Talk:The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

LOTR: Rings of Power page defaced

Defaced by anti-woke editors 96.85.209.65 (talk) 19:49, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

seems to be fixed

thx 96.85.209.65 (talk) 19:50, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

The phrasing is absurd

"For legal reasons it is not a direct continuation of the Lord of the Rings and Hobbit film trilogies, but the production intended to evoke the films with similar production design and younger versions of characters who appear in them" -- it is clearly stated right from the very beginning of the article that the series is a prequel, so it makes no sense to all of a sudden say that the series is not a continuation (for legal reasons or not). 5.18.242.22 (talk) 19:20, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

I tend to agree, but I also understand the point that's being made (and is found quite directly in the source). Do you have any thoughts on how this idea might be better expressed? Dumuzid (talk) 19:26, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

It is set before the events of the books and is not connected to the film trilogies (for legal reasons). Nothing "absurd" about that. All of this is clearly sourced in the article as well. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:30, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Page protection

Should we preemptively increase the page protection to this page? Going back through the history to July 15 shows that there has been a lot of disgusting vandalism on this page by racist trolls. With the new trailer coming out today, I think it could be wise to increase page protection until the show is completed, honestly. Leaving this page without protection means we will be battling bigots for the next three months, and I would rather not give this kind of person a platform. TNstingray (talk) 00:53, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Probably not a surprise that I would support a measure like this, but you're likely to get more traction at WP:RPP. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 00:55, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Bias of the article against critics of the production

This article only illustrates the multiculturalist point of view of the producers and describes thoses who oppose this vision as "racists".

However, many critics are based on the necessity to respect Tolkien's intent such as this one :"Tolkien’s aim in writing Lord of the Rings was not to create some feel-good hero story about good triumphing over evil. He spent his life studying linguistics and the medieval folklore of the British Isles. He lamented the fact that true British history and folklore were lost in the Norman invasion of Britain. Tolkien admired the grand mythologies of the Nordic peoples and the Greeks. He mourned the loss of true British history, and through his love of myth and language, tried to create a mythology that was unique to the British Isles. Hence, the birth of the stories of Middle Earth. While we may all be more familiar with The Lord of the Rings, that story is just one small part of an expansive world and mythology that Tolkien spent his life creating.So, shoving the modern view of diversity into a pre-Anglo-Saxon mythological England makes little to no sense. On the one hand, it’s a slap in the face of Tolkien’s ultimate goal of creating this world and its stories. On the other hand, studios are still refusing to write interesting stories for non-white characters." https://www.eviemagazine.com/post/amazons-the-rings-of-power-series-is-a-crime-against-the-fantasy-genre

This is a point of view which is as respectable as the one of the producers...  ? --Flying Tiger (talk) 23:31, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

You can see previous discussions about this topic at Talk:The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power/Archive 1#Trailer reactions and Talk:The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power/Archive 1#Is that Article a joke?. There is consensus in those discussions to include some commentary on the racist backlash that is supported by the majority of sources, and to not take the position that you have taken based on current sourcing. You will need to prove that a wide range of reliable sources support the position in that article, otherwise it it is WP:UNDUE to promote it in Wikipedia as a legitimate concern. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:51, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

I read the archives and saw the comments of some users with or without pseudonym declaring without any proof that all those who criticize the production are "racists" and must prove that articles which share the same views are not written by "far-right conspirationists", while they bring no proof at all to support their own claims..... How many "reliable sources" would you need ? 5, 10, 20, 40 ? What a waste of time it would be! The truth is there would never been enough for you and your peers because you are convinced that you hold the truth and the virtue.

By the way, my mother was born in China (which means I am yellow skinned, not white) and she talked me a lot about the Red Guards. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Guards They were students, mostly under 30, who created in 1966 a movement to support Mao and censor all "counter-revolutionary" writing and atttack "old customs, old culture, old habits, and old ideas". Anybody suspected to be sympathetic to one of these was denounced ans chastised. Well, you and your peers sound like them! Your use of the words "racist backlash" just show how you are convinced to hold the truth. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Guards

The result is that this article is featuring only one source describing the controversy around the production and that source is a poorly documented and very partial editorial which support multiculturalism and claim it is the best way to make "fantasy" movie based on Tolkien's work. One just need to read its conclusion to know whose side the author support. Is it not "taking position" ??

"Despite the disturbing insistence among some circles that fantasy characters must always remain Eurocentric in appearance, as many of the most seminal works abided by in decades past, it's reassuring to hear that the artists in charge of these big budget productions are willing to risk "controversy" for the sake of casting the best possible actors for the job. At this point, there really is no excuse anymore. Whether fans like it or not."

Simply deplorable...

--Flying Tiger (talk) 19:40, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

If you think multiculturalism and hiring people based on talent rather than ethnicity is "deplorable" then I have no interest arguing with you. Regardless of your own ethnicity, that is a racist position to take pure and simple. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:31, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Arguing "talent" for choosing a black multiculturalist casting on a production is simply a bad excuse... You really think a director would choose a "white" or a "yellow" skin actor to play Shaka Zulu ? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaka Never !! However, when it is time to play Anne Boleyn, the same director will have no hesitation to choose a "black" woman and justify his choice on "talent" ... https://medium.com/history-of-women/no-anne-boleyn-was-not-black-4e4d8a325773 Muticulturalists activists simply use whatever excuse they have to promote their truth even if it destroy the credibility of the work. The author of this article on LoR is simply using this bad excuse to justify is non-neutral point of view.. --Flying Tiger (talk) 20:44, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Removal of Non-reliable sourcing

I have just now removed several unusable sources from this article. This article is rife with unreliable sources, such as Metro [UK] (re:Unreliable for most usage); Fandom-wiki (user-sourced; possibly non-compatible licensing for any use here); and numerous others. The list and reasoning for why these sources are not to be used can be found at the Perennial misused source page. The page is set up and vetted by Wikipedia Community consensus. If they are re-inserted, you are guilty of ignoring consensus.

If you wish to dispute any source on the list, however, you can do so—and possibly get clearance for it (because consensus can change)—at that project page. Please do not add these back. If the material they are citing can't be sourced elsewhere, it probably doesn't belong in the article anyway. There are plenty of reputable media out there by which information in this article can be cited to, without the need for using banned, borderline, or outright restricted, sources. Thanks, GenQuest ^"scribble" 07:25, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

This article is rife with unreliable sources is blatantly untrue, and I have already explained why WP:RS does not apply to the two specific sources you have tried to remove. It does not say what you seem to think it says, and your argument is not actually supported by "Wikipedia Community consensus" as you claim. Let me be very specific since you have seemingly not gotten any of my explanations so far:

• WP:FANDOM specifically says that it is about "Fandom wikis (Wikia, Wikicities)... Fandom (formerly Wikia and Wikicities) wikis are considered generally unreliable because open wikis are self-published sources." It does not say anything about articles on the Fandom website, which are not WP:USERG and clearly meet the requirements for being a reliable source. If you look at the article that you are trying to remove you will see that it is an interview in the articles section of the website, which has editorial oversight and nothing to do with any Fandom wikis. So WP:RS does not support your removal of this reference.
• WP:METRO says Metro.co.uk is "generally unreliable" and it "has been compared to [the reliability] of the Daily Mail and other British tabloids", but it does not state that it is always unreliable and should never be used, so WP:RS does not support blanket removal without discussion. As I have already explained, I agree that Metro is not great and would not use one of its tabloid articles as a reliable source, but the specific article we are using is a direct interview that we can clearly verify is reliable and correct using the attached video. There is no alternative since any other discussion of the interview would just be referencing this original source.

It seems like you have jumped the gun and removed the sources based on their URLs and a skim read of WP:RS. Not addressing the content that these sources support (by removing it, tagging it, or adding a better source for it) also makes it seem like this was a rushed job that could have used more thought, especially when I already explained all of this the last time you removed them. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:50, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: edit warring to try remove a source without consensus and then tagging the article as having unreliable sources when you don't get your way is not how Wikipedia works. Unless you can get consensus that the source is unreliable, the tag needs to be removed. I have clearly explained above why WP:RS does not apply to this source, and the only argument you have provided pointed to this "discussion" where one user asked if the source was reliable and another said it was not, in their opinion. There was no actual discussion, and the guideline has not been updated based on it. That is obviously not good enough. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:26, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

@Adamstom.97: It takes two to edit war. You have reverted good faith edits at least four times (4RR – oh, my) in the last 18 hours regarding the same disputed RS, yet you accuse another of being an edit warrior? The consensus discussions you keep requesting have already been had. Did you even use the link(s) I provided to you in the edit summaries? I know that you don't like it, but the consensus you seek is already built at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources across many community discussions, some directly attributed to the FANDOM.COM site: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 The site concludes with the summary: "...Although not user-generated, Fandom's staff blogs are also considered generally unreliable as no evidence of editorial control has been found...". There is no "...but, but, that doesn't apply here," which you keep invoking. You need to allow consensus to build, (without invoking Status Quo), as some of this referencing is considered questionable by (now) at least two editors. I will also caution that you seem to be acting here and elsewhere in this article like you own it, whether you see it or not. Regards, GenQuest ^"scribble" 02:13, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

I appreciate that you feel the source is reliable, but you have not established consensus for this position - either here or at RSN. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:33, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

I see now that WP:FANDOM has been updated to explicitly say this source is generally not reliable, so apologies for not realising that. It changed only a few hours after I last looked at it yesterday. I have started a discussion over there to clear this up. See Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#FANDOM. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:08, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Well, that was quick. Let's just see what develops over there, Eh? GenQuest ^"scribble" 02:16, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

As I just said, the change to WP:FANDOM that you quoted in your previous comment was not added until after you tried to claim that it supported your argument, so it does not justify you ignoring good faith guidelines such as WP:BRD and WP:STATUSQUO to force your change upon the article without consensus. Suggesting that your edits were in good faith is therefore dubious. The same cannot be said for Nikkimaria, which is why I apologized to them for my mistake and moved the discussion to the more appropriate place. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:20, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

It changed because I asked for clarification, because my interpretation of the guideline was obviously not the same as yours. I do not care how it come out, as long as the clear-as-mud summary was made clearer. Thanks for your kind words anyway, GenQuest ^"scribble" 02:32, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

...and now I have moved the discussion to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power. Where did you ask for clarification on WP:FANDOM? I have not seen that at either of the two RS talk pages I have just gone to. It's a bit confusing that there are so many places talking about the same thing. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:34, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Right above your post at the noticeboard. Same section. GenQuest ^"scribble" 02:38, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

The user who made the update must be able to read your mind then because nothing in your comment there asks for WP:FANDOM to be updated. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:42, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

The very fact I brought that to the noticeboard triggers an automatic review. It could've gone either way, still can. Either way I would accept it. What I wouldn't'd accept is an obstinate editor who feels everything in the article should be his way or the highway, refusing to accept reasonable action, and who had refused to look at the history of the existing discussions about the fansite. You know, to not keep beating a dead horse. If it is accepted, then the article will no longer pop in my CiteUnseen feed, and I won't be visiting this article again to copyedit that particular reference out. That's all I was about anyway. Thanks again for your kind words, GenQuest ^"scribble" 05:01, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Accusing me of WP:OWNERSHIP without any basis is a borderline personal attack, you can see from my edit and comment history that I have genuine explanations for all of my actions that have nothing to do with "[my] way or the highway". In fact, my clear explanations stand in contrast to you two who could have saved a lot of grief if you had just explained yourselves properly to begin with. I did not realise you were using a script to find certain references, it seemed like you had randomly chosen to delete sources from the article based on your own understanding of RS. Perhaps you should include a reference to the script you are using in your edit summaries to avoid confusion in the future? Likewise, if Nikkimaria knew that WP:FANDOM had just been updated in the middle of the ongoing dispute then that would have been quite helpful for them to mention. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:32, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Update: WP:FANDOM has been updated per the RSN discussion to say that staff articles on Fandom are not necessarily reliable and should be judged based on whether the author is a subject matter expert. I believe that the source in question here meets the criteria because it is a direct interview written by Kim Taylor-Foster, a published author who also has press access for entertainment information and is verified on social media. If there are further concerns about this source then we can continue this discussion. There were no concerns raised about the Metro source so similarly I would say that this discussion can continue if there are further concerns but I am otherwise going to assume that this issue is now resolved. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:29, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Backlash and fan complaints update

I know there are already multiple related sections, but this is not intended to be a response to them. Because this has continued to be an issue, and to try get ahead of further complaints, I have gone ahead and added more commentary about the fan complaints and backlash based on the sources provided at Talk:The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power/Archive 1#Is that Article a joke?. The fan complaints commentary is in the marketing section and ties-in with the existing marketing commentary, the backlash stuff is in the reception section (note, the intention with that section is to make it a subsection called "Casting backlash" or something like that once we also have reviews and stuff to add). My previous concern with adding this information was that it would be UNDUE and could potentially turn out to be nothing once the show is actually released, but I think that what I have added now is not too much and should hold up. Happy to discuss if people have legitimate concerns with these changes. Thanks, adamstom97 (talk) 08:55, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I think these additions are excellent, and they really help flesh out the controversy surrounding this series. Well done. TNstingray (talk) 17:31, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, these additions have fleshed it out far more satisfactorily.

I still think reception needs fleshing out in a similar manner, it lacks much of the depth to the fan argument that I described as being against diversity for diversities sake, not simply against diversity. Although, I understand that many sources that speak of this are reddit orientated or youtube, hence difficulty in presenting 'reliable' quotes. As I say often in my document of sources, most of the 'reliable' articles are biased against fans whose opinion goes against the show. Sadly these are the ripest articles for quotes, therefore, the wiki has followed a trend of presenting only one part of the picture by using these quotes. I will have a look to see if I can find anything substantial/reliable that will add a counterweight to the dismissal of this genuine fan argument.

However, I'm honestly quite happy with the marketing section at this point. It is balanced with reasonable representation of viewpoints all round. Thank you. Morph8845 (talk) 02:11, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Many of the quotes in reception are actually things that directly anger many people in disagreement. They feel fantasy shouldn't reflect the world we live in; a real krux of the whole controversy. I'll find something more substantial to present this of course. Morph8845 (talk) 02:15, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Actually I won't interfere any further. Well done on the marketing section, sums it up fine. Morph8845 (talk) 03:05, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Regarding the Section titled 'Reception'

If this section is to be factually accurate, it is necessary to acknowledge the negative sentiment before the series has aired - you would have to be living under a rock to have missed it. Therefore, To completely disregard this would be odd to say the least. 86.161.115.12 (talk) 21:59, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

The only thing it mentions is "negative sentiment". Please see previous discussions at Talk:The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power/Archive 1#Trailer reactions and Talk:The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power/Archive 1#Is that Article a joke?. for existing consensus on what to include in the reception section for now. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:08, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

I flicked through your links. I mean this in the kindest possible way, but it just looks like a Mexican stand-off among people with too much time on their hands. I think you can appreciate the level of dialogue is poor.

So, I will ask again: why is it inappropriate to recognise any of the 'negative sentiment?' It has been the elephant in the room after all. At any rate the absence of 'positive sentiment' hardly makes it invalid. 86.161.115.12 (talk) 22:27, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

As I already stated, the only thing in the section at the moment is "negative sentiment". The only difference between the existing version and your change is that you are adding WP:USERG data that consensus is against, supported by unreliable sources. By reverting me during this discussion you are also edit warring and need to stop. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:30, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

What is an edit-warning?

I can see regarding the 'Teaser Trailer' the issue with WP:USERG data, but as for the rest I don't see how you can view Forbes Magazine as an unreliable source. What would you deem a reliable source - could you give me an example?

I still do not understand why you believe it is inappropriate to discuss the 'negative sentiment?' You did not clarify your point - you merely doubled down on your logic that the absence of positive sentiment precludes negative sentiment. 86.161.115.12 (talk) 22:41, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

The whole section is about negative sentiment! It is literally a whole paragraph on racist backlash! Are you saying that racist backlash is not negative sentiment?

Edit warring is repeatedly reverting edits and is against Wikipedia policy, see WP:EDITWAR.

I'm not saying that the Forbes source is completely unreliable (though per WP:FORBES it is not automatically reliable, depends on who wrote the article), but everything else in your edit definitely is. If that source is fine then we may be able to add some info from it. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:46, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Adam I am talking to you in good faith. This is the first and only article I have edited. The first source I used cited the Forbes article. Therefore, if you are happy with the Forbes Article you should also be happy with the Gamer Rant Article. Again I do not understand why its inappropriate to report on the negative sentiment? I can see why the discussion is toxic from the the 'Talk' section - but I'm not involved in this at all. To this end I don't think its valid you have reverted my edit. The negative sentiment vis-a-vis the trailer was previously unmentioned. Therefore, I felt I was contributing to the Article. I also believed using data I had generated was helpful, although in hindsight I can see why this would be a problem. 86.161.115.12 (talk) 23:01, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

You added information that talk page consensus says should not be added. When I told you that, you needed to stop reverting immediately and bring your concerns to the talk page. You did not do that and instead started an edit war by continuously adding the content. If you want to discuss in good faith then you need to revert yourself, stop adding the content, and wait until a new consensus is formed here. It doesn't matter if you thought you were contributing or being helpful, everyone has to follow the rules.

Like I said, the Forbes article may be reliable (or it may not, we will need to check). But adding the likes and dislikes from trailers is WP:USERG and is almost always avoided, even if there is a reliable source to support it like you say there is. And we definitely don't use Reddit comments as a source on Wikipedia. I realise that you are new to editing, so that is why I am explaining everything clearly. My suggestion would be that we can add some of the commentary in the Forbes article, as long as the writer is reliable. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:13, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Sorry User 86.161.115.12, there is nothing to do about that. THe Red Guards of multiculturalism have decided to censor all negative critics related to this topic. You just have to read the comments written by adamstom97 on the section above. They have decided that everybody who express reserve against the decision to impose a modern multicultural casting in Tolkien's pre-anglo-saxon fantasy universe is a "racist" and motivated by "racism". An article like this one by Erica Jimenez, which is a moderate and documented critic was judged as"not appropriate" and unlegitimate criticism "supporting the racist trolls". https://www.eviemagazine.com/post/amazons-the-rings-of-power-series-is-a-crime-against-the-fantasy-genre These Reg Guards would ask for 100 critics published in the New York Times but they have authorized only one, a deep biased opinion article because it supports their view. This is how it works now on Wikipedia as the multicultralists integrists have taken control. You cannot fight against them because in their religion the fundamental right of freedom of expression only apply to those who share their views... --Flying Tiger (talk) 22:32, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

You have got to be kidding me. What does your interpretation of Tolkien's work have to do with this page? It is a fact that the vast majority of criticism against this show is racist/bigoted in origin, I guess because people don't realize that Middle-earth is a whole diverse world, not just the continent corresponding to European mythology. Do I have issues with the show regarding some of the lore changes? Yeah, but I also haven't seen the show yet. And, nothing is changing the books. Since this is not supposed to be a general forum, I should close by saying that Wikipedia ideally searches for the objective truth, and in this case, that truth is that most of the backlash is racist in origin (not because it disrespects the lore), and this is reflected in the Reception paragraph. Also, can you provide the evidence that Erica Jimenez is "a moderate and documented critic?" From what I can see, Evie Magazine is not moderate, but instead leans right. TNstingray (talk) 14:58, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

First, there is nothing to do here with my interpretation. Because the Wokipedia squad have decided that the "vast majority of criticism against this show is racist/bigoted in origin" does not mean it is true. I was just refering to the opinion of Jimenez, which is share by many critics when she wrote that : "Tolkien’s aim in writing Lord of the Rings was not to create some feel-good hero story about good triumphing over evil. He spent his life studying linguistics and the medieval folklore of the British Isles. He lamented the fact that true British history and folklore were lost in the Norman invasion of Britain. Tolkien admired the grand mythologies of the Nordic peoples and the Greeks. He mourned the loss of true British history, and through his love of myth and language, tried to create a mythology that was unique to the British Isles. Hence, the birth of the stories of Middle Earth. While we may all be more familiar with The Lord of the Rings, that story is just one small part of an expansive world and mythology that Tolkien spent his life creating. So, shoving the modern view of diversity into a pre-Anglo-Saxon mythological England makes little to no sense. On the one hand, it’s a slap in the face of Tolkien’s ultimate goal of creating this world and its stories."

Middle-earth is a whole diverse world, not just the continent corresponding to European mythology, but there is absolutely no indication that Tolkien would have even consider to have elves, dwarves and hobbits with black or yellow skin. He created the Haradrim who were the most exotic human in the story and they can vaguely be assimilated to near eastern ethnic people. That is the farest he went away from the anglo-saxon mythology.

It is you who express a "personal" and non documented opinion when you argue without proof that "that most of the backlash is racist in origin" and that "Evie Magazine is not moderate, but instead leans right." This magazine is certainly not less objective than Slashfilm, which is simply a blog on cinema and from where come a very partial editorial from Jeremy Mathai which was considered relevant by the Wokipedia squad. Has anybody provide the evidence that Jeremy Mathai is "a moderate and documented critic?" .. https://www.slashfilm.com/763662/the-lord-of-the-rings-the-rings-of-power-showrunners-address-backlash-to-diverse-casting/

Because multiculturalism integrists are obsessed with race and racism, they have decided that every opinion which they do not share is "racist" and motivated by "racism". By the way, almost all these integrists are from the anglo-saxon culture. Almost nobody in Europe (France, Swiss, Italy, Romania, Poland) or Asia (Kazakstan, India, China, Japan, Korea) is distorting historic representation like historical movies to force multiculturalism into it. As I wrote you consider yourselves the bringer of truth like the Red Guards of Mao who chastised people during the time of my mother's childhood. --Flying Tiger (talk) 16:20, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

To be clear, I do have my issues with the show, but I am personally leaving a final judgement call until seeing the product in its entirety, with the full context. I also agree with you that modern studios often pander and consider physical characteristics over acting qualification despite their claims to the contrary. However, as a fan of Tolkien's work, I am not threatened by having a diverse cast, because none of this threatens the integrity of the Tolkien legendarium as a British mythology. This is a version of the story made by Amazon and inspired by Tolkien. Key characters have not been race-swapped (e.g. Galadriel, Elrond). So the only concern remains with characters newly created for the story, but again, this does not impact the writings of Tolkien. I have not seen a single person complaining about the new characters in and of themselves... it is always framed in a racist light.

Holding this position does not make me, or adamstom97, or anyone else a "Red Guard of Mao" or a member of the "Wokipedia squad" (everyone throws around that term "woke," but I don't think anyone who uses it actually knows what it means beyond insulting anti-racists, in which case I do not take offense). This is also not a "historical movie," so it doesn't matter what other countries are doing (interesting that you listed China as a good example, despite your continual comparison to the Red Guards).

Also, since you rightfully hold Tolkien's own words to such a high standard, I leave you with this quote from the prologue to The Fellowship of the Ring, entitled "Concerning Hobbits." The Harfoots were, "browner of skin, smaller, and shorter, and they were beardless and bootless; their hands and feet were neat and nimble; and they preferred highlands and hillsides." Tolkien goes on to describe their civilized nature, as opposed to being nomadic, but nobody is questioning that difference in the Amazon show. They only care about the race. TNstingray (talk) 17:20, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

I must say I am happily surprised by your reasonable point of view even if I do not agree with the menace the Rings of Power represents to Tolkien's integrity...

To reply to your comment about the "browner" tone of skin of the Harfoots, I refer to you here to the "dark complexion" description assigned to some historical person such king Charles II of England whose "appearance was anything but English, with his sensuous curling mouth, dark complexion, black hair and dark brown eyes, he much resembled his Italian maternal grandmother, Marie de Medici’s side of the family. During his escape after the Battle of Worcester, he was referred to as ‘a tall, black man’ in parliamentary wanted posters." https://royalhouseofjudah.weebly.com/royal-house-of-stewart.html The same has been said about king James Stuart, but some people interpret this adjective "dark" as being equivalent to black or brown skin, which is totally absurd : https://www.quora.com/Are-there-any-credible-sources-that-believe-that-King-James-of-the-King-James-Bible-was-a-black-man .

There is a similar example in the source quoted in the last section of this article, which has however been considered worthy to be published here despite being awfully wrong and typical of woke misinterpretation : "Henry revealed in October 2021 that he and other people of color had been cast as Harfoots in the series, which aligned to Tolkien's description of the Harfoots as being "browner of skin"." Applying the term "browner" to an afro-descendant with brown skin is an outstanding misinterpretation of the term.

As for China, I am refering to it in a larger cultural context towards racism since the Red Guards of the counter-revolution have been replaced long ago... Flying Tiger (talk) 22:09, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Regarding Charles II, the source you provided literally argues, "Merry King Charles Stuart II: The Black King of England – Oguejiofo Annu. The word Stuart comes from the old nordish root Svart which means black. Stuart is the same word as Swarthy, which means black in old English.... King Charles II was a black man." Now, I am relatively unfamiliar with the history of the English monarchy, so there's only so much I can say, and this does not look like an authoritative or reliable source. As such, I am unsure how that development would apply to either of our perspectives. Regarding King James, Quora is an unreliable forum when it comes to encyclopedic matters, but it seems that there was no clear consensus within that community on whether "dark" meant "black" or "brunette."

Among these examples, "browner of skin" is still a phrase unique to Tolkien's description of the Harfoots, and not used in the context of the British monarchs. As such, our conversation remains in the same place. None of this actually impacts the content of the Wikipedia article: Actor Lenny Henry stated the reasoning for the casting, and Amazon subsequently received backlash, which they deemed to be racist. That is the truth of the situation. As of now, the opposing side only has opinions representative of toxic fandoms across practically every active franchise right now. Why would Tolkien's British mythology be threatened by the casting of non-white actors, because as far as I am aware, practically everyone involved is British? TNstingray (talk) 13:38, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Hmmm...First I was only replying to your comment about The Harfoots which were, according to Tolkien "browner of skin, smaller, and shorter, and they were beardless and bootless; their hands and feet were neat and nimble; and they preferred highlands and hillsides."

There was never any intent to argue that Royal House of Judah or Quora are "authoritative or reliable" sources (!!!) I was just giving you examples of words used in other centuries and taken out of context like in this exemple on Quora, where a woman argues a typical woke conspiracy by writing "Our history was taken and hidden and many of our moore nobles, rulers and ancestry was repainted white.The Vatican has so much of our Egypt artifacts and history locked away so the world will continue to believe we were and are no one. Truth is race does matter and so does the history of who we were. " while asking "Are there any credible sources that believe that King James of the King James Bible was a black man?" while there is common knowledge that James was a caucasian male from a long lineage of caucasians. The point is certainly neither on "whether "dark" meant "black" or "brunette.""

The fact is these words, "black", "dark", "browner" are now used by some people in a 21 first century context when communications are easy and every continent is reachable in a few hours. However, that was not the case in the past centuries and any minor differences was judged as important ans relevant. People from another province, another ther county, or even another town, were considered perfect strangers. These terms are found in many depiction in medieval or renaissance writings to describe a simple difference from a nordic or a mediterranean complexion. The sources about royalty are just easy to find, this is why I referred to them. Tolkien as a classic author inspired by medieval and renaissance litterature was certainly inspired by these writings. Thus your argument about "browner of skin" is still a phrase unique to Tolkien's description of the Harfoots, and not used in the context of the British monarchs." is not relevant as I was not refering specifically to British monarchs...

If I remember Sam and the Baggins family were Harffoot, while Frodo was a Harfoot-Fallohide metis. This was certainly not Tolkien's intent to give them a sub-sahara african complexion...

Finally, your argument "Why would Tolkien's British mythology be threatened by the casting of non-white actors, because as far as I am aware, practically everyone involved is British?" is simply weird. It is like you were saying there is no matter to cast a short slim yellow-skinned man in the role of Heracles because he is greek...... Flying Tiger (talk) 13:56, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

@Flying tiger. Still, most of this is still WP:OR, and not suitable for inclusion as an encyclopedia. I would agree that your Quora quote is a nonsensical conspiracy. I would also agree that "browner" could be used to simply mean a difference from the mainstream Nordic/Mediterranean complexion... but as to the exact extent, either of us could be right. And that is why we have to defer to the reliable sources.

I would prefer that Heracles be portrayed by a Greek actor, because it is a Greek story central to the Greek peninsula (similarly, I would want, say, Mulan to be cast as a Chinese actress). Both of these are also deeply rooted in actual human tradition and folklore. At some level, I can understand the concern, but this pure fiction is a wildly different example than history. Also, if we go down this rabbit trail, Britain permeated throughout the entire world as a result of colonialism. So this British story is being portrayed by exclusively British or Commonwealth actors. I don't see these as contradictory. At the end of the day, the backlash is still racist because it is judging based on physical appearance as opposed to legitimate critique of acting performances. TNstingray (talk) 19:48, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

This is where we differ, as the physical appearance is for me an essential part in the ability to embody a character and make it credible.

I would prefer a yellow Oriental singer to play Madama Butterfly, a white Occidental to play the countessa in Le Nozze di Figaro, a black African actor to play Shaka Zulu, a yellow Oriental to play Hirohito and white Occidentals to play Anne Boleyn or Hitler....

I believe the social history of colonialism has no part in acting art and that there is certainly no place to shove a woke agenda of modern "diversity" in Tolkien's Middle-Earth and I do not consider myself a racist for that ! Flying Tiger (talk) 22:40, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous, your opinions are clearly not appropriate whether you consider yourself to be racist or not. And regardless, we are talking about fictional characters in a TV series inspired by fiction stories, not actual people. The color of the actors' skin is completely irrelevant. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:08, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

It is your way of claiming censorship which is ridiculous... With your woke way of throwing anathema on every editor who does not share your views, you sound like a radical puritan of Cromwell ... and most of all, you have no respect for Tolkien's work. Flying Tiger (talk) 13:24, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

And so the argument comes full-circle, and we have accomplished nothing when it comes to actual page content. I think the reason most of us are here even having this discussion is because of our great love, care, and/or respect for Tolkien's work and the desire to discuss it in a scholarly, encyclopedic manner. TNstingray (talk) 13:49, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

The section reception is absolute one sided bias bullshit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:810D:8FC0:2C23:9072:7374:458C:AABD (talk) 21:06, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Do you have anything productive that you would like to contribute to the conversation? TNstingray (talk) 21:28, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

• The biggest concern about this show for me and for many Tolkien fans and experts is not skin color of some actors. It is 'time compression'. For instance [1], [2], [3], [4], [5] etc. I can't see any mention of fans and critics' concern about that in the article. --Corwin of Amber (talk) 07:22, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

  General criticisms should not be added until it is actually out and the people who are complaining have seen it. The only reason we have added the reception section so early is because the racist backlash is already a big issue and deemed noteworthy. Fans complaining about changes from the source material when they haven't even watched the show yet is not on the same level. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:29, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

  @Corwin of Amber I'm in the same camp regarding time compression. However, there is no way to absolutely know for certain until the final product comes out. As of now, it is technically speculation, and that is something we consistently try to avoid across these articles relating to pop culture and entertainment. However, thank you for providing sources, and I expect there will be a section discussing this point come September. TNstingray (talk) 13:16, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

  We can know for certain that the showrunners don't really care about the accuracy of their story. From the Vanity Fair aritcle, J.D. Payne: 'If you are true to the exact letter of the law, you are going to be telling a story in which your human characters are dying off every season because you’re jumping 200 years in time, and then you’re not meeting really big, important canon characters until season four. Look, there might be some fans who want us to do a documentary of Middle-earth, but we’re going to tell one story that unites all these things'. So according to the showrunners the timeline of Arda created by Tolkien doesn't really matter (but we know that Tolkien really cared about it and spent a lot of time creating the detailed chronology). This single quote speak volumes about their respect for Tolkien's lore. I think this quote should be added in the article. --Corwin of Amber (talk) 16:39, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

  I'm all for this quote being added to the article, because that is great information about the production. However, your attached criticism is currently original research, and misrepresents what Payne said. All he said was that they are not making a documentary, and are instead condensing the highlights into one unifying story. This doesn't harm Tolkien's lore at all (are they altering his original manuscripts or any copy that has ever been made?). This is an original story inspired by his work but not canon to either the books or the Jackson movies (which also made many changes). It is impossible to make a film exactly like the written material... that's what creative liberties are. Thanks for finding the quote though, because I think that could be used in the article. TNstingray (talk) 17:36, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

  Okay, so that last bit was a tad passive-aggressive on my part, and I do apologize for that. Here's how I look at it: this show would be the equivalent to a studio making a story about Grimms' fairytales, which represent Germanic mythology. Now, there are multiple ways to go about this. One, you could make individual projects aiming to make something that is exactly true to the source material, word for word and scene for scene. Or, you could combine multiple stories into one project and have various characters interact as part of a technically new narrative, but all of the individual story elements remain. I think there is value in both, because both are inspired by the source material and seek to make it available to a new audience. Tolkien's world may be incredibly more intricate and interconnected than the Grimms' collections, but at the end of the day they are still fictional characters and stories that can be open to a filmmakers interpretation. And for those of us that love the original project and want to see it done justice... the only version that can ever do it justice is itself. TNstingray (talk) 19:30, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

  Okay, we will see. --Corwin of Amber (talk) 04:17, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

  We can know for certain that the showrunners don't really care about the accuracy of their story... according to the showrunners the timeline of Arda created by Tolkien doesn't really matter This is WP:NPOV, your own personal biases are clouding your judgement and are not relevant to maintaining an encyclopaedic article. The showrunners have actually expressed their love of and dedication to Tolkien's writings many times and have explained the great lengths that they are going to ensure that this series honors him as much as possible (including getting approval for all decisions from Tolkien's family and estate as well as Tolkien scholars and experts). That doesn't mean that all fans have to agree with every decision that they make, that is obviously never going to happen; book adaptations making changes that some fans don't like is pretty universal. I mean, Peter Jackson did the exact same thing (on a much small scale, albeit) by condensing the timeline of The Lord of the Rings in the films, and, though some fans still take issue with that, in the grand scheme of things it is not a big deal. Jackson cared deeply about being accurate to the spirit of Tolkien's writings, and so do the showrunners of this series. But they also care about making the best series that they can, and funnily enough that means making some changes from the disparate notes of made-up history that they are adapting. We know that some fans have decided, without seeing the show, that it is going to be terrible. You clearly seem to have made up your mind about it and the showrunners' intentions. But we have to move above all of that, be objective and look at what is actually relevant and noteworthy. Criticisms of changes made from book-to-screen may end up being noteworthy, but we can't know that until everyone has actually seen the show and reliable sources start reviewing and discussing it. Until then, all of this is just nerds yelling at each other on the internet about trailers and posters. For what it is worth, the quote you want added is already paraphrased in the Writing section: The biggest deviation the writers made from Tolkien's works, which was approved by the estate and lore experts, was to condense these events from taking place over thousands of years into a short time period. This was to avoid the human characters frequently dying throughout the series due to their relatively short lifespans, and to allow major characters from later in the timeline to be introduced earlier in the series. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:14, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

  The showrunners have actually expressed their love of and dedication to Tolkien's writings many times and have explained the great lengths that they are going to ensure that this series honors him as much as possible. This is WP:NPOV, your own personal biases are clouding your judgement and are not relevant to maintaining an encyclopaedic article. Of course I will watch the series and I hope it will be okay (not great unfortunately), but you are clearly acting as an advocate for this show and I can say that "You clearly seem to have made up your mind about it and the showrunners' intentions." I think that the quote will be better than your paraphrase, but I have no intentions to persuade you. It will be interesting to see how you will represent the critics when the show premieres, though. --Corwin of Amber (talk) 04:17, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

  Cute response, but I actually also disagree with some of the decisions that the showrunners have made and am concerned about how the show is going to turn out. I'm just not letting those opinions/concerns affect my work on this article. I am acting as an advocate for the article, not the show itself. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:10, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

  Corwin of Amber said it all, moreover, you evidently have very little to say back- The lady doth protest too much, methinks. It has become exceedingly clear that this show has turned into a war between mainstream media and the fanbase. The mainstream media has taken measures at every turn to cover up fans but the anger is there for all to see... It will be -hilarious- 'to see how you represent represent the critics when the show premieres.' Morph8845 (talk) 12:16, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

  Again, WP:POV. Where is it clear that "this show has turned into a war between mainstream media and the fanbase?" As a member of the fanbase, I take issue with that (and I assume Adam falls in the same camp). Don't turn everything into a conspiracy when you don't get your way (which can essentially be summarized as thinly veiled or completely uncovered racism). That's not what Wikipedia is about. We will re-revaluate critical reception once the show actually comes out, and there is actually something to critique besides the physical appearance of the actors. Please also consider WP:UNDUE. TNstingray (talk) 14:24, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

  In an exceedingly large proportion of youtube channels, reddit channels, Discord and articles that are negatively discussing or reporting on an ongoing rupture within the fanbase, against mainstream media and against the show. Not to mention the dislike ratio on trailer uploads, the movements being formed against the trailer and consequently the show.

  Anyone can say they are a member of a fanbase in order to add credence to their point... but even if you are such a fan, this changes nothing. I will narrow down my statement of 'war between fanbase and mainstream media' - 'a significant proportion of fans and the mainstream media'. With this grammatical improvement out of the way let's address you throwing around the accusation of racism randomly. Nothing I have said is even remotely racist. You consistently throw out this accusation and the broken record on repeat simply fails to cover up the inadequacy of your argument or scare anybody into silence... Thats not what wikipedia is about.

  As for the critical reception, it needs revaluation NOW and it should have two separate sections; one for the trailer and one for final show upon its release. Although unorthodox this would sufficiently accommodate the wide criticism that pervades these trailers.

  I do not need to consult WP:UNDUE as I believe this article needs a huge reduction in positivity around these trailers or a balancing where negativity around these trailers has equal representation. As it stands, this article is biased in favour of the show. Please consider the need to consult WP:UNDUE.

  A short and concise section of the wide criticism towards the show should be mentioned in a greater detail and respect for the fans of this opinion. Otherwise you are allowing and cultivating a remittance of certain facts in prominence of others- a form of manipulation to anyone who looks at this article. Morph8845 (talk) 18:07, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

  Do you have reliable sources to back up these claims? Otherwise this is just WP:OR. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:57, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

  That right there is quite the crux of the problem. If all the mainstream sources label dissenters of the show bigots or racists much like I was just called for no reason, where do you think I can get a ''''reliable'''' source verifiable by wikipedias definition in your eyes? Anyone who disagrees with the trailer is considered these things by yourselves respectively. How many members of your average fanbase are writing research docs or articles on the show as-well? Mainly on reddit which is not a 'reliable' source and mainly on youtube which is not a 'reliable' source. Except these are the main platforms where the people get a place to express their opinions freely. Paid professionals have an agenda by nature- they are already writing the articles for monetary gain and they might often be having to match the publishers bias in order to get paid. Furthermore, Amazon is a corporation with billions in resources and they're able to pay for counter journalism to protect their investment; attempting to cover up unrest.

  I have sources however, and I can find examples of Amazon minimising the appearance of public dissatisfaction. Expect me to return with my sources, because I will create an extensive and comparative list of them. Including 'un-reliable' sources of information, but these will be used only as verification of how the common person is arguing against the show. The content itself simply needs to presented to show this discussion is occurring and not necessarily be from scholars.

  The other sources I will present, will be higher calibre and from accredited professionals only.

  Expect this writeup in due time. Morph8845 (talk) 23:22, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

  To add another voice to this discussion - Morph8845 Wikipedia is based on WP:RS not opinions in Youtube channels or Reddit posts. This is all user generated comment WP:UGC and is inherently unreliable from the perspective of an encyclopaedia. Taking information from these sources is blantantly contrary to WP:OR. Your claims are unreliable because you are basing them on unreliable sources. No matter how much you believe you are right you must present evidence from reliable sources otherwise all your comments are mere assertions. I would advise reading the guidelines and protocols in all these linked articles before commenting further. To be frank 'fans' opinions are irrelevant to an encyclopaedia such as Wikipedia unless they are reported in reliable sources. Please don't dismiss requests to learn more about Wikipedia protocols as you did above re WP:UNDUE. These protocols are there for a reason. This is an encyclopaedia NOT a fan forum, message board, etc. Robynthehode (talk) 10:35, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

  Did you not read my reasoning as to why WP:UNDUE wasn't applicable in this situation? There is positive bias towards this trailer contained in this article. Why are the positive reviews being reported on this article and none of the wide spread discontent if what you say is true?

  Fans opinions are irrelevant when commenting on the show itself, however the concept of fans having a widespread negative reaction to the show is very relevant in a wikipedia article as an encyclopaedia contains factual events. You did not listen to me when I say why I am including these sources... It is for this reason. This is happening and therefore deserves a place in the encyclopaedia, especially if positive reviews seem to be completely ok to be added for whatever reason. Morph8845 (talk) 20:12, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

  It is the equivalent to a political figure rising to power and civil unrest breaking out against them. The civil unrest would be noted in this scenario- why doesn't it matter here, albeit this is a less serious topic. Morph8845 (talk) 20:46, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

@Morph8845. There are so many issues with your approach to this page. When presented with Wikipedia policy and current policy, you contribute nothing constructive and instead tell us to read the material or just repeating what we asked you to do. Take the time to learn and grow as a person and as an editor.

To respond to some of your statements targeted at me, my "accusation of racism" was not specifically directed at you, but a characterization of most of the negative reception against this show (and a detail that is already stated in the article). It's not a "broken record": just scroll through the edit history of this page to see what I'm talking about. It's a consistent pattern that could potentially be explored in its own article: toxic fandom.

Regarding splitting the reception section, you admit that it is unorthodox, so there's really nothing more that I can add. Negative reception is already adequately covered for what it is. The real manipulation would be to violate WP:UNDUE and promote a minority view beyond what it truly is.

Please save your time and don't go on a tangent about Amazon and counter-journalism. That contributes nothing to the content of this article, and solidifies much of this entire conversation (myself included) in violation of WP:FORUM. TNstingray (talk) 19:28, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

@TNstingray Please extrapolate on your point or do you actually lack any substance to these claims?

Again please extrapolate on your point or do you actually lack any substance to these claims?

Unorthodox doesn't mean it shouldn't be done. These are unusual circumstances considering this level of upheaval at the trailer. Who says it is a 'minority' view, you? Where are your sources?

Very well. I can't deny that strays into violation of WP:FORUM although does hold relevance to the gathering of sources for this Wikipedia. Morph8845 (talk) 20:22, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Although I actually do find it interesting that you make that such a taboo out of everything. Its mention is forbidden. Morph8845 (talk) 20:36, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

You still haven't provided reliable sources to support your assertions. It you can't do this then this conversation should be over because you are just going on a roundabout of opinion. As to the status of the negative view of fans it's up to you to provide sources to show it is significant, relevant and due not for other editors to prove its not a minority view WP:BURDEN Robynthehode (talk) 21:01, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

As I said, these sources will be presented in due time. Morph8845 (talk) 21:25, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1cV4HWT3w3ClgHP5tXzFmCqnzIxcpkzvVuPtWLBBqM-c/edit?usp=sharing is a brief collection of sources supporting the statement:

‘There is widespread discontent from a significant number of fans surrounding ‘The Rings of Power’ along with its trailers. There is an overarching controversy present around the issue; Fans are  worried about whether this series will negatively affect Tolkien's work for the community.’

There are at least 40 cases of evidence to support my point, and I could go a lot further. For now this is my FIRST list of sources, many from magazines with a huge viewership and a long reign.

It appears that there is a significant amount of discourse surrounding the show and whether you are a critic or a defender of the show, both sides have acknowledged this. Therefore I believe the discourse and ill reception does deserve an unbiased acknowledgement in the wikipedia article. It makes no sense... this is a widely accepted FACT which is being omitted from the wikipedia for whatever purpose it is serving the lot of you. As you so deftly put… This is an encyclopedia;

‘An encyclopedia, encyclopædia, or encyclopaedia is a reference work or compendium providing summaries of knowledge either general or special to a particular field or discipline.’

In summary the wikipedia, as it is, does not give an accurate summary of The Rings of Power Trailer reception. The positive bias needs rectifying immediately. Morph8845 (talk) 14:08, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

@Morph8845. Well, I have to admire the sheer amount of time and effort that no doubt went into compiling this information. No one is denying that controversy exists. The issue comes down to the purpose of Wikipedia and assigning due weight to these sorts of topics. As of now, the general arguments from both sides are already present within the article under "Reception." Generally speaking, most of the backlash centers on the casting of non-white actors and subsequently changing the lore. Generally speaking, the response from the creators is that this is a racist worldview, and that they have not disrespected Tolkien's work. That is really all that can be and needs to be said at this point prior to the show's release, because it gets into the weeds beyond the scope of this article.

As I am writing this, your comment below just showed up, and I will address it separately.

Despite your hard work, many of your assumptions are still violating WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. It would be more helpful to present a specific "change x to y" argument with a source, so it is easier to discuss potential specific changes to the article as opposed to general argumentation violating WP:FORUM. TNstingray (talk) 15:18, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

The way certain facts have been omitted from 'reception' and others are displayed is currently painting a picture. The picture in question, although not overtly biased, is in actuality biased because it is showing a single facet of the critique that is easy to skew/present in a bad light. As well as what is already there, a more well rounded portrayal of concerns is needed. As well as removal of the idea that portrayal of a diverse cast is the issue critics have... the real issue is diversity forced into characters despite them literally not being a match for it. There are many other ways that diversity could've been added to the show that no one would have blanched at and the Easterlings in LOTR are very acclaimed warriors despite being tricked against Gondor throughout the fellowships existence. That is but one example where the writers have lacked the ingenuity to stay within the natural lore of Tolkien but did have opportunity. Arguments such as this need to be conveyed in an appropriate manner...

To put simply so you can understand clearly the issues that fans can be seen to be discussing:

-Issue with diversity for diversities sake -Amazon and corporate bad track record -Political messaging -Alleged censorship and cover up of bad reception by Amazon -Good visuals but lack of Story/All bark no bite -Not staying faithful to canon. -Compressed timeline

If this list of points can be contained within 'reception' quickly and concisely along with counter arguments by Amazon/articles then this would be perfect. The concise nature of reception is currently very well presented. If this can be maintained, with the addition of these other major points fans have been making, the section will be astute in its observation of events. Morph8845 (talk) 15:14, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

@Morph8845. After reading this, again, I would say: present specific "change x to y," "add x," etc. with attached sources so we can discuss potential SPECIFIC changes to the article as opposed to general statements. Try to avoid OR, SYNTH, FORUM, etc., and the goal is to provide DUE WEIGHT. Most of the presented material relies on conjecture and personal opinion. TNstingray (talk) 15:23, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

I will work on an additional document that details this in this manner. Make a switch to the scalpel.

The presented material does show some conjecture and opinion; however, as I stated originally before gathering the sources and I will now restate- these sources are to show that there is a significant number of fans discussing the shows perceived flaws not to back up a particular opinion. This is also backed up statistically by youtube trailers dislike to like ratios and the falling IMDB rating- which I have noted, but I will add screenshots of.

The points I note on the google scholar document, simply accentuate the other sources points, with little conjecture as I use direct quotations from Tolkien that establish a controversy.

Might I add that the nature of the sources obviously has personal opinion, the nature of this discussion is to identify the relevancy of the opinions presented. As I've shown, many of the sources are from huge or long running internet magazines with incredibly high viewership. You tubers with huge followings, reddit discussions crowding the internet. All of them acknowledge a controversy.

The evidence is all there that this is significant. Morph8845 (talk) 15:55, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Per WP:UNDUE,

• If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with references to commonly accepted reference texts;
• If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
• If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true, or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article.

That's what we have to keep in mind. Every new project that comes out faces backlash due to this or that, and we don't get bogged down trying to compile every single negative opinion and statement out there. From my personal experience (which is unique to me and not what should be taken as objective reality), most negative reactions to The Rings of Power, as with other franchises, can be boiled down to either the general toxic fandom, racist trolls, or complete misinterpretations of the point of the show. Of course, there are some who may not fall into that category regarding their criticism, but at that point doesn't it seem to be unfair to promote criticisms when the show hasn't even come out yet? (WP:CRYSTAL might be applicable here). There is no way to know who is genuinely concerned about the lore versus those who are just trying to disguise their own racism, and Wikipedia as a platform does not and should not provide a platform for racism.

If we need to add a sentence about the lore changes, compressed timelines, etc., maybe that is fine, and I am open to it if there are quality sources. But other than that, I think due weight is present regarding the casting controversy: some have a problem with the casting (specifically with the non-white actors), the producers responded and they labelled such views as racist; this was not an invention by Wikipedia editors. Those are the facts. To develop the section into an in-depth debate about the Tolkien legendarium is beyond the scope of this particular article.

Besides, no film/TVadaptation has ever changed canon. Canon are the original works, which remain unchanged. Visual mediums are an adaptation, and every adaptation that has ever been made has been different from the source material due to the differences in story-telling, and the fact that everyone has a different expectation for what the adaptation should look like since we all imagine the written words differently. None of that changes the original book. Peter Jackson made all sorts of changes for his adaptation, including adding characters and condensing the timeframe. So did Ralph Bakshi. Certain people dislike these adaptations, and we deal with that in an appropriate manner to establish due weight. The same has to be done here. At the risk of violating WP:FORUM, I have to put that out there. TNstingray (talk) 17:23, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

After careful cross checking I have been unable to find any evidence to suggest Tolkien can be alienated from the phrase “Evil cannot create anything new, they can only corrupt and ruin what good forces have invented or made.” As such I have made an edit in the Reception section regarding this matter explaining it as a paraphrase with necessary reference closely linked to his actual choice of words. MrPreamble (talk) 02:24, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

I have reverted your edit. After careful cross checking I have been unable to find any evidence to suggest Tolkien can be alienated from the phrase this is not how Wikipedia works, there needs to be a source that confirms Tolkien said the quote in order to contradict the current source that we have, which says he did not. The source that you provided is not reliable per WP:RSP and WP:USERG, but even if it was it does not support your argument. The issue is that internet trolls have been using the quote "evil is not able to create anything new, it can only distort and destroy what has been invented or made by the forces of good" and attributing it to Tolkien. There is no evidence that Tolkien ever said this, according to the reliable source in our article, and your counter-argument is that one of the characters in his book says something vaguely similar. That obviously doesn't hold up. You need to provide a source that confirms Tolkien actually said the direct quote in question if you want to claim that it was correctly attributed to him. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:56, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

New Section Re: Dark Elves cited to Professor Shippey

Hello all! I am here because Flying tiger recently added a section on "dark elves" cited to an essay by Professor Shippey. While I have my doubts about where it's found (there must be a better place than Wordpress), the source is pretty unimpeachable. That said, I initially reverted as undue (which I still believe) and Flying tiger re-added with the rationale that it was in contradistinction to Dmitra Fimi's mention of potential dark-skinned elves in the Silmarillion. I reverted again, as this seemed like WP:SYNTH to me, and Flying tiger again re-added. I then came here so as not to edit war. I still think this is both undue and too synth-y; while Professor Shippey goes to great lengths to reconstruct Tolkien's thinking on "dark elves," it is largely so that they are not a category functionally identical to dwarves. While it is true that Tolkien eventually came to regard the light/dark distinction as between those who had seen the light of the two trees and those who had not and not one of coloration, I don't think this is actually responsive to the question. Could there be dark-colored light elves? I don't see why not. While the appellations don't relate to color, I don't think it really resolves the issue one way or the other. It's entirely possible I have spent too long thinking about things like this, however, so would be happy to hear other opinions. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:03, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Dumuzid must read again the source as Shippey clearly refer to old texts which described "black elves" as equivalent to dwarves and "dark" ones as Dökkálfar.

As of his personal opinion about "Could there be dark-colored light elves?", it is completly irrelevant...

The point is in the source added in this article from the Conversation , Fimi goes to great lenghts to justify the cast of diverse human races by arguing "the fact that Tolkien often did not discuss the biology of his characters but did suggest the existence of dark-skinned Elves in drafts of The Silmarillion"... which is a completly absurd interpretation contradicted by professor Shippey's research. If Shippey's opinion is not good enough, I do not see why Fimi, non documented personal opinion should be kept on the article... Flying Tiger (talk) 15:41, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

I tend to agree with you regarding the standing of the two Tolkien scholars, but the major distinction here is that Fimi is specifically discussing the show that is the subject of this article while Shippey is not. You're right, my own surmise is completely irrelevant, but I am trying to make the point that Tolkien's classifications of light vs. dark not being related to skin color does not in and of itself answer the question of varying skin tones. The fact that Tolkien went to such taxonomic lengths to describe why dark elves were not dwarves and from whence the appellation might have come does not, in and of itself, tell us anything about skin tone. There is an inferential leap required here that makes this WP:SYNTH to me, but I am eager to hear others thoughts. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:49, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

The original "Dark-elves" that inspired Tolkien were evil creatures that "live down in the ground, and were physically unlike "fair elves" in appearance. Tolkien simply changed the light/dark distinction as between those who had seen the light of the two trees and those who had not. This explanation, which is the traditionnal interpretation of Tolkien's work, totally contradicts Fimi's argument ! As such, her logical has no relevance to justify the decision of the production to cast diverse human races as elves... Flying Tiger (talk) 15:56, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

I think we've both made our arguments, and I haven't reverted any further. At this point I am content to trust in the wisdom (such as it is) of consensus. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:58, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

This added content is beyond the scope of the subject of this article, which is the upcoming show. Such material is better suited for discussion and inclusion on the page Tolkien and race. As such, I have restored an earlier version of the article, and to revert further would be constituted as edit warring. TNstingray (talk) 18:27, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

In this case, the citation from "The Conversation", where Fimi and Maldonado try to justify the cast of diverse human races by arguing that Tolkien "'did suggest the existence of dark-skinned Elves in drafts of The Silmarillion " should also be deleted as they use an unsuported argument to justify their personal claim. Thus this source is simply biased ! Flying Tiger (talk) 21:20, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Meanwhile, I just checked this article about "race" and its main concern is whether Tolkien was or not racist....The reference to Shippey is clearly more appropriate as an answer to Fimi and Maldonado unsuported claim. Flying Tiger (talk) 21:50, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

I guess I just don't see the contradiction you do; if anything, Shippey's essay details how Tolkien's understanding of "dark elves" evolved over time. As such, it doesn't strike me as that odd to say that they differed in previous drafts, which of course could in theory go back as far as 1914. Reasonable minds may differ, of course. Dumuzid (talk) 21:29, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

The point is there never was a moment, at any stage of his work, where Tolkien considered the "dark" or "black" elves like Fimi and Maldonado try to argue to justify the cast chosen by the production. This is simply false and, as such, this partial POV should not be presented in Wikipedia as a credible and academic source to support the Rings of Power vision. Flying Tiger (talk) 21:37, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

@Flying tiger. Please stop with the toxicity. Previous conversations clearly reveal your bias and unwillingness to contribute to Wikipedia in the right way based on policy. Tolkien's opinions on race in relation to his works belong on the page discussing such matters: Tolkien and race. This page discusses the Amazon show, and getting into a debate on this talk page or the article itself violates WP:FORUM and WP:UNDUE, not that you care about Wikipedia policies anyway. It also violates WP:SYNTH to take past writings from scholar Tom Shippey and try to apply them to the reception for this 2022 show. Please take the time to refer to actual policies before resuming any editing on this page or any others. TNstingray (talk) 21:58, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

@Flying tiger. I am trying to resolve this as amicably as possible. Consensus led to the current neutral balance in the Reception section, following a lengthy conversation. Now, you are trying to shift things towards your POV, which is wrong and inappropriate for Wikipedia. You have repeatedly tried to push through consensus and try to brute force your personal opinion into this article, which consists of OR and UNDUE weight. You can't keep doing that when you don't get your way. I will not engage in an edit war with you. If your behavior continues, I have to report you to the Administrator's noticeboard, because right now it is obvious that you are WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. I am also going to leave this message on your talk page to ensure you have plenty of warning. TNstingray (talk) 22:18, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Flying tiger, I have to agree with TNstingray here that your contributions seem a bit too much WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. That does not mean I doubt your good faith, but I would suggest that you try persuading people to your point of view rather than a more blunt approach. I also don't think the POV tag is aptly applied here, and I believe TNstingray agrees. I'm willing to give it some time to see if any discussion develops, but I want to give you lots of notice that if nothing changes in the next 24 hours or so, I intend to remove the tag since we have a rough-and-ready consensus here. That said, of course, you may well have some agreement. We shall see. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 02:15, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Just chiming in to say that this essay is not relevant to this series and using it as if it is a response to Fimi's article would be very misleading. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:55, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Reception

This section reads like it was directly written by someone who doesn't care about neutrality at all. If even Wikipedia is not save from ideological influences, how can it be called a "free Encyclopedia"? If this is how it's going to be in the future, why not directly selling it to China? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:810D:8FC0:2C23:4EB:B99A:791F:B9D4 (talk) 15:48, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

My understanding is that it's a "free encyclopedia" because there is no fee associated with accessing it. Happy Friday. Dumuzid (talk) 15:51, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

This talk page entry reads like it was directly written by someone who doesn't care about neutrality at all. We are trying to keep Wikipedia safe from ideological influences by maintaining neutrality, and that is how it is going to be now and in the future. Read the article in its entirety, and you will find that there is a proper balance. Or, if you would like to make specific changes backed by reliable sourcing, please make those requests here. TNstingray (talk) 16:28, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

The Reception section reads as if doctored by Amazon. I would ask admins to check who the contributors are and whether their linked WP:RS are sound.

The backlash from fans does not in fact focus on race and gender as central points of critique and criticism, as far as I can discern, but on the utter disregard for the source material demonstrated by the show runners. The latter have created an alternate history for some of the main characters known from LotR and SIL, and they have added characters that do not and could not appear in Tolkien's work. Although Amazon only holds the rights to small portions of Tolkien's works, they did not bother to check the rest for content collisions with their own planned narratives. Also, the backlash is a lot harsher than suggested here, and it deals with every detail visible in the released teasers. The addressed race and gender issues deal with attempts by Amazon to check boxes of their own "woke" policies for tv productions without any necessities in the story-telling, and do not stem from actual racism or misogyny.

BTW, neutrality in articles does not mean that all sides of an issue are presented as being equal in weight. It means that editors try to not introduce their own opinions into the article, and present the actual overall judgement by the public from a neutral perspective. Neutrality is not the opposite of objectivity. ♆ CUSH ♆ 02:14, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

There is no need to ask admins to look into the sources; any editor can do that, including yourself. I am one minor contributor here, and you are free to ask me anything you like if it will put your mind at ease. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 02:30, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

neutrality in articles does not mean that all sides of an issue are presented as being equal in weight. It means that editors try to not introduce their own opinions into the article -- you should follow your own advice, because this statement is very clearly your own opinion and not at all objective: The addressed race and gender issues deal with attempts by Amazon to check boxes of their own "woke" policies for tv productions without any necessities in the story-telling, and do not stem from actual racism or misogyny.

The reception section is specifically talking about racist backlash to the series' cast, which is very clearly happening and we have reliable sources supporting those facts in the article. We also have discussion from the cast and crew about it which all adds to why it was worth creating a section about that stuff. For the general concerns by Tolkien fans in regards to trailers and potential changes from the source material you can see the Marketing section where that is also discussed. If those concerns continue after the series is released and people actually watch it and we get good commentary on those concerns then there is potential for that stuff to be added to the Reception section as well. But for now, we should not be adding complaints about trailers to the actual Reception section. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:40, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

There is no racist backlash happening beyond the usual noise, Amazon only construes the criticism as such to avoid addressing the actual content of the criticism. The reception section seems therefore skewed. On YouTube, all the teasers released by Amazon now get trolled with comments that mash up supposedly Tolkienian content with that of other franchises such as Star Wars, Chron of Narnia, Harry Potter, etc. The teasers only have around 15% upvotes and 85% downvotes, and Amazon tries to present the originators of the downvotes all as racists and misogynists, even though most comments no longer address the content of the teasers at all. ♆ CUSH ♆ 03:22, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

If that was true (which it is not) you would need to provide reliable sources to support your argument. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:03, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Cush, with all due respect, upvotes and downvotes on YouTube have precisely zero to do with what we're up to here, unless and until a reliable source sees fit to make an issue of them. It should be obvious that YouTube viewers are a self-selecting sample, and YouTube voters far more so. Even if your estimated percentages are correct, what you are telling us is the relative views of YouTube voters. That does not belong in the article any more than if I were to take a poll of hockey fans on their views of the series. What you are proposing is essentially a variety of original research that is tried quite a bit. I, for one, will be happy to consider your contributions, but you will need to provide reliable sources. Happy (late) Friday. Dumuzid (talk) 05:16, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

What about a forbes article about the massive downvote? https://www.forbes.com/sites/paultassi/2022/07/17/the-lord-of-the-rings-the-rings-of-powers-dislike-buried-youtube-trailer-shows-a-steep-hill/?sh=79822eda2999 LowKey (talk) 08:55, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

You do realize that this source is in support of the show, right? You probably just searched "Rings of Power YouTube dislikes" and grabbed the first one without actually reading it. TNstingray (talk) 14:28, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

TNstingray, with all due respect, "support of the show" is not really a criterion here; I asked for coverage of YouTube votes, and this is indeed it (Small digression -- note WP:FORBES but I believe this is okay as Tassi seems to be an actual Forbes employee). That said, my apologies, but this still seems WP:UNDUE to me. Perhaps a brief mention in the "backlash" sentence saying something like "including many downvotes on YouTube trailers," but even that strikes me as a bit much. Would like to hear others' opinions. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 15:13, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Just pointing out the irony, but I apologize for my frustration slipping out throughout this talk page. Thanks. TNstingray (talk) 15:43, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

No worries at all. Frustration is part and parcel to the Wikipedia experience! Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:49, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Tassi is fine to use, but I think talking about the dislikes on a single YouTube video would be WP:UNDUE. We already discuss the same sentiment in the marketing section without any WP:USERG concerns anyway. - adamstom97 (talk) 19:25, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Actually, no, I was already aware of the article and had already read it and was well aware it was generally positive and cautiously hopeful. It did, however, specifically mention the degree of downvotes (back when they were in the 100K range, rather than 1-2M range they reached). The general tone of the article is not the point. The point is that the downvotes are notable. The marketing videos have achieved a record in downvotes, from my understanding, but I am not enough or a YT denizen to confirm that. In fact they aren't limited to "a single YouTube video" at all but are occurring on every AP YouTube trailer, to the point that the dislike:like ratio is "burying" the videos. Also, and again, I don't know why Adam keeps trying to invoke the marketing section. This stuff is not the marketing it is the reception of the marketing content. Adam is pushing his own barrow in this, as seen where he claims Cush's perfectly accurate description of the reaction is actually not true. I have no dog in this fight, though, beyond sadly seeing Tolkien denegrated and WP even more degraded. Do what you will; if WP is not longer taken seriously this is part of why. LowKey (talk) 03:34, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

"The reception section is specifically talking about racist backlash to the series' cast," Maybe that is the core problem of that section. It is called "reception" but only as an entire section is only permitted to convey misleadingly incomplete information about a very small minority portion of the massive backlash, while the majority of the actual reception is confined in a section not about reception. It is ludicrous, and reads like paid-for puff. LowKey (talk) 06:00, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Would you like to propose specific changes to the article ("change x to y")? Various reactions to the show are placed throughout the article: marketing, casting, etc. TNstingray (talk) 14:32, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

I have been having a look through, and frankly, no, I don't think there is much point. The tone and skew of the treatment in the marketing section, and the selectivity of the citations and quotes, has rendered sections polemic. There is a theme in this talk page of people highlighting the particular overall problem in this article, while the particular overall problem is not corrected. I expect that will continue long after I lose interest..... (oh, there it goes...) All the best, but I think I will move on, now.LowKey (talk) 05:00, 23 August 2022 (UTC)