Talk:The Last Ringbearer

"More advanced"

piotrus (talk · contribs) reverted my removal of "Eskov's retelling of the Middle-earth story has been compared to how in our real historiography, for many centuries, the Middle East has been seen as backwards, despite the fact that for several centuries it was more advanced than the Europe of the Middle Ages" ([1]) and asked me to explain in more depth why. My original edit summary was "What sort of nonsense is this? The "dark ages" are regularly portrayed as backwards and, well, "dark". This is clearly someone's opinion, and it is stated as fact; restate as opinion if returned." I'm not sure what isn't clear about this, but my second removal reads "This is clearly someone's personal opinion and is not worded as such; WP:NPOV.".

Not only this, but the text doesn't even match up with the reference's claim. The Salon article used as a reference reads:

But the juxtaposition of the willfully feudal and backward "West," happy with "picking lice in its log 'castles'" while Mordor cultivates learning and embraces change, also recalls the clash between Europe in the early Middle Ages and the more sophisticated and learned Muslim empires to the east and south. Sauron passes a "universal literacy law," while the shield maiden Eowyn has been raised illiterate, "like most of Rohan's elite" -- good guys Tolkien based on his beloved Anglo-Saxons.

This is clearly a very general and poorly-informed (for example, at no point in their history were the Anglo-Saxons "illiterate", unlike what the writer implies, for example) opinion, and has no place being stated as fact. If the content is restored, it needs to reflect that it is the opinion of the writer. Further, it has long since been common for the muslim world during this period to get lip service, but for Europe during the (particularly early) medieval period to get put down as "backward" or "uneducated", despite the reality of the matter. There's a reason we don't use the term "dark ages" anymore; Greece and Rome were neither the beginning nor end of "civilization" in Europe. Personally, I lean away form a rewrite and towards it not being included, as the writer is not exactly a reliable source on the matter (as demonstrated by the Anglo-Saxons quip). :bloodofox: (talk) 07:05, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Translations

It would be nice if there was more info about different translations. It says it has been translated into different languages, but I can't find WHICH — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.179.150.218 (talk) 06:51, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Plot

The "plot" section doesn't say anything about the plot at all, other than a short gloss over each of the 4 parts. It should really be relabeled as "Setting" and then someone else can expand the plot properly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.148.149.77 (talk) 14:27, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Copyright infringement?

I'm not going to start an edit war. However, the supposition that the only source for the book in English is unauthorized, would seem to require more than specuation to justify its removal. Fatidiot1234 (talk) 17:36, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

It's not "speculation", the article itself asserts that it's a copyright violation, according to the general secretary of the Society of Authors. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 14:35, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

He is of course entitled to his opinion, but his standing as a legal authority is unclear. Nowhere is it even alleged that the Tolkien Estate, the real party in interest, has expressed an objecttion.

Furthermore, why are you upset about TLR, but nobody seems to mind Bored of the Rings, which has been making money since 1969? Fatidiot1234 (talk) 18:51, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Nowhere is it even alleged that the Tolkien Estate, the real party in interest, has expressed an objecttion. Uhh, that's completely false. Here's more info in support of the position, coming from the estates publisher David Brawn: "When you get something as popular as Tolkien, fans want to create new stories. Most are pretty amateurish. Tolkien himself isn't around so it's the estate's view that it's best to say no to everything. If you let one in, you'd open the floodgates." [2]

One, I checked out the BOTR article to see if there were any links to the actual text that needed to be removed, and there were none, as far as I could tell. Two, as a parody of LOTR, it may even qualify for fair use (though it's probably morally wrong, even if legally right, considering the Estate's stance on fanfics). --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 19:10, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

The Self- Appointed Wikipedia Morality Committee & Parody Classification Board strikes again! 68.173.8.191 (talk) 19:32, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Russian imperialism rationalization

Article misses the biggest reason of this book existence - portrayal of russian imperialism and its consequences as part of western propaganda. Book absolutely transparently implies that Russia is the Mordor and the West are elves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.155.11.2 (talk) 20:33, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Last Ringbearer/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: TompaDompa (talk · contribs) 12:27, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

I will review this. TompaDompa (talk) 12:27, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks very much! Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:32, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

General comments

• LiveJournal is a generally unreliable source for reasons of being WP:SELFPUBLISHED. It can only be used as a reliable source if the person posting there is a subject-matter expert (which I don't think applies to Markov) or WP:ABOUTSELF, which would basically only include translation details.

• Removed the non-ABOUTSELF uses of the ref.

• The article should probably mention the context of Russian reinterpretations of Tolkien's works such as The Black Book of Arda.[3][4]

• Added.

Lead

• Russian biologist Kirill Eskov – the sources mainly gloss Eskov as a paleontologist.

• Done, both appellations are fine. I note however that he has described a species of living spider.

• It has been translated into English by Yisroel Markov, but has not been printed for fear of copyright action by the Tolkien Estate. – the second clause only applies to the translation, right?

• Tweaked.

• Critics have stated that the book [...] certainly provides an alternate take on the story. – this phrasing seems to imply something that is left unstated. It oozes subtext, so to speak.
  • I've no idea what subtext that would be; for me it's a plain statement of fact.
    • "It's certainly different" is often a polite way of saying that something is bad. A euphemism, basically. I understand that it wasn't meant that way, but it will read that way to many people. TompaDompa (talk) 20:54, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
    • Maybe I just don't understand the point that this is meant to convey. If it's just critics agreeing with the author that it's an alternate version of the story, that seems rather banal. If it's that it is so different as to be interesting/novel/original, that could be made clearer. TompaDompa (talk) 21:46, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
      • Well, the article is in the Tolkien fold and as such is stated to be in British English; I imagine that this thread is a Brit/Yank language issue, and while we'd be fully entitled to keep it in pure Brit-speak, I've removed the "certainly" as not needed in this instance.

• New comment: I think the added Russian context (in the "Premise" and "Reception" sectoins) warrants a mention in the WP:LEAD. TompaDompa (talk) 21:51, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

• Added.

Premise

• a "history written by the victors" – I would link to Philosophy of history#Philosophy of neutrality, which History is written by the victors redirects to.

• Done.

• Eskov's version of the story describes Mordor as a peaceful constitutional monarchy on the verge of an industrial revolution – not really in the cited source.

• Replaced.

• whose attitude has been described by Saruman – "has been" should be "is".

• Done.

• and the racist Elves – racism isn't really a characteristic of the Elves discussed by the source.

• Removed the term.

Plot

• to eliminate the "educated" classes – it might be appropriate to link to Eliticide here.

• Done.

• Two Orc soldiers ("Orc" being a racial slur used by the West) – from what I can gather, the Orcs in this version are humans. That should be made explicit.

• Added.

• ("Orc" being a racial slur used by the West) – rather an WP:EASTEREGG, I think. Linking to Orc#Debated racism might be more appropriate than linking to Tolkien and race, but I don't know that this needs to be linked at all.

• Removed.

• Haladdin is chosen as he is a rare individual in whom there is absolutely no magic, and has a tendency to behave irrationally, for example joining the Mordorian army as a medic to impress his girlfriend and almost dying as a result, instead of putting his talents to better use at home in the university. – I'm guessing this has benefits in making him unpredictable to the Elves? It should be clarified.

• That's a question for the author, not us.

• Tangorn manages to arrange a meeting with the Elves in Umbar, while evading Gondor's efforts to eliminate him. He is killed – this produces something of a whiplash effect, going immediately from evading efforts to eliminate him to being killed.

• Tweaked with a little extra detail from the Byzantine plot.

• He is killed, which convinces the Elves to pass his message on to Eloar's mother – I do not at all understand how one leads to the other.

• I hope I've clarified this with the added detail.

• a Mordorian researcher developing flight-based weapons (under the secret patronage of Aragorn) – I'm confused about allegiances.

• Yeah, everybody's acting secretly on some side or other.

Publication

• It seems a bit odd that this section discusses the English-language translation in a fair amount of detail, and provides a list of other translations, but doesn't say anything at all about the original Russian-language version.

• Added.

• Several English-language publishing houses have considered undertaking a translation, but each has abandoned its plans due to the potential of litigation from the Tolkien Estate, which has a history of strictly objecting to any derivative works, especially in English. – this isn't (wholly) verified by either of the cited sources, and Markov wouldn't be a reliable source for this either way.

• Cut down; Miller does say "but fear of the vigilant and litigious Tolkien estate has heretofore prevented its publication in English." which certainly covers the key point.

• In 2010, Yisroel Markov translated the book into English, with a second edition released in 2011 fixing typos and revising the prose as well as providing ebook formatted versions – this is an appropriate use of an WP:ABOUTSELF citation to Markov, and to my eye the only one.

• Noted.

• The list of translations is unsourced, which I suppose is not a problem in itself since each translation is a WP:PRIMARYSOURCE for itself, but it makes me wonder whether a list of translations exists external to Wikipedia which would give us an indication as to the completeness of our list of translations.

• Agree, a bibliographic list of sources doesn't need further sourcing. I've checked with WorldCat.

Reception

• "Popular" doesn't seem the right word for the subheading here. Perhaps "Critical"?

• Done.

• the overly simplistic morality of Tolkien's masterpiece – since this is part of a quote, the link to Christianity in Middle-earth is inappropriate per MOS:LINKQUOTE as it may not have been what Miller had in mind.

• Removed.

• I would gloss the people quoted in the "Academic" subsection.

• Done.

• David Ashford describes the novel as a "splendid counter-factual fantasy", calling it the "most entertaining" and best-known retelling of its kind, despite Tolkien's direct statement rejecting any link between Orcs and Russia: "To ask if the Orcs 'are' Communists is to me as sensible as asking if Communists are Orcs." – this reads as a non sequitur. The necessary context that is missing here is what "of its kind" means.

• Glossed.

• Robert Stuart, discussing the question of Tolkien and race, comments that Eskov's book is "effective in critiquing the anti-modern dimension of Tolkien's ideological viewpoint", but concludes that one cannot equate Orcs to any group of humans. – I think this is too much of a stretch. Stuart says that the book is "purportedly a fine 'Orcs'-eye' view of Middle-Earth, and is evidently particularly effective [...]". In other words, Stuart hasn't read the book.

• I wonder. Tweaked.

• I'm missing coverage of the real-world geopolitical angle as it relates to Russia / the USSR. This is discussed by Miller, among others.[5]

• Added a bit from that source. Already mentioned Miller as saying that there are lumps of undigested Russian politics in there.

See also

• This is one of relatively few cases where I think glossing an entry in the "see also" section to clarify its relevance is definitely warranted.

• Annotated the link.

Summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   See my comments above.

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   See my comments above.

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   See my comments above.

   C. It contains no original research:

   See my comments above.

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   Earwig reveals no copyvio, and I didn't spot any instances of unacceptably WP:Close paraphrasing—summarizing what a critic such as Miller says about a work inevitably bears a fairly close resemblance to their original review, and I think this (just barely) falls on the right side.

   I'm glad we agree on that. There is a huge difference between using someone's words and closely following their argument in Wikipedia's voice (plagiarism), and documenting the logic of an attributed and cited critic's argument and their opinion in a way that gives the reader an insight into the critic's position. In the latter case, it is actually required that the text maps faithfully on to the critic's flow of argument.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   See my comments above.

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   There are no obvious neutrality issues.

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   The fair use rationale for the book cover seems valid to me, and the only other image is a freely licensed one.

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Ping Chiswick Chap. TompaDompa (talk) 16:08, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Alright, that takes care of all the issues that needed to be addressed. The article now meets all the WP:Good article criteria. Well done! TompaDompa (talk) 12:11, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Reception in Poland

If this goes to FA, do ping me - I'll add some form Polish press. Review in Gazeta Wyborcza (2002). This article in pl:Esensja also reviews some other similar works. There was a review in this niche magazine (zine?): [6]. Need to go trough Nowa Fantastyka too - likely relevant reviews/commentary in [7], [8]. [9], [10]. Two other reviws in pl:SFinks as listed here. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:55, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Piotrus: I think the article would need substantial further work to get to that point, but it would be fascinating to see what the Polish press had to say. Do go for it! Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:05, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

And in all honesty, I'd feel bad trying to get this to FA without an input from a Russian speaker. Maybe @Strecosaurus can help? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:09, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

As GA reviewer, I agree that it's a fair bit off from FA standards at the moment. A reasonable degree of confidence that the list of translations is complete (or else that a complete list would be too lengthy) would be necessary, for instance. TompaDompa (talk) 23:15, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

We may be getting a bit off topic here, but IMHO for FA-level article on non-English topic, it should be required to do a source review in a relevant non-English language. And yes, it may mean some topics may require a co-nom or cannot be finished at present. For example, if anyone were to write a FA about some Polish language work, I'd expect them to either be fluent in Polish and use both English and Polish sources, or seek a Polish-fluent co-author. I'd oppose Featuring of any such article that did not go through such a source analysis by default as obviously not comprehensive. I am curious what's the FA best practices - friendly ping for @SandyGeorgia thoughts? PS. To be clear, this is not something I'd expect from a GA, which I belive can be written reasonably well without relying on source language queries. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:05, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

I broadly agree. Per WP:NONENG, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones when they are available and of equal quality and relevance, and the rub is in the "when they are available and of equal quality and relevance". The level of detail provided in English-language sources isn't always of equal quality or nuance relative to what can be found in native-language sources. I would expect, at the FA level, that not all content found in native-language sources would necessarily be DUE, but at least an indication at FAC that a comprehensive source review had been undertaken and discussed should be demonstrated, and it is hard to imagine how that can be done without a native speaker (although this is not impossible and should not be strictly required). I base my response here less on my experience as former FAC delegate, and more on my editing experience as a Spanish speaker who lived many years in two Latin American countries and worked in all of Latin America and the Caribbean ... the English-language sources tend to gloss issues to the level of understanding of their readership. On the other hand, it's important that others participating know how to strictly evaluate the non-English sources from the high-quality source expectation at FAC (ala avoid cherrypicking). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:26, 28 June 2023 (UTC)