Hello? Hello? is this thing on? LowKey (talk)

Enough, already. You don't have consensus for removing the statement. Sources have been supplied, and you have given sophomoric arguments all over the Talk:Flood geology page. Stop it, or you WILL be blocked from editing. See WP:3rr. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 01:18, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Patent nonsense. There is no consensus either way for the statement. So you cannot claim concesus for keeping it. The statement is unverified (and I suspect unverifiable) and EVERY source supplied for it mismatches the statement. It fails WP:V, which supports the removal of such statements. The whole sentence is no weaker for the removal, and is in fact better for not sounding so weaselly. You threaten 3RR action falsely, as I have one revert to the article in the last 24 hours, while you have more reverts to the article in the last 24hrs than I have, so you are actually closely to a breach of 3RR than I am. I don't see you listed as an admin, so you draw a long bow to declare what will happen. The whole article has been repeatedly identified as POV in the talk page, with POV tags removed without concensus on any of the identified specific issues. The statement has been identified as dubious because the sources don't support the assertion. I at least have not been removing the cites, merely tagging them and trying to get the matter discussed in order to reach concensus. Of course submitting the sources to discussion in the interests of concesus would have been much simpler, but that wasn't tried. If the arguments were so sophomoric then it should have been easy to address them, rather than remove the tags and pretend that there is no controversy over the statement.LowKey (talk) 01:47, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I copied this to Silly rabbit's own talk page - in keeping with that user's own stated preference for replies, and it was deleted with "Troll" in the edit summary. Such hypocracy.LowKey (talk) 03:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In relation to your recent change in the AiG article, I'd like to know if you realy believe that the only reason that Creationism is considered pseudoscience is because most scientists think it is wrong? Obviously that is *not* why, but I want to understand what you think before I re-write it to make this point clearer. --PhilipO (talk) 23:36, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most scientists value the contributions tio science creationists have made. (see kepler newton einstein Mendel pasteur Redi Boyle - all the greateset scientists in history. Hey Philip, can you talk with your foot stuck in your mouth. I dont think SO! Hi to lowkey. (Estoniankaiju (talk) 14:55, 23 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Answers_in_Genesis&diff=238694128&oldid=238635651

Yes, you did add the unreferenced material. Please remember that even if you simply reverted to an earlier revision, you are still responsible for the content therein. Also, I find nothing incivil in referring to the True Believers of flood geology as "fringe lunatics". How exactly is this incivil? siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 00:29, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(I am copying this here as Silly rabbit has a final word and then archived the discussion. The discussion is far from settled)

Please maintain civility in your edit summaries. "Lunatics" is hardly civil. Also make sure of your facts. I did not add the text that you removed here [[1]], I merely reverted your earlier removal of it.LowKey (talk) 00:16, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied on your talk page. You did add the supposed facts in question. Even if through a reversion, you are still responsible for them. Also, in the context of our debate over how to present the WP:FRINGE views of a handful of religious zealots in a manner that does not assign WP:UNDUE weight to the *extreme* fringes of scientific study, I don't see at all how the use of the somewhat hyperbolic term "lunatic" can be dubbed incivil. If you feel offended because you are yourself one of the aforementioned fringe group, then perhaps you should abstain from editing said article, rather than lash out at me when I use a characterization of the subject of the article that you feel is inappropriate. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 00:51, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no argument with you removing the text as uncited. However, it was not my addition. It was someone else's. I reverted your removal because in your edit summary you gave a reason that was simply not valid, regardless of the content that you removed and I restored. You then removed it a for different given reason, and you will note that I have not restored it. Ah hang it, it's not worth arguing about this. I really don't care about your removal of the text as long as your stated reason is valid. (It wasn't particularly well written to start with).

As to civility, do you seriously not understand how "fringe lunatics" is not civil? Well how about..(From WP:CIVIL, emphases added)

These behaviors can all contribute to an uncivil environment:

 Rudeness 
 Insults and name-calling 
 Judgmental tone in edit summaries (e.g. "snipped rambling crap") or talk-page posts ("that is the stupidest thing I have ever seen") 
 Gross profanity or indecent suggestions directed at another contributor 
 Belittling contributors because of their language skills or word choice 
 Taunting; deliberately pushing others to the point of breaching civility even if not seeming to commit such a breach themselves 
 Ill-considered accusations of impropriety; for instance, calling someone a liar, or accusing him/her of slander or libel 
 Lies, including deliberately asserting false information on a discussion page in order to mislead one or more editors 
 Quoting another editor out-of-context in order to give the impression that he or she hold views they do not hold, or in order to malign them 
 Making personal attacks, including but not limited to racial, ethnic, sexual, and religious slurs 
 Using derogatory language towards other contributors or, in general, referring to groups such as social classes, nationalities, ethnic groups, religious groups, or others in a derogatory manner 
 Harassment 
 Feigned incomprehension, "playing dumb"

The fact that you consider "fringe lunatics" to be only "somewhat" hyperbolic and not all uncivil, and yet characterise as "lashing out" my rather low key request (I even said "please" - with no emphasis) which included a simple example of what I was getting at, may indicate that you really do need a wiki-break.LowKey (talk) 01:07, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy to move all of this to either my talk or your talk if you wish. I find it hard to track discussion going on in two places. (I like to read back before responding)LowKey (talk) 01:10, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may be missing the point here. If you take such offense to the characterization of a decidedly fringe group as fringe (and all the baggage that goes with that — hyperbolic charges of "lunacy" included), then perhaps you should recuse yourself from editing the article in the first place. You have already demonstrated a repeated pattern of unwillingness to adhere to consensus, and otherwise tendentious editing at the Flood geology article. Accusations of incivility are just another part of that same pattern. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 01:29, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also the "playing dumb" and "Using derogatory language towards other contributors" charges that you quote obviously do not apply to anything that I said in an edit summary or otherwise. I have a feeling that this entire thread was started just in order to provoke me, and so it is in real danger of being archived. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 01:55, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What comes after this is new, and posted AFTER Silly rabbit archived the discussion I don't know if Silly rabbit will respond to any of this, or even read it, but I take exception to the rather rapid move from accusing me of provocation and warning of imminent archive to archiving the discussion, thus preserving Silly rabbit's last word. I do not wish to re-initiate the discussion on that user's talk page as it is obviously not wanted there. Nevertheless I have a right of reply, especially as the "last word" included a number of false accusations.

It's not a matter of whether I take offense. The edit summaries are counter to WP:CIVIL. If it's fringe call it fringe. When you use "lunatic" or "zealot" you are name-calling. The minority (even extreme minority) of a given group does not entitle you or anyone to use insulting names for the group.

Back up the accusations or remove them. In the Flood geology discussion, you claimed consensus when none existed (I saw it as confirmation bias in action) and when I said so, rather than establishing what the existing consensus was you RfC'ed for a wider consensus. In view of that wider consensus I decided to stop editing that part of the article altogether (and said so in the discussion). Up until that point, from the initial RfC on my only edit to the debated section (the lead) was to revert someone else's edit back to YOUR version. How is this an "unwillingness to adhere to consensus"? How is my protection of your version (which I disagreed with) tendentious editing on my part?

How on earth is any of THAT related to giving you a minor nudge about civility (especially considering that I left the edit itself alone and merely asked you to watch the edit summary)? The accusations of incivility are due a pattern of incivility, mostly in your edit summaries where they cannot be easily removed. However I will also include your earlier false accusation of 3RR breach, along with the empty blocking threat; and your treatment of my response to the accusation as a "troll". Out of the 13 examples of "behaviours that contribute to an uncivil environment" 7 can be attributed to your recent editing. That's more than half. I succintly and without embellishment asked you to tone it down, and instead the insults increase, and I get accusations, and I also get "invited" to edit elswhere (which seems to be your pattern of response to disagreement).

I have actually tried to stay away from articles that you edit (although intersecting areas of interest make this near impossible) but there are articles that I have edited for the first time - after checking histories and not seeing your username, and you still reverted me.

I included "playing dumb" and "Using derogatory language towards other contributors" due to your response to my calm request. So true, they were not about your edit summaries, but they were "otherwise".

Well, I see you already archived it, and in your edit summary you are STILL uncivil in that you accuse me of "clearly" provoking you. I was asking you to take more care to be civil.

LowKey (talk) 02:41, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to point out that although I emphasized 5 examples in the list from CIVIL, only 2 were actually identified as being in any way not applicable to the edit summaries that I was referring to. The "rudeness", "insults" and "judgmental tone" examples were not challenged at all.LowKey (talk) 03:31, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the Wiki alerts page (from the evidence on this page it does seem that silly rabbit has been uncivil but my response is assuming that silly rabit was being reasonable (as he was before his recent block and perhaps that block caused this dispute)).

Topology Expert (talk) 04:45, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To your reply to my reply (I agree with you now). I think I should contact other Wikipedians for their opinion.

Topology Expert (talk) 06:47, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again...

Topology Expert (talk) 01:36, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the comment with the tag. I thought that it was appropriate, but since I seem to have the wrong idea about everything I removed it.

Topology Expert (talk) 05:18, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I noted your interest in a history section for this article. Possibly you might have an opinion on Talk:Wind_turbine#History_photo-_which_is_better_for_the_article? -J JMesserly (talk) 22:47, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You may have satisfied the editor's concerns when you edited the section header. But I've watch listed the page and will take a closer look if the disputes go on. I think I've more sourced material on Woodmorappe now that might fit well in the article-but it may have to wait a bit. There's other stuff that I've been working on, and before I take up much more, I want to wrap those up if I can. Professor marginalia (talk) 21:04, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I, for one, thank you for your invitation to this apparentely new wiki. I have followed other christian\creation wikis for different periods of time. Although I am currently disillusioned with wikipedia, this new christian one has a lot of potential,I will definitely create an account there if nothing else. Glancing over your page, I agree with all your stances, I am a die-hard biblical creationist myself. I assume you sent this to all christian wikipedians, I hope you receive similar responses from them. have a nice day, with or without userboxes! (Estoniankaiju (talk) 18:52, 2 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I request your comments about the notability of Religious typification section on Jehovah's Witness talk page. Thank you--Logical Thinker:talk 14:17, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link. That is an interesting encyclopedia.--Novus Orator 04:59, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

	Brisbane Meetup Next: To be decided (watch) Last: Saturday 13 January 2018
See also: Australian events listed at Wikimedia.org.au (or on Facebook)

Hi there! You are cordially invited to a series of Paralympic History workshops and a meetup next Saturday (26 May) and Sunday. In attendance will be University of Queensland faculty members and Australian Paralympic Committee staff. Details and an attendee list are at Wikipedia:Meetup/Brisbane/5. Hope to see you there! John Vandenberg 08:11, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(this automated message was delivered using replace.py to all users in South East Queensland and Wide Bay-Burnett)

Brisbane Meetup Next: 11 February 2013 5-8PM - Drinks and light dinner at SLQ with Sue Gardner Last: 3 August 2012

Hi there! You are cordially invited to a meetup on 11 Febrary 2013 with Sue Gardner.

Details at Wikipedia:Meetup/Brisbane/7. Hope to see you there! John Vandenberg 10:33, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(this automated message was delivered using replace.py to all users in SEQ)

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you are in or near Brisbane, please join us on Sunday 10 December 2017 any time from noon to 4pm at The Edge at the State Library of Queensland. For more details and to sign up, please go to the meetup page. See you there! Kerry (talk) 22:37, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@LowKey

After dwelling on the recent conversation and controversy surrounding The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power, I wanted to reach out and hopefully leave this at a more amicable place. Seeing as the page has been a frequent target for racist vandalism, the default position for me and others is to defend against such perspectives to maintain editorial consensus reached by those of us who were actually trying to follow Wikipedia policy. There's been some really bad stuff published on both the article and the talk page. Unfortunately, it seems that you may have been unfairly lumped together with these vandals. I would like to formally apologize for my improper attribution of WP:NOTHERE, as my attitude towards the situation may have been a better reflection of this type of editor rather than yourself. This represents my frustration trickling through as well, stemming from my seemingly unending dealings with numerous trolls both on and off Wikipedia in the context of this series, though this of course does not justify anything on my part. I unfairly equated you with one of them without really considering your arguments, and for that I do apologize, and I hope that somewhere down the line we can work together on this great Wikipedia project. I have gone back through and read your suggestions with a cooler head, but for the moment, I'll stop beating a dead horse unless you are interested in starting over and resuming productive conversation. Thank you, and happy editing. TNstingray (talk) 16:26, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this. I can assure that I am entirely amicable. Frustrated, but amicable. While there is certainly a level of racist reactionary response, and I have certainly seen some and called it when I saw it, the overwhelming negative reaction is not based in racism but in defense of Tolkien's actual work and his expressed standards and wishes. Most of the source material for that is not going to be considered suitable, though, so for now I will wait for the release and reaction, and see where we are then. Again, thanks for reaching out. LowKey (talk) 03:18, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will also say that it seemed to me that "consensus" existed for an entirely different standard and tone, but this was changed through the doggedness of those who wanted a different consensus. It looked like "consensus" sometimes means running the opposing view out of town. I was not arguing to score points or count coup, but to try to actually elicit some reflection, so having failed in that is not what I consider losing an argument; just people making their own choices. LowKey (talk) 08:49, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Generally speaking, editors and IP addresses attempting to emphasize negative criticism of the show have not gone about things in the right way, violating a whole host of Wikipedia policies (ex. OR, SYNTH, POV, UNDUE, FORUM, UGC) in addition to edit warring and racist vandalism. There's truly been some concerning stuff if you look through the talk page archives and edit history. So of course, there is rightly going to be a firm response to such trollery. At the end of the day, those of us who care about Wikipedia are striving to present and preserve the objective facts of the situation, though everyone has their biases. TNstingray (talk) 12:20, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Generally speaking, I think "emphasize negative criticism" is actually incorrect. The criticism is itself emphatic but in the article most of it is de-emphasized and a very small proportion that is engaged in hatefulness in grossly over-emphasized (a proportion which frankly seems to have become sadly ubiquitous in modern western society) - interestingly, there is a similar small proportion engaged in hatefulness directed at the critics. There is a very interesting dynamic here, which WP probably cannot even recognize until someone published something about it. The professional news media and the actual target audience are demonstrating wildly divergent responses. The production company itself, and its reps, is ignoring the content of the vast majority of criticism and instead categorizing it all as racist/sexist/bigoted/etc (while themselves using more inflammatory language of their "opposition" than the opposition is of them). That is what made me suspicious of the article in the first place, that it is engaged in exactly the same kind of professional misdirection as Amazon Prime. I did look through the talk archives and most of what I saw was a long line of editors saying "Hang on, this isn't right" with a short roster of other editors shooting them down. I didn't look at the article history itself, though. LowKey (talk) 06:02, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Having been involved in several of these conversations I would argue that we have been very patient in attempting to converse with critics of the show and extract content that can actually be included in the article. Unfortunately, as I already said, these conversations typically devolve into a general discussion about the subject matter (FORUM) and the editor's personal opinions about the show (OR). Negative criticism towards the show is discussed throughout the article, along with the response to the showrunners (potential GoT-style sex scenes, the cheap look of the early trailers, over-reliance on CG, accuracy to the source material, timeline compression, comparisons to The Hobbit movies, etc.). Practically all concerns have already been addressed at some point, so to continue to promote the negative reactions is to provide UNDUE weight to a position rooted in ignorance. Plus, the show hasn't even come out yet, so we should see what actual criticism is going to be. This is not Amazon-sponsored misdirection. It is an attempt to follow policy and consider actual arguments rather than the general negative "fan" reaction that accompanies every single new piece of content in today's society. People miss the point of an adaptation. TNstingray (talk) 12:25, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I daresay you have been. I also agree that we should also see the reception of the show itself.

For the record, I was not saying repeat the information about criticism/reception/reaction. I was saying it should either be in a reception section or not in a reception section, but should not be in the section for one aspect selected for emphasis but not in the section for every other aspect. That "position rooted in ignorance" is an interesting phrase. Whose/which position is rooted in ignorance? (Not sarcasm; genuine question). Most of the criticism that I have seen has been rooted in detailed knowledge of both the source material and the author's position on its treatment for the screen. I honestly do not see the article considering actual arguments - well actually I do, but only a heavily-biased selection of the arguments. The repeated form is something like; vague statement of the criticism BUT rebuttal presented as refutation. Some of the genuine and widespread criticism is not even mentioned in the article at all.

For example, harfoots; the inclusion of these hobbits is repeatedly and thoroughly criticized but that does not appear anywhere in the article. There is instead a report of Payne's basic rationale that despite Tolkien saying of his history of 1st and 2nd age "No hobbits." (direct quote) and defining/explaining hobbits as harfoots, stoors and fallowhides, they wanted to include them and harfoots were "satisfyingly hobbit adjacent". Instead the article claims that it is the casting of non-white people as these hobbits has been met with backlash. I know this is synthesis so is not for the article until someone commits it a report of some sort, but I have gone through a lot of the discussion around this and of the many people criticizing harfoots, the only time their lack of whiteness is mentioned is in the form of "I don't care" or "Tolkien did say they were browner". It is their inclusion at all that is an issue (an entire category of issue that Tolkien anticipated and spoke against).

"An adaptation" is not what this series is. It is certainly a derivative, but according to the creators it is not adapting an actual Tolkien story.

I can see that the reception section is being improved, by I can still see Adam protecting his own distorted views. LowKey (talk) 22:53, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So, by "position rooted in ignorance", I am referring to the fact that practically every concern has either already been addressed by the filmmakers, is built on a differing opinion of Tolkien's writing, or is built on a romanticized view of Jackson's trilogy (Which, to be clear, is my favorite film trilogy of all time, but it changes so much from the source material. That's the nature of cinematic adaptations). That is my personal opinion/assessment, and should not be reflected in any article, but I thought I would answer your genuine question.

For example, the Harfoots. In the "Concerning Hobbits" prelude to Fellowship, you are correct in assessing that Tolkien describes three families of hobbits: Harfoots, Stoors, and Fallohides. This show features Harfoots as an ancestral group to the hobbits that we see in the Shire in chronologically later projects. It is a matter of opinion whether this contradicts Tolkien's lore. This Harfoot group is "satisfyingly hobbit adjacent" because they are different than any hobbit that we are familiar with in The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings. Does that make sense? The creators have clearly stated that they are in this camp, so it comes down to a personal opinion and the unique experience you have when reading a literary work.

Regarding more obvious deviations from the source material, The Rings of Power is based on a scattered, sometimes contradictory series of Tolkien's unorganized works. You are correct in saying that they are not adapting an actual Tolkien story, but they are attempting to compile everything into one cohesive volume. Tolkien himself was unclear about exactly when a lot of this take place, so there is already an element of creative liberty on his part and the part of those adapting the work. Did the Istari come in the Second or Third Age? You can find both at various stages of Tolkien's development of his legendarium. At the end of the day, adaptations are always going to change elements of the source material, because a translation to a visual medium and a wider audience demands such changes. The books remain untouched, and they are there for anybody to pick up and read the original story. The extent of deviation is what is up for debate, and no single person who watched the trailers would be able to definitively come to a conclusion without watching the product in its entirety. Personally, I would prefer an element of originality rather than a word-for-word adaptation, because I already have the books word-for-word, and plus, even word-for-word adaptations would differ based on the person reading the book.

Again, this is all my opinion, but I hope you sort of understand where I am coming from, which I hope is a balanced perspective of respecting the lore and not being afraid of creativity and originality. In the context of Wikipedia, we are trying to present the most reliable sources and present the facts of the situation relating to the development of the show. To get into the weeds of in-depth discussion on either side (as I have just done here) is inappropriate for article space. TNstingray (talk) 14:29, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat whose position rooted in ignorance. I agree the filmmakers have made statements about the criticisms, but "addressed" is a an editorial opinion (and one I would suggest is itself rooted in ignorance) and the article skips over the criticisms almost entirely. It has been repeatedly stated in the talk page that the criticisms are addressed throughout the relevant sections, but this is simply not true. Partisan editors are ensuring that criticisms are kept out of the article.

The showrunners did not say that their harfoots are "an ancestral group to the hobbits that we see in the Shire in chronologically later projects" - that is merely your opinion and contrary to what they said. What they actually said was "Not hobbits" and "proto-hobbits". Whether that contradicts Tolkiens lore of ancestral hobbits splitting into 3 groups, who mostly wound up in the shire together is not really a matter of opinion at all. Tolkien explicitly said harfoots are hobbits, the show maker specifically said they are not hobbits. Of the 1st and second age Tolkien also said (and I quote) "No Hobbits." The extent of variation is very much NOT up for debate, because all discussion of it apart from that coming from the show makers is religiously kept out of the article.

The compression is another issue altogether, which Tolkien foresaw and specifically criticised. So in fact we do know what Tolkien thought of that. Much as we know what he thought of others adding their own characters and stories to his legandarium. I don't have the material with me, and I cannot recall if the word he used was "ridiculous" or "ludicrous". I think it was the latter. It was in the letter that the showrunners referenced in support of adding characters and events.

"In the context of Wikipedia, we are trying to present the most reliable sources and present the facts of the situation relating to the development of the show." - I believe that you and Adam have shown this statement to be entirely false. The article is biased and inaccurate and apparently will remain so. LowKey (talk) 22:52, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's only so many ways that I can word this: Tolkien died in 1973. His exact thoughts or opinions on this exact show are unknown, even if he had made statements in general about time compression and addition of characters. As Wikipedia editors, it is inappropriate for us to directly cite him to support any statement of opinion in an article.

Concerning hobbits (lol), does this not take place before The Lord of the Rings? Does that not make this Harfoot group something adjacent to "hobbit" in the sense of the Shire-folk we all know and love? I admit that this is my opinion... which means that your stance is equally an opinion. We reflect what the reliable secondary sources have actually said.

TNstingray (talk) 23:24, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are actually distorting and misinterpreting what the showrunners have said. It matters not. You edit warring and bad faith editing wins. Congratulations on degrading WP. LowKey (talk) 23:27, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I hoped it was misinterpreting, but to be honest I won't rule out misrepresenting. LowKey (talk) 23:28, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am doing nothing of the sort. Take this as a learning opportunity to better understand the purpose and policies of Wikipedia. You are the one misusing Tolkien's work as a primary source, which, as a massive fan of his, I take great issue with. TNstingray (talk) 23:41, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I actually removed sourcing altogether and left only the link to another WP article. If you take great issue with the sourcing there, take it up with the editors of that article. LowKey (talk) 23:46, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is possible that we are arguing about earlier edits [2][3] at this point. TNstingray (talk) 00:04, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is possible you were arguing about earlier edits. I was not. I had no problem with one of those reverts. Upon re-reading I agreed that while the existing version was vague, mine was not less so, so I left it alone. The second I worked on further to try to find a version that removed the incorrect statement of fact while still being acceptable. However, my sourcing for that was exactly as per the sourcing in the stand alone article. My last edit of that bit was exactly as I have described it - unadorned fact with a link to the relevant sourced article. I was trying to be collaborative and work with the criticism of my edits. The result, a later edit was summarily dismissed based on the criticism of an earlier edit. LowKey (talk) 01:49, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And for that, I apologize. However, the key idea remained the same across all of these edits (if I am remembering correctly), in that you were trying to remove or alter a statement being made about the nature of the Harfoots in this show. It seems that has been resolved, so I will leave it at that. Happy editing. TNstingray (talk) 10:49, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have misunderstood what I was trying to do. When I read it, it appeared that the first sentence was about harfoots being in the show, while the second was about the nature of the harfoots in this show. I left the second alone altogether. I tried to correct the mis-description in the first and when that triggered a militant response, I opted to remove the mis-description altogether and rely on WP's existing correct description. Your edit altered the first sentence so that the sentence was now about the nature of harfoots in the show, so at least now it was accurate. LowKey (talk) 13:06, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, we are arguing over semantics. Both sentences concerned Harfoots in the show, hence the confusion on one or both or our parts. Thank you for clarifying your position. I hope that you maybe understand mine as well. There's been a lot to keep track up with the continuation of stale conversations and such. TNstingray (talk) 13:14, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm coming here because I think some of our comments are getting a bit too off-topic at the talk page. While I am obviously not perfect (no one is), I do think that I have a pretty good handle on what WP:RS and WP:UNDUE are and how they should be applied. I have been working on film and TV articles like this for more than 10 years (for films and TV shows that I personally like and dislike) and have had many of those promoted to GA. If you have a genuine concern with the neutrality of something in the article that is supported by policies, guidelines, and reliable sources then I think you will find that I am very amenable to good faith discussions. I have no issue with you personally and would welcome collaborating with you without all the fighting. In fact, most of the articles I work on are with many other editors, it is actually kind of weird that I have had to build so much of this article myself without help and that there has only been a small group of editors defending it from all the trolls and attacks of late.

Perhaps I feel more attacked by you because your concerns have been arriving at the same time / among that onslaught of troll complaints, and if that has made me come across as hostilethen I apologise for that. It is certainly not my intention to contribute to the negative discourse at the talk page, which is one of the worst I have seen. I will try to be more civil in my future interactions. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:07, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise. I do tend to be blunt, but I will try harder to be polite. I really do only want to help improve the article, and I do feel that making it known that I do indeed have a POV and I am sufficiently self aware to be mindful of it is better than it being in some fashion covert. I agreed with one of your reversions of an edit of mine, so left it be. Another I thought I could modify to make it acceptable so did that instead. I am honestly not trying to troll or pick a fight. LowKey (talk) 06:48, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Parking this here before I lose it. It will likely be relevant later. Rings of Power: 'In an age of epic fantasy on screen many of the missteps are unforgivable' (theconversation.com) LowKey (talk) 06:03, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am putting this here in my talk page rather than in the talk page for The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power to avoid cluttering up that page while I work through this and order it in my own mind.

I am pretty sure that the editing of the page is not following policy guidelines to anything like the extent that some editors think it is. These editors often chastise others for not following various policies, and invoke them often as their imperative governing resource for how to edit. The thing is, while I am sure that they truly believe they are working to these policies, I don't think they are actually are. Those documents are quite extensive and detailed and it is only natural and reasonable to develop a mental short-hand ruleset. For example, imperatives such as "use secondary sources, not primary sources" are not always true and in this case is a simplification (albeit a reasonable one most of the time). Given my many years away from active editing (at least a decade for any sustained editing) I decided I should brush up on the policies to know what has changed and to work out my own short-hand ruleset. This has led me to think that several of the sources deemed reliable could well be considered questionable, and that much of what is included in descriptions has actually been original research or synthesis. Part of the frustration in trying to collaborate on this article is that these grounds are used to rebuff criticisms of the existing content, while the existing content contains the same problem. Likewise, there is a reaction to criticism that is quite strongly hostile, with "trolling" being invoked. I went through the talk page and its archives, as I was told that there was significant trolling to be seen there which would explain and somewhat justify the hostility as frustration with trolls. Is saw few-to-no comments that were what I considered trolling. There was quite a bit that was complaint without suggested remedy, or complaint worded aggressively and/or dismissively, but not what I would consider trolling (i.e. commentary just for the purpose gaining a reaction or starting an argument). I do think that reaction to the series and it production in the vast majority falls into 2 "camps" and both are talking past each other at their own preconceptions of the "camp". I know I have been somewhat guilty of this, and I think others have also. Likewise I think assuming good faith has become difficult for both "sides".

I am making a concerted effort to wear metaphorical blinkers while working on this article and just concentrate on keeping it about the show itself without it veering into POV claims about non-show stuff. I mostly think what the article needs is time, and some spun-off related-but-separate articles. LowKey (talk) 04:38, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming that I am one of the editors who you are referring to, do you have specifics for what you are concerned about that we can discuss? - adamstom97 (talk) 06:37, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am still reading and digesting, but an example (now resolved as far as I am concerned) could have been the whole "strong fighter" issue. From my current reading, there was an element of synthesis/original research in that, and the source reliability was arguably questionable. When a secondary source is making statements of fact directly contradicted by the primary source, the primary source can stand. The whole harfoot-as-predecessors thing was another example of claims from a secondary source directly contradicted by the primary (and has also been resolved). I am not trying to be accusatory, but trying to reconcile a fresh understanding of the guidelines with actual practice. Rather than a laundry list of disagreements, I would like to settle my own understanding and lay out some important elements and see if there is agreement. If my understanding matches the article editing, then I will just have to pull my head in about it. If there is agreement that there needs to be some level of adjustment, then I hope that's okay too. LowKey (talk) 10:15, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it is fair to characterise either of those situations as not following Wikipedia guidelines. The "strong fighter" bit was paraphrasing, not synthesis, and is required on Wikipedia to avoid copyright violations. And we resolved any concerns you had with that by doing a simple re-write. Be careful that you are not letting your personal feelings about Tolkien's writings get in the way of how Wikipedia actually works, because it sounds like you are wanting to scour the article looking for things that will justify you putting unsourced WP:OR in instead of what WP:RS are telling us. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:01, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, in response to this: When a secondary source is making statements of fact directly contradicted by the primary source, the primary source can stand. Per WP:PST we must use secondary sources to discuss and interprest primary sources and we should not discard those secondary sources if editors disagree with their conclusions. That would be WP:OR. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:10, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Three things:

1. This is what I wanted to avoid; an oppositional process where what I am saying is taken as an accusation against which a defense is levied. I acknowledged that the cases that I mentioned had already been resolved. In fact their successful resolution is a major part of why I felt I could mention them; their current state is no longer contended or unresolved in relation to this. I will say, though, the "simple re-write" was inordinately difficult because of the initial hostility to even considering it.

2. My only concern about Tolkien's writings in relation to this article is that the article should not lie about them. I use the word "lie" intentionally. Something stated while either known to be untrue or careless of its truth. The phrasing of the case that I mentioned made incorrect statements of fact about what Tolkien wrote, and when it was pointed out that they were incorrect the response was that is was a direct quote and a rationalization of a) a reliable secondary source said it and b) it was about the show not Tolkien's work. A check of the source showed it was NOT a direct quote, but an editor's paraphrase of what the source directly said about Tolkien's words. In this matter the source was tertiary rather than secondary, and the more reliable and authoritative actual secondary source did not say what the tertiary source claimed. So, in the article was an interpretative paraphrase of a tertiary source's interpretative claim (being generous, here) that a brief review showed was not in the authoritative secondary source. It was a synthesis of a synthesis, and discussion of it even went down the path of arguing how to "interpret" a single word in Tolkien's description - more synthesis/OR. The issue about harfoots was almost the same, with the single exception that the promotional news media (the tertiary source) was cited for statements from the secondary source (the show makers, whose reliability we have yet to argue - hint: I don't care if it is their job to get it right; when their own statements don't survive independent fact checks, I don't consider them reliable) that were directly contradicted by the primary source. They weren't analyzing the primary source. They were directly contradicting it. From my current understanding of the policy guidelines, certainly in this case at least their statements should not have been used as a statement about what Tolkien said.

3. Again with the hostile "poisoning the well" approach. Please cease the accusations of bad-faith if you are at all serious about collaboration. I clearly explained my motivation (or at least I thought I did). I will define it thus: To learn thoroughly the current policy guidelines and act accordingly. If the article's editing follows them then that's okay - my own misgivings will have been addressed. If it does not follow them, then I would still seek to address my own misgivings by addressing the difference and that should be okay as well. It is becoming more plain, though, that this is a point of sensitivity and there is an unwillingness to entertain the notion that your following of the guidelines is in any way less than perfect. There is plenty already in the article with which I disagree. It does concern me that WP has policies that do not merely allow but apparently insist on articles which do not reflect objective truth. However, have a look at what I have added to the article and you will see that your snarky attempt to discredit my motivation simply has no merit. Generally I have actually worked at removing very small bits that reference not the show but make untrue statements about Tolkien's words.

I still plan to steep myself in the policy guides. I don't expect it will help this article though, because a couple of editors keep the stick within easy reach and seem to consider only their own approach beyond reproach. I recall a comment about this article not having the number regular active editors as other similar articles. I begin to see why. LowKey (talk) 00:30, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In your deep-dive, you may want to take a look at WP:TRUTH. It is an essay, not a policy, but it is a relevant one given some of your wording above. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:03, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I will. I was familiar with it but that was long ago and I will see what it says now. From memory, it didn't say that untruth was acceptable but that truth alone without verifiability was insufficient. Verifiable does after all mean able to be proven true. A statement that has been falsified (i.e. shown to be untrue) is the opposite of one that has been verified. LowKey (talk) 07:40, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you have given a good example of the kind of misuse of guidelines that I am discussing. Yes, we must use secondary sourced to interpret primary sources. The wording is that any interpretation must rely on a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. However, "for straightforward, descriptive statements of facts" the policy says "A primary source may be used". LowKey (talk) 00:35, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And to finish the sentence of the (WP:PRIMARY}} policy being cited, ...but any interpretation needs a secondary source. TNstingray (talk) 01:01, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, "any interpretation". We had already discussed "interpretation" and I was pointing out that the policy was talking about interpretation when it is included The edits I am discussing both had straightforward, descriptive statements that needed no interpretation, except in one case the article included an interpretation by an editor of an interpretation by a tertiary source which contradicted the straightforward statement from a reliable secondary source source. In the other case, the secondary source made a direct straightforward statement about the material that was directly contradicted by the material itself. I edited to include a direct straightforward statement from the primary source, without interpretation and that was shot down invoking the policy that actually led me to use it, and a tortured mangled re-interpretation of both what the cited source and the original material really meant by what they said. LowKey (talk) 01:48, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am not going to waste further time or energy on this. I can see that no matter how well I understand and apply the policy guidelines, it will avail nothing but further hostile reaction. Currently the policy guidelines are being followed in a selective and self-serving way, and all attempts to correct this are blamed on people not understanding the policies and wanting their own opinion. It is probably meet to mention that in LOTR, Sauron could not conceive that the fellowship would act in any way other than he would act. LowKey (talk) 02:23, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to drop by and say it's okay to get frustrated. It happens to the best of us. Try to remember that most everyone is editing in good faith, including, I think, pretty much all the regulars on the Rings of Power page. To be clear, that doesn't mean you have to agree with their positions, like them, or even have much respect for them. But I would encourage you to remember that they're just volunteers doing what they think is right -- even if it doesn't seem that way to you. But keep pushing for incremental change and you may find big changes happen that you haven't even noticed. Tolkien's concept of the long defeat is one I often think of on Wikipedia: even when I think things are headed in a bad direction, I can keep trying to put things in a good place. So, should you need a break, by all means take one, but I'd encourage you not to despair. Cheers and Happy Friday. Dumuzid (talk) 15:17, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I cannot continue to spend hours and hours and thousands of words of discussion to change one sentence very slightly. It isn't even discussion; two editors rely very heavily on constantly invoking policies as weapons and making accusations of bad faith. I have re-read some of the policy guidelines, and whole chunks of them are being ignored or waved off. The policies are being misused to defend the editors chosen narrative. The whole article is an exercise in propping up a sketchy strawman in one sentence and spend the rest of a paragraph or two pounding it into dust. The article is argumentative/polemic. The editorial argument is that this is what reliable sources are reporting but that is plain false - the standard has become: if and only if a source is reporting a set narrative then it is reliable. Once accepted as "reliable" it is then treated as "inerrant" even though the policy on reliable sources specifically talks about considering reliability for specific cases based on things like partisanship, fact checking, promotional nature etc. I, too, only do this on a voluntary basis and don't need to invest a whole bunch of time for no gain but a whole lot of accusation and hostility.

The fact is that when one finds themselves arguing with a whole string of other people from various walks of life and worldviews one absolutely should consider if it could really be a case of, "Everyone but me is wrong," yet we have editors here who actually make that "Everyone but me" complaint with no trace of irony or self-awareness. (aside: this tells the curmudgeon side of me something about our relative ages, which is another reason I won't bother anymore. I come from a generation of facts and the notion that being wrong is okay as long as you stop it when you know it - I believe they come from a generation where subjective feelings are elevated to assumption of reality. One can't argue the facts with any expectation of making a difference).

I stuck with it a lot longer than most did at that article. I tried to work within what I was learning were hard boundaries, and specifically simply worked to make the article about its stated subject matter. Where the article referenced other subject matter I insisted it either be accurate/true or have the reference removed. I submitted suggestions and sources to the talk page. I restored edits of those editors when others changed them without discussion or supported reasoning in the edit summary. I think I managed to get three (or maybe, possibly four) very minor edits completed and even then had to essentially let Adam make the edit or expect prompt reversion. I was on the receiving end of the same level vitriolic accusation of trollery/vandalism and bad-faith on day the last as I was on day the first. The article is a toxic environment. LowKey (talk) 21:11, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your frustration. I really do, and I'm sorry it has come to that. Both the article and its talk page are under a lot of pressure and scrutiny from people just wanting to complain without suggesting substantive, reliable, factual changes.

Tolkien fans are in such a unique place with this show because we have not had new content based on Tolkien's work in such a long time (unless you count the Hobbit trilogy... it seems that most people don't). Every other franchise (Marvel, Harry Potter, Hunger Games, whatever) has been consistently releasing new content since the early 2000s, and every single one makes significant changes from the source material. This is par for the course for adaptations. And that is why there is not (currently) substantial, reliable coverage of Tolkien purists... because every single project every released experiences a mixture of genuine and trolling backlash. We have to treat this project and its coverage exactly as any other is presented on Wikipedia. For controversial or recent topics, there sometimes have to be those hard boundaries to maintain a semblance of order, and every genuine editor needs to be willing to work within those boundaries for the time being.

As a relatively new editor compared to others, perhaps I do sometimes focus too much on the "letter of the law" rather than the spirit behind it. But at the same time, I think we have been incredibly fair and patient in repeatedly presenting applicable Wikipedia guidelines. It can be frustrating on our end as well when users repeatedly blow past said guidelines to argue about the show's content or what Tolkien would have thought, resulting in basically the same conversation over and over.

Since you come from a generation of facts and the notion that being wrong is okay as long as you stop it when you know it, I ask that you re-evaluate and consider that we really are trying to present the objective facts of the details surrounding the actual show, not subjective feelings... elevated to assumption of reality. Everyone, including you and me, has their opinion about the subject matter. But that is not for us to decide; all we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to us. And in the context of Wikipedia, that means staying within certain boundaries and following certain guidelines to the best of our ability.

I genuinely hope that some day, we will be able to collaborate on this great Wikipedia project. I can tell you are passionate about the subject, and you have so much experience from which newer editors such as myself can learn and grow. TNstingray (talk) 14:30, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't think you get what I am saying about the policy guidelines. Nevertheless, regarding new content, I really don't expect any in relation to Tolkien apart from the kind of thing that Christopher was publishing. I am more... "attached" I guess could be the word... to the literature or written word aspect of Tolkien's work so screen presentations have only ever been a fringe or additional element - kind of like the still artworks produced. By that I mean I take them or leave them according to how they suit my "taste". If I don't like them I am not offended by them. I just don't care enough about them to be offended. Jackson's trilogy in particular I don't understand so-called "die-hard" fans raving about because, particularly after the first movie, many characters and events were fundamentally changed (I think Jackson missed that Sam was very much a major hero of the piece - and was unique in all of the history of Middle-Earth regarding the One). As a work based on LOTR it was fine, guess, but after TFOTR it was no longer simply an adaptation, in my opinion. I still watched all three movies in the cinema and bought the boxed set of discs etc, so I liked them well enough as their own thing. With this latest show, from the little I have watched I know I simply don't like it even as its own thing - but I don't care about it that much (it is after all just the same viewing choice we make of anything). I will say, one difference between Jackson and Payne/McKay is that Jackson acknowledged the deviations and gave his rationale (as much as that was intellectually unsatisfying to me - because for the most part it boiled down to a belief that Jackson/Boyen could tell the same story as Tolkien but better) while Payne/McKay seem to bend over backwards to claim that theirs are actually not deviations (and in fact they are by their own statements knowingly NOT telling any story Tolkien told) - that they are doing what Tolkien would have wanted them to. Tolkien in his own words gives a clear indication otherwise. I respect Tolkien greatly as an author, but more-so as an individual. There are legal rights and moral rights to works of art, and almost as egregious as attempting to pass of another's work as one's own is attempting to pass off one's own work as another's. Nevertheless, I would have been happy as long as the article reported accurately - e.g. reported the showmakers' interpretations as just that rather than repeating them as objective claims about what Tolkien wrote. Ah, well, with life happening I have missed my annual re-read of the "Big Three" for a few years in a row, so this has prompted me to dive back into Arda. That is a positive. LowKey (talk) 02:11, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

These are the really concerning ones:

15 July 2022. 31.141.80.245 [4][5][6]

16 July 2022. 176.89.113.11 [7][8][9]

18 July 2022. 178.244.139.211 [10][11]

Then there's ones like this around the same time. Maybe these are not explicitly racist, but I hope that you can understand how the immediate context can frame this general viewpoint in a certain way. Ex.

18 July 2022. 2a00:23c6:a00a:d901:7434:c6d0:184a:929e [12]

22 July 2022. 176.189.176.57 [13]

22 July 2022. 218.215.116.200 [14]

There are others, plus there's the general rhetoric of users such as [User:Flying tiger] and others on both the article and the talk page. It is not a good first impression for the general arguments of those disliking the show. It really set a tone.

That's what I was able to find after one initial dive into the page's history. Maybe you didn't go back far enough, but I hope you now understand my automatic defensive position, particularly as a result of those edits from July 15-18. And then, to have countless editors come onto the talk page to just complain, debate, stir up trouble without pointing to Wikipedia policy. It's a given that many people don't like the show. But that doesn't set the show apart from any other piece of content in recent years, at least per the reliable sources with which I am familiar. Most of the conflict that I have seen leading into the show is predetermined and self-inflicted, which is not fair. Of that percentage, most refused to back down from their stance as the show progressed, with only some switching over to either enjoy the show or present legitimate criticisms (examples of actual positive or negative criticism include acting, direction, cinematography, score, production design, etc.). But my assessment means nothing apart from reliable sources, so it just so happens that everything I am aware of lines up with what I have found to be true from personal experience.

At the end of the day, this show is an adaptation. It doesn't replace Tolkien's work for anybody. It is someone's vision of a story that can be told in the Middle-earth sandbox, and some will like that and some won't. Adaptations of written works are always going to change things, and general outrage over that general concept is just not that notable in the grand scheme of things. In this case, the showrunners said that this is not intended to be a documentary of the Middle-earth, so most criticism stems from a failure to recognize that point and instead treat the show as some direct assault dancing on Tolkien's grave. In many ways, that is feigning victimhood. As I have said ad nauseam, there are legitimate criticisms that a person can express, but some of the things that I have seen are either outright wrong (racism, etc.) or beyond the current scope of the article (general lore discussions).

I'm rambling at this point. I hope this finally shows you the missing piece of context. TNstingray (talk) 13:44, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.

I have had a quick look at the diffs and the first group (15-18 July) are certainly vandalism, and offensive, but not racist. They are having a rather clumsy (and in a wholly inappropriate manner) blast at the agenda of the show makers. The "racial" references in the group are obviously sarcastic hyperbole and apart from the obscenity are not much different to statements from the show makers and cast (actually, no, including the obscenity from cast). The other one from 18 July is a bit of vandalism while the two on 22 July are not even clearly vandalism - they probably are, but are not clearly so. I did look through the ENTIRE page history (from present back to its creation AND from its creation forward to the present). As I said, I saw the vandalism, but I was looking for racism - I simply didn't count instances of people who were clearly attempting to highlight the show-makers' racist approach. I also noticed Flying tiger, and again the manner was abrasive but I didn't see racism or trolling. This may not be pleasant to be told, but I think that when people use the term "woke" in that way, or similar epithets, you therefore assume or at least expect a bunch of "ist" and "phobe" behaviours and therefore you see them. You certainly did that with me, and I don't even use those epithets. I am not trying be accusing here. Just trying to point out what I see from behind my own face. The fact is, anyone with a passing interest in the show and awareness of the events around it who reads the article is bound to notice how unbalanced it is and how little it represents reality. Hopefully, such people would take to the talk page (as many did, including myself) and not just dive in and vandalize the article to make a point.

I have seen/read several comparisons of the way ROP has handled diversity with the way GOT and HOTD have done so. In GOT and HOTD there is diversity, but people from the same region and society tend to look the same whereas people from different regions and societies tend to look different. Basically like reality before the jet age. I know you see the intra-familial and intra-provincial diversity as rational and sensible, but most would not because of the technological setting. It would have been fine (at least to me and those I speak with) to have Arondir's "people" (yes, let's assume some grouping of Moriquendi) to be dark skinned. That would have made a lot more sense that he being the ONLY dark-skinned elf in the show. Likewise any given family of Hobbits. Likewise the differences between Inziladun and Miriel and between Elendil and Isildur. This is a sea-faring race living very remotely from the rest of Man and considering other Men to be "lesser". They should all look "ethnically" similar (I dislike the use of "race" because the concept of human races is an artificial construct - they don't exist).

Yes, I would consider the show a direct assault on Tolkien. My opinion is that AP paid the vast sum essentially for naming rights to leverage the existing huge and passionate fanbase but it was exactly that - the huge and passionate fanbase, which blown up in their face (or not, if you subscribe to the notion of "fan baiting"). For a start Middle-Earth is not anyone's sandbox. Tolkien made that very clear. Shippey said (of this specific show) that the show would not be permitted to contradict Tolkien. He was fired, ostensibly for giving the interview in which he said that, and the show contradicts Tolkien (seriously, there is hardly a people group or Tolkien-originated character in the show where the show does NOT contradict Tolkien). The fact is, the criticism that the show has disregarded Tolkien because they prioritize a messaging agenda is a valid criticism. What is not valid is dismissing that criticism by labelling it racist in order to shut down discussion. The fact is, the show is titled after Tolkien's work and has characters with names that Tolkien created so it is reasonable for people to compare. Once Christopher Tolkien retired, it was left to the rest of the Tolkien Estate to protect Tolkien's legacy and since it became plain to Tolkien enthusiasts that they have no interest in doing that (note the dates of Christopher's retirement and the assigning of rights to Amazon Prime), the "fan" base itself has taken that up.

I really really must steel myself and avoid looking at the article at all for some time. It is what it is and will be what it will be.

The whole thing has raised something in my awareness, though, which I think will need to be addressed at some point. Some professional critics are considered reliable while others are not, and audiences/viewers/readers are generally not. The problem is, the reason for ruling out "consumers" should apply to pro critics as well (the ease of gaming - the difference only being who is doing the gaming). Free-lancers should probably be top of the food chain here. Take Forbes, "Senior Contributors" are considered not reliable due to being self published when in fact the are contracted to and published by Forbes. That is not for tackling within article space though. LowKey (talk) 00:29, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, we agree these edits are offensive vandalism, but it is still very much racist in nature, hyperbolically expressing the issues with the show as specifically stemming from their non-whiteness. That is very different than anything that I am aware the show-runners and cast have said. Of course the people behind these IP addresses are trolls, but they are also made those conscious decisions to present that sort of message, framing any "opposition" in a negative light.

I must say that I completely agree with you about "race" as a concept. It is an artificial, social construct, and as such I prefer to consider other groupings; once could use "culture" or "ethnicity". Genetically, that is more accurate as well. I also agree with you that this show could have gone about diversity in different ways, ways that might make more sense based on our modern understanding of genetics. But they didn't, and I don't quite understand what is accomplished by zeroing in on that. Maybe there's in-universe, off-camera explanations. Maybe it's just stunt casting that violates population genetics. Maybe both of our perspectives have merit in some ways.

I recognize that Amazon as a company represents everything that Tolkien despised. Of course, Amazon's motive is to make money and tap into the wallets of a large, passionate community. Unfortunately, that is just the reality of the world we live in, and it is up to each individual how to navigate that tension. At this point, Middle-earth is just another property alongside Narnia, Westeros, and countless others. I completely understand wanting to preserve the author's intent, but the very nature of cinematic adaptation involves changing details to make different versions stand apart. And while Tolkien may be the greatest fantasy author, and one of the greatest creators to every live, he is not this inerrant third party that must never be contradicted. Of course, he is the definitive source when it comes to his own work, but you must admit that the religious fervency can be a bit ridiculous. I hope my point is clear on that. We can fairly disagree on the nature and extent of adaptation, but to completely discredit work simply for the premise of making changes is an incredulous task.

Tom Shippey deserves a lot of respect for defending the lore, as he is currently a (if not the) leading authority on Tolkien's work. But I must ask, what messaging agenda has there been in the show? I'm not aware of anything. Tolkien wrote strong female characters, so that can't be it. If "fans" think that this is an assault on Tolkien and liberal political propaganda simply because of the skin color of some of the actors, then frankly they have way too much time on their hands, and in my mind that actually denigrates Tolkien by association. If Tolkien's world is as fragile as some "fans" think that it is, to where the whole thing falls apart if one actor's skin produces just slightly too much melanin in the wrong area of the world, then that stands to be a pretty poor world indeed. I think his work is much stronger and richer than that, and I think there is so much room for more stories to be told and for people to see themselves in this wonderful legend.

At the end of the day, The Rings of Power introduces more people to Tolkien. I know of people who are interested in reading The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings, after watching the show. I know of general movie-first fans who have come back to a general love of Tolkien after they were distanced by The Hobbit films. We all have our individual opinions, praises, and criticisms regarding entertainment. Tolkien's legacy remains completely intact, maybe even better than before thanks to a fresh new wave of fans. At the end of the day, this is a story being told in the Middle-earth sandbox, adjacent to his directly inspired works. It is its own thing; it will come and go, and we will all respond to it differently. When it comes to Wikipedia, we record: what makes this subject encyclopedically valuable? Is it general, commonplace fan discontentment? Well, that was part of it, and there were notable aspects, hence dedicated sections to the casting backlash. But the intrinsic facts behind the show itself are what deserve the most spotlight, apart from editorial bias. The article is not an Amazon mass-produced strawman; it is a work in progress that tries to assign due weight to the multidimensional facets of the world in which we live. TNstingray (talk) 03:25, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Last bit first, I agree that the article should be about the show rather than about how it compares to Tolkien's writing. I think "stunt casting" is probably a good description, and also probably what most affronts those complaining. Disa the Dwarven Princess is probably a good example, mostly because of marketing around the character and because of the actor's one [shrill] note in every interview. No talk of the setting, the world, Tolkien, or anything like that but lots and lots and lots of talk of representation and redressing balances. Once the show started, many who had seemed to most hate that character (or maybe just hated hearing about the character) described the character as one of their favourites. Likewise the "influencers" who Amazon called "super fans" of Tolkien, none of whom had publicly shown any interest in Tolkien before or after, and whose ignorance was on display in their video, as was their entire standard of only measuring whether they were physically represented.

Many of those objecting to the "leftist political propaganda" were specifically pointing out that Tolkien had indeed written strong female characters, and the show was deleting what made them strong. It was never, in anything I came across, an issue of being simply the skin colour of some of the actors, but about Amazon making so much of their marketing about (and therefore advertising their motives as being about) physically representing specific characteristics regardless of aptness to the setting or story. The criticisms were also far from solely focused on this but included many other aspects, all of which have been largely swept under the rug by Amazon under a loud catcall of "RACISM!".

I still disagree about the vandalism being racist. The show makers made a point of saying they chose cast for specific "ethnic" representation - and the vandalism was following suit. If the vandalism is racist, may as well admit the AP are racist. We won't likely agree on that.

If you have missed the messaging agenda in the show, then I think I shan't spoil that for you. You are to be envied rather than "corrected".

I would recommend theonering.com (NOT .net) for both some good Tolkien stuff and 2-speed reviews- as "Tolkien" and just as a show.

Tolkien would correct you for calling him a "creator" and insist that "sub-creator" is the correct term. ;) LowKey (talk) 04:35, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I meant to mention, I don't understand how "seeing oneself" in a fictional work requires a physical match, and why skin tone needs to be the thing matched. To me that is what seems to be a "racist" approach. Indeed, why is skin tone a demarcation between cultures? Both light skinned peoples and dark skinned peoples, and peoples in between, are numerous. Why should some measure of lightness or darkness be any kind of threshold between "us" and "them"? I just don't get it, I guess.

Take Hobbits, for example (as indeed, both in There and Back Again as well as in The Lord of the Rings, hobbits are the main protagonists). They are peaceful but adaptable folk who look little like anyone real (although; I have a brother who comes close enough that he was nicknamed "Bilbo" at school) but are eminently relatable. If they are physically portrayed as generally like Tolkien described them, then everyone still should be able to identify the same. Once they are "cast" into some physical characteristic at odds with the written description in order to "represent" some group, then everyone outside that group has been excluded. It is a mindset that claims to be against racism, but employs deep assumptions of profound racism in everybody, particularly the groups they are trying to represent. That is a pretty depressing world view.

It could be because I am much more a reader than a viewer. In written works, the physical description is merely that; description. What one identifies with are the motives, choices, struggles etc of the characters. LowKey (talk) 06:05, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I actually agree with many of the points that you are saying. You probably aren't going to believe this, but I used to be pretty close to where you are now regarding the show and Tolkien in general, though you certainly seem to have a deeper knowledge and understanding than I do. The slow trickle of news was concerning to me, and I was thoroughly disappointed by the first few teasers. Then, I don't know, the second trailer won me over I guess, once I recognized it for what it was, and that's pretty much where I have stayed as the show has unfolded.

Personally, I might not understand the "seeing oneself" in a fictional world either, since as I have repeatedly indicated, I get attached to characterization first and foremost. Maybe that's because my entire life has been saturated by "white" leads, and I take it for granted. I can't speak for the experiences for others. To me, it is just a fact that their approach has been a gateway to Tolkien for many newcomers. I fully understand what you are saying about population genetics and affirmative action-type casting, but I guess it just doesn't bother me at the end of the day. Arondir is a non-canonical character who is an Elf, and I don't need to have his entire lineage traced out to confirm that their is genetic consistency in order to buy into those basic facts. In the era of the superhero multiverse, maybe this sort of change just doesn't bother mainstream audiences.

If you have watched any of the show, I am genuinely curious to hear what you consider to be political messaging. TNstingray (talk) 14:37, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Very broadly, for one thing the particular brand of feminism presented by; changing the actual roles of Galadriel and Miriel as well as the roles of others around them; presenting Galadriel in particular as "powerful" or "independent" or something by making her militarized, militant, and frankly shrill and being the ONLY person who supposedly knows what's going on. Any named female character (except 1 of whom I am aware) is the pinnacle of authority in their sphere and subject to influence/command by nobody else. Portraying almost all named male characters as acting only by the will of a female character or acting in a way that is evil. Portraying Numenoreans as xenophobic and that in a petty way. Seriously, their objections to elves being "they will take our jobs" was particularly hamfisted (aside: I think when that whole thing was written it was set in a tavern or something, but for such an expensive show there seems to be a lack of appropriate sets as this was then all acted out in the streets. Likewise the sword training seemed to be done at the market instead of in a barracks - this I think is stuff that lends to the "pantomime" and "cheap stage theatre" perceptions.) Numenoreans were essentially super-human, even exceeding the elves in many areas, and not fearful of anyone. They became jealous of the elves' immortality and access to Valinor, not fearful that Elves would effect their economy. This switch would seem to be to move narrative away from Numenor's wickedness being disobedience of Eru Iluvatar and rejection of their ordained role in Arda and instead being a parody of the perception of "conservative" xenophobia and classism/racism. There is more, but this is what came to mind from the small amount I have watched. LowKey (talk) 00:36, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, see this article (it was pre-launch so is relevant to "casting backlash"). Or this post-launch LowKey (talk) 00:39, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting points. Galadriel is a character that I have gone back and forth on over the course of the show. Her journey in the show is definitely incomplete, and I wonder how she will be perceived once she has reached a more familiar place as portrayed in Tolkien's literature. In the context of the show, later episodes indicate that Gil-Galad did know or at least suspect what was going on with the Enemy, and he believed that Galadriel (in this show) would only make things worse. Recall the quote, "The same wind that seeks to blow out a fire may also cause its spread." I do wish that Elrond was more in the know due to his gift of foresight in canon.

Feminism in this show is generally definitely a different brand than the female characters written by Tolkien or adapted by Jackson, but really the only example so far where I consistently take issue is Bronwyn, where I wasn't convinced in her ability as a commander since they spent so much screen-time establishing the village's distrust of the Elves, and of her by extension. Galadriel as a military commander doesn't bother me at the moment (though I definitely look forward to her evolution into the Lady of Lórien), and neither does Míriel as a strong leader.

Generally portraying the Númenóreans as xenophobic also doesn't bother me, as I recognize that they were a proud, isolated people. It doesn't seem to be too much of a stretch. We know that Ar-Pharazôn is later corrupted by Sauron, so I think this just helps set that up, and I actually read it as intentionally petty and ham-fisted. Like, of course this is a ridiculous concern, but it still holds so much power when presented by such a politician.

For better or for worse, these are just changes, and I don't see them as political messaging to be threatened by. I guess I'm just content seeing the show do its own thing in its own corner. TNstingray (talk) 02:37, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The messaging isn't threatening. It is however, clear intentional allegory. Despite the writers saying multiple times that everything they do is in the spirit of Tolkien, they have intentionally inserted allegory into this work. Tolkien's I cordially dislike allegory in all its manifestations... in one of his most famous non-fictional quotes, and it is amazing how many times he mentions it in the negative in his letters. This shows that they really have no respect at all for the man or his work. I do respect both, so have avoided sending any money from my pocket to theirs. I really wish the show had done its own thing in its own corner. They should have just made up their own world entirely. There would still be nothing wrong with playing with Tolkien themes or openly crediting Tolkien as inspiration. The man created the modern fantasy genre and there is hardly an author within it who could claim to NOT have been inspired by or even borrowed from his work. Still, it is better than if it had had the "Marvel treatment". In my opinion, the Tolkien Estate should be abjectly ashamed and should all resign. Tolkien explicitly had a caviat regarding allowing Americans into the creative space of his world; as long as it was possible (I should like to add) to veto anything from or influenced by the Disney studios (for all whose works I have a heartfelt loathing). Clearly that covers the MCU, but I think that "influenced" bit has been ignored by the Estate. One can only hope the show moves people to read actual Tolkien. I read a disturbing analysis of that, essentially that those who don't like the show might well like Tolkien but their dislike of the show might dissuade them, while those who do like the show might well find they don't like Tolkien due to the huge differences.

Having said all that, while I haven't a torch or pitchfork at the ready, I do understand those who are extremely upset about this whole thing. For me the aforementioned messaging and other casting issues would all be eminently tolerable if the rest was done well. Sadly, that does not seem to be the case, from what I have seen. (e.g. the great CGI establishing shots are ruined by the terrible CGI creatures; although maps are used extensively in the show, the writers seem to have no idea of time and distance. The hideous and horrible attempts at "high speech" which to me come off as something written in the back of somebody's high school notebook. The obviously CGI cloned villagers. Actually, I don't believe the budget has been anything like the numbers doing the rounds - too much seems to be suffering from being done on the cheap).

I would prefer that the article be about the show as much as possible and reference Tolkien's work as little as possible. Unfortunately, most of the criticism invokes Tolkien. LowKey (talk) 05:56, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And I guess I feel that the show is already doing its own thing in its own corner. We know the canon backstory for what actually happened in Tolkien's Second Age. This isn't threatening that or replacing that... I have always viewed adaptations as adjacent to. With that comes changes, some of which are detrimental to the source material and some that elevate it. For me, this show has some of both.

American cinema absolutely sees too much studio interference focusing on profit rather than creativity and originality, and Tolkien would definitely hate the world in which we live today. I also understand that it is safer to invest in pre-existing worlds and IPs. I definitely leans towards the former point, but unfortunately, that is something that isn't going to change anytime soon, unless we have another round of trustbusting presidencies.

the writers seem to have no idea of time and distance.. Absolutely fair point. Particularly when Elrond and Celebrimbor walked from Lindon to Khazad-dûm over the course of a conversation. That was bad, but maybe these Elves have super-speed :)

At the end of the day, the article has to fairly attempt to record the facts of the situation, and that includes presenting the show-runners' stated inspiration and foundation, even if that is inaccurate in the eyes of us Tolkien fans. At the moment, there's not really enough justification from policy or precedent to either 1) jump in and debate the lore, or 2) remove all of the references to Tolkien, because technically, doing the latter would be a misrepresentation of the show... even if the show is a misrepresentation of Tolkien in places. It's weird, I know. Hopefully there is room for a future Wikipedia article that highlights some of these differences like there is for the Jackson films. Wikipedia is a work in progress. TNstingray (talk) 13:52, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]