Talk:Rey (Star Wars)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Requested move 19 December 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Also snowing. Jenks24 (talk) 12:58, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

---

Rey (character) → Rey (Star Wars) – The disambiguation of "character" in the title seems too vague. I propose using "Star Wars" as a disambiguation in line with other Star Wars related topics, such as First Order (Star Wars) and Stormtrooper (Star Wars). clpo13_(talk) 23:33, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm not against it, but when I created the page there were already several other articles with Rey in the title which didn't relate to Star Wars. That's the only reason I put character after; I thought it would be appropriate (as with Wolverine (character). It seems this article may get moved around again after her parentage (and probably) last name is revealed. Skykiller93 (talk) 01:29, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough, there's nothing solid saying the disambiguation has to be one way or the other. clpo13_(talk) 05:25, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Support: "Character" is far too vague, as there are a number of fictional characters called Rey, and the name itself is not terribly uncommon. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 12:01, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

• Support. Far more specific, and therefore disambiguation, disambiguator. There are many fictional characters named Rey. In other words, just a better choice. oknazevad (talk) 14:20, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support In ictu oculi (talk) 15:35, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support for reasons above. User:Immblueversion (talk) 18:51, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support - Rey (Star Wars) is more accurate and specific. Meatsgains (talk) 02:30, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support - More accurate. It's too bad we don't have a last name for her (yet?) Canuck^{89 (talk to me)} 08:02, December 21, 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Jedi ability

There's no mention under her appearance in The Force Awakens that talks about her use of the force. Shouldn't there be? --JDC808 ♫ 23:38, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Went ahead and added about it. --JDC808 ♫ 23:55, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Family Tree musings

Hmmmmmmm...is she or isn't she?....a member of the Skywalker-Solo extended family, that is? I'm sure that this will be debated endlessly until proven true or false in VIII or IX. But for me, well you know what they say, a picture's worth a thousand words. Go ahead & Google Daisy Ridley and Pernilla August, and compare them, especially in shots where they have those subtle enigmatic smiles. Can you say "Hi, great grand-mama", I knew that you could. I think Daisy looks even more like Pernilla than she does Carrie Fisher. OTOH, Rey seems to be taking charge like Princess Leia did in A New Hope. If I was a bettin' man, I'd go with Luke, but it could easily be Leia. My brother's son looks more like our dad than he does my brother, so go figure.

So, everyone else can continue debating "if"...I'll just be waiting for the clues as to whether it's her mom or her dad who is strong with the Force. Fgoron2000 (talk) 04:45, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree that she's most probably Luke's daughter, but as you've said we'll have to wait and see to find out. Until it's revealed, we can only speculate; we have nothing concrete on the matter. Skykiller93 (talk) 06:07, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Actually...

Its only a new thing but Disney have managed to accidentally spoil exactly who one of her parents is. I wont write it here to avoid spoiling it, but the information is from a promotional shot of an unreleased *thing* from an official Disney website. Its the same kind of dumb mistake they made when the Iron Man 3 lego set revealed the true identity of the Mandarin months before the movie was released. Whats the deal with including this in the article? Screen shots and links can be provided, and they cant really change this fact with the amount of products containing this information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.47.107.8 (talk) 11:36, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Nice picture

The picture tells it all! Like -- AstroU (talk) 03:32, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Blockquotes

I hope this thing between User:Nikkimaria and User:Soulbust is not going to be in edit war. I think User:Nikkimaria's work is not harming the article and User:Soulbust should give in. --johayek (talk) 00:05, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

One revert does not a war make :)

I agree that it looks kind of odd to have that many blockquotes, but the way to fix that would be to reduce some of the quotes - having so many long quotes is a potential NFC issue, regardless of their formatting. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:20, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I counted one "Undid revision …" and one "Revert" – that is almost the same, don't you agree? --johayek (talk) 01:05, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the block quotes aren't harming the article, but they don't look so good---they're kind of an eyesore. Trimming down the quotes and putting them in normal format would be better. Maybe two or three block quotes would be ok, but when we have over six or seven block quotes throughout the article it tends to become tiresome. We should use them sparingly if we're to use them. Skykiller93 (talk) 07:45, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, as is the blockquotes are a bit of an eyesore, too much spacing. Really, it's a symptom of a problem running through a few of the articles, where the section reads less like a casting and creation section and more like a "Here are a collection of quotes about the casting and creation" section. Which is fair enough, the articles are new, but it should probably be dealt with. In the meantime, I wouldn't be opposed to just declaring this an odd exception until the quotes are a bit more trimmed and integrated. – The Millionth One (talk) (contribs) 15:54, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Reason for declining Han's offer

This is just a little thing, but didn't she turn down Han's offer aboard the Falcon because she still wanted to go back to Jakku? I never got any suggestion that it was because of the Resistance issue (especially since that was much more short-term), and Wookiepedia also says that it was to go back home. Einstein runner (TC) 03:50, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

A section about her parentage?

As many know, there has been a lot of debate about Rey's parentage; I feel that this should be mentioned somewhere in the article, in similar vein to the parentage aspect of the Jon Snow (character)‎ article. While we will know her parentage soon enough, it still doesn't take away from the fact that this debate is a significant topic regarding this character. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:42, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

With this edit, where I rearranged the article, I added some parentage material. I thought about leaving what was already there about Rey's parentage with the development material, and adding on to that, but all of the parentage stuff fits better in the Reception section, especially since it's more reception than development with my addition. I also recognize that the article uses sfn reference style, but it also uses regular reference style, which confuses which style to go with. I used the quicker and easier style, which can obviously be changed to sfn style. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:21, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Made a series of fixes and tweaks after my addition, but mainly to my addition, which needed a typo fix (in this case, a missing word), "granddaughter" in place of "daughter" for the Obi-Wan Kenobi part, and some correcting on date and author pieces in the reference templates. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:20, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

The article now states that Kylo told her that her parent were nobodies, but this isn't entirely true. Kylo said: You know the truth in wich she replies: "they were nobody", in wich he states about they sold her for drinkingmoney. 09:13, 26 March 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hethuisanubis4ever1 (talk • contribs)

Hethuisanubis4ever1, that her parents were nobodies is essentially what he stated, or rather implied, even though he let her explicitly state the words. It's how WP:Reliable sources interpreted the matter -- that he told her they were nobodies. Either way, he certainly let her believe they were nobodies. But we can remove "that her parents were nobodies" if editors feel this is best, and since the quoted sources also comment on the "nobodies" aspect and therefore cover that text. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:58, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Have to side with others here, Flyer. We can't place words in a character's mouth: Kylo is not the one who says her parents were nobodies, Rey was. To say otherwise in the article is inaccurate, and the fact that some sources are not accurate on this point does not supplant what the film actually says. Toa Nidhiki05 14:07, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

See below. I stand by what I stated above. And there are no others. There is only Hethuisanubis4ever1 who pondered the above. And now you, unsurprisingly. Also pinging others I pinged below, and GoneIn60 since he has been heavily involved with the disputes at the Last Jedi talk page and handles disputes with poise, often acting as a mediator. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:56, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Are you saying I'm unwelcome here? That wouldn't be very nice to say, given you don't own the page. It's not surprising this would come to my attention, since it was linked in The Last Jedi's article. Toa Nidhiki05 21:05, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

This is not about "own." It's about your often inability to follow our rules and instead go by your personal opinions on matters. It's about your disagreement with me on this being no surprise, given how you acted and interacted with me at the Last Jedi talk page, especially on the parentage matter that you disagreed on despite what numerous reliable sources state. If you want to have yet another RfC where you are proven wrong, then so be it. Per above and below, you had no justification whatsoever for removing that sourced content that has WP:Consensus. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:17, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Lol. Toa Nidhiki05 21:33, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Critical commentary

Hippo43, regarding this, in what way do you think that the critical commentary is WP:Undue weight? Each point touches on what a variety of WP:Reliable sources have touched on. I fail to see how including those aspects is undue, unless you think the VanDerWerff piece is a little too long. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:59, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Pinging TAnthony, Soulbust, Treybien, Nitpicking polish, Granzymes and ScrapIronIV for their thoughts. And, for the record, I'd be fine with trimming the VanDerWerff piece just a little, but not as drastically as Hippo43 trimmed it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:06, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

I think the Parentage section is fine; it reads well and it isn't too long. If we were to trim it a little I would recommend removing "He said that it 'is great' that 'Rey is the child of nobody of particular importance to the story so far'" because that sentiment is expressed in the next quote as well. Granzymes (talk) 23:41, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

TAnthony, Soulbust, Treybien, Nitpicking polish, Granzymes, ScrapIronIV and GoneIn60, we have Toa Nidhiki05 arguing above that, with regard to Kylo, "we can't place words in a character's mouth." This is despite that, like I stated above, "that her parents were nobodies is essentially what he stated, or rather implied, even though he let her explicitly state the words. It's how WP:Reliable sources interpreted the matter -- that he told her they were nobodies. Either way, he certainly let her believe they were nobodies." With this edit, not only did Toa Nidhiki05 change the wording (which I noted I would be open to doing), he removed a sourced piece that covers critics and fans' thoughts on the matter -- that people should take Kylo letting Rey believe that her parents are nobodies with a grain of salt. Even the VanDerWerff source, which is partly quoted in the article, quite clearly states that Kylo Ren "has every reason to be lying". Thoughts? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:56, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

And on a side note: Toa Nidhiki05 might want to look at the Lie article and the different types of lies noted there. I would hate for us to need an RfC on this, like all of the RfCs we've had at the Last Jedi talk page. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:58, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

I would be more than happy for you to be rebut what I said with actually accurate information, but this article needs to be accurate and sources that aren't accurate don't belong here. A source that says the sky is red would be dismissed as inaccurate regardless of what perspective it offers. Similarly, a source that is based on a faulty premise (Kylo Ren said Rey's parents were nobodies, not Rey) should also be dismissed out of hand. I don't care how it interprets the film - but if the interpretation is based off a false premise, it doesn't belong. Regardless, your personal opinion on this matter (that Kylo spoke through Rey) is not fact and is an interpretation. We don't rely on interpretations from users here, we rely on facts. Toa Nidhiki05 21:05, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Nope. As usual, you haven't a clue what you are talking about. Also see here. And we most assuredly rely on interpretations from critics. There is no critical dispute whatsoever that Kylo led Rey to believe that her parents are nobodies. It's just you playing silly semantics. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:27, 1 June 2018 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:53, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

And on that note, Toa Nidhiki05 might also want to have a look at the Breaker of Chains article and see that we give most of our weight to critics' views that the scene between Jaime Lannister and Cersei Lannister (from Game of Thrones) was rape, despite how the characters might have felt about the interaction and what the creators have stated. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:10, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

That seems to be interpreting an event that actually happened as opposed to interpreting an event that didn't happen. If a source said that Jaime raped Cersei at knifepoint, would it be valid? Regardless, the existence of things in other articles (especially ones that aren't good or featured articles) isn't necessarily pertinent to what happens here. Toa Nidhiki05 21:17, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

That it "seems to be interpreting an event that actually happened" is your opinion, as made clear by creators, actors and some fans having a different view of it. And your interpretation of what Kylo did holds no weight, given what lying can mean and what reliable sources state on that matter. His intention was clear, and sources are more than clear that he perhaps led her to believe a lie. Hence, he lied. I will wait for others to weigh in, but I will not sit here and debate your nonsense any further. I will start that RfC if need be, since starting RfCs for your nonsense seems to be the only thing to stop such nonsense. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:27, 1 June 2018 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:53, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

It's not an interpretation. It's fact. Did Kylo Ren, and only Kylo Ren, say that her parents were nobody? I can put the entire course of dialogue here, but he never says those words. You can't escape that, and the fact is we shouldn't be including information that isn't accurate.

As a side, if you think I'm being disruptive, by all means go to ANI and report me. Otherwise, spare me the tacit insults. Toa Nidhiki05 21:33, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

The fact is that, like reliable sources note, he led her to believe that her parents are nobodies. If her parents are not nobodies, then this falls under what a lie is with regard to Kylo's action. Like I noted above, your insistence that he didn't tell her that her parents are nobodies is poor semantics, especially since he outright told her they were pretty much nothing and sold her, and that she had always known this deep down. But we'll see what others think when it comes to how Wikipedia works. You can't just declare reliable sources unreliable and insist that we can't use them because they have rightly interpreted a character as telling another character something and possibly deceiving that character. And either way, you did not have to remove the entire Bustle material since it addresses something Kylo actually stated about Rey's parents, and it covers a fact that a number of reliable sources cover -- that Kylo could be lying. Plus, the VanDerWerff material in the article still states that Kylo has a reason to be lying. The way you currently have the text worded in the article suggests that it's Rey who put the idea in Kylo's head, but that's not the case. The text that is there currently states, "Kylo tells her her parents were nobodies that sold Rey for drinking money, and that she had always known this deep down." The only difference between the previous version and yours on this particular piece is that your version begins that with, "Rey tells Kylo Ren that her parents were nobodies." It's just confusing, silly writing. You are being disruptive, but it's low-level disruption. The only way to handle the matter in a case like this is with an RfC. Otherwise, ANI is likely to view this as a content dispute. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:53, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

It seems like you are heavily invested in this fan theory. You're more than welcome to create a blog presenting evidence for why you believe that Kylo Ren was lying and that Rey's parents are actually someone important, but you're not entitled to mislead readers of this encyclopedia. Kylo Ren never says those words, and no matter how much you insist otherwise, you can't argue with it. The only reliable source that matters for what the movie actually says is the transcript. Toa Nidhiki05 14:10, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Our past interactions at Talk:Star Wars: The Last Jedi shows that, out of the two of us, I wasn't the one heavily invested in holding onto any personal fan theories. I was the one heavily invested in what WP:Reliable sources state and WP:Due weight, while you were all about biasing content because of your favorite theory that Rey is a Kenobi and your belief that it is the most popular parentage theory. Even numerous reliable sources showing otherwise couldn't change your mind on that. Thankfully, others saw reason. For me, it's not about Kylo Ren lying or not, which is why I corrected my wording on that. I confused the lying aspect with him telling her that her parents are nobodies because so many reliable sources cover both aspects. What I am concerned with is the fact that Kylo Ren led Rey to believe that her parents are nobodies and then confirmed it himself, and us making this clear in the article and relaying critical commentary on it. Making it clear that Kylo Ren led Rey to believe that her parents are nobodies and then confirmed it himself is not misleading readers in any sense of the word. And your insistence that it is, based on Kylo not using the word "nobodies," is as ridiculous as any argument I've ever heard on this site. Numerous reliable sources, which you are seemingly accusing of misleading readers, disagree with you. Also, your claim that "The only reliable source that matters for what the movie actually says is the transcript." just shows how out of touch you are with this site's rules. But I already knew that. I'm not the one who acts like a newbie who doesn't know what he hell he's saying. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:24, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

If all you're going to do is insult me and insist that I'm the one being disruptive when you are spewing paragraph after paragraph of bile, it's not worth talking to you. Good day. Toa Nidhiki05 00:40, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

I could state the same thing about you. In fact, I pretty much did earlier on by noting that I wasn't going to sit here and keep debating you on this. So I'd be more than happy for us both to shut up for now and let others weigh in. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:50, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

As of right now, the article text says, "In The Last Jedi, Rey tells Kylo Ren that her parents were nobodies. Kylo tells her her parents were nobodies that sold Rey for drinking money, and that she had always known this deep down."

Wouldn't it be easier to just rephrase this so that it pleases both parties? I'm thinking along the lines of:

In The Last Jedi, a conversation between Rey and Kylo Ren reveals that Rey's parents were insignificant. Rey is coaxed by Kylo into admitting they were "nobody", a revelation that Kylo tells Rey she already knew.

Perhaps it needs a bit more tweaking, but surely we can come up with a compromise that would allow us to cancel the lengthy, unnecessary RfC below. --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:44, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

GoneIn60, I have no issue at all with using such wording. I thought about it myself, and Isaidnoway also suggested it below. But I felt that if I had used such wording, I would have been reverted by Toa Nidhiki05 and/or would have been challenged on it by him here at the talk page. As you know, I've been down a similar road with him before when it comes to what reliable sources state. Above, you can see me stating plainly that Kylo Ren led Rey to believe that her parents are nobodies and essentially told her that her parents are nobodies, but Toa Nidhiki05 has not conceded that this is the case. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:46, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

RfC: Can/should we state that Kylo Ren told or led Rey to believe that her parents are nobodies?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Above on the article's talk page, there is a dispute with regard to critical reception material in the article (the Parentage section). One argument is that Kylo Ren didn't state the actual words "they are nobodies" to Rey about her parents. Therefore, we shouldn't state that Kylo Ren said this. In contrast to this view, reliable sources (seen below in the Discussion section) state that Kylo Ren told or led Rey to believe that her parents are nobodies, despite not using the actual word "nobodies." Therefore, the other argument is that we should be able to report that Kylo Ren did this. So can/should we?

I'll alert WP:Film to this RfC. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:53, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Survey

• Yes. Like I noted above, various reliable sources are clear that Kylo led Rey to believe that her parents are nobodies. This can count as him telling her so, and it's clearly how critics and general viewers (as well as fans) interpreted the interaction. Writer-director Rian Johnson (who wrote and directed the film in which this scene takes place) also states that Kylo said this. Rey didn't put the notion into Kylo's head. Kylo, however, preyed on Rey's fears and got her to say what he was thinking. Once she said it, he confirmed it. See the sources in the #Discussion section below. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:53, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
• No The facts are simple: Kylo seen never said that Rey's parents were nobodies. Rey did. The film itself surpasses all interpretations, especially ones based on faulty premises or things that didn’t happen. It would be a disservice to our readers to put inaccurate content in this article. The article should note that Rey says her parents were nobodies, and then note what Kylo aren’t said - exactly what happens in the movie. It is patently ridiculous to suggest we should ignore what actually happened in the movie and instead rely on faulty interpretations from people with evidently poor memories.. Toa Nidhiki05 11:46, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
• Yes and Yes - The context of that whole exchange between Rey and Kylo matters, and the intro to that paragraph needs to be expanded to provide that context. So yes - The article should note that Rey says her parents were nobodies, and yes - sources support stating Kylo Ren told Rey that her parents are nobodies when it's put into context that he's confirming the knowledge that she’s struggling to come to terms with. Isaidnoway (talk) 08:35, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
• No While context would suggest that's what is being said, I feel that there's too much left up to the viewer's interpretation for it to be listed as encyclopedic fact. Strikerforce^Talk 13:56, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Strikerforce, so you don't think we should even state that Kylo Ren led Rey to believe that her parents are nobodies, even though the writer of the film and numerous reliable sources state this? See the Discussion section below, where we are trying to work out wording for the text based on what was shown onscreen and what reliable sources state. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:31, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Struck, per below.Strikerforce^Talk 14:09, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Also, it's not like this is going in the plot (Appearances) section. It's going in the Parentage section, which is an aspect of the Reception section and documents critical analyses, which means that what the critics think matters in that section. I don't see the "too much left up to the viewer's interpretation" thing that you do, since no reliable source has disputed that Kylo Ren told Rey/confirmed to Rey that her parents are nobodies. I don't see viewers/fans disputing it either, other than this dispute on this talk page. Even when saying that Kylo didn't state the word nobodies, he still confirmed the matter to her. The writer and reliable sources support that. But, again, we are compromising below. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:59, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Strikerforce: Per the discussions above and below, the wording has been changed to read, "In The Last Jedi, a conversation between Rey and Kylo Ren reveals that Rey's parents were insignificant. Rey is coaxed by Kylo into admitting they were "nobody", a revelation that Kylo tells Rey she already knew." We were going to end the RfC early on this compromise, considering the RfC originator and the main opposition agree that this is an acceptable workaround. Are you still opposed, or can we move forward with the RfC closure? --GoneIn60 (talk) 14:00, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

GoneIn60 I can live with that. Strikerforce^Talk 14:08, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

Reliable sources stating that Kylo Ren told or led Rey to believe that her parents are nobodies.

This 2017 Vox source states, "In a moment of heated conflict, Kylo Ren tells Rey that her parents were nobodies, not part of a great, mystical, generations-spanning soap opera. They were junk traders, who sold their child(!) and abandoned her, then later died ignoble deaths. He even pulls what amounts to his spin on Darth Vader’s old 'search your feelings, you know it to be true' line. Luke Skywalker’s greatest nightmare was being Darth Vader’s son; Rey’s greatest nightmare is being no one. Now, to be sure, Kylo Ren has every reason to be lying here." This 2017 Bustle source states, "Towards the end of the film, it seems like Rey and Ben are about to team up, and Kylo Ren uses his 'knowledge' of Rey's parents to try and lure her to the dark side. Kylo taunts her with what he says she allegedly already knows: that her parents were nobodies who sold her for gambling and drinking money. 'You have no place in this story,' Ben says to Rey. 'You come from nothing. You are nothing.' But can't we trust Kylo Ren's story? Not necessarily. Knowing that Kylo Ren is unreliable and would say anything to lure Rey to his side, we have to take what he says with a grain of salt and look elsewhere for hints of Rey's lineage. And we can find one example by looking no further than Kylo himself." This 2017 Collider source, in an interview with writer-director Rian Johnson states, "Arguably the most controversial point was the reveal that Rey’s parents were nobodies. After two years of fan speculation that Rey could be the offspring of Han/Leia, Luke, Obi-Wan Kenobi, or other major characters, it turns out that her parents were junk traders who sold her off for drinking money when she was a child." And Rian Johnson clearly states, "That’s what Kylo sees and that’s what he tells her and I think he’s not lying in that moment. That’s what he saw and she seems to believe it when she hears it. I don’t want to … I’m not writing the next film, we’ll see how they handle it going forward, and as we all know in these movies, there’s always a certain point of view that’s involved. But, for me, I’ll tell you that was the … I can understand why that answer doesn’t feel good. It’s not supposed to feel good. It’s supposed to be the hardest thing she could possibly hear in that moment." This 2017 Screen Rant source states, " Star Wars: The Last Jedi director Rian Johnson states that Kylo Ren was not lying about Rey's parentage when he told his frenemy they were nobodies. " This 2017 Slate source states, "The revelation comes about two-thirds into The Last Jedi, during a confrontation between Rey and Kylo Ren, who is tempting her to join him so that they can establish a new order together. He urges Rey to let go of the past—and suggests that, despite all her searching, she already knows why she was abandoned on Jakku and who her parents are. [...] First things first: Could Kylo be lying about who Rey’s parents are? Sure. He is, after all, trying to convince Rey to cut ties with the Resistance and join him, and 'You’re nothing—but not to me' is a smart recruiting tactic. [...] Kylo’s insistence, 'You know the truth,' even has a ring of Vader’s 'Search your feelings, you know it to be true.' These are signals to the audience that the revelation is meant to be every bit as true and devastating as 'I am your father,' if not quite as surprising. " This 2017 thisisinsider.com source states, "Kylo Ren tells Rey her parents were nobodies. Rey admits this fact herself during their emotional conversation. [...] Kylo tells Rey about her parents as part of his attempt to manipulate her into taking a place by his side. He wants her to focus on the despair she may feel about coming from a legacy of nobodies and being cast aside by her parents. Kylo believes they can rule together — but only if Rey thinks she is insignificant to the world first." This 2018 Syfy source states, " 'They were nobody,' Rey admits of her parents in Star Wars: The Last Jedi. 'They were filthy junk traders,' Kylo Ren confirms. [They] sold you off for drinking money. They’re dead in a pauper’s grave in the Jakku desert.' " This 2018 Yahoo! source states, "Not only do we not know the identity of Rey's parents by the end of The Last Jedi, but Kylo Ren complicates matters further by telling Rey that he saw her parents in a vision and that they were nothing more than common drunkards who abandoned her on Jakku. 'You come from nothing. You're nothing,' Kylo tells a tearful Rey in a pivotal scene where he tries to convince her to leave the Resistance to join him, adding 'but not to me' as he tries to convince her to join him on his destructive mission. Even Rey agrees with him that her parents were nobodies and that her quest to be trained by Luke Skywalker is just her way of trying to find a sense of place and belonging, but the question is, can you believe Kylo Ren?"

What the movie scene actually says.

Kylo Ren: Do you want to know the truth about your parents? Or have you always known? You've just hidden it away. You know the truth. Say it. Say it. Rey: They were nobody. Kylo Ren: They were filthy junk traders who sold you off for drinking money. They're dead in a poverished grave in the Jakku desert. You have no place in this story. You come from nothing. You're nothing. But not to me. Join me.

Toa Nidhiki05 states, "The facts are simple: Kylo [...] never said that Rey's parents were nobodies." Again, this is silly semantics. Synonyms, and words that mean pretty much the same thing or indicate the same thing, do exist, after all. One needn't state the actual word "nobodies" to state that a person's parents are nobodies, just like I needn't use the actual words "Christina Aguilera is a celebrity" to make it clear that she is famous. Kylo Ren did similarly with Rey. Like the sources I listed above make clear, he coaxed her into stating the supposed truth about her parents. Once she did, he then confirmed that her parents are nobodies -- people of no particular importance or power in the Star Wars universe, stating, "They were filthy junk traders who sold you off for drinking money. They're dead in a poverished grave in the Jakku desert. You have no place in this story. You come from nothing. You're nothing." He is telling her she is nothing -- a nobody -- because her parents were nothing/nobodies. Clear as day. Anyone is free to look at what was actually stated in Toa Nidhiki05's green second box. The critics and viewers clearly know that this is what was stated; it is also somewhat cited in my green sourced box. And still the critics, and the writer/director of the film, state that Kylo Ren told Rey that her parents are nobodies. This debate is among the silliest I've ever been involved in. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:24, 3 June 2018 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:45, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

• This is the problematic content under discussion here:

Current - In The Last Jedi, Rey tells Kylo Ren that her parents were nobodies. Kylo tells her her parents were nobodies that sold Rey for drinking money, and that she had always known this deep down.

Previous - In The Last Jedi, Kylo Ren tells Rey that her parents were nobodies that sold Rey for drink money and that she had always known this deep down

Both are poorly worded, context is missing from both versions. It needs to be worded to clarify that Kylo is confirming what Rey has just said. Flyer22 Reborn, your summary above of the exchange between Rey and Kylo (based on RS), shows that context - "the sources I listed above make clear, he coaxed her into stating the supposed truth about her parents. Once she did, he then confirmed that her parents are nobodies." Isaidnoway (talk) 08:44, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Isaidnoway, yes, thank you. Like I told GoneIn60 above, I considered such wording. And I'm okay with using it. I'd originally simply gone with Kylo Ren telling Rey that her parents are nobodies because it's what so many people, including critics, say and because it's simpler. He did, after all, coax her into saying it, and then confirmed it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:46, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

I also plan to restore the removed sourced bit about Kylo possibly lying, since it's another aspect that critics cover, and because it was claimed to have been removed because of the view that Kylo didn't tell Rey her parents are nobodies. Along with it, I will add Rian Johnson's commentary that says Kylo Ren wasn't lying because he said what he believes. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:00, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Toa Nidhiki05: Would you be open to the version I posted above in the previous discussion or something similar? If we can agree to something fairly soon, this RfC could be closed early per WP:RFCEND. --GoneIn60 (talk) 02:41, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

This text is not bad. Despite what Flyer seems to think, I'm alright with that. I don't 100% like the term coax though - maybe "pressures" or something along that line? The key is that this needs to note it is Rey who says the phrase, and this does that. Toa Nidhiki05 22:08, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

"coaxed" seems like one of the best fits to me, but perhaps another option might be "influenced"? --GoneIn60 (talk) 11:35, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Like you, I prefer coaxed. And it seems that Isaidnoway does as well. I see no need to use a synonym, much like I see no need to state that Rey says the word nobodies. But, hey, I can compromise. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:43, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

GoneIn60, we could use "urged" or "urges," like the above Slate source does. You can also be WP:Bold and go ahead and implement the text since Toa Nidhiki05 has stated that he's okay with your and Isaidnoway's suggestion. After that, you can feel free to close the RfC if I'm not online to do it. Unless, of course, someone objects to your and Isaidnoway's suggestion. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:59, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm traveling at the moment, so it might be a day or two until I get around to it. --GoneIn60 (talk) 03:52, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Citation style

It's a bit odd for an article primarily citing web refs to use the harvard (sfn) format. It's good for the odd book reference if it's going to be referenced frequently, but it creates a level of obfuscation for readers trying to check the citation (compared to most other articles). :) —UpdateNerd (talk) 08:40, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

UpdateNerd, Soulbust has been using that style for the article. I'd prefer that the article not use that style. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:50, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't mind it being changed, although the edit history tells me other editors have continued the use of that style on this article as well. But it's all cool to change it imo. Soulbust (talk) 18:30, 27 February 2019 (UTC)