attack, so there is no need to defend yourself to me. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 18:13, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

It was also quite unnecessary for Nemov to dismiss an argument based on non-present "incivility". In fact, this entire chain is not needed. This article might be a controversial subject, but not everything needs vetted. Especially not encyclopedic content such as this. Objecting to factual, relevant information really is not needed at all. Nobody has constructed a meaningful argument for why encyclopedic content is not encyclopedic. BarntToust (talk) 18:36, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

And you have said plenty. That is now 15 replies in this thread. Please stop WP:BLUDGEONING the discussion and give others a chance to weigh in, if it's not already too late. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 18:50, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Casting is not simply the actors who end up being chosen to be in a given project. Casting is a process, and this is a prominent part of that process. Why do you continue to claim that this process is trivial? It forms the entire basis of what ends up on screen. BarntToust (talk) 17:07, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

And, as I have provided above, the SlashFilm, ComicBook.com, and Screen Rant reports buttress this information. This is how reporting works. One source finds info first, and publishes it, since it can only be found one time, and other sources cover it. BarntToust (talk) 16:39, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Survey

Should the article mention, in the #Casting section, that Keanu Reeves was under consideration for a leading role in The Acolyte TV series?

Sources:

ComicBook.com

SlashFilm

Screen Rant

Argument for:

Sariel Xilo noted that inclusion would be following guidance at MOS:TVPRODUCTION. The hiring of actors and personalities, and the events that lead up to that, are typically detailed in the article if they receive coverage in reliable sources. The information is reported from one industry insider whose reports are considered reliable by proponents per WP:EXPERTSPS. The insider's report is then cited by other reliable sources.
(BarntToust notes that the insider in question's blog has previously been cleared for use at WP:MCU as seen at WP:MCURS.)

Argument against:

Despite the potential reliability of the source, the information is trivial, did not receive a lot of coverage, and therefore does not belong anywhere in the article. It is essentially a citable "rumor" that provides no encyclopedic value.
(Pbritti notes that reliable sources characterize the insider's statements as "rumors".)

• So far, three editors support (Favre1fan93, BarntToust, and Sariel Xilo)
• Two editors oppose (Nemov and Pbritti)

I plan to drop a discussion notice at WT:FILM and WT:TV notifying others there of this discussion. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:27, 6 September 2024 (UTC), with input from BarntToust (talk) 21:02, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

• Since Sneider seems to be generally reliable and acknowledged for his reporting (I found other examples on my own to support this), I would be fine to include the detail given that it received coverage elsewhere. However, since the report was never confirmed by anyone else (as far as I can tell), I would use attribution or make it clear Reeves was reportedly under consideration – this is how other outlets covered it. RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:47, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

I dunno. The way RSs refer to these blogs reminds me quite a bit of—and forgive how dated this reference is, especially for someone my age—how some sources referred to Brietbart newsletters back in the day: rumors, sometimes validated. ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:53, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

except Sneider has already been professionally working in the business at several trades. Pbritti thinks his reports bare comparable value to the gossip at his grandma's bingo hall. they are not that, evidenced above + at the subsection detailing his SME status 2600:2B00:9639:F100:496E:CA63:1848:4D92 (talk) 05:56, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Did this editor forget to login? It's weird to have only two edits, only come to some random discussion about casting, and be openly hostile. Nemov (talk) 13:34, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

dynamic IP? i found this at talk project film. i made a funny analogy. cool it 2600:2B00:9639:F100:496E:CA63:1848:4D92 (talk) 16:05, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

it is also weird to put a TV show on project films talk... 2600:2B00:9639:F100:496E:CA63:1848:4D92 (talk) 16:07, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Ok IP, disagreeing with Pbritti is allowed. But keep the sass out of this discussion, it is not necessary. BarntToust (talk) 19:37, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

• Support – since the source has been established for years, and this pertains to the casting process --2600:2B00:9639:F100:496E:CA63:1848:4D92 (talk) 04:36, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support - the report comes from a reliable source (Sneider is a SME with a long career in the industry whose reports are regularly confirmed by the trades) and is a significant detail about the casting process for this series. It is not presented by Sneider as a rumour, and he does make it clear when he is reporting on corroborated details vs. rumours. It is also hardly trivial considering how noteworthy an actor Reeves is, the fact that the show did cast another major actor from the Matrix films, and especially when Sneider's report calls into question statements made by the showrunner. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:48, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

  "It is not presented by Sneider as a rumour, and he does make it clear when he is reporting on corroborated details vs. rumours."

  It is important to clarify that the sources that have picked up on Sneider's report are not regurgitating the information as fact. They wrote phrases like "was reportedly in consideration", "TheInSneider claims", and "Lee may have not been Lucasfilm's first choice" showing caution against claiming it as factual. This is what happens when you don't get official confirmation from either side – the studio or actor – and you don't get enough interest from big-time sources (e.g., Variety, THR, Deadline, NY Times, etc.). That's also understandably why some view it as trivial information. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 14:58, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

  News and websites always use non-definitive words when reporting stuff not coming from a primary source. For literally everything. Not just trade reports, but everything. I could turn on Fox, and they will be reporting on a video of a person wearing a black ski mask, holding a gun, taking money from a cashier. But. Fox will say it was an alleged robbery. In journalism, nobody is inclined to use absolute statements. But, I agree/ "Keanu Reeves was reported to be in talks.... But Sneider still remains patently reliable. BarntToust (talk) 19:35, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

  Nope, sorry that's not always true but quite imaginative that you think so. To give more of an apples-to-apples comparison, using an example which happens to be in the MCU (your bread-and-butter apparently), let's look at the near-casting of Emily Blunt as Black Widow. CinemaBlend and Orlando Sentinel both used definitive phrasing, stating Blunt "was" considered for the role, not allegedly or reportedly or rumored. This is how things look when higher-quality sources confirm the claims they write about, removing the need to write in second-hand. And these are just two of many sources on the Emily Blunt situation; I could list quite a few more.

  If something is significant enough for inclusion, it shouldn't be too hard to find multiple, independent primary sources confirming the claim, or at least multiple secondary sources writing definitively about it. I'm still on the fence, but I haven't seen anything too convincing that screams "we should include this". It may be too soon. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 01:25, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

• Support from previous inclusion. The evidence has been provided that Sneider is a subject matter expert so that shouldn't be an issue. The question now is, because it's presented as "rumor", should it be included. All the Hollywood trades (Variety, Deadline, THR) work off of tips and scoops, and for projects in the pop culture sphere such as this (including other Star Wars projects, Marvel, DC, etc.), very really does Lucasfilm/Marvel Studios/Disney or Warner Bros. actually "announce" castings so we get all these "in discussion/talks" reports that editors add in. Now in this case, I think noting Reeve's consideration is helpful to get a picture of the type of actor Lucasfilm was looking at for Master Sol, even if he wasn't actually cast in the role. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:24, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose from previous reversion. No one has really addressed my original problem. It's a piece of trivia from one source. If this was widely reported by multiple knowledgeable people I wouldn't have an issue. This wasn't covered by industry sources during pre-production and it comes a week after the series was canceled. If the consensus is to shoe horn this into the article, it should be brief and be attributed to "a report by Sneider." That's the extent of the reporting on this claim. Nemov (talk) 16:39, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support including the information, as the Casting process is not limited to those who end up getting the role. Casting is a process, and noteworthy actors like Keanu (of all people, the person that the New York Times considers the fourth-greatest actor of the 21st century) especially merit inclusion to expand the encyclopedic value of the article. Even were this not such an established, famed name, this is a noted part of the casting process of choosing actors. Including this sought-after name, which establishes a bassline for the type of actor they looked for to play the role, (which Favre1fan93 pointed out) helps further the understanding of this topic. BarntToust (talk) 19:46, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

  I also wonder why exponents question this report based on the fact that this emerged after the show's cancellation? The timeframe factor holds no effect on its veracity. BarntToust (talk) 19:57, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

• Support as "before Lee was cast, Lucasfilm reportedly wanted Keanu Reeves for the role, but he declined due to scheduling conflicts". Good for Sneider's word, for this, since the argument at the above for his legitimacy is convincing. YodaYogaYogurt154 (talk) 15:19, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

  ... "but he was said to have declined ..." seems like the clearer option. I like where you are going with this. BarntToust (talk) 22:16, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

  Why stop there? You could go further, "before Lee was cast, Lucasfilm reportedly wanted Keanu Reeves for the role, but he was said to have declined due to what was believed to have been a scheduling conflict."

  There's a good reason why we don't do this. At some point, it gets out of hand and goes overboard. These are also considered "expressions of doubt" per MOS:DOUBT, which introduce bias and should generally be avoided. Use in-text attribution instead and simplify. Write, "According to Sneider..." and then take all those highlighted words out. GoneIn60 (talk) 22:58, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

  I'll look at how the MCU editors did it at The Fantastic Four: First Steps. BarntToust (talk) 12:29, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

  Y'know, think what I suggested is not quite wp:weasel words or anything qualifying MOS:DOUBT. The guide says to not use potentially non-neutral or unclear phrasing. The policy as I read it does not consist anything against saying "reportedly" or "said to have". It only provides provisions against words that may provide unmeant values. BarntToust (talk) 12:37, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

  If there's a better way to write it, which attribution allows us to do, then we do so. And while it is sometimes necessary to use "reportedly" or "claims" once within a statement, doing what you suggest (or as I demonstrated) and adding more instances within the same sentence is impractical, unnecessary, and introduces more bias when we should be trying to reduce or avoid bias. I'm surprised that the example above doesn't get this point across. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 20:13, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

  Only two instances of non-definitive phrasing is hardly overboard. We would have to introduce Sneider in the body of the text were we to attribute it to him. Should we not just introduce his standing of "reporting" instead? After all, it is more direct. It's not who he is that remains the vital part, it's the content that needs to be seen. BarntToust (talk) 22:18, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

  "Reportedly, (which establishes the state of content concerning the entire sentence), Lucasfilm eyed Keanu Reeves for the role, but he declined due to scheduling conflicts.

  I think that would make it a bit easier. How's about them apples? BarntToust (talk) 22:22, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

  I totally see what you're saying about overdoing it. But that is a ways off from being unacceptable. But, it was not quite totally efficient. This should be the most efficient phrasing, for maximized value. BarntToust (talk) 22:25, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Just say the following: Journalist Jeff Sneider reported that Lucasfilm considered Keanu Reeves for the role, but he declined due to scheduling conflicts. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:30, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

References

Undue focus on the trolls

The audience reaction section places undue emphasis on the racist trolls throwing their usual temper-tantrums every single time a piece of media that has women or people of color in it comes out. not only does it take up an overwhelming majority of the section, it is framed in value-neutral terms which legitimizes it. This is not "audience reaction". It's just another chapter in the far right's never ending culture war waged against a non-existing enemy.

The first two paragraphs need to be deleted completely, with a few fragments integrated into the last one as examples of "rampage of... hyper-conservative bigotry and vitriol, prejudice, hatred and hateful language". Wikipedia should NOT normalize this sort of behavior. 46.97.170.18 (talk) 13:43, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

What is considered WP:UNDUE is determined by coverage in reliable sources, not personal opinion. - adamstom97 (talk) 14:02, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

As I was trying to say before, all the necessary sources are already present. What the section needs is proper interpretation of those sources. The hate coming from online trolls is covered by the reliable sources as just that: trolling. The article itself already explains with the above quotation (which other editors have mistakenly attributed to me) that the hate the show got is not reflective of true audience reception, and as such, the article should reflect that.

The first two paragraphs of the section describe in excessive detail, something that is completely invalidated by the later paragraphs. Focus should be on the REAL audience reaction, and the hate campaign should be presented in its proper context. No further reliable sources are required, because everything needed is already here. I'm not calling for more information to be added. I'm calling for existing information to be better organized and excessive redundant text to be removed. 46.97.170.18 (talk) 16:38, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Collapsed off-topic discussion

Undue is kind of like how one source says Reeves was considered for casting, but there's no other original reporting or confirmations from anyone about it? Nemov (talk) 14:06, 9 September 2024 (UTC) That is silly and unnecessary off-topic comment to put here. How about stick to the discussion in this thread? - adamstom97 (talk) 14:08, 9 September 2024 (UTC) What is considered WP:UNDUE is the heart of the thing you're attempting to educate others about... pointing out the hole in your argument above may be off topic, but sheds like on the weakness of it. Nemov (talk) 14:17, 9 September 2024 (UTC) If you have a concern about my argument in a different thread then why not respond to my comment there? Why put a passive-aggressive comment in a completely different thread? - adamstom97 (talk) 14:22, 9 September 2024 (UTC) Why don't we all just agree that the IP has violated WP:TPNO and remove this thread altogether? This is hate speech disguised as a criticism of "hateful language". Wikipedia is not a forum or soapbox. --GoneIn60 (talk) 14:29, 9 September 2024 (UTC) While some of the commentary offered about the quoted content has not be adequately backed by a source (and needs to be for this to be a productive discussion), this shouldn't have been prematurely archived. I originally misread what the IP was stating. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:26, 11 September 2024 (UTC) Jeez. Nemov, I've seen a few low blows on my two or so months on this site. I've seen a Portuguese person insult Nine Inch Nails and Shrek 5 on a lengthy tangent on my talk page. You cannot hope to compare to that ridiculousness. Your pettiness written above is inadequate. Whatever point you are trying to prove, someone has already been even pettier in "beating it in" than you have been doing here. As for the IP, yes, the culture war is lame on both sides, but it is still encyclopedic. It does not have to be proper. It just has to be relevant and encyclopedic. That is why it exists. BarntToust (talk) 16:00, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Input requested on intro's reference to review bombing

I propose the following language in the intro to better comply with WP:INTEXT:

"The series, which divided fans of the franchise, received lower viewership ratings than previous Star Wars series. Various commentators claimed that it was subject to a review bombing campaign."

This matches the sources provided in the reception section. I would like to hear from good-faith editors besides repetitive reverters like Nemov. All sources in the reception section are from critics, bloggers, or commentators. There's nothing wrong with using those sources on Wikipedia, but there is no downside to a simple in-text attribution, especially in the intro. Particularly as critical reception of this series declined over time, readers should not be misled into thinking that negative audience reception is inherently/only a result of review bombing. I'm struggling to see any justifiable downside to this, especially given the general presumption in favor of in-text attribution. Even if review bombing can be described by a majority of opinion writers as a "campaign," that's still appropriate for in-text attribution.

Open to other thoughts... Map42892 (talk) 05:02, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Down in the article body under Audience response, that entire 2nd paragraph could use a rewrite or revamp. It doesn't flow extremely well from one statement to another, lacks clarity in spots, and is a bit long in the tooth. I think we should tidy that up first, then perhaps we can look at "became the subject of a review bombing campaign" in the lead and consider suggestions and possible changes if any are needed. A simple one- or two-word addition there could keep it concise but also add a little more clarity and accuracy.

Sources are pretty adamant, though, that there is a very high certainty that review bombing occurred. If it is going to be rephrased with attribution, the high degree of certainty needs to be maintained to reflect the sources (at least that was my initial reading, so correct me if I'm wrong). --GoneIn60 (talk) 06:05, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree the 2nd paragraph could use a rewrite. It'll probably be easier to do once the dust settles. It's been difficult keeping up with all the changes. As far as the review bombing stuff, the sources are pretty clear. There's no serious reporting that there wasn't a review bombing campaign. Heck, they were even bombing similar titled shows on IMDb by mistake. There's no mystery here. Nemov (talk) 12:14, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, paragraph #2 needs rewrote. Looking at it now that you say something, it does seem choppy. The review bombing stuff appears to have happened. BarntToust (talk) 12:28, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

@GoneIn60 A problem in my view is that the intro doesn't match how the second paragraph of audience response is written *now*. That paragraph needs a major revamp, but no matter how it changes, I suggest there should be some sort of in-text attribution in the intro that review bombing is claimed by commentators. Saying so doesn't mean it's "not happening." It's just telling the reader who's speaking.

You make a good point that many reviewers are adamant about review bombing, so maybe this language for the intro is better:

"The series, which divided fans of the franchise, received lower viewership ratings than previous Star Wars series. Many commentators were adamant that it was subject to a review bombing campaign."

Or anything along these lines, really. It's neutral, clear, and not clumsy.

There's no serious reporting about any of this because we're talking about entertainment commentary, not the Associated Press. All can be legitimate sources for Wikipedia, but this comes down to how commentators characterize how much of the negative audience reception resulted from review bombing. Some of the sources say "some," some say "many," some say "campaign," some speak in absolutes, some don't. Obviously it's not as if there are studies or reliably quantified data about something like this; this is not a matter of such objective fact that WP:INTEXT implies attribution in the intro is unwarranted.

IMO it doesn't help readers if this article parrots the characterization of a number of entertainment writers, instead of just pointing out that it's a characterization. Even if it's a common one. Map42892 (talk) 14:51, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

OK, well perhaps someone here will have time to work on this before I can, or we can let it marinate for a few days. There's no rush. I'll be busy for a bit attending to other matters. Once we get to the lead section though, we just have to be careful about using words like "some" and "many", which can be considered "vague or ambiguous" per WP:WEASEL. We can cross that bridge when we get there. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 20:24, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Agreed with generally not using words like "some" or "many" for the reception section, but per WP:WEASEL, they're not inappropriate for my proposed sentence in the lead ("Many commentators were adamant that it was subject to a review bombing campaign."). The body text supplies the attribution via those "many commentators." Or, the phrase "several commentators" may be preferred and doesn't get into weasel territory. My concern is that the lead isn't providing any attribution at all as it stands. Certainly the audience reception section needs work, but the intro is borderline misleading by stating the commentators' view as objective. It's not quite to the point of the deadline being now, but I don't think a clarification in the lead inherently needs to wait for the work done in the body text. Map42892 (talk) 17:57, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand the hang up on the review bombing portion. There's an overwhelming amount of sources here describing it as a review bombing campaign. This fact isn't really in dispute except on this TALK page, but it's not reflected in the coverage. This was attributed to a review bombing campaign is a perfectly reasonable way to describe the coverage. The paragraph goes on and gets into details about some coverage of specific plot points. Some of that was added while the series was being aired. The Ki-Adi-Mundi stuff could be summarized into "there were fans who criticized plot points and the appearances of characters for allegedly violating established Star Wars canon." Or something along those lines. Nemov (talk) 18:49, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Nemov's TQ text regarding attribution. BarntToust (talk) 13:26, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

I would be interested to hear more specific elements of the audience response section that other editors think we should be working on, I don't agree that the whole thing is somehow poorly written. I have in my most recent edit cut down on the Ki-Adi-Mundi stuff but didn't go so far as Nemov suggested, as that seems far too vague and misleading to me.

For the mention of review bombing in the lead, I don't have a problem with the current wording since there is more than enough coverage to support it. However, I'm also not opposed to Nemov's suggested wording or going back to the previous wording, Many publications found that it was the target of a review bombing campaign. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:01, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 September 2024

Remove the line "and became the subject of a review bombing campaign." unless there is unequivocal proof that there was indeed a concerted effort to "review bomb" the show, as the term is defined, rather than there being a lot of negative reviews simply because the show was bad. Just because a bad show gets a lot of justifiably bad reviews, does not mean it was "review bombed". It can mean the show was just bad and the negative concentations of the term can be an attempt to deflect from the poor quality of the show. Thanks. Justforgroups (talk) 16:49, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Declined: There's an ongoing discussion above on the exact phrasing & sources releated to this topic which you can participate in. Sariel Xilo (talk) 16:55, 12 September 2024 (UTC)