 | An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list:
When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below. |
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:
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)
