Talk:Han shot first

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Star Wars Portal

This article is part of WikiProject Star Wars, which aims to build an encyclopedic guide to the Star Wars saga on Wikipedia. To participate, you can improve this article or visit the project page for more information.

Start

This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.

This page was previously nominated for deletion. Please see prior discussion(s) before considering re-nomination:

Keep, August 5, 2007, AFD
Keep, July 7, 2006 AFD

[edit] Quit griping people

I don't mind Greedo shooting first as long as Han gets him in the end. - R.G. 15:16, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand what the fuss is about. So I'll ask, why is this notable and why do people care about this trivial detail? I think the article should at least reflect why this seemingly unimportant detail has led to such dissent among some fans. --Dr. WTF 01:21, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

It's such a big fuss because it's an indication of Han's character. If he shoots first he is a killer, if he shoots after Greedo it's in self defence.... a big difference.

A professional killer was pointing a gun at him, at point-blank range, and made it clear he was about to kill him. Under those circumstances, it would be self-defence even if Had did shoot first. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.159.79.130 (talk) 22:09, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Han is a bit of a cowboy, and "shoots from the hip" if you don't mind the sort of pun. He's reactionary and him shooting Greedo does show a lot about his character -- this scene is when we first meet him so this exchange helps develop our idea of him (do not mess with Han!). Han is the kind of person who would take advantage of the situation and changing it goes against his characterization. Anyway, this is a big deal to a lot of people, and I think is given extra fuel by people complaining about all the changes made to the films.

As for its validity as its own article, it's a well-known phrase and if I were someone who heard the phrase and didn't know what it meant, I might look for it on Wikipedia for an explanation. Whether this is something Wikipedia is really for, I don't know, but I'd be glad to have found (though I realize a web search pretty easily explains it too...) Fieryrogue 23:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Well my main problem was that Greedo is supposed to be a GOOD bounty hunter. Missing at point-blank range makes him look like an idiot, as does Han for not reacting fast enough. I don't understand why Lucas changed it. lwelyk 02:19, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

So Han shot Greedo in self defense after Greedo shot at him.So what?As I stated before,as long as Han gets him is all that matters.Had Greedo gotten Han,then there might be some substance to these complaints.As it is,however,it just seems like much ado about nothing. - R.G. (talk) 06:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

Talk:Han Shot First – Han Shot First → Greedo Shoots First – This page needs to be renamed and revamped to the article's actual subject, changes to the paticular scene in the original Star Wars film. The main debate is over the original Special Edition change of Greedo shooting first, and now with the DVD edition, Greedo shooting at all. The title "Greedo Shoots First" is more recognizable and established than "Han Shot First". — The Filmaker 02:50, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Voting

Support This page needs to be renamed and revamped to the article's actual subject, changes to the paticular scene in the original Star Wars film. The main debate is over the original Special Edition change of Greedo shooting first, and now with the DVD edition, Greedo shooting at all. The title "Greedo Shoots First" is more recognizable and established than "Han Shot First". The Filmaker 03:05, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I think you're not looking at this from the right direction.

You say the change is over "the original Special Edition change" (and if that's not one of the more confusing terms I've had to use, I don't know what is) of Greedo shooting first and now Greedo shooting full stop.
You see that this implies that Greedo shooting first is the significant change, then say it is merely him shooting at all.
For this reason, it's now inaccurate to move it to "Greedo shoots first", and should thus be "Greedo shoots", "Greedo shot" or "Greedo shot first", if it needs moving.
I argue that this move is unnecessary, because the issue is, and has been for all of this debate, for the issue is not that Greedo shot first, but the fact that Han no longer shot first.
The phrase "Han shot first" is a slogan, and I think most would agree that it's the more popular side of this debate. I've never heard a similiar slogan for the other side, and since this one is the one that is known, and applies, it should be kept.

So, you think that this article is on the added part of Greedo's shot: I argue that the more significant bit is the removal of Han having the first shot. (And I can't believe I'm actually arguing about this, now ) J•A•K 08:26, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Oppose Most people who care about this are of the opinion that Han Solo Shot first. Because of this, "Han Shot First" is a more recognizable term. I've never heard of "Greedo Shoots First", nor have I seen T-Shirts proclaiming this. The key point of the article is that it changes the presentation of Han Solo's character, one of the main characters, and reflects Lucas's change of opinion with time. The change in presentation of Han Solo's character (one of the main and best remembered characters from the films), which is illustrated by the bit-part of Greedo's actions, to make a reaction "less maverick" is vastly more significant than the change in Greedo's actions, which are unexplained and have apparently no reason behind the change. J•A•K 07:51, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Han shooting first has expanded beyond a criticism of George Lucas changing the film. It has become as much a part of nerdom slogan as much as phrases like "Show me the money" or "Where's the Beef" have become part of general society.

Weak Support All this good discussion notwithstanding, I was surprised to see this article named in terms of Han rather than Greedo. About a month ago, I created Greedo shot first (redirects to this page), since I thought that name was the more recognizable phrase. I'm not sure why some people think HSF is more recognizable than GSF, but I've always felt the other way round. Maybe it's a function of exactly which fan discussion circles/forums we frequent? I don't know, but that's my own opinion. Staecker 12:19, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Support The article is about the change, rather than the original version. And the change in tense is clearer as well. (Another possible alternative would be Han Shoots First.) MisfitToys 21:28, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Oppose based on J•A•K's rationale. Olessi 02:04, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Oppose Have you seen a Star Wars buff in a "Greedo Shoots First" shirt? It would be asinine to change the name of this article to something so unofficial; if we're going to do that, then we might as well merge this page with another one. Darth Katana X 04:32, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Oppose I couldn't have said it better than J•A•K did. Darth Katana X is spot-on also, regarding the recognizibility of "Han shot first" vs. "Greedo Shoots First". Heck, while playing "Star Wars Battlefront II", I even noticed it there. While playing as Han Solo in Conquest mode, if you're doing well against the Imperial troops, one of the troops will occasionally say, "Hey! Solo shot first! That's not fair!". Why'd they have had it said that way if "Greedo shot first!" were the more appropriate way to label this controversy? --Rat of Steel 05:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Oppose The argument was spawned not because Greedo didn't shoot first when the films were originally released, but rather because Han didn't shoot first when the Special Editions were released. Whether or not Greedo shot first is irrelevant, as I think he is largely viewed as an insignificant lackey, whereas Han's motivation is important. Regardless of whether one thinks Han or Greedo shot first, Han's motivation is much more important than Greedo's. Aericanwizard 21:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Oppose per J.A.K and others Percy Snoodle 12:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

   support  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.144.99.101 (talk) 17:38, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Oppose I concur with J.A.K. Major Small 08:56, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Support Han shot first is acceptable. I can't believe there is even a discussion of how to name the article. Why not create a pointer/link from "Greedo shoots firs" or something akin to that and point it to the "article". Everyone should be satisfied with this. FrankWilliams 16:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Some good points have been made. "Greedo shoots first" would no doubt be more familiar to the layperson not expert in Star Wars matters, since "Greedo" if it were to convey anything, is more likely to convey "Star Wars" than "Han". The exception here would be "Han Solo shot first", which would be infinitely more recognizable to all parties. Basically, I think there are problems with the proposed name and the current one. Would not "Han Solo shot first" be better? It has the advantage of recognizability and espousing the majority viewpoint that Han did shoot first and that Lucas' change was for the worse. --C S (Talk) 06:00, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Google gives 27,200 for "Han Shot First" ][1], 5,530 for "Han Solo Shot First" [2] and 11,200 for "Greedo Shoots First" [3]. To the layman, Han Solo is a much more recognisable name than Greedo who is something of a minor character. The fact that this phenomenon is referred to as "Han Shot First" on T-shirts indicates that this is the notable phrase for this, if the Google test doesn't satisfy. This shouldn't be an issue. J•A•K 06:12, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I would argue that the Google test is misleading as these phrases are likely to be used by Star Wars fans in discussions and forums. The layman of course recognizes Han Solo before Greedo, but my point was that just "Han" is not recognizable to the layman. The same argument applies to the shirt. I suspect if I were to walk around with that shirt, the "geeks" would get it, but the average person would not. If the shirt said, "Han Solo shot first", more people would get it. In fact, it seems to me that the phrasing of "Han shot first" is partly used as a kind of "in-joke", meant to be understandable by the geeks, but not so much by others. --C S (Talk) 06:25, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the "Greedo Shoots First" title isn't as well established as the "Han Shot First" title. But it is a small part of what the proposition is. The article should be revamped to be more focused on it's main subject of the changes made to show Greedo shooting (first or at the same time), therefore the title should correspond with this subject, refering to Greedo rather than Han. The Filmaker 07:43, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

The title of this article is "Han Shot First", and this phenomenon is what this article is about. Saying that we should change the subject of the article to suit what the title should be and the title to reflect the new focus seems odd. I think this article's more about the significance of the change from Han shooting first, as opposed to the fact Greedo now shoots. It's Han's character which is shown differently. J•A•K 07:51, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

This whole issue is really just understood by geeks: someone who isn't a geek isn't going to care about the difference between original and remastered films. Or Star Wars, to the extent that it bothers them. J•A•K 07:51, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

The only "phenomenon" that's going on here is that the phrase "Han Shot First" is being used on a few T-shirts and Message Board signatures. If you look at the page, see that the time spent on explaining the phrase and it's affect on the world (i.e. T-shirts and sigs) adds up to about a small paragraph. Whereas the rest of the article is focues on explaining the origin of the phrase. The origin of the phrase is that Lucas changed the scene so that Greedo Shoots First. Hence most of the article is on the subject of Greedo and his shooting, the page needs to be revamped to come from this point of view...... then the subject Han shot first gets atleast a section at the bottom. The Filmaker 17:53, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

And on the subject of geeks. The subject of Greedo shooting first is a well-known debate. At the very least I would say that the casual movie goer would not be aware of it. But filmmakers and even avid movie goers are aware of the on going arguement. The Filmaker 17:53, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Not moved. I'm afraid three to two is not really consensus to me, and both sides' arguments seem valid. Get some more input if you really want to move it, okay? —Nightstallion (?) 20:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Not that I really count, but it seems that the phrase "Greedo shot first" comes from the perspective of seeing the prequels prior to seeing the "old" trilogy. (But this is, as the saying goes, just POV) I think, that since we're talking about the first movie being changed, (that Han shot first, and Greedo not at all) rules out the possibility of titling any of the debate as "Gredo shot/shoots first". The phrase Han shot first represents how people who saw the originals responded to the altered scene in question, (add an exclamation point to the phrase, and picture them sitting forward in their seat and pointing at the screen as they say it to get the bigger picture) whereas Greedo shooting first is entirely secondary in nature. This also effectively negates any motion to change the title. Add to these the Google experiment, and the fact that many casual fans often apparently need to be told who Greedo even is, then the debate seems to collapse altogether. As for "lay people", they couldn't give a #&@*! either way, so this renders them rather inconsequential. Basically, the current title refers to the content of the original movie and the other the latter, period. Whether or not this causes a bit of confusion on occasion is irrelevant. Sorry for the long post, but I haven't slept for WAY to long, hence the stream of conciousness style as I try to get it all out coherently. Anyhow, peas out. And may th' force be wit'chya n'shit.64.223.210.135 13:43, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Either title is going to be an assertion one way or the other. Another page links this one as "Han and Greedo Shootout". Why not take that as the main title? It unambiguously denotes the scene for fans, it provides a good jumping-off place for lay-people (who, BTW, are NEVER "inconsequential" at WP), and it doesn't assert a "Correct Version" (since the scene would be a shootout regardless of who shot first, or who didn't manage to get any shots off). --Sneftel 02:45, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

We should just keep the name. If it ain't broken, why fix it? After all, "Han Solo Shot First," "Han & Greedo Shootout" and "Greedo Shoots First" are not slang terms, and they're not the official name of the issue in a sense. Show up in my hood with a "Greedo Shoots First" T-shirt on and I might change my mind. Darth Katana X 04:32, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge

Totally unnecessary article. Fan controversy over one scene in a series films surrounded by controversy. Merge with Fan criticism of George Lucas. --Tysto 17:00, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Oppose I find Fan criticism of George Lucas and Lucas bashing to be problematic. I think this article stands on its own. Staecker 21:41, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Oppose Like Staecker, I feel this article stands on its own.--L1AM 22:44, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Oppose I found this article very informative and just what I needed to hear. I think it's okay to allow it to stand on it's own, seeing as it's a highly recognizable phrase that one might want to research. --Oreckel 02:58, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Oppose If we merge Han Shot First, Fan criticism of George Lucas and Lucas bashing, we'll end up with an article huge enough to kill some older computers, really. Besides, this article is basically stuck now that there's a punk rock band called Han Shot First. Darth Katana X 04:37, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

"Han Shot First" is right, when someone says "Paul Is Dead" its the same thing, maybe only some people know who its about, but maybe those are the only people I would say it to. I do think it's a shame what Lucas did though..... NCKILLA

[edit] Nonsense phrase?

I've tweaked the first half of the article, mostly the first two paragraphs to add an explanation of how we use the phrase "Greedo shoots first". While doing this I've realised just how paradoxical the phrase "Han shot first" really is (since he was the only one to shoot). Is there a word to describe an expression that is generally understood, but doesn't make literal sense? - Eyeresist 09:53, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Eeerrghhh! I think a much better term for this kind of editing is "author alteration" where the author goes back over his original story which was already published or released long ago and decides to either re-edit his work, tweak portions of the story in an effort to bring his work more to his vision or more in line with continuity. It's not as if Lucas is the only one who does this. --Destron Commander 09:25, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

"Idiom" may be the word you're referring to. --Yath 05:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I don't see a paradox. Granted, if Han shot first, then Greedo didn't shoot, but just because Greedo didn't shoot does not mean that Han didn't shoot first. And referring to Destron, the term generally used is "retcon"(Retroactive Continuity). Aericanwizard 22:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The petition...

Sorry folks, missed it in the original articleTommyt 17:53, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Google court video

I fail to see how this video relates to the article at hand, it looks like a piece of fan work to me. Keep or remove? Lord Kefka 01:03, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Remove d. Staecker 12:37, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sources

While I think this is a valid topic, it shouldn't be a forum for wikieditors to come in and add their opinion to the debate. As such, we should endevour to attribute all opinions to notable sources (as much as they exist for this type of topic). Phrases such as 'is it common sense', 'it seems that' are inherintly unverifiably and needs to be changed. Ashmoo 03:10, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Examples in Popular Culture

To reinforce the very fact that this debate exists, I think more examples (not less) of the "Han Shot First" argument need to be referenced. There was a note in the history section that every instance of such was not needed - which I flat out disagree with and find to be antithetical to the very idea of Wikipedia: where else but here should an as-complete-as-possible list of references to the debate be noted? RoyBatty42 01:00, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

The section had become a magnet for people advertising their own parodies. If someone wants to add examples of parodies that had been noted in reliable sources, I would have no objection. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:02, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Then tact on a section at the end for parodies, what's the harm? But this was for section on non-parody references (ie, the reference in Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back)RoyBatty42 01:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Sources. We don't need to list every single time every single thing is mentioned in a popular work unless that mention was so important as to be noted in a reliable source. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:15, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Side stepping the argument "why not?" - as it is, there are barely ANY list of examples of this debate. You would have a point if there were dozens upon dozens of examples, but as it is with the edit you seem intent on cramming down everyone's throat there are none.RoyBatty42 01:21, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Sources? We don't need to note every single parody ever. Sources, sources, sources. Please produce sources making note of parodies. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I have now added all of the famous (as in ones that don't need sources as they are mainstream DVDs or games, etc) parodies and any that seemed non-promotional or trivial. Hopefully this will settle the arguments of people only adding things in to shill out their t-shirts which they may or may not have made. I also reverted the actual article to the last one which I read, as the transcript was useful in terms of putting context to the gunshots. --Andyroo316 04:00, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Major according to your judgement call. Please add only those parodies noted in reliable sources. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:02, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

It isn't original research - it is just examples. Original research means actually publishing the results of studies. The parodies provided are only examples. Edit the actual main article all you want but I went through the parodies in the history section and only included those which were famous enough to be included (the Kevin Smith ones - he is famous as a Star Wars nut and delights in including this scene in his films. Sources were provided but we cannot link to movies or DVD extras, that's all we had but we gave the sources - it said 'on the DVD' or 'a character said' and it's all we can do) or one single t-shirt mention (instead of lots of trivial ones) with the link to where you could buy it edited out and replaced with a link to just the image (resulting in a valid source), and finally the whole Firefly thing cannot be sourced as it is a fan thing, but a famous enough 'fan thing' to be included, IMO. I will edit back in the 'in popular culture' section as carefully as I can without editing the actual scene description. I would appreciate if people took my efforts into consideration and note I am not merely throwing in lots of parodies or t-shirts: I am putting in valuable evidence that the 'Han Shot First' controversy is embedded into popular geek culture, which it is. --Andyroo316 04:11, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

You studied the movies and decided certain one-off jokes were important. We don't need random examples because there's no evidence here that the phenomenon of parodying this change is significant. Produce sources to show that the phonmenon of parodying this change is significant. You say the changes and parodies are famous; add sources that claim that. Not evidence formed from personal observation of things you deem part of "geek culture", but reliable sources. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:18, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

My point is that the Han/Greedo Shot First debate is mentioned time and time again intertexually. The fact that this is the case should mean that those examples should go on there. Sure, the t-shirts thing can swing, but the 'in popular culture' thing is merely a tool on a wikipedia page to show other cases where the event detailed in the article is mentioned in other media. The Han Shot First thing is mentioned by Smith. A lot. If it was mentioned once, it should be a shoo-in to to popular culture section in a page but the fact it is mentioned time and time again only heightens the case that it needs a mention on this page. The geek culture thing can slide - but I don't need any sources to say "it has been mentioned a lot by other film-makers and people in the media like to reference it" as simply providing cited examples is enough to show that it is referenced a lot. --Andyroo316 04:35, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

The fact that Stormtroopers can't lay pipe is also mentioned intertextually. Why is this specific Star Wars reference worth noting in this article when the director in question makes constant Star Wars references in his works?

Also, SOURCES SOURCES SOURCES WHERE ARE THE SOURCES? Not personal observation of the subject, but reliable sources. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:40, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Sources have a hyperlink or are in the description (ie - we can't give a hyperlink to where Kevin Smith said it on the DVD so the source we give is we say he mentioned it and it's the most we can do: same with the saying the scenes it is mentioned in). And I don't need to say "this article states it is mentioned a lot in popular culture" when if you look down the cited list, you can see that it mentioned a lot in popular culture.

As for the reliable sources thing (quoted from that page): Articles related to popular culture and fiction must be backed up by reliable sources like all other articles. However, due to the subject matter, many may not be discussed in the same academic contexts as science, law, philosophy and so on; it is common that plot analysis and criticism, for instance, may only be found on what would otherwise be considered unreliable. Personal websites, wikis, and posts on bulletin boards, Usenet and blogs should still not be used as secondary sources. When a substantial body of material is available the best material available is acceptable, especially when comments on its reliability are included.

So, it can stay in, as it's the best material available to us. --Andyroo316 04:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not asking for academic sources, just something other than personal observation. Who says this is frequently referenced in pop culture? If the answer is "you," then don't readd it. If the answer is "such and such published source," then cite it if it isn't a blog or fansite or other self-posted ephemera. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:49, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

By the way, pictures of T-shirts, pointing at the movie/webcomic/whatever itself, those aren't sources. Those are just observation. My dog, Emily, is not a source for dog. We need sources, not examples. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:59, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

No-one "says" it. All I'm saying is that it DOES appear more than a few times in popular culture - that isn't original research - it is self-evident (ie - if we have lots of examples, it shows that it appears a lot in popular culture without any particular article or person having to "say" it). I add those times to the article with the best material we have available to us (as many of the times are on a visual film/television/game medium or auditory podcast/radio/musical medium and cannot be hyperlinked so all we can do is say where it appears in these mediums and that is a good enough source as it is the best material available - unless you want me to upload my DVDs into youtube and provide links to the scenes it is mentioned in). Secondly, if you did not keep deleting it, this section will gradually expand to include examples which can be cited better as well as showing it appears more and more in popular culture than first appears. I say leave it just a week, for a trial, and if no-one adds anything (or adds pointless t-shirt advertising), then delete it again. Until then, what I've added is cited, and although short at the moment, will hopefully lengthen as other wikipedians see a section that they can edit, which is the point of wikipedia. --Andyroo316 05:10, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

If nobody says it, we don't say it. This isn't the place to publish your own observations on the world as a whole; this is a place to synthesize secondary sources. If there are no secondary sources, that doesn't mean you get to publish your own observations based on the subject itself; instead, it means we should refrain from comment. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Fine, I won't say "it appears a lot". Instead, I will just create a list and say "these are times when the Han Shot First event has been parodied or mentioned in other mediums", which is true. Please stop deleting it as these are the reasons for deleting:

 So, whatever you do, try to preserve information. Reasons for removing bits of an article include:
   * duplication or redundancy (- nothing was duplicated or redundant)
   * irrelevancy (- nothing was irrelevant: the parodies and mentions are relevant as they were inspired by this event)
   * patent nonsense (- nothing was nonsense: it all made sense)
   * copyright violations (- the only thing that could be copyright is the images, but I checked and the image status are all ok)
   * inaccuracy (attempt to correct the misinformation or discuss the problems first before deletion) (- nothing is inaccurate)

Once again, leave it for a week and if it isn't improved, then delete it. But deleting it now denies the section the right to be improved, and wikipedia states that articles should try the alternatives first: such as moving text within an article or to another article (existing or new), which is what I will do if in a week it isn't any better on this page, I'll move it to a Han shot first in popular culture page. --Andyroo316 05:22, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

You forgot unverifiable. This content, or some variation of it, was here for months. It doesn't get a second, or third, or fourth bite at the apple. Come up with sources noting the phenomenon you claim exists, please.

If you create a Han shot first in popular culture POV fork, I'll just redirect it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

To agree with Andyroo316 - what is your problem with leaving these examples up for a period of time to have citations listed? In the case of films (which you apparently have a problem referencing directly), it will take some time to find an article that mentions the exact scene.RoyBatty42 07:36, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Because it sat for months with no improvements, just people adding more and more spamlinks and trivia. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:42, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

To take your logic to its natural conclusion, then this entire article should be deleted because at the moment it has not a single source citation. As far as you are concerned, the scene does not exist.RoyBatty42 07:54, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, probably. As far as I'm concerned, nothing belongs on Wikipedia unless the claims in the article can reasonably be sourced. For the time being, I've killed the unsourced POV pushing and random fancrufty trivia, but the whole thing isn't much of a subject unto itself. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:50, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Parody

The parody section was full of useless crap and spam so I deleted it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:09, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Unless this is part of an ongoing debate, I feel that at least some of the stuff in that section was noteworthy and simply blanking the whole lot is not a good move. I won't just straight-out reinstate it but I'd like a bit more discussion. Rawling 23:12, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to remake the section as summary prose, instead of a bulleted list, as long as you leave out the linkspam. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:17, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that something better could be made of this section. I don't feel that I am the person to do it, but if the content is plain gone then no-one will be able to. Following Wikipedia's Editing Policy in a nutshell (Improve pages wherever you can, and don't worry about leaving them imperfect. However, avoid deleting information wherever possible.) I want to re-instate this section. Rawling 23:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

It was linkspam and unencyclopedic junk. In this case, no relevant or important information was lost. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:33, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

One man's junk is another man's... um... inspiration to collapse a load of junk into a concise and useful passage. I'm going to reinstate the old version but tag it as requiring attention (with a very relevant template in my opinion) in the hope that someone will improve it rather than just delete it. Rawling 23:42, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Just to back this up, the manual of style page linked to by this template states This guideline does not suggest deletion of trivia sections. Instead, consider it a list of "facts pending integration" or "facts lacking sufficient context for integration". Seek to minimize it, but meanwhile leave it in place as a raw store of facts for both readers and editors to work with. Rawling 23:46, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I didn't delete it per the avoid trivia guideline. I removed it as spam and as unimportant factoids. I've still killed the spam. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations, A Man In Black, you made it on hanshootsfirst.org. Regarding your edits.

Why does A Man In Black only leave Kevin Smith in Parody. There is a lot more and varied parody of the incident. Also, what happened to the public backlash section? That is very relevent to the article.

Hm. Good point. That's not really parody, nor is it anything but a one-off reference to this event. Since we really don't need a list of every time any event, person, or place is mentioned in film, television, or other entertainment media, I'll remove it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 16:22, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Main Article

I have searched through the wikipedia guidelines and have found no restrictions on "excessive plot details" or "block quotes." In fact, what I found in looking at individual articles was a welcome abundance of detail. So I see no reason for my expansion of the summary of this scene to keep being reduced by the actions of one person. By expanding said summary, it becomes easier for those not familiar (as shocking as this may be, not everyone in English speaking world has seen or memorized this film & its derivatives) with the film to fully appreciate the debate.RoyBatty42 07:46, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

See WP:NOT for excessive quotation. As for plot summary, the older plot summaries often editorialized, and, frankly, A New Hope, which is linke, has a lengthy, detailed plot summary for anyone who needs it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I think you are being entirely arbitrary here and the stated reasons are paper thin at best. 4 lines of dialogue, which go straight to heart of the matter as to why a character decides to act, are not "excessive." As to the plot summary, there is a very telling passage in that style section you link above -

"...since Wikipedia requires no paper we can give more thorough treatments..."

I really don't care if older plot summaries editorialized because by omission you are stating that mine did not. There doesn't seem to be any consesus (much less, not one line of discussion) on this page regarding this issue, so you are simply trying to dictate the outcome, the opinions of the rest of us be damned.

This has become the worst experience I've had to date on Wikipedia, ironically involving the first article since I finally registered. It is the ONLY bad experience I've had. In the past, I've always appreciated how others have edited my prose, expanded my examples, corrected something or found a better source. But it does make a person wonder "If one person is simply going to dictate things, why the fuck bother getting involved?"RoyBatty42 17:54, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

It would seem someone finally took notice of this and thankfully place a lock on the page. In looking over the history, I see this is not the first time that A Man In Bl♟ck has arrogantly changed things without any discussion. I saw some very interesting information about the scene has been deleted (like the fact the framing on the shot was changed). Hopefully, it can be reinserted once some editors learn how to work and play well with others.RoyBatty42 17:44, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

The quotation is unnecessary; the scene can be described.
"In the Special Edition version, Greedo, an experienced bounty hunter, shoots at Solo from point blank range and misses." This line, or some variation on it, I've killed repeatedly as POV pushing. This sentence implies that it makes no sense that Greedo could miss at that range.
All of this detail is covered, in great detail, in three different articles already. It was probably a mistake not to redirect it to one of those articles, since this article hasn't served much purpose other than to serve as a soapbox from which aggrieved Star Wars fans can shout their POV. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:55, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge?

I think this article is short enough to merit a merge into Fan criticism of George Lucas. Sure, it's a big deal for the SW community, and big enough for a section header, but I don't think it's major enough to warrant its own article. Hbdragon88 03:30, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that's an excellent idea. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:41, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Oppose Oh, so if the article won't be written the way you want it to be, might as well kill it? As it is referenced repeatedly in other films, comics, books and even video games there seems to be more than enough justification for a stand-alone article that addresses this phenomenon. If these other similiar entries cover the same ground, why not put links up so others can judge them. For me, I simply imagine a layperson hearing/reading the phrase "Han Shot First" and wanting to suss out the meaning. For me, the very fact that those T-shirts can be seen wherever Geeks converge justifies this entry if nothing else touched on the phenomenon.

As a casual fan of sci-fi & fantasy, I only knew a few examples and came here originally to learn more. I was surprised to find so little information (Man In Black having recently done one of his purges). As it exists right now it is much more what I have come to expect in a wiki entry.RoyBatty42 23:29, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

See above for a discussion of the exact same proposal. My Oppose stands for the same reason. Staecker 16:28, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Oppose per other opposes, It's a cultural phenomenon like Chuck norris jokes or some other things

†he Bread 03:49, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Related Articles

Should we manage to save this article from oblivion, I would like to suggest an addendum to direct to the articles of a related nature (including the fabled Fan criticism of George Lucas).

In fact, I first arrived here surfing over from the sub-entry in the Star Trek article dealing with the new remastered episodes of ST-TOS. I have to assume that there is a section within the E.T - Special Edition entry that deals with the changes made to that film (guns vs walkie-talkies) if not an entire stand-alone article that encompasses the whole debate about using CGI to make changes to existing films if one exists.RoyBatty42 23:29, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edits to be made...

The page is protected, so I can't edit the page at present. However, there's a change that needs to be made: removing the links to the pictures and the captions for the merchandise. The images have been deleted because of a lack of copyright information. --Gray Porpoise^{Phocoenidae, not Delphinidae} 11:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, there is an excess pair of brackets around the second external link. --Gray Porpoise^{Phocoenidae, not Delphinidae} 20:56, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Done --WinHunter ^(talk) 04:36, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you much! --Gray Porpoise^{Phocoenidae, not Delphinidae} 21:47, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, there is a typo in the popular culture section: "chnges" should be "changes". --Gray Porpoise^{Phocoenidae, not Delphinidae} 21:49, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] EDIT IN POPCULTURE

In the area representing a tshirt made by PVP bit says it should have a photo of the shirt directly in the text. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.51.84.199 (talk • contribs) .

Such an image would by necessity have to be a fair-use image, and I'm not certain we could justify it in this article. The shirt design is just words; I don't think an image of it adds enough to the article to justify using a fair-use image. Powers ^T 14:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, change the text then, so it stops referring to an image that's not there. It might be what the unregistered user meant in the first place. Delta Tango • Talk 14:30, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

That is, to any admin that reads this. Delta Tango • Talk 14:37, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

There is a small grammar error under the note of Star Wars: Battlefront II: "If the players selects Han..." One of the letter S's should be removed as a minor edit. (Note the one S I put in bold here.) --Addict 2006 17:47, 12 November 2006 (UTC), fixed Addict 2006 03:25, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Done Ehurtley 06:29, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jabba the Hutt spelling

It's supposed to be Hutt, (two T's) instead of Hut, right? Can someone change that link? --Addict 2006 18:06, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Done Ehurtley 06:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No one comments on this so...

I thought you ought to know... People would probably think the 2004 DVD edition is just an edited carbon copy of the 1997 edition, but with another thing (aside from Han's body movement). So the staff tried to have Greedo and Han shoot at the same time, but messed that up. Well, just maybe if people look at the bottom of the screen at that time, they'd see that Han shot two laser bolts - the one added for 2004 DVD, and the late 1997 version one.

Again, I thought you ought to know. --Addict 2006 03:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] References Cleanup

I have added a number of references to this article, clearly defining them in a References section, bringing the article out of {{unreferenced}} state, and establishing notability under the basic sniff test of "multiple non-trivial published works".

I have also deleted the following unsourced sentence, "Lucas changed the scene, when re-editing the films for the special editions, because he felt that the original version made Solo look too cruel." If someone can find a source for this, great. Until then, I'd rather see the sentence left unsaid, rather than having a {{citation needed}} pimple on the face of this article. --RoninBK_ETC 14:15, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Small correction in Popular Culture

The satement was made, "In the graphic novel "The Darkest Hours" Spider-Man says, "It dimly occurred to me that at this point, if I was Han Solo, faced with a genuine threat to my life, I would officially have moral license to shoot first.""

While the basis of the statement is accurate, "The Darkest Hour" is not a Graphic novel (i.e. a collection of comic books), but a Mass Market Paperback Novel! Dablueeagle 18:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). --RoninBK_ETC 18:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Same stuff, different year

Seems we are back to certain people removing entire sections without any discussion at all. I will reitirate my earlier position - if you have a problem with it you should bring the debate here first, especially on a case-by-case basis. RoyBatty42 19:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] See Also - E.T.

I would challenge anyone to come up with a list longer than 5 films of well known films that have been changed using CGI long after their releases by the filmmakers. I thought it was very relevent to this article. RoyBatty42 19:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Bladerunner, ET, and Clockwork Orange have had controversial edited rereleases, just off the top of my head. The ET comparison is contemporary and similar; it'd be worth mentioning in the body of the article, as long as you have references to reliable sources. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

New CGI footage in Bladerunner and Clockwork Orange is news to me, and undoubtably millions of other film goers. RoyBatty42 00:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, Bladerunner is a movie with controversial edits involving Harrison Ford, and I don't see Harrison Ford in ET. You've seized on a trivial detail, with no evidence to show that that trivial detail is important.

Sources comparing the two please. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

The original point was that both the Special Eds. of Star Wars and E.T. were changed using CGI long after their initial releases, not simply re-edited. Neither Bladerunner or Clockwork Orange did this. At this point there a very few films or filmmakers who are doing this. Ironically, in an attempt to be facetious you are really showing your ignorance: Harrison Ford is actually in E.T.. He is the school teacher - all shots showing his face were cut from the film. RoyBatty42 21:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

You missed the important point. Sources comparing the two please. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

How about this - show me the wikipedia standard that says in order for a two articles to be linked by a ==See Also== section that they must have sourcing. RoyBatty42 17:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:V. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] No Original Research

No original research is meant to stop people from saying that atoms are actually made of Leprechauns rather than leptons. It is not made to stop people from saying that a reference to Han Shot First was in Clerks II and appears on t-shirts (it doesn't need a source - just WATCH Clerks II, I'm hardly gonna lie about something as trivial as a film's content just to have something I wrote be on wikipedia).

WP:CITE#When you add content states "All material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a source."...as far as I can see, it's only you that challenges material on this page - it just so happens that you do it a lot. Does that mean I have to actually provide a source? No. Why? Because it doesn't seem to be challenged by anyone that actually wants to genuinely know where something came from - it's only you operating a crackdown on an article trying to make it a better one. I really have nothing against making wikipedia better, but it seems everyone else thinks the article is better with the pop culture references IN even if it doesn't have specific references (most times we give the best references we can - by saying it appeared in such and such a Kevin Smith film as we can't exactly drop a youtube film scene into a wikipedia article without breaking copyright law - I'd much rather break a wikipedia rule than an actual law).

I'm applying Ignore all rules here due to using common sense. It says on that page that ignoring all rules on it's own is not good enough - you need to convince people that you were right in ignoring rules. Personally, I don't think I need to convince people as most who edit this article are already on my side, eh, RoyBatty42? You don't seem as if you'll ever be convinced, so the whole one versus the rest of us doesn't seem to be working out for you very well - making yourself disliked merely for overly-implementing rules that can actually be ignored for the sake of a more detailed and better article, which we are making it with the pop culture references.

Oh, and Man In Black, don't be a dick.

--Andyroo316 10:15, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I am challenging the importance of the material. WP:N means you need to demonstrate importance for what appears to be minute, fannish trivia. Welcome to Wikipedia, where we cite reliable sources independent of the subject for our claims, instead of observing the world and reporting on it. This means you need commentary on the parodies in reliable sources, instead of sourcing the whole thing to the parodies themselves.

Implicit in this list is the claim that "This scene is widely parodied." Instead of listing parodies to back up that claim, you need to proffer a reliable source making that claim. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:08, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I understand those rules...but there ISN'T that commentary available. However, just because there isn't that commentary, it does not mean there obviously isn't a lot of parodies and references. In my opinion, the parodies do need extensive vetting, however references are clear as day and normally fairly notable (appearing in Hollywood films as opposed to fanboys sticking up home-made flash animations on YouTube).

Can you think of a way of saying there are a lot of parodies and references without needing a source to cite from? If you cannot, it clearly cannot be done (yet it still notable since the whole Han Shot First issue has been made more famous by said parodies and references than mere 'Star Wars canon complainers' - at least it's how I came to the article, showing the pop culture references play a huge part in the subject of the article) and so please leave the article as I have purged it, without exact claims that it is widely parodied.--Andyroo316 00:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I understand those rules...but there ISN'T that commentary available.

And that's why this article shouldn't make the claim that there are lots of parodies. We're not here to make original assertions. Sometime it can be frustrating to have to omit the obvious, but it's part of the work of making an encyclopedia. Implying that there are lots of parodies has exactly the same problem as saying it outright, plus there are no references showing that any of these parodies are individually noteworthy. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

MIB, can you please explain to me why you reverted [[4]]? I never made claims it was widely parodied, I merely gave a list of references to Han Shot First in other media. I didn't say it was a massive inside joke or anything - I merely objectively listed the times said retcon has been mentioned, making nothing of it's subjective notoriety. Was it a mistake thinking I'd merely reverted it back to how it was? --Andyroo316 00:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Because that list is original research. There's no reference to say any one parody is important, nor any reference to show the parodies are collectively important. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

But I never said they were important, merely that they were there. If that is original research, then so is saying that the Han Shot First retcon exists. Someone noticed it and decided to put it in wikipedia. Same for iPod and american cheese. In fact, mentioning that anything exists is original research, in which case the whole of wikipedia should not be in existance. Finding an article elsewhere online stating that lemon juice exists is not what qualifies lemon juice to gain a wikipedia article - it is just as obviously notable by it's existance without it needing a source. The Han Shot First references in other media exist just as much as the Han Shot First retcon exists and has just as many sources to back it up - tell me how to mention it.--Andyroo316 01:06, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Implicit in including something in an encyclopedia is the claim that it's important; if it's here, it must be important enough to be in an encyclopedia. In this encyclopedia, we use references in reliable sources independent of the subject as our bar for importance.

In the event that someone challenged the importance of lemon juice, the variety of reliable sources about lemon juice would make it trivially easy to establish its importance. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:12, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] It's funny because

It's funny because in Lego StarWars 2 we see greedo get out his gun but Han shoots him first. Watch for the Lvl 3 cutscene where the characters are in the cantina. You would think that LucasArts would actually check that scene before releasing the game as it is a StarWars game and George Lucas opinion would have to be influenced in most of his stuff. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.18.240.159 (talk) 04:51, 16 April 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Interesting:

Hmmm... It's funny because I'm sure that I've seen a version where nobody shoots and Solo & Greedo give each other a bro hug? Must be the uncut edition.... ;) Spawn Man 06:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] No explanation of cause

A few days ago I added a paragraph trying to explain WHY people are so upset about the who-shoots-first aspect. As I expected, it was promptly removed as a generalization.

This is stupid. There is no mention whatsoever in the article as-is to help the reader understand why people get upset about the order of firing. As it is now, it looks like a mundane examination of the differences in two versions of the same film. There is a very vocal community of people with the exact same reasons for wanting Han to shoot first, and I think without their motivation explained this article is useless.

Surely we can find and agree on a source article that describes a few of the reasons people get upset over the change and include it/them in the article.

What we have now is a perfect example of how encyclopedias can fail. It's like an article about the human hand going on and on about fingers and tissue and nerve endings and completely failing to mention the fact that people use hands to grab things; because that would be a generalization, right?

--Asriel 16:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Encyclopedias a generally lame because they are so general... heh, but not when it comes to Star Wars. okay, anyway. At the very least, the Han shot first article references that there is a controversy on the list of changes article. I'll make a small addition to note the controversy discussion. --Trakon 09:29, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] han did shoot first

they are talking then han shoots him when his gun is aimed somewhere else and he shot him in the face not under table

71.2.38.191 01:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)