Talk:Lucas bashing

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article was nominated for deletion on 291205. The result of the discussion was no concensus. An archived record of this discussion can be found here.

1 New NPOV and Disputed Facts Discussion
2 Merge discussion
3 NPOV dispute
4 Other discussions
5 Current Position On Disputed Tagging (April/May 2006)

[edit] New NPOV and Disputed Facts Discussion

APRIL/MAY 2006 THE TAGGING OF THIS ARTICLE AND THE BIOGRAPHY IT IS LINKED TO WILL CONTINUE UNTIL DEBATE IS SETTLED REGARDING THE BIASED NATURE OF THE ARTICLE AND THE INHERENTLY POV AND BIASED POSITION IT CREATES SURROUNDING THE MATERIAL. CONTINUING TO DELETE THESE TAGS IS VANDALISM, BUT IN MY EXPERIENCE, PEOPLE ON WIKIPEDIA SEEM TO NOT MIND VANDALIZING, AS LONG AS THEY JUSTIFY IT...

I MAINTAIN THAT THE PRESENCE OF THIS ARTICLE PROMOTES A BIASED AND UNFORTUNATELY BLIND-SIGHTED VIEW OF THE DIRECTOR IT IS DESCRIBING. THE REMOVAL OF SUCH PAGES AS "BUSH BASHING" REFERRING TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, SPEAK STRONGLY TO THIS AS BEING THE COMMON SENTIMENT ON WIKIPEDIA. THE CRITICISM OF A POLITICAL FIGURE IS NO MORE A CULTURAL PHENOMENON THAN IS THE CRITICISM OF A FILM DIRECTOR, AND IN MY MIND, NO LESS SERIOUS. I DO NOT BELIEVE THIS ARTICLE HAS ANY PLACE ON WIKIPEDIA, AND ITS COY WAY OF "DEFINING" TERMS SUCH AS "LUCAS GUSHER" ARE BOTH PURE FANTASY AND ACADEMICALLY/FACTUALLY INCORRECT. IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO CRITICIZE THE DIRECTOR, PLEASE DO SO BY ALL MEANS ON YOUR OWN WEBSITE. THIS ARTICLE CANNOT BE IMPROVED, IT IS A BIASED SUBJECT AND ENTRY TO BEGIN WITH. IT CAN ONLY BE REMOVED. UNTIL THEN, THIS WEBSITE REMAINS TAGGED.

Thank you for taking the time to place a comment on the discussion page.

To increase the chance that the page will improve due to the placement of this tag, please list specific facts on this page that you feel are unsupported. If you can narrow it down to sentences that would be best. I would assert that the definition within this article is well supported by the linked film reviews and linked forums discussions. If you see an aspect which is not, please give the unsupported fact.

Note that these issues have been discussed recently and the existing comments on this page are still relevant to the discussion.

Posting in all caps, all headings, without registering a user name and labelling Wikipedians as vandalizing sympathizers will continue to do a disservice to your argument. I have reformatted your post as plain text rather than heading to reduce the impression that you are the vandal that you accuse others of being.

Mattisgoo 06:49, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

REFORMAT ALL YOU LIKE, AND PLEASE DON'T USE THE WORD WIKIPEDIANS, I ALREADY FEEL LIKE I'M IN KINDERGARTEN ENOUGH. SINCE THE LINK TO THIS PAGE FROM THE GEORGE LUCAS BIOGRAPHY HAS APPARENTLY BEEN SEVERED, NOT BY MYSELF, BUT IT SEEMS TO BE THE CASE, I WOULD NO LONGER TAKE THE TIME TO CONTEST IT. IT DOESN'T MATTER MUCH TO ME, EVEN IF THE ARTICLE IS COMPLETE FICTION, AS LONG AS ITS NOT DIRECTLY LINKED OFF OF THE DIRECTOR'S WEBSITE. AND PLEASE DON'T MISREAD, I BELIEVE I ADEQUATELY STATED THAT THERE ARE NO IMPROVEMENTS THAT WOULD PAINT THIS ARTICLE IN A NEUTRAL, ACADEMICALLY PROPER LIGHT, CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT IT IS BASED ON DESCRIBING THE ATTACKS OF A PARTICULAR GROUP AGAINST THE INDIVIDUAL IN QUESTION. I ADVOCATE ITS COMPLETE DISMISSAL FROM THE ENCYCLOPEDIA DUE TO ITS INHERENTLY BIASED NATURE, THE VERY EXISTENCE OF WHICH CAN GIVE A READER THE WRONG IMPRESSION, A BIASED IMPRESSION, ABOUT THE PERSON IN QUESTION. THUS I WILL IDENTIFY NO SENTENCES OR OTHERWISE THAT ARE REDEEMABLE. THE ENTIRE ARTICLE IS SUGGESTIVE, BIASED, AND ULTIMATELY, NOT FIT FOR A PUBLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA. I DO NOT DELETE IT, BUT SIMPLY TAG IT, BECAUSE I'M CERTAIN THERE ARE THOSE WHO DISAGREE. I ALSO HOPE THIS DOESN'T DEGENERATE SOLELY INTO AN ARGUMENT WITH THE AUTHOR, AS THAT WOULD TRULY LACK A LARGE AMOUNT OF VERIFIABLE NEUTRALITY IN THE DISCUSSION, AS IS ALREADY SORELY MISPLACED IN THE VERY EXISTENCE OF THIS ARTICLE.

AND UNLESS YOU DOUBT I AM INDEED HUMAN, AND NOT A COMPUTER BOT..., WHY PRECISELY WOULD MY POSTING SOME THING LIKE "mattisgoo" MAKE MY STATEMENTS AND ARGUMENT MORE VALID? ON THE CONTRARY, I THINK NOT HAVING SUCH A USERNAME IS ALL THE MORE A TESTAMENT THAT I DO NOT "EAT, DRINK, AND MAKE MERRY" BUT RATHER AM DEEPLY CONCERNED WITH THE STATUS OF THIS BIOGRAPHY AND THE EXISTENCE OF BIASED ARTICLES WHICH IT REFERENCES.

STILL, IF THE LINK DOES INDEED, NO LONGER EXIST, AND THAT WAS NOT JUST SOME SHODDY VANDALISM, THEN I OFFER NO CONTEST.

[edit] Merge discussion

[edit] Fork

I've forked the article to Lucas bashing and fan criticism of George Lucas. One deals with normal criticism and the other to Lucas bashing. Borisblue 20:04, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think we need two articles for this topic. Rather than delete Lucas bashing, let's just merge the NPOV aspects of this article into a subsection of Fan criticism of George Lucas. MaxVeers 09:02, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Max Veers, but these are not two articles on the same topic, at least, not anymore. Please read them more carefully. And you say "merge the NPOV aspects of this article", which implies that you think this article has POV problems. Why don't you tell us the bits you think are POV vs. which bits are NPOV. Your current comment's pretty vauge and therefore isn't currently very useful to this discussion. Please post again. --Jacko.

Personally, I notice that this article attempts to categorise critical approach of George Lucas in such a way that criticism is prelude to being titled and then ignored. This isn't quite as handy as noticing that some attempts at criticism are turbulent, abusive, and subjective.

[edit] Arguments for and against

User:MaxVeers has added a "merge" tag at the top of this article. Please read: Wikipedia:Merging_and_moving_pages and place arguments either for or against merging here which relate to the policy and the content of the articles. Please place arguments and do not simply places votes. Why? Because Wikipedia_is_not_a_democracy. We need to build concensus. Mattisgoo 10:34, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

The two pages do have a similar style. They were both written by the same person at the same time for the Lucas bashing page. The content was originally split (see lower down on this discussion page) because the "Aspects of Lucas' work which inspire Lucas bashing" section had grown into a large list of criticisms of George Lucas' work. However:

merging Lucas bashing into Fan Criticism (rather than vice versa) would ignore the fact that "Bashing" is not proper "criticism". The former is a immovable standpoint, the other is an appraisal. Bashing_(pejorative) is motivated, partisan and a social mentality. Criticism is "judgement or interpretation". While the two can overlap (particularly when bashing forwards criticism as it's motivation), they are properly distinct.
the articles are already both quite long (merging them would exceed Wikipedia:Page_size)
associated with Wikipedia:Summary_style, Lucas bashing is in sections and can validly spin off content which becomes too big or unwieldy
fan criticism of George Lucas is not an analysis of Star Wars fans and their behaviors. If you merge any part of Lucas bashing into it, it will be completely out of place.

Mattisgoo 10:34, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

A short while ago, some people suggested the deletion of this article; others defended it, citing that this article addresses an important, different kind of criticism. I agree that Lucas bashing is worth mentioning on Wikipedia, but not deserving of an entire article. Rather, I think it would fit better as a small section called "Lucas bashing" within Fan criticism of George Lucas. The Lucas bashing and Lucas gushing phenomena described in detail in this article fail Wikipedia's 10-year "importance" guideline (in 2016, will the habits of a handful of extreme Star Wars fans on message boards really matter?) and the article overall is repetitive. My suggestion addresses all of User:Mattisgoo's points except the last one. Fan criticism of George Lucas is not an analysis of Star Wars fans and their behaviors, but it is an analysis of Star Wars fans' behavior within the context of criticizing Mr. Lucas. I think Lucas bashing, an exaggerated form of criticism, seems appropriate here, if it's appropriate anywhere at all on Wikipedia. MaxVeers 06:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge with Fan Criticism? How ironic!

Oookay, so now someone's suggesting that Lucas Bashing be merged with Fan criticism of George Lucas? Right. Well, for those of you who haven't been following this circus since the beginning, I originally wrote a very long article called "Lucas Bashing". This article outraged all sorts of people into making unclarified and unsubstantiated accusations of it being POV, as well as some admittedly quite true objections as to its lack of sourcing. However, Mattisgoo then went on and changed the article radically, adding many sources and giving the article a previously lacking level of academic validity, and in doing so essentially vindicated the disputed truth of my article. For which I'm obviously very grateful to him. And although I predominantly did support his actions, there were two later major changes which I was not in favour of, but didn't feel strongly enough to change them back, given the already fierce debate over the article.

Of these two later changes, firstly Mattisgoo altered the nuance of my original fundamental definition of "Lucas Bashing" in accordance with existing sources. My earlier definition more specifically referred to fans who vehemently attack Lucas personally for things in Star Wars which they dislike, but conversely they never praise him specifically for what they do enjoy. While I stand by my original definition as true and accurate, the lack of sourcing to support that particular nuance makes it somewhat pointless for me to unilaterally restore my definition. Secondly, Mattisgoo split the admittedly very long article into two, partly due to Wikipedia itself apparently complaining about the length. Thus Fan criticism of George Lucas was born, containing material which, unlike Lucas Bashing's current form, is still almost exclusively my original version. And until very recently, that split article had recieved no complaints at all. I think those of you who read the complaints will agree with me that they are ill-founded and basically miss the point of the article.

So, you can imagine why I'm amused by the notion of merging the two articles again. Although I never would have preferred them to be split in the first place, I'm now fairly happy with them as separate articles, even if it does somewhat distort what I was originally trying to say. Put it this way; if merging the two articles will result in Fan criticism of George Lucas having to be shortened even further, or, god forbid, inciting yet another round of tedious debate, then I emphatically vote to keep them apart.

Again, I have to say that I'm really, really getting tired of all this. Don't we all have more important things to be getting around to? -PacifistPrime

P.S. I've moved this topic to the top of the talk page, since it's the current one and nobody seems to be doing this in chronological order anymore. Hope no-one minds!

It should be noted that finding fault with any of these [Aspects of Lucas' work targetted by critics] does not automatically constitute Lucas Bashing

I therefore oppose merging the two articles. Zanaq 23:36, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I think that this article should be deleted. The authors are trying to attribute certain personality traits to various parties (bashers, gushers, Lucas himself), but the problem here is that all of this is purely and laughably subjective; and as such is not worthy of an encyclopedic reference. Think about this. Where does this all end? Are there going to be entries documenting the state of Spider-Man film fandom? What about the people who hated the Planet of the Apes remake? I am an Ang Lee "gusher" who thinks that he can do no wrong, should there be an article documenting the criticisms of the criticisms of Hulk (2003)? I think that as Wikipedia's stature grows, we should all "be mindful" of the silliness of some of these articles. Kwan-Trill 23:21, 12 January 2006 (UTC)Kwan-Trill

Your point is well made, although we are no longer actually discussing deletion. I think the argument to defend the validity of THIS article as opposed to your hypothetical topics is twofold:

1-Star Wars has, pretty inarguably, the biggest, most active and most enduring fandom in popular culture for the last two decades+. Therefore it seems reasonable to suggest that a widespread phenomenon within said largest fandom is significant, and certainly MORE significant than the fandoms of comics or arthouse filmmakers, even though they are significant in their own way. It's really a question of degree. Wikipedia's own guidelines suggest that degree is important, such as not including things of strictly local interest. But don't you think that something which is prevelant within a community of many millions of fans is of some relevance? Surely enough for an article (and believe me, there are pleanty of Wikipedia articles on MUCH more trivial topics, IMHO)...

2-You reckon that the content here is 'laughably subjective', and yeah, I guess it is a bit, but I think the real issue is that ANY topic that concerns other people's intellectual attitudes is going to have such subjectivity issues. I'm sure the articles on much more serious topics like religion and politics have similar problems when it comes to definitively ascribing what other people 'really think', attempting to quantify beliefs and opinions which demonstrably exist but are neverthless intangible. But just because something can only be observed secondhand on the basis of what other people say and write doesn't mean that the topic should be avoided altogether. And I reckon observing other people's subjectivity doesn't neccessarily make this article all that subjective by default, either.

Something for you to consider anyway. Cheers, ;-)

-Jacko.

There has not been much discussion on merging of late, but after today's earlier veiled attempt at deletion, I wih to contribute my 2 cents worth.

I don't think this article should be merged with 'Fan criticism of George Lucas'. Bashing and criticism are two very different things, as the authors of this article and other commentators on this page have gone to great pains to point out. 'Fan criticism of George Lucas' was created by forking unreferenced and excess content from 'Lucas bashing' (as has already been mentioned), and the two articles differ greatly in quality. I believe that more attention needs to be paid to the fan criticism page; either the quality of that article should be improved or it should be removed altogether (at the time of writing this, Fan criticism of George Lucas contains the following tags: POV, weasel words, Unreferenced). The current state of the 'Fan criticism of George Lucas' page is undermining that of the 'Lucas Bashing' page - people may read the 'Fan criticism of George Lucas' page and dismiss 'Lucas Bashing', believing it to be the same topic without reading the article.

I do think that this article should be renamed to something a bit more neutral. Possbile suggestions are: "Lucas Bashers and Gushers" or "Lucas Bashing and Gushing". The original version of this article was primarily about Lucas bashing, but as time has gone by it has grown to encompass both bashing and gushing, albeit with a larger focus on bashing than gushing.

By improving or removing 'Fan criticism of George Lucas' and by renaming 'Lucas bashing', I hope that this will go some way towards a consensus. Zukeeper 11:35, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge tag removed

Due to lack of concensus on the topic (2 in favor of merge, 4 against) and lack of posts in the last couple months on the issue and because more of the criticism has been removed from Lucas Bashing and put in Fan Criticism of George Lucas anyway, I have removed the merge tag.

[edit] NPOV dispute

Sorry for posting at the top, but this article has been marked as not NPOV for a few weeks now without anyone explaining why it is not NPOV and so I'd like to get this sorted out. If you believe that any passages or terms used in the article are not neutral, please detail exactly what these are below so they can be fixed. Please do not simply say "inherently POV" - please give concrete examples. Zukeeper 07:15, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Zukeeper! Myself and others have been saying this for ages! I am sick to death of these unsubstantiated statements that the article is POV. If you think it has a biased POV, fine, butwhich POV, for goodness sake? At first I thought they were all suggesting that the article was pro-Lucas, as though my original efforts to make the article neutral had come off seeming too apologetic. But now, thanks to the hysterical ravings of the unnamed MR/MS CAPSLOCK and the unambiguous comments of two folks on the Fan criticism of George Lucas talk page, I'm starting to think that many or most of them think that the article is actually itself anti-Lucas, presumably on the basis of its (original) topic.

If so, this is frankly absurd. An article is not biased simply because it discusses a crticial perspective. And furthermore, mere description obviously does not equal approval. For example, if someone were to write a purely descriptive article about the KKK, that doesn't automatically mean the article is condoning the organisation, nor does it make the writer a racist. In the cases of the aforementioned three users, it is abundantly clear that they have totally missed the point of the article/s and fail to realise that they are intended to be descriptive, nothing more.

As to anyone else who actually has some more substantial and specific reasons for thinking this article is biased, please, by all means express them. But EXPRESS them! Tell us what you think is POV etc.

I, for one, am really getting sick of all this. I can't believe that the general George Lucas article has now been tagged with a neutrality dispute as well, solely on the basis of its association with this article. What a bloody circus, honestly...[User:PacifistPrime|PacifistPrime]]

I have now removed the NPOV flag from the main article since noone has come forward with any information about what exactly is wrong with the neutrality of the article. If anyone still has issues with NPOV, please add to the discussion here (see my comments above). Zukeeper 21:49, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Other discussions

[edit] VANDALISM ON WIKIPEDIA

I have vehemently opposed the inclusion in this article of the reference to the "Lucas Bashing Phenomenon," for reasons of author bias, and the lack of appropriately substantiated evidence for the existence of such a thing at all. I HAVE ALSO MADE REFERENCE TO THE FACT THAT IF THE SAID ARTICLE REMAINS, AN ARTICLE WHICH GIVES AN ALTERNATE PERSPECTIVE OF THE FILMMAKER SHOULD ALSO EXIST TO ENSURE THAT THE WRONG IMPRESSION OF THE CONCEPT IS NOT BEING IMPOSED BY AN OPINIONATED AUTHOR.

SEVERAL USERS HAVE OPENLY OPPOSED MY PROTESTS, ONE SUCH GOING BY THE ALIAS "MATTISGOO." I NOW FIND THAT MY LATEST POST DETAILING MY POSITION AND OPINION ON THE MATTER - WHICH APPEARS ON THIS OPEN FORUM "DISCUSSION PAGE" HAVE BEEN DELETED. I HAVE NO EVIDENCE THAT THOSE OF OPPOSING OPINIONS HAVE DELETED MY POSTS, BUT I CERTAINLY SUSPECT THEM, ESPECIALLY AFTER THE SAID USER THREATENED MY OPINIONS WOULD BE "IGNORED" ON THE FORUM. WHO ARE THEY TO DISAPPROVE AND THEN SUBSEQUENTLY DELETE MY PROTESTS AGAINST WHAT I CONSIDER A BIASED AND UNFAIR ARTICLE??? HOW DARE THEY DELETE MY OPINION TO SILENCE A CRITIC OF THEIR POSITION ON A PUBLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA FORUM!!!

THE SECTION IN THE LUCAS BIOGRAPHY CONCERNING "LUCAS BASHING" SHOULD EITHER BE DELETED, OR INCLUDED WITH AN ARTICLE WHICH EXPLAINS THE OPPOSING VIEWPOINT OF THE ISSUE THAT THE AUTHOR HAS CREATED HIMSELF, SO AS NOT TO CREATE THE WRONG IMPRESSION ON AN UNSUSPECTING READER SEEKING THE UNBIASED AND TRUTHFUL ACCOUNT OF THE FILMMAKER.

I DO NOT KNOW WIKIPEDIA'S POLICIES ON VANDALISM, BUT ANYONE WHO DELETES ANOTHER'S POSTS ON A FORUM SHOULD BE BANNED FROM USAGE OF THE FORUM UNTIL THEY UNDERSTAND THEY MUST ALSO RESPECT OTHER'S OPINIONS!!!

I'LL "EAT, DRINK AND BE MERRY" WHEN BIASED AND NON-HISTORICAL/NON-FACTUAL INFORMATION CONCERNING THE DIRECTOR IS PROPERLY DELETED FROM THIS ENTRY, OR IS BALANCED BY ANOTHER EXISTENT FACT: THERE IS AS MUCH CRITICISM OF GEORGE LUCAS AS THERE IS PRAISE.

Good grief. I didn't delete your post, nor would I. Look here: [1] and you'll see that an unnamed person at IP address 220.239.53.31 moved it to the end of this page. You'll have to check the history of Commander-in-Chief, Talk:George_Lucas and George_Lucas for other posts of yours that people have deleted as vandalism. Mattisgoo 06:43, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Christ almighty! Who IS this person?! Mattisgoo is right (and BTW it's a username, genius, not an "alias"!), he didn't delete your article, it's merely been moved to the end of this page to better show the chronology of this discussion, which you keep disrupting.

Frankly sir/madam; you are out of control. Your assertions are outrageous, unsupported and, frankly, quite hysterical. Your capslocked ranting is hardly going to lend your view any credibility, and I rather suspect that many of the other critics of this article will henceforth be wary of how they phrase things out of a reluctance to be associated with such drivel. Expressing an opinion is one thing; your absurdity is something else entirely.

Once again, I can only sigh and state that you have completely and utterly missed the point of this article. It is describing Lucas Bashing, not advocating or enacting it. Oh, and you want to talk about defaming somone? How about you defaming me with your insulting accusations of slander on my part? And your assertion that the phenomenon doesn't even exist is farcical and actually rather embarassing for you, as there is now ample sourcing in the article to prove otherwise. Normally I would preface comments such as these with the phrase "with all due respect", but honestly, in your case, I can't be bothered. Your hysterical gnashing of teeth is so lacking in any kind of common sense, much less academic veracity that, quite frankly, you offend me. PacifistPrime

[edit] Deletion of a large CAPS-written rant

Wikipedia is no forum, if you cant control your emotions and be polite here, perhaps you shouldnt write at all (at least take a few minutes before writting). Above all things, writting in CAPS wont make your point better, in no way whatsoever. Things like deleting authoritarily, justifications (specially the long justifications), to tip the scale towards one side or the other... all of these things should be avoided. There are plenty of Star Wars pages on wikipedia, but above all things, this is not a fans forum.

[edit] Good Lord! Do I have to put up with being insulted like this?

Dear, dear me. You really are an angry piece of work, aren't you? Not content to disagree with my academic perspective, you feel the need to personally insult me as well?

For those of you who can't be bothered to wade through this fellow's interminable ravings, I'll give you the highlights: He/she has just insulted me with the following barrage, addressing me as a "WITLESS USER WHO APPARENTLY DOES NOT UNDERSTAND MY USE OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE", an "APPARENTLY DYSLEXIC USER" and proudly states that he/she is "GLAD TO HAVE OFFENDED A FOOL SUCH AS "PACIFIST PRIME,"" lambasting my "COMPLETELY IGNORANT MIND". According to Mr/Ms Caps-Lock (who, I might point out, chooses to remain without a username [which, contrary to his/her hysterical assertions, is distinct from an alias in this context]), those of us who have criticised him/her should be discounted, because "APPARENTLY THEY DO NOT READ WELL", and that by opposing his/her position I am apparently only demonstrating my "LACK OF COMPREHENSION OF THE BASAL (sic) AND MUNDANE".

But I think what is most disturbing about this chap's ranting venom is what has now been demonstrated as a pretty appalling snobbery. His/her incredibly defensive self-justification cites "DOCTORATES" and "IVY-LEAGUE FILM PROFESSOR REVIEWS" in a vague manner, as though seeking to characterise his/her opinion as inherently unassailable, while in turn rather charmingly labelling us "THE MASSES" and "THE MULTITUDE". What cheek! Why doesn't this elitist just call us "the Great Unwashed" and be done with it? His/her seemingly Hawkish comments don't inspire much confidence either, I might add (In fact, I wonder if my username is part of what offends this person?).

But I think this excerpt from his/her concluding comments just about summs it up:

"WHAT I QUESTION IS THE PRESENTATION OF THE MATERIAL WITHOUT APPROPRIATE REFERENCE TO THE CONTRARY POINT OF VIEW. IF ONE CANNOT ACCEPT THAT THIS POINT IS VALID, THAN I QUESTION THE USAGE OF ONLINE ENCYCLOPEDIA'S FOR ANYTHING MORE THAN A FEW GOOD LAUGHS AT THE EXPENSE OF THE UNEDUCATED AND THE HOPELESSLY LOST."

Do we really have to listen to this kind of rot? If this user feels so very strongly that the article (which he/she repeatedly confuses with the separate biographical entry on Lucas) requires a contrary point of view beyond the "Lucas Gusher" material, then I suggest he/she stops complaining about it and actually contributes the neccessary material. He/she's certainly written the equivalent of a whole article already with all these posts.

Nevertheless, I maintain that the article is NOT a critical appraisal of George Lucas' Star Wars work, it describes a specifically anti-Lucas phenomenon amongst fandom. Therefore I do not see why it is this article's responsibility to demonstrate an opposing view, as that would be, by definition, another topic.

Again, I am astonished by this person's outrageous ravings and insulting personal attacks. Is this really the kind of behaviour we want on Wikipedia? Does anyone else out there agree that this person is way out of line?

-[[User:PacifistPrime|PacifistPrime]

[edit] TO THE HIGHLY DISRESPECTFUL "Pacifist Prime"

THE USER KNOWN AS "PACIFIST PRIME" WAS THE ONE, IF YOU CHECK THE RECORD CLOSELY, WHO FIRST OPENLY INSULTED ME ON THE PUBLIC FORUM, BEFORE I HAD EVER THE UNFORTUNATE PLEASURE TO HEAR OF HIM. IT WAS HE WHO IMPULSIVELY ATTACKED MY POSITION WITHOUT CAREFULLY READING MY EARLIER STATEMENTS, AND IT WAS HE WHO, IN MY FIRST EVER EXPERIENCE IN READING HIS "DRIVEL" (AS HE CALLS MY SELF EXPRESSION), WAS THE ONE WHO NOT ONLY PATRONIZED ME, MOCKINGLY AS SOMEONE TO WHOM HE OWED NO RESPECT, BUT ALSO THE ONE WHO ORIGINALLY ATTACKED MY OPINION AS "RANTING."

IN ESSENCE, THIS USER SELECTED ME, HE OF WHOM I HAD NO PRIOR CONTACT OR DISPUTE, WROTE WHAT YOU SEE BELOW, AND THEN EXPECTED ME NOT TO RESPOND LIKEWISE. UNFORTUNATELY, HE WAS MISTAKEN, AND I DID IN FACT, DEFEND MYSELF, GIVEN THAT HE OPENLY ASSAILED MY OPINION, GAVE HIS OWN AS SUPPOSEDLY SUPERIOR, AND THEN STATED THAT HE HAD NO WISH TO RESPECT ME.

Once again, I can only sigh and state that you have completely and utterly missed the point of this article. It is describing Lucas Bashing, not advocating or enacting it. Oh, and you want to talk about defaming somone? How about you defaming me with your insulting accusations of slander on my part? And your assertion that the phenomenon doesn't even exist is farcical and actually rather embarassing for you, as there is now ample sourcing in the article to prove otherwise. Normally I would preface comments such as these with the phrase "with all due respect", but honestly, in your case, I can't be bothered. Your hysterical gnashing of teeth is so lacking in any kind of common sense, much less academic veracity that, quite frankly, you offend me. PacifistPrime

PLEASE DO NOT READ THE EXCERPTS HE TAKES FROM MY OPINION AS TRUTH, THEY ARE BIASED. PLEASE READ AND UNDERSTAND MY CONCERN WITH THE ENTRY AS I HAVE INTENDED IT, NOT AS SOME, AND I USE HIS WORDS AGAINST HIM, "OUT OF CONTROL," CLEARLY VINDICTIVE, (WHY I DON'T KNOW) INDIVIDUAL, WOULD HAVE IT.

FURTHERMORE, I FIND IT EXCEEDLING BIASED (AND I CAN'T PUT THIS FONT LARGE ENOUGH FOR ANY TO SEE HERE) THAT THIS INDIVIDUAL WHO ASSUALTED ME FIRST, BEFORE I MET HIM, IS IN FACT THE AUTHOR OF THE ARTICLE/ENTRY IN QUESTION!

IS THAT OR IS THAT NOT, THE MOST BIASED PART OF THE ENTIRE DEBATE?

I DISAGREED WITH THE INCLUSION OF THIS ENTRY WITH THE ARTICLE WITHOUT SOME COUNTERBALANCE, AS I EXPLAINED QUITE CLEARLY ABOVE, AND THEN, SURPRISE, SURPRISE, ONE OF THE AUTHORS, OF ALL PEOPLE, ASSAILS ME, SAYING MY OPINION IS NOT VALID. I CANNOT BELIEVE THE AUDACITY WITH WHICH HE DEFENDS HIS OWN WORK! NOT TO MENTION THE FACT THAT I NEVER ONCE ATTACKED HIS WORK AS "SLANDER" AS HE CLAIMS I DID.

I ALSO MAINTAIN THAT THE BIOGRAPHY IS INCOMPLETE WITHOUT A BALANCING ENTRY ON THE PRAISE OF THE FILMMAKER, GIVEN THAT THERE IS AN ENTRY ON THIS SUPPOSED "FAN PHENOMENON," ACCORDING TO THE AUTHOR.

I WILL HAPPILY COMPLETE SUCH A PIECE, AND WILL OF COURSE SUBMIT TO THE NO DOUBT VENGEFUL AND ACERBIC COMMENTS NO DOUBT TO COME FROM THE USER WITH THE ALIAS "PACIFIST PRIME."

YES, I AM HAPPY TO OFFENDED HIM, I SAY AGAIN. ANYONE WHO WOULD RANDOMLY SELECT SOMEONE FROM A FORUM TO START A FIGHT WITH, SOLELY ON THE BASIS OF THEIR OPINION, AND THEN SAY THEY REFUSE TO RESPECT THEM, IS DESERVING OF OFFENSE, AND APPARENTLY HE GOT WHAT HE DESERVED.

FURTHER, MY POSITION WAS NEVER CLAIMED AS "UNASSAILIABLE," IN FACT, QUITE THE OPPOSITE, MY POSITION WAS THAT BOTH SIDES ARE NEEDED IN ORDER TO MAKE THE ARTICLE NEUTRAL.

ADDITIONALLY, WHEN I REFERENCED THE MASSES, AGAIN "PACIFIST PRIME" MISREAD, OR PURPOSEFULLY MISUNDERSTOOD, WHICHEVER, AND DID NOT REALIZE THAT I MEANT ALL VISITORS TO THE PAGE, AND THE INFORMATION THEY GLEAN FROM IT THEREIN.

AS WELL, I WOULD COMMENT THAT MY AFFIRMATION OF CREDENTIALS ARE INDEED NECESSARY TO ASSURE THAT I AM NOT SOME RANDOM EGOCENTRIC AUTHOR WHO FEELS THE NEED TO VICIOUSLY ASSUALT ANY WHO DIAGREE WITH MY WORK.

IN ACTUALITY, HIS ALIAS "PACIFIST PRIME" DOES BOTHER ME, SIMPLY BECAUSE HE IS NO PACIFIST BY ANY MEANS. INSTEAD, HE SEEMS TO ENJOY PICKING FIGHTS - IT WAS NOT I WHO FIRST ATTACKED HIM, BUT RATHER, THE OTHER WAY AROUND.

RATHER, IN OUTRAGE THAT HIS WORK WAS QUESTIONED BY AN INDIVIDUAL COMMITTED TO PROVIDING AN UNBIASED BIOGRAPHY OF A BELOVED FILMMAKER, HE RESPONDED BY ATTACKING ME PERSONALLY, AS WELL AS MY OPINION, IN HIS ORIGINAL POST. I MERELY RESPONDED WITH EQUALLY MALEVOLENT FORCE.

IT IS NOT I WHO IS OUT OF LINE, IN FACT I HAD BEGUN THIS DISCUSSION SOMEWHAT BEFORE "PACIFIST PRIME" EVEN BECAME NEWS TO ME, BUT IT IS THIS USER "PACIFIST PRIME" WHO HAS INSTIGATED THIS PERSONAL REBUTTAL, DUE NO DOUBT TO HIS PERSONAL INTEREST IN HIS OWN WORK, WHICH I HAVE NEVER QUESTIONED ANYWAY.

RATHER HE REFUSES TO UNDERSTAND MY POSITION, AND INSISTS ON ATTACKING ME BECAUSE I DISAGREE WITH HIM.

HE WAS THE FIRST TO VICIOUSLY ATTACK MY POSITION, AND TO CLAIM FROM THE ONSET THAT HE HAD NO INTENTION OF RESPECTING MY OPINION, I HAVE MERELY RESPONDED TO HIS AGRESSIVE DEFENCE OF HIS WORK LIKEWISE.

[edit] I think "Mr/Ms Capslock has just dug his/her own grave in terms of credibility. The rest of you guys decide...

My goodness. What rage. You evidently have a lot of anger, sir/madam. And a lot of time on your hands, it would seem. Oh, and BTW; to call me "HIGHLY DISRESPECTFUL" would have to be a textbook example of the Pot Calling the Kettle Black.

Your presentation of the facts of this debate are, unsurprisingly, quite a distortion of the true sequence of events. For the record, I do not and never have had any interest in picking a fight with you; in fact I'm quite adverse to such pointless confrontations and would very much like to have avoided your unrelenting unpleasentness alltogether. I found your blisteringly angry and, in my personal opinion, ludicrous original statements to be worth contesting, as I disagreed with both the content and nature of them. As a member of the Wikipedia community, that is my right. Your consistently agressive tone has been the source of all this unpleasentness, and I hope it will be thoroughly obvious to anyone reading this discussion page (although I pity them trying to make sense of the disruptions of its chronological order that you have caused) that I was not the initiator of hosilities by any means. And furthermore, your attacks on my biased position are also rather spurious; writers of articles have every right to defend their work. And I have never sought to hide any theoretically "inherent" bias on my own part as I've always clearly identified myself as the originator of this article. Contrary to what you assert, I'm thoroughly capable of taking constructive, calmly-presented criticism, as you would know if you had carefully read this whole discussion.

So, please by all means, go ahead and write whatever opposing article you feel is neccessary. That is your right. And if you want to keep writing essay-length attacks on me; knock yourself out. I'm not going to dignify any more of your insults by responding to them. So go on; have the last word if it makes you feel better. I have better things to do with my time.

I leave it to the rest of you viewing this page to decide who is in the right here. I believe I have stated my case in a rational and (mostly) calm manner, and I believe my unidentified attacker's own vindictive posts serve as the most compelling indictment of his/her credibility. -User:PacifistPrime

[edit] MY OPINION STANDS

GIVEN THAT "PACIFIST PRIME" SEEMS TO HAVE CONCEDED THAT IT WAS INDEED HIS OWN OPINION HE WAS SO ADAMANTLY DEFENDING, I HAVE NO FURTHER QUALMS WITH THE AUTHOR OF THE ARTICLE, NOT THAT I EVER DID TO BEGIN WITH...

MY OPINION HOWEVER, STILL STANDS THAT THIS ARTICLE REQUIRES AN ARTICLE WHICH BALANCES THE INHERENT BIAS IT CREATES IN THE BIOGRAPHY OF LUCAS.

IF I HAVE TIME, I WILL CONTRIBUTE SUCH AN ARTICLE TO WIKIPEDIA, IF NOT, WELL THAN I SUPPOSE I SHOULD MYSELF FEEL ASHAMED THAT ALL MY ARGUMENTS HAVE GONE TO WASTE.

IF ANYONE FEELS AS I DO, I ASK THEY TOO TO CONTRIBUTE MATERIAL CONCERNING THE PRAISE OF GEORGE LUCAS AS A FILMMAKER AND PERHAPS WE CAN COMBINE EFFORTS TO MAKE A VERY FACTUAL AND BALANCED ENTRY.

THE CAPS LOCK USER

[edit] Should be deleted

I'm very sorry that someone spent a ridiculous amount of time on this article, but I feel it does not belong on wikipedia. It is rife with POV and useless banter, although it is worded well. Even if the article were to be perfected into NPOV, it would not stay that way for long as fans on both sides will alter this article to favor their side to infinity. And it is still on a useless subject. Should articles be created for XXXX-Bashing of everything? No, they should not, and this should not be here, either. Any actually relavent information from this article can be put into Lucas' own entry, and the rest thrown away Elijya 18:59, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I COMPLETELY AGREE WITH THE ABOVE SENTIMENT, AND I APOLOGIZE FOR LEECHING OFF OF THIS THREAD, BUT I DON'T KNOW HOW TO CREATE A NEW ONE - BELOW I POST MY PROTEST TO THIS ARTICLE AS I HAVE ALSO ON THE ENTRY PAGE FORUM.

This entire entry is absolute nonsense. The use of a pop-cultural "phenemonon" invented purely from the author's imagination on a publicly accessed encyclopedia is an outrage. The perpetrator of such character defilement, through the lens of creating an actual issue when none exists, is, in and of itself, a key reason that Wikipedia can never be what it seeks to be: a fact-based collective of information on a subject. As one might expect I am a filmmaker and fervent supporter of George Lucas' works and his contributions to the cinematic arts. If I were to write a section on the praise of George Lucas, as a seperate, "counter-article" I could fill over 100 pages of stardard Microsoft Word documents and post them on Wikipedia. It is disgusting that the author of such trash would post it on a public site which they do not own nor have personal claim to. No one has the right to criticize another in public ENCYCLOPEDIA. The author already mentions briefly that some do not agree with George Lucas' filmmaking techniques, and this is documented. But his or her creation of this so called "movement" against the filmmaker is not only ridiculous, it is libel. If the author of the document feels that there is actually a large enough group of people who "bash" George Lucas, I suggest he pay actual money for his or her own site, where they can freely write and distribute whatever information they please. But to corrupt the information of other people who seek out this entry for educational and/or academic purposes, the presence of this section is an affront to the very purpose of Wikipedia. It is an Encyclopedia, not a forum for one's agenda or opinion. I demand, if this encyclopedia is to be of any value to anyone, that this entry be deleted with all haste, and the entire article be evaluated, or even better, rewritten, to properly reflect a factual, untarnished, and uncircumspect article, which this entry has failed to become. I also suggest close monitoring of this entry, for any further attempts at the injection of libel into the biographies of the world's notable people. I was accused of "defacing" Wikipedia when I first deleted this section after having read it in anger. I have since become acquainted with the policies of Wikipedia regarding such actions, and have learned to my dismay that it is in fact easier for someone to publish untrue and bogus information on Wikipedia than it is for those who seek the truth in entries, to delete it. This is most disconcerting, and unfortunately, the most unique aspect of the encyclopedia is its most flawed. I will no longer delete anything in this entry, but in protest pending its removal, I have written a brief commentary contra to the perspective in the article. Please understand I expect this to be deleted along with the nonsensical opinionative information which it opposes.

No one should delete comments on talk pages but improper style and comment on the real page will be deleted. Wikipedia doesn't have "forum threads". This is the appropriate place to add your comment. However:

the article never mentions this "movement" that you quote and to which you refer.
the idea wasn't invented (it is an approximate concensus of all the sources).
the article doesn't disparage George Lucas. It does highlight 3 points that bashers and gushers discuss and lists the RottenTomatoes.com ratings for the films. This is a fairly neutral discussion.

Unless you have specific points which you feel are not supported by any sources or a specific part of the article which you can suggest as not valid within Wikipedia's style (see: Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines, Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view and Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style, your comments are likely to be ignored or considered as biased themselves.

Incidentally, Elijya's initial comments were based on a much older version of the article. At the time, I agreed with Elijya's comment. POV and sources have improved considerably since then. Mattisgoo 04:18, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Lucas bashing and gushing is not "a pop-cultural 'phenemonon' invented purely from the author's imagination." As the article states, it is extremely commonplace among Star Wars fans -- I've personally witnessed it take place every day for the past six years at [2]. I also don't agree that the article is biased. The question to answer here, I think, is whether this falls under Wikipedia's importance criteria for an article. I'm not sure myself. At least it's better-written and better-referenced than most articles on Wikipedia. MaxVeers 17:28, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I disagree.

Can you Elijya(or anyone else) please explain why you feel that this article is biased? What, in your view, would make this article have a more NPOV? You have not even indicated what it is that you think the POV of this article actually is. If you are suggesting that the article is stating that any criticism of George Lucas equals "Lucas-bashing", then I politely suggest that you have not read it very carefully. The article quite clearly uses many strongly conditional phrases such as "Clearly Distinct from a more general, legitimate critical appraisal", ...or:

"criticism... or indeed the specific dislike of any particular element of the Star Wars franchise does not automatically constitue Lucas Bashing. For the term to apply there must be a specific targeting of Lucas as the author of the disliked material, and must indicate a general tendency by the critic to attribute only bad decisions to Lucas" ...and also:

"Of course, merely taking issue with any of these points does not constitute Lucas Bashing; genuine critical engagement with these topics is merely that - legitimate critical response."

So how then, exactly does this constitue the use of POV? And what precisely do you consider to be the "useless banter" in this article? Your response seems rather to suggest that you feel the mere discussion of the topic of "Lucas-bashing" is inherently biased? Why? Discription of a "bashing" phenomenon does not automatically indicate condemmnation or approval of such "bashing".

Your suggestion that having any article on the bashing of any given subject would be a waste of time is debatable. Although you certainly have a point there in general, some topics and some fandoms are inarguably more significant than others. Most would agree that the Star Wars Franchise is the most significant and eduring pop-culture entertainment property of the last several decades, and still going strong. If a significant phenom exists amongst Star Wars fans (surely one of the biggest fandoms in the world) AND casual viewers alike, then why is this not considered an important topic? Quite frankly, given some of the incredibly obscure articles that exist on Wikipedia (eg entries on inidvidual minor/supporting characters in fiction, extremely localised minor celebrities, hyper-niche sexual practices etc etc etc) I would argue that a discussion of a seemingly prevalent trend in the discourse of a major fandom is quite worthy of inclusion.

Please provide a more thorough explaination for why this article should be deleted or merged. (JP)

PLEASE SEE MY BELOW COMMENTARY FOR A "MORE THROUGH EXPLANATION."

Yeah, thanks. Although your comment was heard the first time. Mattisgoo 04:20, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I think the fact the this article is already as long as the article for The Supreme Court, and apparently there's more on the way, shows that it is far too in-depth for such a trivial matter. Your opening line even says it is "not a widely-used as a precise term". Should a term that is not widely used have a larger entry than the one for the highest court in the most powerful country in the world? It is also largely written using examples of heresay and minutia ("some fans think this" well, some fans think anything about anything, but they should not all be included). In it's current state, the article is toeing the line between an encyclopedia entry and an essay, if it hasn't already crossed it. In fact, if you re-titled the article "Common Fan Criticisms of George Lucas and Star Wars", it would be fine, and it would be an essay, but wikipedia is not a place for essays. I also think that this will be nothing but a breeding ground for trouble, from both bashers and fans of Lucas and Star Wars. "Lucas Bashing" is not a phenomenon unto itself. As a term, when rarely used, it is only in conjunction with the man himself. It is inseperable from him, it does not possess a life of its own. Therefore, important information from here should be condensed and placed in a "critism" section for the Lucas and Star Wars articles. IMHO. Elijya 03:11, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm inclined to support a deletion. It all seems rather useless and any relevant information could easily be addressed in the subject's article. - AWF

[edit] Tenuous argument for deletion

With all due respect, your argument is rather tenuous, UTC.

To begin with, your tone is transparently snide and condescending, which hardly lends weight to your position.

However, to the facts at hand: Comparing the length of the "Lucas-bashing" article to that on the Supreme Court is frankly irrelevant. An article such as that on the fictional character Optimus Prime is the same length, those on Pornography or the Star Trek Franchise are longer, and articles on Fan Fiction and the soap opera Days of Our Lives are far longer in turn that that on the Supreme Court.

It is the very nature of Wikipedia that articles' length and depth reflect the level of interest of the individual writers. To quote Wikipedia's own entry on itself:

"Wikipedia has been accused of deficiencies in comprehensiveness because of its voluntary nature, and of reflecting the systemic biases of its contributors. Encyclopædia Britannica editor-in-chief Dale Hoiberg has argued that "people write of things they're interested in, and so many subjects don't get covered; and news events get covered in great detail. The entry on Hurricane Frances is five times the length of that on Chinese art, and the entry on Coronation Street is twice as long as the article on Tony Blair"

By arguing that this article is "far too in-depth for such a trivial matter" I put it to you that it is you who are showing evident bias, not the article.

As to your twice-repeated assertion that this article will merely be "a breeding ground for trouble, from both bashers and fans of Lucas and Star Wars"; this is again a rather spurious basis upon which to criticise this article. Again, it is the very philosophy of Wikipedia that such back and forth alteration is par for the course. And by your reasoning, any article on a contentious topic should be deleated for fear of "trouble".

You also argue that the fact that the term "Lucas-bashing" itself is, by the article's own admission, not yet widely-used, is further evidence of the article being invalid. Simply because a practice does not have a commonly-accepted name does not mean that the practice does not exist, or even that it is not prevalent. To reference Wikipedia's own articles on less-common sexual practices; I put it to you that while most people are aware of the existence of such sex acts, precise slang terms such as "Cleavland Steamer" are far, far less commonly-known. To use a less lurid example, the term "fan service" is extremely nice in actual use, but most casual viewers of a television programme can recognise the phenomenon when they see it. The uncommon use of a term does not invalidate the topic it describes.

Finally, I question your analysis that the article is based on "heresay and minutia". Firstly, I would put it to you that the vast majority of the hundreds of pop-culture themed articles on Wikipedia would be equally open to the same criticism, and secondly that it is endemic to any fandom-related topic that hard sources are difficult and often impossible to find. By your argument all such articles should be deleted.

I respectfully suggest you reconsdier your position and your motives. (JP)

Based on the large internet audience that has a deep interest in the Star Wars films, it is understandable for there to be an individual Wiki entry on this subject (after all, there's one for "Han shot first" for crying out loud) however I do think that the title and some ascertations in the article itself display assumptions that are at least subjective in origin if not biased.

Take for example the following statements from the article:

"Often habit-forming, this mode of attack generally states that aspects of Star Wars which the fans dislike is Lucas' fault personally, whereas the reverse is usually not the case; favoured elements are simply regarded as "good" or intrinsically "Star Wars" and are thus somehow reasoned to not require similar attribution to Lucas, or that the favoured elements were most likely the result of someone else's contribution and couldn't have possibly been the result of creative imagination on Lucas's part."

"For example: large proportions of fans cite Darth Vader as the best character in the Star Wars fictional universe, without generally feeling the need to praise Lucas for inventing the character."

"Despite Lucas' extremely intense creative control over all six Star Wars films being self-evident and well-documented, the Lucas Bashing mentality perversely maintains that Lucas himself is the creatively weakest part of the franchise's tapestry."

While I'm sure there are certain Lucas bashers who adopt these attitudes, the overwhelming majority of the negative criticism focused at the current Star Wars franchise centers on the concept of Lucas systematically "losing touch" with his fan base and/or the essence of his characters as presented in the original Star Wars trilogy. I honestly doubt that even the most rabid Prequel-hater would deny or ignore Lucas' role in creating such a memorable villain as Darth Vader, and even if individual examples of this were found they would constitute such a minority as to hardly be called a "phenomenon."

The concept of "Lucas Bashing" has truly come to fruition as a result of the Prequel trilogy-- Ewoks and Special Editions nonwithstanding. Thus the motivations and characteristics of the "phenomenon" itself as presented in this article should be reexamined.

Whether or not this individual article will serve any purpose other than a forum for fan-intensive debate remains to be seen, but in its present form that seems inevitable. -The Lizard 11:35, 7 December 2005

[edit] Title Change?

Hi there, Mr. or Ms. The Lizard. I'm the original writer of the article. Although naturally I disagree with some of you points, I appreciate that, unlike UTC, you appreciate that this article does have a right to exist on Wikipedia, even if you don't like all of its content (which is fair enough, of course). You suggest that the title is perhaps part of the "problem" with this article. I'm prepared to consider changing the title if you (or anyone else for that matter) have any good suggestions. Cheers, PacifistPrime

[edit] Tidy up and restructuring

This article is sitting at the top of the NPOV disputes list. I really don't think it suffers from NPOV problems. A bit too editorial rather than factorial would be the biggest problem but I don't think it warrants the NPOV dispute label.

To Elijya: this is not the most important topic on Wikipedia but just because it's bigger than the article on the Supreme Court does not mean that anyone is asserting that it's more important.

Obvious penetration of this idea into public consciouness include popular media references like Lenny and Carl in the Simpson's episode C.E._D'oh (quote at bottom of page) and the South Park episode that was entirely about Lucas and Speilberg re-authoring their own films to change the underlying messages (and hence take away what fans liked in the first place).

Stuff I did do to the article-- I've put in some changes to make this article less "top-heavy" (moved stuff below the contents box). I've also made the "targets" section chronological and incorporated into that section some of the redundant target information from the rest of the article. Associated with this, I've renamed the "history" section.

I'm sorry to the author though... I did remove the "Empire Strikes Back" is the strongest discussion as I do think that that was arguably non-neutral and didn't fit well. I guess you could put it back in as a target but I don't think that it's required.

Mattisgoo 12:22, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] As an outside observer, this article seems inherently POV to me.

At the very least it would probably need a name change and some heavy restructuring. And anyway, is it really notable? BadgerBadger 21:41, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Please explain?

You are, naturally, entitled to your opinion BadgerBadger, but could you please elaborate? In light of the above criticisms and rebuttals, do you have anything specific to add about why you think this article is POV? What do you think the POV actually IS? That's something I don't get here; the few people here who've said it's POV refuse to actually say which side they think the articles is biased against. It certainly isn't obvious to me! Also, since the I've stated above that I'm amenable to a title change, do YOU have any constructive suggestions?

Please offer some CONSTRUCTIVE criticism, people! User:PacifistPrime

[edit] I support the NPOV tag

For the following reason:

Nothing has been sourced or sited. There is no References section. For a stub, that might be acceptable, but for such a long article, I want References and Sources. In fact, without references and sources, I could put up a {{totallydisputed}} tag. How can I know if ANY of this is true? This is Wikipedia! ANYONE can edit it. ANYONE can add lies or drivel. Source it if you want me to believe it at all!

Fieari 01:39, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fundamental challenge to sourcing

Dear Fieari, I think you mean you support a POV tag, not a NPOV tag, unless I misunderstand you.

As to references, please explain HOW exactly you would suggest that it should be referenced? How does one provide sources for an ephemeral but indisputably extant attitude & custom circulating within a global fandom? Should the article be expected to quote unarchived message boards dating back as long the web itself has existed? Walk around tape recording people at conventions? Cite sundry private conversations? An attitude, an intellectual habit such as that which this article describes is not something that is commonly (if at all) recorded in concrete sources that can be traditionally referenced. But just because you can't point to something or cite a publication date doesn't mean that the phenomenon doesn't exist.

Wikipedia is a wonderful resource, but when it comes to certain topics you cannot possibly hold it to the same standards of proof as customary academic research. It has no true system of formal fact-checking or peer review, merely that of editorial consensus, which is NOT the same thing. But more to the point, there are a VAST number of articles on Wikipedia about pop-clutural and subcultural practices, attitudes and knowledge which are similarly unverifiable by traditional academic standards. MOST of the many, many Wikipedia articles on "Star Wars", "Star Trek", "Xena" and similar mega-franchises have subsections on controversies and ructions in fandom and Fanon which provide few if ANY references or sources. I don't see you attacking any of those articles...

If Wikipedia allows semi-amorphous topics such as fandom, canon and fanon to have major articles, surely a significant trend in probably the largest single fanbase in the world is worthy of an article, however difficult it may be to source. -Jeb.

Actually, if it can't be referenced, then there may well be grounds for deletion of the article. And both {{NPOV}} and {{POV}} produce the same text, so yes, I support the NPOV tag.

As far as other pages... well, said comments aren't nearly as in depth as this one. And yes, at the very least, messageboards could be referenced, in the standard way of including a webpage as a reference, by including the time the message was last accessed.

Basically, what I'm asking for is proof of significance. The larger the article, the more burden there is on proving that the topic is significant enough for encyclopedic inclusion. A small subsection in an article on a topic doesn't require much proof of validity. A much larger sub-section would require some justification (and I have, in fact, made this request elsewhere when fans have included way too much detail on some aspect of fan-minutia that isn't really important).

This is an entire article on a bit of fan minutia. Proove to me that it's an important topic. Prove to me that this is wide spread. Proove to me that it's recognized. Otherwise, trim it down, and possibly even merge it as a tiny subsection of another article. But this page is FAR to large and involved to have no backing and referencing. Fieari 01:41, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rename to Criticism of George Lucas

If there are, as you said no sources, but only an ephmeral sentiment, then this article is original research and should be deleted. Wikipedia:No original research I don't think it should be deleted, however it needs to be rewritten to be encyclopedic. For one thing, I can see no difference between "Lucas Bashing" and "criticism of George Lucas". I would prefer the article to be called "criticism of george lucas" or something (the term lucas bashing carries the POV connotation that the bashers are irrational) The distinction between "lucas bashing" and "criticism of George Lucas" is purely original research and should be removed And if you do that, all the below criticisms can be sourced. (Won't be too difficult to come up with hate sites for Jar Jar Binks for instance) Borisblue 18:27, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Unconvincing assertion for title change.

Okay, a couple of people here are arguing that there is no difference between criticism of Lucas and Lucas Bashing. HELLO?! Have you people actually read this article?? It goes to great pains to point out, time and again, that genuine rational criticism of Lucas & Star Wars is CLEARLY distinct from irrational, knee-jerk villification of Lucas and his work that just bags him automatically.

And as to all this talk of original research and consequent grounds for deletion, I honestly challenge you: many, many, MANY of the major articles on pop-culture topics on Wikipedia have little if ANY sourcing. Why don't you go hassle them for a change...?

Personally, because I'm a star wars fan, not a Harry Potter fan etc, and I know better whether the article is accurate and encyclopedic or whether it is plain spewing nonsense- that's why I can better enforce Original Resarch here. Where is your proof that there is a difference between Lucas Bashing and Lucas criticism? The burden of proof is on you, not me. Borisblue 16:30, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] More rigorous criticism needed, less (dare I say it) "bashing" of this article.

Are you serious? You're a Star Wars fan and you're telling me that you HONESTLY don't see any difference between criticism and bashing? No offence my friend, but that's a pretty bizarre claim. Are you saying that there's no difference between someone saying "I disagree with the war in Iraq" and another person saying "George W. Bush is the servant of Satan"? One is clearly a critical, reasonable point of view, the other is a knee-jerk attack.

As to providing "proof" of the veracity of mere attitudes and comments, what do you suggest? For example, how would you "prove" the difference between married filmmaker Kevin Smith facetiously claiming on a DVD commentary track that he is secrety homosexual, and notorious cannabis-lover Jason Mewes stating on the same track that he loves to smoke grass. One comment is clearly a joke, the other is true. How do you PROVE this? You can't; but that doesn't mean that the truth isn't self-evident.

This article argues its own case analytically. The fact that you don't agree with its neutral perspective doesn't make it factually invalid. It seems to me that you would prefer the article to be strongly pro or anti Lucas, although I frankly have no idea which. This is simply describing a phenomenon amongst fandom and has no interest in taking sides.

Again, I ask you (and anyone else who has a problem with this article: What in this article do you actually disagree with? What do you think is baised, and in which direction? Where specifically do you feel the article is "spewing nonsense" as you so politely put it? Please have the intellectual honesty to QUANTIFY your criticisms rather than just invoking Wikipedia by-laws which are clearly not enforced in a VAST number of other articles on similar topics.

[edit] Complete reworking/rewriting of top half of article

To address the belief that this article was just "fan criticism", I have reworked the top of the article. Specifically the definition. It should be clear that while Lucas Bashing can be classed a sub section of fan criticism, it is not the same thing.

To address the lack of references, there are now references to two film reviewers who reference Lucas bashing (including one who defines it). There are popular culture references to South Park and The Simpsons where Lucas Bashing occurs and it is examined. There are also Wikipedia references to related social and psychological phenomenon including reactionism, ideologies, selling out, etc.

I do not think, as has been asserted, that the article is inherently POV. I honestly believe that the content I have just added has no POV at all, other than referencing other critics (mostly through Rottentomatoes which is as NPOV as you can make it).

I think that the name of this article should change to Lucas Bashing (not "Lucas bashing" phenomenon as it was before). Certainly the current name "Fan_criticism_of_George_Lucas" is misleading given the current content.

Further work still needed: if anyone wants, they should also link to similar phenomena like hatred of Wesley Crusher and dislike of the second two Matrix movies. I think the "Aspects" section needs to be shortened -- although it contains the correct targets (I don't think anything should be eliminated), it discusses them critically rather than examining why they are targets by Lucas bashers.

Mattisgoo 01:46, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Incidentally, the only reason I haven't already moved the page to Lucas Bashing already is I thought I'd wait for a little feedback first -- slow it down or something. This whole thing is getting a little revert-war and angry. Probably comes because the old title sat at the top of NPOV articles alphabetically. Please: leave comments, we'll make changes, move or not move, and then eat, drink and be merry.

Mattisgoo 02:02, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] At last, a voice of reason.

Thank you, Mattisgoo. Your contributions to this article are most welcome. I'm glad that someone has had a reasonable response to this article that actually deals with facts and common sense rather than sweeping criticisms based on ill-enforced principles. Your media sources are great, and hopefully will get some of these other people here to chill out and get off their precariously high horses.

Naturally I disagree that the "Aspects" section should be shortened, in fact I haven't yet finished adding to it. But hopefully we can engage in some calm reasonable discussion about that.

I agree that further work is needed. Your links sound like a good idea, so please go right ahead (although, again, I think there is a difference between having a strong, critically informed dislike of the Matrix sequels and a "bashing" response). As to the name change, YES! I wholeheartedly agree. Plain "Lucas Bashing" is what I wanted in the first place. Please feel free to change it to that.

Thank you for treating my article with some respect. PacifistPrime

[edit] Definition of Lucas Bashing

Thanks for the source- but he still does not distinguish Lucas Bashing from normal criticism. We need to source that says "Lucas bashing" is "this" compared to "that". And even if we do create a separate "Lucas Bashing" article, we still need an article on criticism of Lucas, and a lot of the material here is useful- so creating and copying a new article in Lucas Bashing rather than a redirect would be best. Borisblue 13:40, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] About Time!

Thank you Mattisgoo! I've been watching this discussion for quite some time and its about time someone stepped in with some rational and straightforward suggestions rather than simply un-quantified claims of "POV! POV!" Unless you've been living under a rock, or never seen any of the new ( Episodes 1-3 )Star Wars films, the existence of Lucas Bashing is self-evident, and Mattisgoo's quotes and sources clearly demonstrate that. In an online resource such as Wikipedia, where we have articles on obscure sexual practices which most people will look at purely as a voyeristic novelty, surely a legitimate social phenomenon( albeit limited primarily to Star Wars fans )such as Lucas Bashing with much wider genuine interest should not be dismissed as "plain spewing nonsense "!? Hopefully this should put an end to this witchhunt and let us all get back to our lives.144.136.77.98 22:12, 15 December 2005 (UTC)SenorTugTug

umm no, Lucas Bashing is a very obscure term even within the Star Wars fan community (as admitted even in your original draft of the article). That's the problem we have of finding a source- most of the crazy stuff in Wikipedia are prominent enough to have sources. Nobody has defined Lucas Bashing as it is defined here- and that is the problem. 23:13, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Excuse me, but SenorTugTug did NOT write this article as you claim, sir. I did. Get your facts right and give credit (or criticism) where it's due. And once again, just because the TERM "Lucas Bashing" is uncommon (your assertion that it is "very obscure" is frankly absurd) as a precise label does NOT mean that the phenomenon itself is therefore uncommon. Most Star Wars fans who have any degree of awareness of the broader fandom are well aware of this. PacifistPrime

Ah, I confused the two IPs. It is admitted. "very obscure" and "uncommon" are differences of degree, in any rate, it is obscure enough that we cannot find a reliable adequately sourced definition, despite my and Mattisgoo's best efforts. If you could help us find one instead of just moaning in the talk page it would be greatly appreciated. Borisblue 01:06, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I quote the relevant policy again: Wikipedia:Verifiability#Obscure_topics

Subjects which have never been written about in published sources, or which have only been written about in sources of doubtful credibility should not be included in Wikipedia. One of the reasons for this policy is the difficulty of verifying the information. As there are no reputable sources available, it would require original research, and Wikipedia is not a place to publish original research. Insistence on verifiability is often sufficient to exclude such articles.Borisblue 01:18, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Distinguishing Bashing from Criticism

Yeah, splitting the two is difficult. They definitely overlap -- in fact "Bashing" is a true subset of criticism.

The "Verifiability" requirement: "that have already been published by a reputable publisher" is the hardest here.

Lucas Bashing is a fan phenomenon and hence all sources, examination and analysis tend to be made by other fans (ergo: dodgy web forums). Being authoritative about a sub-culture is difficult. Most of the time you end up describing general observed trends -- which doesn't cut it for an encyclopedia. While I could link to thousands of posts on aintitcoolnews.com and theforce.net and imdb.com, these would remain non-authoritative. The journalist and film reviewer that I have sourced so far were the most trustworthy sources that I found in my first round of searching. Which is not to say that Google searches don't return tens of thousands of hits -- they really do -- but sifting out a definitive definition is hard.

I entirely agree with Borisblue on the elements which still require more support. I'll get there but not today -- I'm really supposed to be at work :-)

Mattisgoo 22:44, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "Final" additions & comments by original author

Hi there everyone. It's me again, PacifistPrime, the original writer of this article which seems to have sparked so much debate. I just wanted to let you all know that it's me who has added the six new (and, for the most part, shorter) categories to the list of Aspects that inspire Lucas Bashing. Sorry for the delay. At the risk of sounding like Lucas (which, like my article, I'm neither asserting to be a good nor a bad thing), this article is now complete as I originally envisioned it, at least in terms of the broad strokes. These six "new" categories were always intended to be part of the article, but I didn't have time to add them when I originally wrote the bulk of the article. I hope they will not generate more negativity.

To all of you who seem to have a lot of problems with this article, well, here it is in its entirety (other people's alterations such as Mattisgoo's notwithstanding), so judge it as you will. I can only say that this article was written in good faith and without any prejudice or agenda. I honestly believe that the article conforms to the spirit and standards of a vast number (if not slight majority) of similar fan/pop-culture articles on Wikipedia, at any rate.

A couple of quick final points:

-People who wish to further criticise this article please go right ahead. However, I implore you to please be civil and make some effort to justify your arguments with specific examples. If you reckon the article is biased, please say WHY. If you think the article suffers from POV, please EXPLAIN how. If you think something is factually innacurate, please show some EVIDENCE.

-To Mattisgoo; thank you for your more reasoned and logical approach to the problems besetting this article. I freely admit it's not perfect, and your contributions have been appreciated. I just thought I'd let you know that I slightly changed a few wordings of yours here and there at the head of the article because I felt they were slightly altering the nuance of a few of my points. I've also slightly retitled the "Aspects" section to use the word "inspire" rather than "targetted", because the article's contention is that general criticism of any of these aspects is a different matter, and that their listing here is merely demonstrating what are the sticking points which also PROVOKE Lucas Bashing. I just thought that should be a little clearer.

Okay everyone, that's it from me. I hope this all survives. PacifistPrime

I hate to be the one against you on this issue but you've got the burden of proof backwards. People don't have to show evidence to prove factual inaccuracy. They can simply state that you haven't given sources to prove accuracy in the first place. The only defence against this is to show each Lucas bashing aspect in action -- even if it is just a link to, or quote from a web forum, it's better than nothing. Better still would be a link to someone discussing it's use.

Mattisgoo 07:20, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Please don't misunderstand me, Mattisgoo; I'm WELL aware of the burden of proof. All I was asking of critics of this article is that they please have the academic courtesy and honesty to specifically state what they may think the bias/POV of the article is, or which facts they believe to be incorrect, instead of just making broad generalisations and polemic attacks. At the very least, by stating WHAT they believe to be inaccurate they would be putting me (or others) in a better position to go about correcting and improving the article.

However, I do stand by earlier comments made that the difficulty in sourcing an ephemeral topic such as this is an inherent problem, but nevertheless should not be considered grounds for total factual inaccuracy. I strongly believe that the content of this article is factually true, self-evident to anyone involved in Star Wars fandom and broadly-observable even if it is not easy to document and source. And again, at any rate, I emphatically argue that it is no more poorly sourced than many, MANY other Wikipedia articles on fan/pop culture topics, which are not subjected to similar debate. I find it difficult to accept such strong criticism as this article has recieved when it is abundantly clear that these strictures are not applied across the board.

I hope that clears up our misunderstanding, Mattisgoo. Thanks, PacifistPrime

The issue is mainly whether the term "Lucas Bashing" is defined like is stated in the article. Pop culture articles are not exempted from sourcing issues, but I can afford to enforce star wars stuff more easily because I am familiar with Star Wars fandom. 15:43, 16 December 2005 (UTC)Borisblue

[edit] Yet another major revision -- based on more authoritative definitions

I've made another major rewrite to the article. Mostly based on definitions of bashers and gushers in "Lord of the Rings, Star Wars, and participatory fandom: mapping new congruencies between the internet and media entertainment culture" and "Bashers & Gushers", TGC Historical Glossary (I know the second source is dodgy -- but it is very succinct).

Points to note about the new definition: the terms basher and gusher are defined exclusively as opponents to each other, almost never in isolation. They are contextual -- the same comment in one context could be considered gushing but in another context could be considered valid appraisal. There are only three points that are universally considered basher/gusher fodder: revisions in the rereleases, Episode 1 in it's entirety and Jar Jar Binks.

Using this last point and the "article is too long" warning Wikipedia gave me as excuses, I've given in to Borisblue's nagging (a little) and moved all other criticisms to the "fan criticism of George Lucas" article.

I've included both a "See also" section and a "References" section. I have used roughly a dozen references for this article now. They are ordered roughly in order of authoritativeness -- although given that this is a largely fan-based topic, I would argue that some fan-based references (such as I have used) are entirely relevant.

[edit] Original writer's reaction to major revision

Hello again. Was that last post and rewrite you, Mattisgoo? I assume so. Sigh, it looks like the disagreements over this article just can't be resolved. Oh well.

Thank you very much for the new sourcing, I think it helps the article's credibility enormously and goes some way to vindicating what I've been trying to do here, as nothing of the article's argument has been substantively altered. I really have to thank you for doing so much work "for me", in that respect. Otherwise, though, while I've been generally supportive of your revisions here in the past, I have to say that I'm concerned about some new aspects here. I'd really appreciate it if you would please hear me out on a few comments/criticisms:

-I'm not really convinced that all the Gusher content at the beginning is really neccessary, or at least not to that extent. This is, after all, an article on Lucas Bashing, not both [and please, that's not an invitation to change the title:-) ]. Although I appreciate the weight it lends to the article as a whole by being a sourcable definition, and while don't dispute any of the content as such, I do think you are (unintentionally I'm sure) misrepresenting it as an equal phenomenon. While I know that Lucas Gushers certainly exist, it is my certain observation that they are FAR less common than Bashers, because all-accepting Star Wars enthusiasts tend to be exactly that: STAR WARS gushers. I would argue that there is a clear difference between being a common Star Wars Gusher and a notional LUCAS Gusher. Just as Lucas Bashing is specific to those who blame Lucas personally for everything they dislike about Star Wars (while never praising him for what they do like), I think a Lucas Gusher could only be defined as someone who endlessly and uncritically promotes Lucas himself as a saint-like creator who can do no wrong. Again, although I stress that I'm sure such people are out there in some numbers I am certain that they are in a considerably disproportionate minority compared to uncritical Star Wars Gushers. Can I suggest this is somehow addressed in the article, and that the Gusher content be somewhat reduced?

-Also, one minor follow-up to the above, I disgaree with your definition that "Dissaproval and admonishment of Lucas bashers" is solely the province of Lucas Gushers, and thus should be considered an identifying characteristic of said Gushers. I consider myself to be neither a basher nor a gusher of Lucas or Star Wars, and thus I disapprove of both camps equally for their polarised knee-jerk excesses. Could I suggest this line of the Gusher definition be amended or removed?

-But to my main point: I must say that I'm more than a little alarmed by the splitting of the article in two. While I acknowledge that my original article was really long and I'm glad that the material has been retained elsewhere rather than just deleted, I nevertheless question the neccessity of having so very much of it shunted off into another category. By putting it into a more generalised article about fan criticism of Lucas (although I concur that such an article should exist as well) you are effectively undermining this article's argument by a very considerable margin. Your justification (apart from "Borisblue's nagging") that "There are only three points that are universally considered basher/gusher fodder" is a fairly drastic assertion in my view. At the risk of sounding like my own critics; what is your evidence for this claim? And why is universal agreement required? Surely any topic of controversy and disagreement is inherently going to lack universal agreement as to its perameters. While I don't dispute for a moment that the SEs, Ep.I and Jar Jar are certainly the "Big Three" when it comes to bashing (although I really don't know that gushing applies here. Has anyone ever gushed about Jar Jar for goodness sake, as opposed to merely defending him?), I hardly see that as grounds to relocate everything else. As I originally strove to make very clear, the list of "Aspects" which has now been shunted into another article are all topics which inspire "Lucas Bashing." I was never contending that any ligitimate, reasonable criticism of these aspects equalled Bashing.

I really feel that this mass exodus of material undermines the article. I'm not going to unilaterally re-insert it all, but I would strongly ask you to please reconsider. PacifistPrime

Also, just as a follow up, I really think that the line "their attacks which are typically disproportionately vehement and often, though not always, personally targetted towards George Lucas himself" makes very little sense, nor does the Jar Jar quote attached to the picture for that matter. The article's entire definition of Lucas Bashing is (or at least was & should be) that bashers SPECIFICALLY target Lucas as the source of everything they dislike in SW while crediting him with nothing that they do like. Anything else would simply be Star Wars bashing, or just petulant criticism. By definition a Lucas Bashing statement HAS to include an attack on Lucas himself or at least intemperate attribution of responsibility to Lucas' for the disliked material. -PacifistPrime

I did post "Yet another major revision -- based on more authoritative definitions" above. Sorry, I forgot to sign it. Responding to your different points:

The gusher content was included because all currently referenced definitions of Lucas basher define basher and gusher with respect to each other. Keeping relatively equal descriptions of both also maintains NPOV. Yeah, I know the article name is now misleading but I think there are other Wikipedia articles that do similar things on highly polar topics.
The assertion you make that bashers are more common is unsupported -- I don't think anyone has tracked prevalence of either -- but bashers are certainly identified more (in a "stop flaming here" kind of way) because people dislike antagonisers. The Definition acknowledges this difference.
There is no referenced material currently connecting any of the moved aspects to bashing or gushing incidents. Universal agreement isn't required from sources but some level of support is. The moved content was moved primarily because all currently referenced articles that discuss the topics include rereleases and Ep 1, two refer to Jar Jar and one referred to "whether the extended universe is considered canon" (something which was not an available topic to keep).
The "not always personally targetted towards George Lucas himself" is in the article because many references to Lucas bashing instead actually bash elements of Star Wars, not Lucas himself. This is why the "Definition" discusses "synechdoche" -- the term is used metaphorically such that bashing his works is bashing Lucas, or vice versa. No one ever refers to "Star Wars bashing". They simply call it "Lucas bashing" -- technically valid or not, that is the practice of useage. A noticeable percentage of the time, it is simply called "bashing" or "gushing" and you must contextually determine what is meant.
Comic Book Guy has praised (not necessarily gushed about) Jar Jar. In the episode Half-Decent Proposal of The Simpsons, while cuddled up in bed with his Jar Jar doll he tells it: "Oh Jar Jar, everyone hates you but me." Okay, I'm being silly here. More seriously, the topics don't need to be common to bashers and gushers but Jar Jar is a noted topic for bashers so the inclusion is valid.
"Dissaproval and admonishment of Lucas bashers" is not the sole domain of gushers and the article does not claim that it is. It is listed simply as a behavior that gushers are known for.

You have stated many concerns you have but your changes cannot be added until they are supported by more than your word, otherwise it is considered original research and rejected by Wikipedia. Keeping this in mind, excluding unreferenced topics actually strengthens the article rather than undermining, weird as that may seem. I know it's a hard topic to research -- the few references I found took ages to find -- but Wikipedia requires it.

Mattisgoo 08:41, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Absolute Nonsense for an Encyclopedia

First of all, when I used the word "movement" I was referring to an incorrect interpretation that is easily drawn from the incorrect and biased view of the entry itself. On a public encyclopedia, why should there be an article which records and describes the criticisms of George Lucas? He is no more famously criticized in the media than other Hollywod film directors, and there is no "Approximate Consensus of the Sources" nonsense in existence. Without being disrespectful, that very phrase is laughable at best, foolish at worst. The concept that George Lucas is criticized for his work exists, sure. But there is no "approximate consensus" that can be reached without the extreme bias of the author him or herself. I refuse to read the article at all, because I question whether or not the very existence of a page chronicling the criticisms of George Lucas is appropriate. If you believe that it is, my response would be a question - Shouldn't an article then exist on the Praise of George Lucas as well? And I can assure you that much more such praise exists than does criticism. As a film student who is studying the life of George Lucas extensively, I point to the recently released tribute to George Lucas' life "The Cinema of George Lucas," which analyzes his work and its impact on Filmmaking, and popular culture in general. If this article remains, I will write a page on the praise of George Lucas, and, if this encyclopedia and its users are not hypocrites, which I am not convinced of as of late, they will allow that article too, to remain. Please do not threaten to ignore me on a public forum, your acceptance of my analysis of the article is entirely trivial. My opinions are biased because the very existence of the article qualifies a bias itself. If you believe my opinions on this public forum in discussion of why this article should be deleted are not appropriate or are too "biased" please report me to whomever handles such complaints. Do not patronize my comments on a forum page of a public encyclopedia, your opinions, unfortunately, are biased in that they support an article inherently biased via its very existence. I point out that there are two solutions to the issue. Either the article is removed, which is apparently very difficult to do without highly detailed analysis and criticism of someone else's ramblings on an issue that would never appear in ANY ENCYCLOPEDIA, or a counter article can be written, which I volunteer to do, in praise of the filmmaker, and thus providing both viewpoints to the matter. The main point is that there is no one to judge that this is in fact, "A pop culture Phenomenon," and as such I view it as someone's interpretation of how George Lucas is viewed by the public. As such, an article which describes the opposite point of view is necessary.

Responding to your points:

This article does not attack George Lucas. Seriously. Actually read the thing. It actually discusses the people who talk about his work and barely mentions Lucas. Only one paragraph actually discusses him personally and it calls him a "successful and influential filmmaker". The article defines "Lucas bashing", it does not engage in it.
"Approximate concensus" refers to the agreement between the definitions as described by the sources. The article lists the points that the sources agree on. ie Bashing and Gushing exist, they are uncompromising and vehement debates, they started in force around the time of the re-releases, and bashers and gushers both tend to be Star Wars fans.
What is valid for an encyclopedia is not a particularly difficult thing: if other sources (not the encyclopedia and not people directly involved) have identified and defined something, then it is valid for inclusion. What may or may not get deleted by Wikipedia admins we'll see :-)

I'm sorry you're offended by this article, unnamed poster, but there shouldn't be anything offensive in this article. Again, it defines "Lucas bashing", it does not engage in it. If part of the article actually bashes Lucas, then it will be removed.

Mattisgoo 11:46, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

that makes absolutely no sense at all, in fact, this whole page seems more of the rants of a resented fanboy than an actual article of interest.

[edit] Shouldn't this be a general bashing/gushing article?

These behaviors are by no means exclusively Lucas, nor even inspired by Lucas. Although the realm of this knowledge dives into the colloquial, bashing/gushing is too general to be specifically Lucas. --the_it

I think there should be a general article. At the moment, Wikipedia only has gay bashing. In the same way as that deals with specific history, issues and motivations relating to that, I believe there is a place for discussing other forms of bashing. Bashing generally stems from an underlying ideology which is different in each type. Political bashing (there used to be a Bush Bashing page before it was summarily removed) also deserves some attention. With the Bush Bashing page: it was removed because "bashing" is a general term and the Bush Bashing article offered nothing specific to Bush -- yet there remains no general page on the issue.

I would have:

Bashing -- discussing generally including references to ethnic, sexual, political and fan bashing. Maybe touching on gushing in the last point.
Gay bashing -- as per the extant article
Political bashing -- giving specific examples of political bashing including Bush Bashing, Republican Bashing and Clinton Bashing.
Fan bashing/gushing -- discussing the nature of forums, Star Trek, Star Wars and other fans.
Lucas bashing/gushing -- a shorter article with less explanation of bashing and more focus on ideology and causal effects.

Of course, given the current Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lucas_bashing and the already deleted Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bush_bashing it would appear that Wikipedian disagree with me. Although I think that the entire set of arguments (biased and not notable) are completely irrational, not part of Wikipedia policy for deletion and unsupported (most people haven't actually read the article and are voting against it).

Mattisgoo 22:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

*Cough* Bashing_(pejorative) *whistles innocently*. Mattisgoo 00:35, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with this most. There is no need for both Fan criticism of George Lucas and Lucas bashing any more than there is a need for murder and horrendous murder. I think that Fan criticism of George Lucas is encylopedic (altho it should probably be called Criticism of George Lucas, since you don't have to be a fan to dislike the elements it describes. I think Lucas bashing is not really encyclopedic and should just be a redirect. --Tysto 16:49, 19 January 2006 (UTC) For the record: I hate Jar Jar, but I love Ewoks.

i think its an ongoing phenomenon much like the trekies thing, there are a lot of people out there that hate star wars to the death in almost the same way as people love Lucas. To just show 1 side would be just a way of censorship, creating the belief that its all idolization on things related to Star Wars. About the "murder and horrendous murder" comparisson, its not a good comparisson there, i know what you were aiming at, but thats a horrible example there (what the hell does murders has to do with star wars???).

[edit] BEFORE MAKING ANY CHANGE!

a few ground rules: 1-no chauvinisms, you can look it up on this encyclopedia if you are unaware of the term. But it basicly means: NO ADDING ANYTHING THAT DOESNT HAVE A SOURCE OR THAT ISNT VOX POPULI. Things based on empirism dont count whatsoever and should not be added. 2-NO JUSTIFICATIONS: justifications make the article poorer in quality, a justification is to add a little explanation right after a criticism. The explanation is not needed, mainly because if the criticism is false, then it shouldnt be added, and if it is an ongoing dispute, then it should be written that way. NO JUSTIFICATIONS DAMN IT!!! 3-Try to not delete: think that someone spend time writting it and that by erasing a whole section without even asking you are basicly making wikipedia poorer in quality. 4-NO POV: thats wikipedias' golden rule, this means: no adjetives, no confirmation bias, no deletion or other unnecesary edits. THINK before editing on the people that would read it, this is not a message board and theres no reasson why it should be.

[edit] Current Position On Disputed Tagging (April/May 2006)

This page has been flagged as NPOV and disputed a few times this month by anonymous users. I have been reverting these changes (along with the vandalism that has accompanied some of them).

My position is that these changes are not genuine and ignore the discussion that has already taken place on these matters (the content of this article has not significantly changed since the same tags were removed 4 months ago). I believe the NPOV and Disputed tags are being placed to discredit/vandalize/incite, not to spur improvement of the article.

I will not remove any tagging supported by rationale/discussion. Nor will I continue if people make a discussion here about why my actions are invalid.

Mattisgoo 23:31, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Having elicited a point to be discussed from the tagger (see the new NPOV dispute discussion comment at the top off this page), I'll leave the tags while this is discussed. Again.

Mattisgoo 06:02, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../l/u/c/Talk%7ELucas_bashing_553c.html"