Talk:Pablo Hidalgo

Insulting fandom

There is a single reliable source mentioning that Hidalgo pissed off Star Wars fans, and that article mostly consists of screenshots of irate twitterers. I challenge that being WP:DUE for inclusion in the article. Schazjmd (talk) 20:39, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Pinging Wingsandsword to discuss properly rather than edit-warring. Schazjmd (talk) 20:53, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

The source does not support "he insulted a fan for being emotionally invested in Star Wars characters". It supports that he said "emotions are not sharing" and that fans complained. The rest of the article is all about individuals' complaints and criticism. This is a transient, unimportant internet kerfuffle that lacks significance and does not merit mention in an encyclopedia article. Schazjmd (talk) 20:59, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Aditional article. It has caused a trend world wide and had an impact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.71.161.68 (talk • contribs)

A twitter pile-on trending happens every day. Schazjmd (talk) 21:09, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

It's not just a twitter argument, it's getting coverage in actual media. There was the article in Deseret News I linked to. Routine twitter spats don't get newspaper articles devoted to them. Wingsandsword (talk) 21:12, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Wingsandsword, Routine twitter spats don't get newspaper articles devoted to them. Yes, they do, and Deseret News has a number of "twitter reacts" articles. If in a few weeks there is still ongoing coverage of this and additional attention by multiple sources, it might have legs as a meaningful event, but not at this stage. Schazjmd (talk) 21:16, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Agree, the only reason this received any coverage is because Star Wars news of any kind pushes traffic. There's very little clarity about what really occurred. This event isn't notable enough to be listed on this article. Nemov (talk) 01:44, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

References

Seems like a ridiculous standard to expect news coverage of this weeks from now. That's neither normal, in this case, nor a requirement of notability. Also this seems like a classic misuse of WP:DUE for content gatekeeping, as it's almost impossible for any source to claim it has a majority viewpoint, but that doesn't mean WP:DUE is license for editors to invalidate reliable sources based on the spectre of silent majority. The text states quite plainly that fans complained about it. Unless that's untrue or there is another perspective to consider, it's not really an issue of WP:DUE at all, it's a sourced statement of fact presented briefly. But more to the point, I'm here to point out the quote is "emotions are not for sharing", there is a typo in the article (quote can be found in the tweet). 161.69.122.15 (talk) 03:22, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

https://www.dailydot.com/unclick/star-wars-lucasfilm-pablo-hidalgo-twitter/ here's another source if needed (with the correct quote). 161.69.122.15 (talk) 03:27, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Does anyone really think, if a biography of Pablo Hidalgo were to be written, that a YouTuber’s overreaction to a leaked tweet that did not actually reference him would merit inclusion? This was not a major event in the subject’s life, and its inclusion smacks of motivated editing by fans of the YouTuber whose feelings were hurt. Most biographical pages do not include social media spats. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.115.183.91 (talk • contribs)

I agree the topic is ridiculous. However, it did receive significant coverage from multiple reliable sources. Nemov (talk) 03:54, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

A Wikipedia article is not obligated to cover everything that received coverage in multiple sources. A cursory glance at any other notable person’s biography will demonstrate that. What is the purpose of including this fluff, given that there is no consensus to do so on the talk page? This isn’t even the most notable thing to happen on Hidalgo’s social media. It’s only here because a YouTuber took offense and his overzealous fans feel they need to put a black mark on Hidalgo’s Wikipedia page. It should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.115.183.91 (talk • contribs)

Additional articles

Semi-protected edit request on 29 December 2020

Recent quote has a minor typo.

Original : In December of 2020, fans complained that Hidalgo reacted to a fan's video on Twitter by saying "emotions are not sharing".

Change to: In December of 2020, fans complained that Hidalgo reacted to a fan's video on Twitter by saying "emotions are not for sharing". Matvop (talk) 03:25, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Done - Typo corrected. Thadeuss (talk) 16:51, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

146.115.183.91 removal of content

Hello 146.115.183.91 (talk · contribs) Based on this diff it is clear that you are the one that deleted the content. Numerous editors have reverted your edit because you attempted to portray it as irrelevant. You are the one that must provide justification for this removal, not other editors that are reverting your edit. In my opinion, it is not just some "Twitter random talk" but it has been covered by sources, and the sources have been provided on the section. I will revert again to the stable version, and if you wanted to remove the section, discuss it here first. SunDawn (talk) 05:01, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

2020 Incident and Due Weight

There was prior discussion above in “Insulting fandom,” but I wanted to revisit the question in light of additional sourcing. I recently added a short mention of the 2020 social-media criticism involving Pablo Hidalgo and his subsequent apology. The edit was reverted as an “undue trivial mention with no long lasting coverage.”

However, the incident has received coverage in multiple independent outlets, including Variety, TheWrap, and Deseret News. Since it was reported by several entertainment news sources I believe this extends beyond triviality and is certainly worth the addition. Not only that but my contribution is a very brief mention of the incident, so I can't see it giving any undue weight to the matter.

Sources: – Variety: https://variety.com/2020/tv/news/star-wars-theory-pablo-hidalgo-luke-skywalker-1234875850/ – TheWrap: https://www.thewrap.com/lucasfilm-exe-pablo-hidalgo-apologizes-star-wars-theory-youtuber-sarcastic-subtweet/ – Deseret News: https://www.deseret.com/entertainment/2020/12/29/22204396/lucasfilm-star-wars-pablo-hidalgo-apology-twitter/ Artimaeus Creed (talk) 21:13, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

This is trivial news coverage from six years ago that isn't central to the biography. The incident appears to have been a brief social media dispute with fleeting coverage and no lasting impact on Hidalgo's career. Per WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE, biographies of living persons should avoid giving disproportionate attention to isolated or trivial controversies. Given its triviality and lack of lasting significance, even mentioning it here would give undue weight to a minor event. Nemov (talk) 23:59, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

RfC on whether to include brief mention of 2020 criticism and apology

Should the article include a brief mention noting that in 2020 Pablo Hidalgo received criticism over the “emotions are not to be shared” comment and later apologized, based on coverage in Variety, TheWrap, and Deseret News?

For reference, the proposed sentences are:

In 2020, Hidalgo received criticism after posting "emotions are not to be shared" in response to online discussion of a fan’s emotional reaction to the season two finale of The Mandalorian. He later apologized, stating that the comment had been intended as sarcastic self-mockery and that he had not meant to hurt anyone.

Relevant sources:

• Variety: https://variety.com/2020/tv/news/star-wars-theory-pablo-hidalgo-luke-skywalker-1234875850/
• TheWrap: https://www.thewrap.com/lucasfilm-exe-pablo-hidalgo-apologizes-star-wars-theory-youtuber-sarcastic-subtweet/
• Deseret News: https://www.deseret.com/entertainment/2020/12/29/22204396/lucasfilm-star-wars-pablo-hidalgo-apology-twitter/

Artimaeus Creed (talk) 14:03, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Oppose inclusion - This appears to be a straightforward case of undue weight and poor relevance for a biography of a living person. The incident in question was brief, confusing in its details, and had no lasting impact on the person's career or public profile. Coverage was fleeting and did not develop into a sustained or widely recognized controversy. Per WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE, material should only be included when it is significant and enduringly relevant, which this clearly is not. Including a minor, short lived online dispute risks elevating trivial matters into undue prominence, and the lack of clarity around the event further increases the risk of mischaracterization. More broadly, opening an RFC on this issue feels like a dramatic and unnecessary escalation for something that had minimal prior discussion and does not rise to the level of a substantive content dispute. Nemov (talk) 14:49, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Whatever one thinks of the incident’s ultimate weight, it was covered in multiple independent secondary sources, so the real question is whether a brief mention is proportionate under BLP and UNDUE.

As for the RfC, I opened it because discussion of this issue has recurred over the years without producing consensus, and I thought wider uninvolved input would be helpful on that due-weight question. Artimaeus Creed (talk) 15:32, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose inclusion (summoned by bot): The incident seems minor in retrospect. The three outlets above (as well as others) are all dated December 29, 2020, within a few hours' time frame. It was breaking news that seems to have gained no real traction. I consider the event a news spike. I don't consider it to be a "recentist" news frenzy that could heve created lasting consequences. I also don't see the incident as a defining trait. I don't recall Pablo Hidalgo's 2020 fan comments being brought up in the two-part Energis Podcast interview in 2025. It seems to me the addition would be considered undue-weight. Although the incident was reported, it did not generate widespread media attention, so it would be a minority viewpoint. I believe by January 16, 2021, the event faded. The problem seems, in 2026, since Wikipedia is not a newspaper, that would be the result of adding it now. Stirring the pot, if you will, and possibly an unnecessary attack on the subject. -- Otr500 (talk) 12:07, 30 March 2026 (UTC)