Well you could very easily and honestly argue that Star Wars is mot SciFi but is SciFantasy.
I think the argument tends to be more along the lines of whether science fantasy (or specifically Star Wars*)
is part of science fiction, part of fantasy or something of its own.
*I get the impression that at least some other this-should-be-called-Science-Fantasy stories and settings tend to
get a pass, but that might be because they're not discussed as much where I can see it.
Star Wars is 1000% fantasy. It is not an exploration of technology and it's effects, or a meditation on the future of humanity, or anything else sci-fi.
So, it is not sci-fi because it is not sci-fi?
What do you consider hard science fiction?
I mean, Wikipedia's editors apparently consider Surface Tension, The Cold Equation, Jurassic Park and Ghost In The Shell hard science fiction,
and regardless of what their story says about the effects of technology and the future of humanity, I'm not sure genetically engineered microscopic humanoids
is more scientific and less magic than using a lens made of white dwarf star matter to shrink things.
(And this also ties back to how, for example, Amos Tutuola's The Palm-Wine Drinkard isn't fantasy but "could be read as a moral commentary on western consumerism".)
An alien with a magic hammer and magic powers. I note that the Stormlight Archive, probably the most popular fantasy series in the world right now, is also about people from different planets with magic weapons.
And towards the other end of the timeline - one of the then most popular science fiction series was about a man who astrally travelled
to the distant past of Mars and developed superpowers...
Of course, a lot of definitions of science fiction sounds designed to explicitly exclude things like that in favour of, if you pardon the expression,
The Real, Serious Stuff Like What The Definition-maker Likes/Writes. Not the Flash Gordon stuff.
On the other hand, planetary romance is a recognised science fiction genre.
(And now I'm thinking of how things like Aniara was defined as not-science fiction on account of being written by a Serious Author And Poet.)
And so we go round in circles.
Not removes, but moves; and not arbitrarily--I've already shared my reasoning here. Urban fantasy is is dealing with the present, but contains many fantastical elements, just as superhero media does. The difference between the two? Heroic orientation and format. Superhero stories usually come in the form of comics and movies. Urban fantasies are usually traditional novels.
Splitting something up between "takes place in historical-seeming setting" and "takes place in the present" is pretty arbitrary.
When does "the present" begin? Does the time of creation or publication matter?
The Canterville Ghost, The Circus of Dr. Lao and the adventures of John The Balladeer all took place in the present when they were
written and published, but are in historical settings now (and strictly speaking, none of them are urban).
It isn't until the Fifties that fantasy moves out of the children's section and grows into its own.
Miguel Cervantes says "Hola" and points at Thomas Malory.
While Messrs. Wagner, Mozart and others pointedly don't mention the pop cultural juggernaut known as opera...
Once more it comes down to definitions...