Talk:Star Wars: Episode I – The Phantom Menace/Archive 1

message: The entire section "reaction" is in extreme need of citation. Randomly coming up with "fan opinions" does not belong. ::—Preceding unsigned comment added by 98percenthuman (talk • contribs) 
*Please sign your posts as customary. Also, please do not immediately remove information that is not cited, simply put up a citation tag at the end of the sentence or paragraph that needs to be cited. These "fan opinions" may also be "general opinions" and if they are citable then they do belong. The Filmaker 04:42, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps a better term would be a lack of "proper citation". A proper citation would be a source that is widely available, hence why the synopsis and the novelization sections do not feature many/if any references, because the obvious citation is the film or novel which can be easily found by either buying or renting the film or book. The only suitable reference in your paragraph is the Spaced television show, although I am only assuming that it has been released on DVD. Whereas This American Life is a radio show, radio broadcasts cannot normally be rented and if they are archived on the web somewhere than that would be the proper citation. Finally, The Phantom Edit is on the bootleg market therefore is barely available to users. If you were to use this as a reference, you would have to find an article in an online news source that deals with this subject. The Filmaker 01:00, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh c'mon. The Phantom Edit article has plenty of sources and online links. --maru   (talk)  contribs 01:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then provide them and use them, i.e. instead of doing things the wrong way, do them the right way. The Filmaker 02:15, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV and needing citation 

message: I was watching the movies, when I noticed a HUGE mistake. Okay, in all honesty, it wasn't HUGE, but you get the picture... When one of the Naboo soldiers were talking to Queen Amidala and telling her about Palpatine's nomination for Supreme Chancellor, he listed names and the planet they're from. Well, he got to a name and said, "Bail Antilles, of Alderaan" It's supposed to be Bail Organa. He's Leia's adopted father. Starwarsnerd 23:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not an error. They are supposed to be two completely different characters. See Bail Antilles and Bail Organa for the differences in the two. The Wookieepedian 01:22, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: BIG Mistake

message: Just curious if someone can answer a question I've had about the articles for the SW movies on the Wikipedia.  Why isn't the cast listed for any of the movies except for a scant few of them in the info boxes? Dismas
I don't know.... If you go to turnerclassicmovies.com (or something like that) you can find the cast for each one Starwarsnerd 02:39, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cast 

message: Yoda says "Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering.
In the first movie Akakin fears losing his mother more than anything else.
In the second movie Anakin loses his mother and his fear turns to anger.
In the thid movie so fearfuly is he of losing his wife and angery that the Jedi would allow her death that he hates all Jedi.
In the end his hate turns him into Darth Vader who is suffering incarnated.
      Whoa, cool, I never noticed the pattern... Starwarsnerd 23:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The films show us (the?) thee stages of a good persons fall to the darkside 

message: All 6 Star Wars film are protected from editing. This bickering is pointless. I find your lack of good faith disturbing. For the sake of unifying discussion, please try to settle the dispute at Talk:Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope. Coffee 06:35, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No constructive discussion is taking place, so I'm unprotecting the article. Please try to work together and reach a compromise rather than simply reverting each other's edits every day and hoping one of you gets tired. Coffee 12:31, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The following article has a good discussion of the difficulties of establishing 'truth' in matters  like this.  http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Misc/Canon.html  Regards, Ben Aveling 21:28, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent article! Described me exactly! The Wookieepedian 21:56, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected due to edit war 

message: Can someone please create about 5 screenshots for this article in the same format that someone has for the other five film articles? The Wookieepedian 00:20, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Screenshots 

message: At the time of its release, there was some criticism of how characters seem to be based upon racial stereotypes eg:
*Neimodians = Japanese
*Watto = Jew
Could someone write something more detailed about this?
:You forgot the Jar Jar = Jamaican/black dude. --Maru  (talk) Contribs 01:20, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Racial stereotypes 

message: What do you think? E Pluribus Anthony 19:35, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Talk:Darth_Vader#RfC.2Fpoll:_Darth_Vader.2FAnakin_Skywalker_.E2.80.93_one_article_or_two_articles.3F|'''RfC/poll''' – Darth Vader/Anakin Skywalker: one article or two?]]

message: The current WP article on this topic is found at midi-clorians (sic) at the insistence of a user with an early edition of the novelization of The Phantom Menace where the word is supposedly spelled that way. Requesting input in the discussion over what is actually the canonical spelling. Thank you. Rcharman 21:52, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Midi-clorians vs. midi-chlorians (spelling discussion) 

message: The following passage struck me as odd, out of place, and not particularly well-grounded:
The appearance of Sith Lord Darth Maul draws heavily from traditional depictions of the Judeo/Christian Devil, complete with red skins and horns. These aspects, however, also slyly refer to Jesus. Maul's red and black face bears a strong resemblance to the abstract opening sequence of Martin Scorcese's film adaptation of The Last Temptation of Christ, whose red and black images are evocative of Christ's crown of thorns. Similarly, the arrangement of horns around Maul's head can be seen as analogous to a crown, creating a dark mirror image of Christ's crown of thorns to Maul's crown of horns. These references are especially meaningful, as The Last Temptation of Christ tells an alternate, speculative history of Jesus in which the Devil tempts him to give up his duty as messiah to die upon the cross in order to live out his life with the love of Mary Magdelene. The Star Wars film cycle features a similar narrative with Anakin, a virgin-birth messiah who is tempted out of fulfilling his duty as "The Chosen One" to destroy the Sith in order to save the life of his love, Padme. In both cases, the love for whom the tempted messiah abandoned his responsibilities winds up dead, and the messiah must eventually reclaim his destiny in self-sacrifice. 
Is there precedent for these views? Is it something some guy just made up? This should at any rate be examined, and I'd like to see references and even citations. Albrecht 03:33, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I smell original research. The Wookieepedian 04:59, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The diabolical element's of Maul's character strike me as worth mentioning, but the comparison to Jesus? Risible. --maru  (talk) contribs 00:19, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Maul as Christ?

message: For some reason people think David Boreanaz, an actor who would have been 27 years old at the time, directed this movie. This movie was, of course, directed by George Lucas. I have had my ip address blocked trying to rectify this. And I am not even a Star Wars fan. George Lucas directed 4 of the Star Wars movies, II, III, IV, and even I: The Phantom Menace. He is listed on DVD cases as the director, and every other website apart from Wikipedia. Here are a few reptuable ones: 1 2 3. I am now going to change the page back to support George Lucas as Director. And I will probably got blocked again for "vandalism". for christs sake. --Nambio 00:44, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it's not that; we recently had a vandal who changed all the actors and directors in an attempt to sneak in misinformation; as a result, there was a web of reverts and screwed things up, and ultimately, you were mistakenly thrown into it. The block should no longer apply though. — Deckiller 00:46, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

text: See your talk page, sorry about the block, it was a goof.  I zapped you instead of the vandal. Note that the vandal is changing more than just "David Boreanaz", so when you revert it's important to revert all the other nonsensical information as well (by going back to an earlier version instead of just editing out "David Boreanaz" in one or two places). -- Curps 00:51, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ok. thanks for the explanation guys. -- Nambio 01:14, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  DIRECTOR 

message: Concerning the opening crawl.  The opening crawl says "Two Jedi Knights" although this statement is technicaly incorrect it is partially correct.  Qui-gon is a Jedi Knight.  A Jedi master refers to a council member or when a padawan speaks to his "master".
:True, but who cares? ....(Complain)(Let us to it pell-mell) 00:08, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Two Jedi Knights

message: During the fight scene between, Qui-Gon, Obi-Wan and Darth Maul, what piece of music is playing in the background???? Its very famous, but i can't think of the title. Any help would be appreciated.-Dylan Bradbury 20:16, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: End Fight Scene Music

message: This article should include a picture of Anakin and the Princess somewhere.  (Anakin more so). --P-Chan 05:29, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops.  The queen?  You know what I mean!  :) --P-Chan 15:32, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You wanna see the queen? Buckingham Palace my friend. As for the image, to my knowledge it's the best for including the most principal characters at once. And the queen is in that image, she's one of the handmaidens. ....(Complain)(Let us to it pell-mell) 00:09, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, I must have missed her the first time.  :) --P-Chan 06:45, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  You guys probably know this already 

message: Hey, does anyone know what film the teaser trailer was released with? When everybody infamously went to see the trailer, and left for the feature? That needs to be in the article as well. ....(Complain)(Let us to it pell-mell) 01:49, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trailer 

message: Just noticed that in the very first section, there's a spoiler.  Sure, if you've seen all the movies you'll know anyways, but I still think it should be reworked to NOT say that "Palpatine was the true menace to the Republic".  What do they call him in the movie before you realize who it is?  I guess you know anyways, I still think it should be corrected for people who don't know.  Just putting this out there Atrivedi
:Personally, I feel that warning and bypassing spoilers is unencyclopedic, as it gets in the way of the encyclopedia's purpose, which is to inform about the main points of a subject and its surrounding issues. — Deckiller 00:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Spoiler Warning?

message: I was curious why the edits I've been placing the soundtack section have been removed. 
They are all true and verifyable. I tried to go to the mod who removed the edits and do it in their talk, but they removed their edit from the history... so I'm placing it here.
What am I doing that is wrong?
I can proove to you everything I stated.
--Voyager1 21:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think its because there is already a whole article devoted to the soundtrack, and about two paragraphs is probably enough for this article on that topic :) Judgesurreal777 21:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Soundtrack Edits

message: In the section headed 'reaction' is says the following: "The idea that Anakin built C-3PO was also regarded by some as far fetched". I think this sentance should be removed as by its science fiction fantasy nature, all of Star Wars is far fetched. The sentance implies to me that Wikipedia consider the rest of Star Wars to be a plausible reality. Unless anyone disagrees for a good reason, I shall make this edit in a few days time. WhizzBang 14:28, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're obviously missing the point. It isn't far-fetched because it's fantastic or remarkable, but because it lacks internal consistency. A better word might have been "implausible." For example, a patently absurd concept like "the Force" is believable because it operates on a set of rules that make sense in the context of the movie. But in the Original Trilogy, there was absolutely zero indication that Threepio had been built by Darth Vader. The whole thing reeks of retconning and bad storytelling. It's an old cliche: "fantasy can allow the impossible, but not the implausible." (now whether the criticism was sourced is another matter) Albrecht 01:24, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, that was totally unprovoked. The Filmaker 01:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry about the tone up there. Just doing my part to refute the old "well, it's only fantasy, so let's excuse shoddy storytelling" mindset, which has been haunting science fiction and undermining its reputation for decades. Albrecht 02:09, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reaction

message: Ref 36 isn't playing, I don't normally use that version of coding, could someone with more expertise fix it? Cheers, Highway Return to Oz... 21:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference 36 

message: The Observer - Comment, August 13, 2006 column by Nick Cohen, titled: "Save us from the crackpots who see Zionist conspiracies in everything".  Quote:
:There was much more in the same vein. All shared the assumption that the Islamist 'threat' (always in scare quotes) is a phantom menace used by the government to distract the credulous masses from Lebanon, Iraq or wherever abroad and panic them into abandoning their civil liberties at home. In this scenario, Islamists are little more than puppets jerking about to the commands of Western governments and the international Jewish conspiracy, which time their arrests to bury bad news.
Emphasis added. --88.152.179.102 11:19, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interesting usage 

message: The intro to this article says that the film is currently the 6th highest-grossing, while the reaction section says 5th... Natalie 02:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  contradiction 

message: I was going to look at the Phantom Menace page, and when I got there it just said NERDS! I was terribly disappointed, and I hope whoever ruined that page reads this! Please rebuild that page Wikipedia.
8/30/06 Sean7gordon@epix.net
:Taken care of. The Wookieepedian 02:18, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who ruined the Phantom Menace page?! 

message: From the section 'Historical and cultural allusions':
:The Star Wars film cycle features a similar religious narrative [to...? The life of Christ, presumably] involving Anakin, a messiah born of a virgin who is tempted to join the Sith—his sworn enemy— in order to save the life of Padmé, his secret wife. This action seemingly prevents him from fulfilling his duty as the "The Chosen One"— the individual prophecized to destroy the Sith. In both cases, the love for whom the tempted messiah abandoned his responsibilities dies, and the messiah must eventually reclaim his destiny in self-sacrifice.
The only parallels with the mainstream Christian view of Jesus's life that I see there are the virgin birth, his being the Messiah, temptation by the Devil and the eventual sacrifice on the Cross. The "reclaim his destiny" business sounds suspiciously like the plot of The Last Temptation of Christ and it's obvious where the "secret wife" idea has come from. But where, in gospel or pseudohistory, is the death of "the love for whom the tempted messiah abandoned his responsibilities" analagous with the one in the film? This passage needs some revision, unless it was actually Lucas's intention to allude to obscure theories about Christ that hold very little credence. [talk to the] HAM 19:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Anakin/Christ: a spurious analogy?

message: This paragraph is ridiculous:
A possible allusion to World War II occurs during the Tatooine scenes of the film. Obi-Wan receives a radio broadcast from Naboo pleading for help. He warns the Queen and Captain Panaka not to reply to this message, never realizing that the Queen is an imposter. However, someone on the ship breaks radio silence, enabling Darth Maul to trace it. The person who sends this transmission is not seen nor heard, and is never revealed. This may be a direct reference to the highly elaborate and secretive radio interception and decryption services employed by both England and Germany during the North Africa campaign and elsewhere.[35]
This is a totally tenuous link to WW2 (there may be other allusions in the film, but this is certainly NOT one!). Looks like whoever wrote it was just looking for some sort of link to make the film appear more intellectual or something! I had to use all my willpower to keep from deleting it; instead, I thought I would do the honourable thing and mention it here.
:The paragraph is cited, therefore it is not worthy of deletion. If you'd like to rewrite it to make is less "tenuous" than you are more then welcome too. The Filmaker 14:21, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Totally tenuous allusion 

message: First, all references to The Phantom Menace "not living up to expectations" should be removed.  I think it's in there a couple of times, maybe more.  Nothing to back this up, it was the highest grossing Star Wars film and saying it didn't meet expectations is clearly bias.
Secondly, if you are going to continue to reference JAR JAR BINKS in a negative way, then you must provide other references to offset it, otherwise, it is not NPOV.  You can't act as if "most" or "older fans" or whatever, didn't like Jar Jar, because you can't provide sources that back it up.  You can't confirm what percentage of people like or dislike the character.
I think, you should add the word controversy in there with his name anytime he is mentioned (outside of plot points).  There was some controversy, but again, you can't confirm anything.  
Lastly, I don't agree with critics being in the "reaction" section.  They should have a section of their own or not be used at all, especially if you are going to use sources which are geared toward poking fun at any well known movie just to get a reaction from fans. This includes "The Razzies" and "Mystery Science Theater 3000."  
Venom-smasher 16:49, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Not living up to expectations" appears more then a couple times in the section? Try once, once in the entire section, and it's sourced which is the definition of "backing it up". I've stated this to you before, do you even bother to read other user's replies? Please stop reading into the article what you want, we don't refer to Jar Jar Binks as a character that "most" or "older fans" don't like. We state that he was criticized and that is all, we do not provide a specific number or even a vague number of people who liked or disliked him. There is not one point in the section that we state whether a majority or minority of people liked or disliked Jar Jar. You haven't provided a reasoning as to why critics should have there own section or not be in there at all. Your belief that the Razzies and MST3 are only geared towards getting a reaction from the fans is your own POV and should not be included in the article. Worst of all, you make outrageous statements that my supposed generalizations of the reaction are POV, yet you then make changes and add generalizations that are uncited, which are..... wait for it....... POV. The Filmaker 20:59, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes that need to be made to comply with Wikipedia NPOV rules 

message: Since the article is protected right now, I thought I'd ask for this edit here. Reference number 30, http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/1999/STRWR.html needs to be changed to http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/1999/STRWR.php. Thanks. --Jtalledo (talk) 18:25, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference needs updating 

message: *Recent Changes that were made and then reverted:
REACTION SECTION
First, I removed the line:  "Despite failing to live up to immensely high expectations"
I did this because:
A) This is clearly POV
B) There source is not for this line, it is a link to this website:
http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/1999/STRWR.php
Which, as you can see has nothing to do with the films "expectations" but is just offering the movies BOX OFFICE GROSS.  This ref is misplaced anyway, as at the end of the paragraph you have ref to BOX OFFICE MOJO.  I don't see a need for two websites showing the box office information.  If the person who originally added that site, wants to replace it with the BOX OFFICE MOJO link, I could care less, but I am not wasting my time doing it, as either site gives the same information.
Second, I heavily edited the line about JAR JAR BINKS being regarded by "many members of the older fan community as a purely merchandising opportunity rather than a serious character in the film."  Again, there is no way to back up this claim and this is clearly POV.
Infact, whoever put this whopper in here, even went on to add REFERENCE to an internet FORUM for crying out loud, which has a whole 2 pages of a few fans discussing JAR JAR.  How this stayed in here for so long is beyond me:
http://forums.nightly.net/Jar-Jar-Binkswhy-he-doesn-t-suck-t32636.html
***Removed the reference to midi-chlorians being controversial.  This sounds like a "Fan Boy" wrote this and there is no source to back it up and the REF link goes to "EPISODE 3 Spoiler Picks."  
***Did a massive cleanup of references because a lot of them were wrong.  You can check the archive for what was changed here.  Several sites pointed to EPISODE 2 stuff, which has nothing to do with the current article or line that it was attached too.
***Removed the line about "many fans and critics agree that the epic fight scene between Qui-Gon Jinn, Obi-Wan Kenobi and Darth Maul...BLAH BLAH BLAH."
Again, if this is going to be an unbiased article, that can't be in there.  The REF was also a garbage link to a review where the reviewer makes one reference to that fight scene being "more acrobatic than previous films in the series."  
If whoever added this (or someone else) would like to re-edit, they should do so, but make it unbiased.  
On a side note:
***I would like to see more about Ray Park and the choreography. This is something that set this movie apart from the original trilogy and sadly it is mentioned only once (which I now have to remove).  If anything, there should be a section for choreography of this movie.
And finally, cleaned the article up a bit.  In short, it seems that many "FAN BOYS" have been editing this article and now we need to make a large effort to get it back to an unbiased, NPOV article. Venom-smasher 19:33, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV dispute Section 

message: ***Flesh out the REACTION section, reorganize it, so it sounds more professional.
***Add section on choreography of the film.
Venom-smasher 19:36, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  RECOMMENDATIONS 

message: First, I'm going to ask you to calm down and stop making changes without discussing them in the talk page first. Discussing means to converse. Meaning to trade ideas on what to do. Not to simply yell what you're going to do and then doing without bothering to wait for other user's reactions. Alright, on the subject of the "expectations", if you look at the ref and scroll down to the bottom you will find that it does mention the film not living up to expectations. As for Jar Jar, you have stumbled onto an inadequate ref. You happen to be right in this aspect, so I'm going to add new references to back up the sentence. The references do not have to point to a page about Episode I and Episode I alone, as long they contain information about Episode I. The choreography is mentioned in the production section. Please stop making accusations on the character of the users editing this article, to call us and others "FAN BOYS" can be construed as personal attack. Many users have come here and worked hard to get the article up to featured status, to call them "FAN BOYS" is rather rude and goes against the good faith policy. The Filmaker 20:21, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are clearly not interested in discussion. I have found that you are correct in one aspect of your criticism and have corrected in as such. And yet you claim that I am simply stubborn and am biased. I will come right out and say right now that, yes, I formatted the majority of this article. I provided the information and cited the sources. Yes. I made the most of the edits that resulted in the page that you see today. But for some reason, even though the entire article is cited, and it was voted through as one of the best articles on Wikipedia, it is "obviously POV". Tell me exactly how that is true. How? The Filmaker 20:36, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I am discussing the changes. You have stated your opinion, I then stated why I believe your opinion is incorrect. This is the part where you make a rebuttal and offer opposing evidence as to why I am incorrect to believe that. However, you instead run back to your accusations of me being biased. You cannot state that if one user works on the majority of the article then it is POV. Many users take it upon themselves to greatly improve an article, as I have done with the Star Wars articles. If you check the history, I am not the only one reverting changes, many other users have done so. Thus, those changes were reverted, not because they go against some POV of my mine, but because they were incorrect or uncited. Like your changes. The Filmaker 20:51, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Response

message: OK, I know that this is a featured article and all, but I just think that it would be appropriate to rename the Cast section into maybe Cast and Characters or simply Characters, since you're actually descriping the characters of the film and only mentioning the cast.
:Partially it has to do with symmetry between all of the other Star Wars film articles. The Cast section also contains information on the casting of the film which supplements the fact that the section is used primarily to explain who played who rather than explaining the characters as the plot section pretty much takes care of that. The Filmaker 19:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, so the Cast section is basically a job description for the actors. Makes sense. --SoloReX 07:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, was that supposed to be sarcasm? The Filmaker 02:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, not at all. I mean I guess it does make sense to actually say a little bit about what role it is the various actors have to play. This is an excellent article. --SoloReX 06:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Why "Cast"?

message: PLEASE HELP ME
Sorry to ask this but I was not able to find it on the page. I remember seeing this film on Midnight opening night, However the people I work with said that they where not allowed to show a midnight showing, and say that becuase I was nine years old that I must have seen it the next nigth and just thougth that it was the midnight showing, if you know where I can find a site that states that at least some theaters had a midnight showing that would be very helpful, you can email me at spencerjfish@yahoo.com. Thanks Again
To quote from the named section in the article: "The Star Wars film cycle features a similar religious narrative involving Anakin."
Similar to what? The previous sentence in that paragraph is referring Maul's appearance. The only sentence before that is a general statement, half of which is also on Maul's appearance. (Since contributors seem to be playing up the Japanese connection, one might as well say that Maul's appearance comes from oni. Maybe someone can write a piece of religious propaganda with that in it, then we can cite that as a reference--not introduce it as original research--such as a contributor has done to support the devil-like appearance.)
I must confess to being insufficiently familiar with the Bible to know the bit about a "messiah born of a virgin who is tempted to join ... his sworn enemy—in order to save the life of ... his secret wife." Perhaps that is part of the reworked Bible that originates  from a similar place to that which ejested midichlorians. Virgin birth and a messiah only occur in the New Testament and--unless someone is tempted to relate this to the forty days--that character is never tempted to join the enemy, nor is there a secret wife. (Don't start quoting The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail to me, thank you.)
To claim that virgin birth "parallels a concept developed by Joseph Campbell" is an unfortunate choice of word--unless one is suggesting that Campbell is an immortal or time-traveller who first came up with the story of virgin birth a long time ago maybe in a galaxy far, far away. Perhaps he described or elaborated it but develop can mean originate generate and that he didn't do.
Given that the birth of Luke and Leia and Padme's death doesn't come until two films later this concept is misplaced in this article.
The section is confusing and needs to be reworked or removed.
Waerloeg 09:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historical and cultural allusions 

message: Should this song be referenced anywhere here? Perhaps under "pop culture references" or something? Just a thought.--Gleezus 16:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Several articles fork off "pop culture references" into their own lists for this reason. It keeps the size of the main article down, and keeps away objections of having a "trivia" section. --JohnDBuell 04:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[The Saga Begins]] 

message: In the synopsis is the following sentence:
*Through a Jedi mind trick, Qui-Gon secures a submarine, which he, Obi-Wan, and Jar Jar use to reach the capital of Naboo and rescue Queen Amidala and her escort. 
As I recall, the trick didn't work, and Qui-Gon was chastised for trying it.  He ultimately used diplomacy (and the Gungans' desire to be rid of Jar Jar) to get the submarine.  I'll let someone more expert on the topic make the fix.  Fjbfour 23:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jedi "Mind Tricks" don't work on Gungans 

message: I'm surprised nothing is said about the initial resistance to a DVD release. I still have one of the US boxsets of the VHS release (Widescreen Collector's Edition from early 2000), which Lucas's people said at the time would be all that would be released until the prequels were done. There was also apparently some consideration as to whether or not they should BACK DVD (which in 2000 hadn't really picked up in sales yet, and DIVX had only just died). It was only after fan-led petitions that they caved and did a DVD release, which then followed the later two movies. Archives of some of the debates on the issue can still be found online (see forums.dvdfile.com). Of course, conspiracy fans would say George intended it to happen that way all along, just as with releasing the original trilogy on DVD.... --JohnDBuell 04:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not aware of any such debate or resistance to the DVD release. If you'd like it to be included in the article, you'll have to cite your sources. Message boards (forums) are not considered to be suitable references. The Filmaker 05:04, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  February 2000 statement by Lucasfilm on a non-release of Ep I on DVD in 2000. Amazon lists an original release date of April 2000 for the VHS, and preorders seemed to have started in January or February of 2000. The first DVD wasn't released until October 16rh 2001; the announcement must have been in August or September, but I'm not finding the actual announcement, just a September 10th 2001 press release about its creation:  IMDb also notes that this was the final (or one of the final) movies to be released on LaserDisc, but it seems to be the only source for that. (on another note, "The Phantom Edit" that circulated fan circles as episode 1.1, with a lot of Jar-Jar's scenes cut, got a mention in all but name at ). --JohnDBuell 05:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Going by the archives at thedigitalbits.com, the DVD announcement was made in June 2001, about 14 months after the VHS release, and 16 months after the DVD denials.  The release is covered on  details on the campaign run by SW fans and film fans is still up at . --JohnDBuell 06:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  VHS release? 

message: Good job guys, I feel both happy and sad that this is a featured article. On one hand, it's a star wars movie. On the other, it's Phantom Menace. Keep up the good work Star Wars Wiki. H2P (Yell at me for what I've done) 00:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Front Page 

message: The article says it made $924.3 million.That's more than ROTS  which made about $850 million.
is there a miscalculation? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.94.136.63 (talk) 00:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  924.3 million? 

message: I copied this from the article: "Frank Oz as Yoda. The leader of the Jedi Council, who is apprehensive about allowing Anakin to be trained. 
Samuel L. Jackson as Mace Windu. A member of the Jedi Council who also opposes the idea of training Anakin."
But it's the other way around. Windu was the council leader, Yoda was just another member. It's counter intuitive, I know, but that's the way it was. Vince 00:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And where did you get this from? Gdo01 00:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yoda leader of the Jedi council? 

message: its the featured article.
again.
>:|—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.128.155.32 (talk • contribs) 
: Not "again". You may be confusing this article with Revenge of the Sith which was Today's featured article about six months ago. The Filmaker 04:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  great 

message: Forget it.  I tried rewriting parts of the article to make it read better and we have the typical Wikipedia self-elitists making things the way they want.  I'm not going to sit here for hours and hours and play games with this.  Gabe 07:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You tried changing "George Lucas is a legend and" to "Legendary film maker George Lucas". Neither instance was correct, as while George is legendary in my opinion and yours, it's exactly that, an opinion. Any opinion in Wikipedia must be in quotation marks and cited to a reliable source.  --  Zanimum 17:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Angry

message: The following is direct from the article
"... reappearance of the Sith, a religious order "
I know quite a bit in star wars and I do not believe that the sith should be classified as a "religious order." Does this mean that the Jedi order was an opposing "religious order"? Jackchen123
* The Sith articles are in the 'Jedi religion' category although I don't know if that's appropriate. Siths form an order pursuing similar goals and using similar means, but I very much doubt it could be considered a religious order. I don't remember any Sith talking about gods, religious rituals and such. The only "religious" remark is about a god-like status of a Sith leader. I've replaced "a religious order" to "an opposing order." Svetovid 16:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In Star Wars itself one of the generals scoffs at Vader and his "sad devotion" to an "ancient religion."  And Vader's response is, "I find your lack of faith disturbing."  Also, in Empire, when Yoda explains the Force to Luke, he is clearly describing a religious attitude. Fumblebruschi 18:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, throughout the Star Wars series there are a number of references to the Force as an "outmoded religion" by those who have never witnessed somebody manipulate it. I think the idea of it as a religion is supposed to be a misconception brought on by the ignorance of those whose minds are too clouded to feel the force. It's much like Hinduism in the sense that people are clouded by their ego and do not realise that Hinduism is not a way of life, or a religion- it is dissosciation from life and a philosophy. It seems that there are a few plausible references to Eastern religions in the Star Wars series. The Jedi's were not organised in a religious fashion. Darth Vader was most likely mocking the General's ignorance for believing it to be just an "outmoded religion". Ph33rspace 04:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's true, in Star Wars Obi-Wan does not use the word "religion."  Tarkin does ("The Jedi are extinct.  You, my friend, are all that remains of their religion.") and so does Han Solo.  However, Solo calls the Jedi beliefs a "religion" in front of Obi-Wan and Obi-Wan does not disagree.  Also, the way the characters discuss it, it seems like a religious issue.  Luke says accusingly to Solo, "You don't believe in the Force, do you?"  And such statements as "May the Force be with you" are not really just philosophical observations.  The Jedi do not seem to have been priests or ministers, but they were a hierarchical organization dedicated to a supernatural entity which they describe as though it were a living, conscious being.  What is that, if not a religion?  Fumblebruschi 20:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Religious

message: One thing I like about this article, and that I was worried about when I set off to read it, was that the first sentence of the reaction section begins with the rottentomatoes score. I've been inserting that into the lead of all kinds of movie's critical reception/reaction sections as it first and foremost let's the reader know the real critical score and can serve to prevent cherry picking. Even if cherry picking is done later people can still see through it one way or the other. The rest of the article is solid too and I'm very glad to see this movie (which I actually liked despite Jar Jar and the kid's bad acting) get such a good article. Quadzilla99 08:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Kudos

message: The opening line is vandalism and needs to be fixed —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.61.0.50 (talk) 13:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Front page needs changed 

message: I readded that bit which a user removed. It's relevant and interesting but could someone else review? Thanks. - Denny 14:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's trivia. It's not relevent to the filming. It's just thrown in there. It's not brilliant prose. It's poorly sourced. This is a featured article. Enough reasons? Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sandstorm that wipes out the film's sets is not relevant? It was relevant to them. It was relevant to their filming. It's relevant within the article. The prose is fine, there isn't anything wrong with it. As for the source, the source contains photographic evidence of the sandstorm and first-hand accounts of what happened. It is a proper source. The Filmaker 20:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I dunno. How many films filmed in the desert have their sets wiped out? Can you integrate some sandstorm into the overall narritave? As it was, you basically wrote "Hey, sandstorm." Write it here first.  Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I honestly do not have the statistics over how many films that are filmed in the desert have their sets wiped out. I also honestly don't believe that they exist. However, since an entire Featurette was devoted to the incident, I doubt that it is common enough to disregard. The Filmaker 21:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Can you add more info about it to integrate it into the text? Like I said - right now it reads "hey, sandstorm." It's just floating out there. Why is it notable? Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just made some edits to the section in question, mentioning that there was a similar sandstorm on the Star Wars set back in 1976. In light of the interesting parallels, I believe it's fairly significant to the production history of the film. If there is agreement, then the maintenance tag should be removed. Alcarillo 23:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I removed the tag... the sand storm info has been in that spot since at least last July 2006. I think concensus supports its staying then. - Denny 00:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I reinserted the tag. You will not win by edit warring. I suggest you integrate "hey, sandstorm" into the text or get rid of it. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:55, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I feel this information has merit, and there is no consensus to remove it. If this user reinserts it, it's a 3rr I believe... - Denny 16:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I really don't wanna edit war, ok? What wording do you think is OK? And everyone else together? Please what do the regular article editors think too? - Denny 17:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about, instead of arguing over a tidbit of verifiable, you try to work something about the "citation needed" tag in that same section? It *is* a featured article, after all, and that tag is far more harmful to it than the question whether that detail about a sandstorm is relevant. Circeus 19:32, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sandstorm 

message: Now that it's featured article, shouldn't the admins protect/semiprotect it, cause there's been a lot of vandalism going on to this article.
Luksuh 16:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Although main page FAs are the target of much vandalism, there is widespread concensus not to protect them. They are the first page many see of the free encyclopedia anyone can edit and its been felt to be offputting if that page cannot in fact be edited. Often anon users spot revert vandalism and sometimes they even spot errors or contribute useful content. Many users watchlist the mainpage FA and vandalism is reverted fairly quickly. WJBscribe 16:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protect Article 

message: I was going to edit out an instance of 'Obi-Wanker', when I noticed that the whole article had been changed to simply "aaaa". What happened??
victoria 17:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just love how vandals actually list in the edit summary what they did to the page.  That is so stupid it's hilarious.  I just wish it would stop because I was actually trying to look up something when I got the blank page and then the Worst Star Wars Movie ever line in the refresh. SailorAlphaCentauri 19:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually the vandals don't; the summaries are automatically added. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 19:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh well.  It was more fun when I thought people were being stupid. SailorAlphaCentauri 19:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I mean, on top of vandalizing the page. SailorAlphaCentauri 19:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  :-) WJBscribe 01:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page gone? 

message: Soory for damaging the formatting of this page. I was also working elsewhere, and wasn't paying enough attention. Again, my apologies.
Also, why is this page up for speedy deletion?
MacGuy 18:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sorry 

message: Someone has messed the page up!
With:
"Ti love star wars ARTHUR MONNEThe Ti love star wars ARTHUR MONNEThe Ti love star wars ARTHUR MONNEThe Ti love star wars ARTHUR MONNEThe Ti love star wars ARTHUR MONNEThe Ti love star wars ARTHUR MONNEThe Ti love star wars ARTHUR MONNEThe Ti love star wars ARTHUR MONNEThe Ti love star wars ARTHUR MONNEThe Ti love star wars ARTHUR MONNEThe Ti love star wars ARTHUR MONNEThe Ti love star wars ARTHUR MONNEThe Ti love star wars ARTHUR MONNEThe Ti love star wars ARTHUR MONNEThe Ti love star wars ARTHUR MONNEThe Ti love star wars ARTHUR MONNEThe Ti love star wars ARTHUR MONNEThe Ti love star wars ARTHUR MONNEThe Ti love star wars ARTHUR MONNEThe Ti love star wars ARTHUR MONNEThe Ti love star wars ARTHUR MONNEThe Ti love star wars ARTHUR MONNEThe Ti love star wars ARTHUR MONNEThe Ti love star wars ARTHUR MONNEThe Ti love star wars ARTHUR MONNEThe Ti love star wars ARTHUR MONNEThe Ti love star wars ARTHUR MONNEThe Ti love star wars ARTHUR MONNEThe Ti love star wars ARTHUR MONNEThe Ti love star wars ARTHUR MONNEThe Ti love star wars...ect" Aero Flame 20:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Messed Up! 

message: Does this happen to every page that becomes a featured article?
MacGuy 22:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. You should have seen what happened when San Francisco was the featured article. Now that was bad. Gdo01 22:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Replying to MacGuy: Wikipedia chooses to allow each day's featured, most highly trafficked article to be abused over and over again by IP editors, and in doing so chooses to confuse some significant portion of its readers (as is obvious in a couple of comments here). I've never understood this silliness and dogmatism, but it's based on the (disputed) "policy" at Wikipedia:Main Page featured article protection. Discussion is here. –Outriggr § 01:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The particularly preposterous levels of vandalism are recent development of the last six months, however, and it's quite likely that it will soon become the normal practice to semi-protect today's feature. Circeus 19:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Not really the last six months, no. You should have seen the vandalism on the Ido article last Christmas. Mithridates 22:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this a normal occurrence? 

message: The links to various video websites present various copyright and WP issues, such as spurious links. See WP:EL for a full discussion. thanks!-Robotam 16:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: youtube links of music videos

message: The recent sectioning of the Reaction section seems pointless. While I can see the desire for efficiency, there is a line that has to be drawn. All of these subjects are on the subject of the public's (as in not the production and distribution companies') reaction to the film. Hence we have a "Reaction" section. This is over sectioning. There is no need to section of Fans vs. Critics as they are related to the same overall subject. In addition, I believe that user also added a bit of OR to the opening of the "Fan Reaction" section. Something can not be allowed in an FA. The Filmaker 23:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sectioning of Reaction section

message: It bears noting that this film virtually destroyed all credibility that George Lucas had with his fans and there was a lot of hostility toward the film from fans. It is an important part of the Star Wars exostory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.189.242.205 (talk • contribs) 
:Certain controversies and reactions are covered in the "Reaction" section. Anything more would require a suitable reliable source. — TKD::Talk 11:16, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're definitely gonna need at least one reference, if not many more than one, for the line "this film virtually destroyed all credibility that George Lucas had with his fans."  The number of people that went to see Episodes II and III disagrees with your point. 152.23.196.162 08:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article doesn't capture the disillusionment this film caused to fans 

message: I have tried to edit this before with no luck. This line makes no sense and is clearly not NPOV. You say this and then follow it up by saying it was 1999's most successful movie and made more than any other Star Wars film to date. This just looks sloppy and the line should be removed.
venom-smasher
:The sentence is obviously a means of "switching gears" from the critical reception to the box office reception. When speaking of "success" the paragraph is obviously referring to the box office draw. However, the "immense expectations" is referring to the reaction the public had to the film. In other words, box office does not equal "living up to expectations". The Filmaker 02:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: you know, ive never really known a guy who could say that the phantom menace is just his favorite star wars movie (or favorite movie in general)... on the contrary, there seems to be many who seem to believe otherwize, some of them fervently while we are at it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.83.56.249 (talk) 15:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "DESPITE FAILING TO LIVE UP TO IMMENSE EXPECTATIONS..."

message: I do find the addition of Lucas' response to the criticism of the character to be well sourced and informative. It should stay. However the additions of a petition and what seems to be the equivalent of linking to a message board, I disagree with. The petition is from a site where anyone is able to make a petition as they please. In addition, it is not a notable petition as it only contains 86 signatures (which from my experience is not a lot). We did not say that all fans disliked Jar Jar. But a high number did. The Filmaker 03:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New Jar Jar Additions

message: I have added a weasel words tag to the reaction section. I suggest looking at The Spider-Man movie articles to see how a reaction section should be done (although with hopefully less critic's sources). This is in response to all of The Star Wars movie articles, which seem to be trolled by the same users.
The fact is, if you read all of the articles from A New Hope to Revenge of The Sith, you can see a number of individual Star Wars Fans have made sure that anyone reading the article will read that The Original Trilogy is superior to the Prequel Trilogy, and that nobody liked The Phantom Menace.
:Actually, I myself was the prime editor of these articles when bringing them up to featured status. And I actually liked the prequel trilogy. This goes the same for majority of the prolific editors of these articles, I believe. The Filmaker 19:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nearly every single good article on Wikipedia features some sort of Reception or Reaction section. The reaction of the public, especially with media related articles is extremely important. The Filmaker 19:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

text: From what I am told now, IMDB is only a credible source when sourcing IMDB related information. A high number of people use IMDB as their film outlet, more so than any other film database. The Filmaker 19:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia is devoted to reliable sources. IMDB is only one you have cited so far as an unreliable source, however you are mistaken as it is citing IMDB related information. Also, that is not the definition of weasel words. Please read, WP:AWT. Because of that, I am going to remove the tags. If you still wish for the tags to be readded, please state why in the talk page and I will readd them myself. The Filmaker 19:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't care if you don't care. Wikipedia is not here to please you and you alone. If you can explain exactly why the reception of...... well...... anything is irrelevant to a subject, than you might have a case. Despite what you may think of Wikipedia, just because you say something is irrelevant, doesn't make it true. I'm unsure of why you even want the information removed. At times you seem to want it removed for inaccuracy and other times it's because you think it is irrelevant. However, the citations are from notable media outlets. Hence it is not inaccurate. And you would be hard pressed to find anyone on Wikipedia that would agree with you that the reception to a film is irrelevant. The Filmaker 19:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: uff, dont mind if i sayd it but this was a pretty pointless argument, anonimous user you are using many chauvinisms when it comes to discussing, this page is supposed to give an optimal account of knoledge already out there about the movie, this ranges from critics, imdb, etc. Every single movie article is supposed to have it. And Filmaker, for putting up with him (or who knows how many others) i humbly salute you.200.83.56.249 15:14, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: My problems with this article

message: 1) Had to remove almost all of the critical reaction section. All that is left is a line from Roger Ebert. The rest of the lines were just fluff and contained weasel words like "Many" and "Some" which can never be validated. It was just unnacceptable.
2) Removed lines regarding characters being stereotypical as it was just a figment of a reporters imagination and this kind of thing could be said of just about any work of fiction. This also seems more like trivia or something a reader could find out about elsewhere. This section should only contain general information about the reaction of the film.
3) Also removed lines about midi-chlorians. Whoever originally worked on this could work it into the main article, without the empty fan opinions of course. Not surprising that there is absolutely no mention of midi-chlorians in the main article, because someone was trying to shift the reader towards their opinion that midi-chlorians were a bad plot point. This stuff just sucks the life out of the article and makes it look totally unprofessional because it's obviously just a fan opinion.
4) Removed information about IMDB.com and RottenTomatoes.com because both of these sites are not valid review sites. It's ok to quote Roger Ebert, or other valid critics who are regularly published and hold water within the industry. However, RottenTomatoes calculates both film critics and amateur critics from the internet, and therefore cannot be taken seriously. IMDB's voting has also come under scrutiny for it's voting calculations (which has not surprisingly been removed from it's wikipedia page) and simply cannot be taken seriously for ranking films. It's a great database for information about films, but should never be confused as a valid method of determining a movies popularity as only a fraction of people who see a movie actually vote.
Futhermore, polls are irrelevant in articles such as this.
5) Also removed information about The Razzies as it is also not a valid award.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Movieguy999 (talk • contribs). 
I hope we can work together to continue to cleanup this article, as well as the other Star Wars articles which I will be working on during the week, and make them some of the best on wikipedia!
movieguy999 August 22 2007  —The preceding  signed but undated. 
As I said in the edit summary, reverting your large edit, please do not remove copious amounts of information from the article without discussing it in the talk page. Placing a message on the talk page explaining your actions, does not qualify as "discussing". The article is a featured article and is required to remain stable. Please help come to a consensus before making such edits again.
1) You're going to have explain a little better than. "It was fluff" and "It had weasel words". Considering that everything is cited, you're going to have explain why each exact line should not be included.
2) Reaction/Reception section's include controversy. It is not the "General Reaction" it is "Reaction", that is positive and negative. Whether it was the reporter's imaginaton or not, it was well documented. Therefore is notable.
3) You don't seem to be assuming good faith by that assertion. The information is cited, therefore it is not simply "a fan opinion".
4) Rotten Tomatoes has a strict criteria for it's film critics. They are only allowed to be added if they are associated with particular film critic organizaton, i.e. Boston Society of Film Critics, Broadcast Film Critics Association, Chicago Film Critics Association, London Film Critics Circle. Please see http://www.rottentomatoes.com/pages/critics
:Furthermore, you will have to provide a citation for this so called "scrutiny" of IMDB's ranking system.
5) Most film sites I have seen list when the Razzies are announced and list what awards are "won". Film stars have shown up to accept these awards. I'd say that's notable and valid.
The Filmaker 22:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Movieguy999 has been repeatedly removing information and while I tried to tell him to stop, he has once again removed information. I think the removal of information of Movieguy999 and reverting of Movieguy999's revision could be a big problem. Greg Jones II 16:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I came here from the AN/I thread about this problem. I only agree with one change Movieguy made, and have reinstated that singular change. The box office section opened with a ridiculously negative connotation, and in reading the source, the subtle chagnes made only barely skirt plagarism, and further, I read the cited source to be referring to fan expactations not being met regarding content, not box office performance expectations not being met. As the #1 film of the year in 1999, I think that reading that comment to mean the performance and earnings wwere lousier than expected seems absurd. Nothing in the citation supports the 'we were expecting to be higher than #1, we were shooting for #-1' implications that would be needed to open the wiki article's section with that slant.
As for the rest, it looks like tons of sections being gutted, which is a bad decision for an FA status piece. If there are genuine concerns, perhaps Movieguy could get a diff between the version he objects to and the FA status version, and compare points he finds genuine interest with, and revert to the FA version, or improve ON the FA version to include newer worthy information? ThuranX 19:26, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This would not be a good idea, considering that he refuses to discuss any of his changes in the first place. The Filmaker 21:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: NEW CHANGES TO THIS ARTICLE!!!

message: We have been over this several times. imdb.com is not a valid source. Your original argument:
"From what I am told now, IMDB is only a credible source when sourcing IMDB related information. A high number of people use IMDB as their film outlet, more so than any other film database."
That is not negotiation. First, it's a credible source when SOURCING IMDB related information? This makes zero sense. Of course you would use it as a source if you were talking about IMDB...
:That's what we are talking about. IMDB related information is being sourced with IMDB. How does that make zero sense? If you are going to source the plot of the film, you use the film. If you are going to source IMDB, you use IMDB.
The point is, imdb can't be taken seriously as a reliable source to rate said film to begin with, let alone use it as part of this reaction section. It goes back to the message board sources you keep putting in the article. IMDB IS TRIVIA.
:What message board sources? The one message board source that was used for the midichlorians? The one that was removed? All of the sudden all of the sources are message board sources? Also, I've have already answered to your assertion of IMDB not being taken as a reliable source, you however have not answered to mine (this is you once again falling back on your original argument, rather responding to other user's replies).
Lets talk about trivia. Trivia = Unimportant or TRIVIAL. The fact that a fraction of people voted said movie as the most disappointing, the fact that Mike Nelson, a man who makes his living off of mocking films said the movie sucked, or one of the films stars says the film was flat 3 YEARS AFTER the release, IS NOT IMPORTANT TO THIS ARTICLE...
:Mike Nelson would not be important if he were not from a well-known television series that mocked B-movies and rarely (if ever) did films as large as Episode I. This is not trivial.
Mike Nelson would have done a riff whatever you want to call it on a film of this magnitude, regardless if it was a masterpiece. Thats how he makes a living. The line about him honestly thinking it was the worst movie ever made just sounds oh so much like a fan boy opinion, with no credibility. The only difference in him saying that and the kid at the comic book store saying that, is he has been on tv. So, now you are going to give a comedian credibility in your "sacred" featured article? Again, how is it important that THIS GUY said that and made an audio commentary?
:Again, Mystery Science Theater rarely mocked films of this magnitude. I don't care if it does "sound like" a fanboy opinion. It is not, and the opinion of what it "sounds like" is left up to all readers, not just you.
The McGregor statement should probably be removed from this article and added to The Attack of The Clones article as he was comparing the new film to Phantom Menace.
:Oh, so now all of the sudden the McGregor statement is notable? Your opinion is like a newspaper, there's a new one out every day! The McGregor statement is more notable for the fact that he was degrading this film, not that he was comparing films.
Much like imdb, the rottentomatoes site is suspect. I went through all three prequels and the majority of the reviews that they had listed there couldn't be accessed in full, so it makes you wonder how they are truely rating these movies. A critic who had a C+ rating for one of the films was listed as ROTTEN on the site. I also found that very few critics actually reviewed all three films. Some never reviewed the first two prequels. Some never reviewed AOTC. And some critics who have actually passed away are still mysteriously reviewing movies! (Paul Clinton).
So, consistency is a huge issue with that site.
:"so it makes you wonder how they are truely rating these movies." Now you are purely speculating. Wikipedia is not a place for your original research. "I also found that very few critics actually reviewed all three films. Some never reviewed the first two prequels. Some never reviewed AOTC." And your point is? "And some critics who have actually passed away are still mysteriously reviewing movies! (Paul Clinton)." Paul Clinton died in 2006, so if you're talking about reviews for the prequel trilogy, you are incorrect. If you are talking about reviews for other films, you're going to have to provide evidence.
I think what you get carried away with is, you seem to believe that if you cite a source, regardless of how ridiculous (message boards, fansites), then it makes it true.
Movieguy999 23:56, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that if you cite a source, it does make it true. On Wikipedia, truth is derived from consensus. Consensus is derived through source. Consensus and source. You have neither. The Filmaker 00:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I believe that if you cite a source, it does make it true. On Wikipedia, truth is derived from consensus. Consensus is derived through source. Consensus and source. You have neither. The Filmaker 00:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Am I the only one who has ever reverted your edits or the edits of those like you? I think not. I will humor you with your McDonald's analogy. If I cited a source that said that these French Fries were healthy to eat everyday, it would not be a reliable source. And even if it was, there would be someone along to contest this. This article has been featured on the main page, it has been edited and viewed by hundreds, probably thousands of different users. You are among an incredibly small minority that has a problem with it. The Filmaker 01:09, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: It continues...

message: I'd just like to add in the point that the usage of the IMDb as a source for much of anything, much less its own ratings, has been fairly conclusively decided against per the rejected proposal at WP:CIMDB. There was very little content which was even proposed for being allowed for sourcing, and things such as the polls and ratings were specifically proscribed more or less unanimously. One of the main reasons is because indiscriminate ratings on such sites usually are considered violations of WP:RS and WP:NOR policies. So I would have to agree that IMDb ratings should be deleted from the article. 
As for Rottentomatoes, I'm not so much against that because it is a meta-compilation of pre-existing critical opinion and it does restrict which critics may participate. (Your opinions of its inclusiveness notwithstanding.) The reasons why a newer film has more reviews than an older film should be obvious - less reviews were made available online in 1999, even from longstanding critics, many of which remain offline for various reasons involving individual sites' willingness to create online archives for their pre-online material. And of course there are critics now active who were not back then. I don't think it particularly matters much, as the sample size for all of the films is large enough to be considered a valid cross-section of critical views. I do agree, however, that critical opinion is better displayed through selected quotes which highlight common thoughts or schools of thought regarding the film which were voiced by many critics.
And regarding quotes, I agree that the MST3K-person's quote probably should go, since the man has no particular relevance to the film itself, nor does he have credentials as a professional critic. However, MacGregor's should stay since he was one of the leads. In regards to the comparison with Harrison Ford's quote on ANH, I think that MacGregor's should stay in the reception section, since his reaction was to the finished film, whereas Ford's comment was made during production and therefore is perfectly understandable in its current position under Production. Girolamo Savonarola 22:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A quote from IMDB is nothing more than a quote from IMDB, this means that the user when reading it should have some knoledge about it to discern for himself how reliable the information is or how important he think it is to the article (same aplies to historical articles; Fox News is more than a valid source when it comes to the Iraq war, but its the user who must discern wether is this a biased statement or not). Currently IMDB has a voting system that cannot be tampered with in the long run (the voting process is specially made to counter that). It is a valid source of information regarding its own status as a popular website within the the internet itself. Currently 135.000 people have voted for the Phantom Menace as is, and the rating itself while not proper for UNESCO standards, is proper IMDB standards (all in all we are talking about noteworthy information here). Regarding Rottentomatoes we aply the same logic, its just the information Rottentomatoes gives, and again it is the user that must discern for himself. Yet all in all, these are the best tools we have when the time comes to have an idea about how a movie has been recieved once its out; one can say that IMDB doesnt count the voting of ordinary people, but only the vote of IMDB voters, yet this reassoning is affected by a serious chauvinism regarding why arent IMDB voters worthy of mentionning then?, do we have proof that they are biased?, that their opinnions are not worthy, perhaps too ignorant to have apreciated the jamaican accent of Jar Jar Binks?, are they not valid consumers of movies, and therefor have a valid point when it comes to make their opinnion, from their own perspective. A critic makes his view from his perspective depending on many factors, Roger Ebert may be a respected movie critic, but he is working for a newspaper and his review must be understandable for the common public or the readers of the Sun, he is not going to review the Phantom Menace using the same critical point of view as if he was watching a Kielowsky movie; because the audiences differ from movie to movie, he is well aware of which audience is he writting his review, he doesnt need to be a proffesional critic to watch the Phantom Menace, mainly because sayd movie doesnt have an epystomological high level; its a movie about shiny lasers (...in a galaxy far far away) that can be watched by the average Joe without any problems. YET, for some reasson you believe that something within the Phantom Menace makes it so special that we should take in accountance only critics that have a PHD in philosophy and a doctorate in linguistics (or maybe just "respectable critics", a rather lose, snobbish term); now tell me, was the movie so hard to understand?, is this movie so brilliant that an average person without any degrees or a respectable status cannot give his own account about the movie? (such as IMDB reviewers!, for example).Kessingler 15:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you aren't going to discuss this in reference to policy issues, it's going to have little ability to sway me. Girolamo Savonarola 19:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

text: User ratings at sites like IMDb will be inherently fallacious.  I've seen films like 300 and Transformers get into the Top 250 at IMDb, then they fall out of the rankings.  This is a clear reflection of potential abuse, and there's no telling if even-handed follow-up votes ever truly give a balanced rating for a film.  The best way to do this is to conduct bona fide polls, such as film audiences being approached and polled.  Online user ratings are far too prone to manipulation, and they should be excluded from Wikipedia articles. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Of course, and we can use that same "venture themselves" logic for nearly anything, its lobbying 101, does smoking cause cancer?, well, we cant put that on the cigarrette article, no way sir... if people want to know about criticism of cigarrettes, they will venture themselves into sites like that!. The Phantom Menace?, same thing... we shouldnt place comments from those snarky "viewers" and "fans" that make Star Wars what Star Wars is, we should look around for critics like Rogert Ebert, who has the all the credentials of a film reviewer (had a tv show) and gaved one of the few all around positive reviews of Episode One back in the day. How do i know?, Rottentomatoes of course!. Yet, since both Rottentomatoes and IMDB do not provide the positive kind of review that certain people want to see, they are censored into oblivion... like a lawyer would make OJ wear Jar-Jar mittens. There is nothing wrong with this, but the problem is that like a bad political move, we are promised that no more we'll be using either IMDB or Rottentomatoes, but a better, more fair system that is not biased, composed mainly of critics with doctorates that can understand the dichotomy of good and evil present in the multi million dollars blockbuster. Yet, we have not witnessed any of that yet, the criticism section is a pastiche of Ebert, a few short lines of criticism (all of them start with the word "some...") and of course a counterpart to each criticism ("the screenplay was criticized by "some" but the saberfight really kicked ass"). Philosophers and people with doctorates (any) dont watch the Phantom Menace! (or write about it), who do you people think you are fooling?, they have actual serious work to do! ("gee, should i make my thesis about Nietzsche or George Lucas... thats a tough one"). And even if they have... what could make their reviews so different from the review of an averafe Joe?. If you people have deleted both IMDB and Rottentomatoes, at least do so properly, re-writte the whole criticism section so that it could reflect sayd change. Considering this is the most criticized Star Wars movie out there (by fans, who else?), it surprises me that none of that is on this page. How did it even accomplished a Featured Article status to begin with?.200.83.57.71 23:26, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: IMDb and other comments

message: Removed midi-chlorians line as no citation was ever found.
Removed IMDB references as per wikipedia rules (see above arguments).
Removed Mystery Science Theater 3000 ref as the show nor the host have any relevance to Star Wars.
Movieguy999 01:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have inserted two citations from reputable film and religion scholars that support the midi-chlorian statement. Dmoon1 04:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Looks fine to me. This is a common way to quote from a source when using that quote as evidence to support the statement that just came before it. You have taken the quote out of context from the first part of the paragraph.  Dmoon1 01:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Great job movie guy, now the reaction section makes absolutely no sense at all, besides giving no real account of the reaction of the movie with fans. I salute you for being one of those who contributed the most into making this article a poor one.200.83.56.253 (talk) 05:28, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed Lines in Reaction Section

message: Hey um, I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but we need this article back up to FA status since this article has now been demoted. We need to get this article back to FA if we can. Any comments or objections? Greg Jones II 12:59, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  FA Status Removed 

message: I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of October 21, 2007, compares against the  six good article criteria:
:1. Well written?: It is well written with correct prose and grammar.
:2. Factually accurate?: Yes, it has references and citations throughout most of the article, with little or no Originial research. Although, the "Plot" section could use some references.
:3. Broad in coverage?: Yes, it has everything on the movie, and stays on topic.
:4. Neutral point of view?: Written in a neutral point of view
:5. Article stability? The article has been very stable with hardly any edit wars or vandalism.
:6. Images?: Provides images on the topic.
If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations. 
—JA10 Talk • Contribs 02:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Successful [[Wikipedia:Good articles|good article]] nomination

message: I've done some cleanup to the citation templates, and in the process saw some issues. First, there is no consistency in the use of templates. Styling should be consistent in the entire article. That means, if you got it from a DVD then use the Cite Video template, and remove any sections that are not applicable. I just removed 2kb of information that wasn't being used. I saw in the FAR that there was concern over the use of IMDb. I agree, it is abundantly in this article, and many times you can see where they were quoting another source. If they got it from another news organization then go find it in that organization's archives. The article probably needs a thorough copyedit as well.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 20:29, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup 

message: Is it just me, or does this seem very much hearsay and own research? There're very little citations, and it seems to me that whoever wrote this is trying to find "things that match up"; those of which 'accidentally' "fit together". It's annoying! Damienzor (talk) 23:12, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Historical" and "Cultural" Allusions 

message: I think this section should be in here, there were a few of them. Comments? - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:36, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Video game adaptions 

message: I always thought the "Phantom Menace" was The Sith. Spinach Monster (talk) 04:00, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Continuation of [[Talk:Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace/Archive 1#Phantom Menace = Anakin]]