Talk:Star Wars Theory

Pablo Hidalgo controversy

In December 2020, Lucasfilm Story Group executive Pablo Hidalgo was criticized for privately tweeting "emotions are not for sharing", allegedly mocking a Star Wars fan's emotional YouTube video reaction to the season 2 finale of The Mandalorian. After the tweet became public, Hidalgo apologized and clarified that the tweet was meant to be sarcastic.

References

https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Star_Wars_Theory&diff=next&oldid=1050595727&diffmode=source Nemov, you deleted it with the message "this is already mentioned on subject's page." This involves two people. Why would it only be mentioned on one guy's page, and not the other? Its two sentences long, very well referenced. Everyone please give your opinions on this. Is there any reason not to have this in the article? Dream Focus 00:01, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Since the topic is rather trivial and it's already covered at Pablo Hidalgo it seems WP:UNDUE to mention it here as well. Nemov (talk) 00:02, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Was the emotional fan the person running the Star Wars Theory channel? That connection should be made in the text, because it doesn't make much sense in this article without that context. Schazjmd (talk) 00:09, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it was this guy. That should be rewritten to clarify it. When I created the article I had that clearly written as: Lucasfilm Story Group executive Pablo Hidalgo received coverage for mocking him for crying during the finale of Mandalorian Season 2. After facing criticism for this, he apologized. Then Nemov rewrote it later on [1] to what it is now. Dream Focus 00:17, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

I think it should be included then, just rewritten so it makes sense here. There are good sources, and if it was significant enough to include at Pablo Hidalgo, it's significant enough here. Schazjmd (talk) 00:19, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

I've edited it and added it back for now, but it's kind of silly that some Twitter misunderstanding seems to be the most significant coverage this person has received. - Nemov (talk) 12:43, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Coverage is coverage, but I think including it is correct. If it is included on only one of the articles, it would seem like a WP bias. If notable person X and notable doctor Y get into a legal dispute over malpractice that gets into the news, both X and Y articles should have mention of the dispute, otherwise it would seem like hiding information. It's natural for the dispute to carry more weight for one individual over the other, though, making it a blip on one page, and an elaborated description on the other. -2pou (talk) 17:42, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

References

mentioning some of the famous people he interviewed

[2] Nemov edited out something else with the message "The channel isn't a notable organization so it fails WP:NOYT." Notability is determined in an AFD, which this is currently at, with three people there saying it is notable, and only Nemov claiming it is not. Obviously an article for a YouTube channel can link to things on that channel. Opinions please, should it be reinstated? Dream Focus 13:06, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Set aside the fact your source was Star Wars Theory's own YouTube videos, unless there's secondary notable coverage there's no reason for it to be included here. If other sources covered those interviews, by all means add them to the article. Nemov (talk) 13:17, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

WP:NOYT clearly states official channels of notable organizations, such as Monty Python's channel, may be acceptable as primary sources. Note that WP:PRIMARY states A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a musician may cite discographies and track listings published by the record label, and an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. There is no reason not to mention information about the subject of the article. His channel is about Star Wars, and he has interviewed people that have worked on Star Wars media. That should be mentioned. Other opinions please. Dream Focus 13:27, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

It's a real simple question. Did these interviews generate coverage by multiple sources? If yes, include... if not then the information doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Nemov (talk) 13:37, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Articles contain plenty of information that isn't covered by multiple sources. That is not a requirement to be in an article. Dream Focus 14:26, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

Coming from 3O, this is a border issue. Notability wise, a YouTube clip doesn't pass. However it can be used to justify factual information that's obvious from watching the official channel, assuming that everyone can agree that it's there. I'm hesitant to go this way, as I hate YouTube as a source, but I'm leaning towards agreeing with Dream Focus.Stix1776 (talk) 10:16, 26 October 2021 (UTC) Stix1776 (talk) 10:26, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm with Nemov on this one. I'm fine with mentioning any interviews that receive coverage in a secondary source. One source would be sufficient for me. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 15:29, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Dream Focus, is there some reason you've gone ahead and added this without a consensus? What's the rush? These interviews aren't "obvious" since he's got tons of videos. What sets these videos apart as notable? - Nemov (talk) 04:07, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

No response for 6 days, then one person respond to my third opinion request and agrees with me. I get to work on it. I then later notice that while I was working with it, someone else posted here, so stopped for awhile. There is this thing called common sense. If the show is called Star Wars Theory, and he interviews people that worked in the Star Wars franchise, that is something that should be in the article. Dream Focus 12:32, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Please just make sure there's a consensus. There wasn't one. Thanks. Nemov (talk) 12:51, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Two people agreed, and the only one at the time against it is the one who keeps trying to delete as much of the article as possible, tried to delete it at AFD and failed, and although having no interest in the article's subject keeps arguing on the talk page of it. Your edit history shows you aren't doing much else. [3] Dream Focus 12:55, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Please keep this on topic. There's no reason to make it personal. At Wikipedia we strive to find consensus. One person agreeing with you or me isn't a consensus. Thanks and happy editing. Nemov (talk) 13:14, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Proposal for deletion; Feb. 22

Not deserving of its own article. This page should be moved to a shared page titled: List of Star Wars Content Creators. One does not exist yet but I suggest it be made to include Theory and a bunch of other popular creators. Adding on, the article plays a very low significance in the Star Wars WikiProject and is rated as a stub. I feel my proposed idea could one-up those ratings and play an actual role in this project. TheCoolestKidHere (talk) 23:09, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Disagree, there's more than enough here to warrant an article IMO. You can always create the list and link to this article from within it? NemesisAT (talk) 09:25, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree this article doesn't need to exist. LordApofisu (talk) 14:28, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

I proposed this article for deletion last year and the consensus was to keep. Nemov (talk) 14:35, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Are we still on this? The article exists. The subject was deemed notable and there are multiple sources to back it up. Happy Holidays. Kjscotte34 (talk) 10:16, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Inaccurate information, January 21st

The section concerning the January 2024 Rolling Stone article, stating directly that Theory doesn't think women belong in star wars, etc. is defamatory. The article directly includes falsities and lies, which are addressed with evidence in a follow up video by Theory. His guest, a psychologist and a woman, said that (in her opinion) women don't watch Star Wars - which he did not agree with, and has never stated any of the things the article damns him for - which can be confirmed by watching his videos and hearing his reply. He offered for anyone to cite a source on any of the direct statements RS affirmed as real. Theory has a long history of speaking to the importance of both men and women in the fandom and on the creative level. The article seems designed to commit character assassination, but has no sources to back up any of the accused opinions or statements. Until the RS article and related link (10 and 11) can be confirmed, it should be removed from the entry as unfounded. We should not use Wikipedia to further Internet smear campaigns against content creators without proven sources. NyxHollow (talk) 22:08, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

The sources here are reliable. If you have some reliable sources that counter what's included feel free to share. Your opinions about this person said on their channel is irrelevant and would be characterized as original research. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 01:24, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

I know you understand that there’s no such thing as “sources that counter” a claim that is unsubstantiated. In order to counter a claim, the claim has to exist. Either SWT said the things the page claims, or he didn’t. There is no counter to something that is not substantiated and there is no EVIDENCE to support what the page says. You are using manipulative language so you can gatekeep this page against baseless accusations. Unless of course, you personally have evidence of what the page claims, in which case SWT will give you 10k. Have you taken him up on the offer? :) 2600:100D:B081:CA25:58F2:4412:58B4:5284 (talk) 13:31, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

If you have a question about Wikipedia policy regarding reliable sources I'll be glad to help. The article reflects what the Rolling Stone article says and it's a reliable source. Nemov (talk) 13:52, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree about the Rolling Stone being a reliable source in general, but being a reliable source doesn't exclude you from being wrong or from never making any false claims.

We have a case here where we have a publication making unsubstantiated claims. Surely not something unheard of.

The claims being made in the article are backed by nothing but the article. The source being the video, you can simply watch the video and see that the representation of it isn't accurate.

When something is so clearly an opinion piece, despite being from a source that is considered reliable in general, should this really be presented without question here? Die-yng (talk) 02:55, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Just accept your favorite YouTuber’s a misogynist bro. B ThatNerdyGuy (talk) 05:34, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

@B ThatNerdyGuy I've never heard him state a misogynist take. Can you cite a direct instance of him doing so? I'll take a YouTube link with a timestamp, if you have one. NyxHollow (talk) 06:27, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

This isn't a forum, so unless there's something specific to discuss in regards to improving this article this line of discussion should end here. Thanks Nemov (talk) 12:25, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

@Nemov Well, my original tag was a request to check in on the source authenticity, as the article seemed unfounded and potentially slanderous. Nobody seemed to do that, so the request remains to cite something SWT said or wrote that gives the article legitimacy. The section is still up, but my request still stands. Anybody is welcome to fulfill it. Otherwise, agreed, I'm off. NyxHollow (talk) 23:59, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

I answered your original question. The article cites a reliable source. Nemov (talk) 00:08, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

@Nemov You only said that Rolling Stone is a reliable source. You did not show a receipt that demonstrates any validity to any of the inflammatory things the article wrote about SWT. The article itself has no sources cited either. Is it so hard to provide a time stamp or comment by SWT where he says anything like the article says?

The RS article is not sourced. The wiki section here, and you, are keeping it up on the grounds that it is sourced.

Can you cite the source of the RS article, or provide a source that confirms what the article is claiming? Anybody? Bueller? NyxHollow (talk) 19:09, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

What you are asking is not required. You can review some of the helpful links I posted at your TALK several months ago if you have questions about how sourcing works on Wikipedia. Nemov (talk) 19:39, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

• @Dream Focus, I rolled back to the stable version of this article. Your explanation[4] for removing the content mentioned some irrelevant information about the woman in charge of Star Wars making t-shirts. Not sure how that relates to removing something that's adequately sourced, but it's certainly not a policy argument. The Rolling Stone and NBC articles that are sourced are most definitely about the subject of this article. Nemov (talk) 22:29, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

  including his statements that Disney executives had been creating and centering female characters as part of an agenda.

  They did in fact do this as part of an agenda. There is no doubt of that. Kathleen Kennedy posed with her female staff with t-shirts that read "the force is female". South Park did an episode mocking her for this[5]. Ahsoka, The Acolyte, Rey in the Star Wars sequel trilogy, etc. Lot of reviewers mention how they created female characters, that just happen to be better than all the male ones, for their agenda.

  Dream Focus 22:55, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

  Not sure how any of this is relevant, but the character of Rey was a George Lucas idea that was in development before Kennedy/Disney was involved. Maybe he was part of the agenda as well.[6] Nemov (talk) 23:05, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Alt-right associations

Dadbeh has been increasingly become more comfortable associating with alt-right Youtubers, like Geeks & Gamers, Quartering, and various others. And should be noted as many all of these channels covered and defended his channel after it was revealed that Star Wars explained tried to “demonetize” his channel. B ThatNerdyGuy (talk) 00:31, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Unless this has received coverage from reliable sources it doesn't justify inclusion on Wikipedia. Nemov (talk) 00:58, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Does he mention any politics ever? Is it not suppose to be able to talk about Star Wars with other YouTubers without checking their politics first? I doubt every single person he's ever had on his channel has the same political view. Dream Focus 23:00, 18 September 2024 (UTC)