Talk:The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Casting backlash unbalanced

1) This section mentions "social media users complaining about these casting decisions". That's the entirety of the description of these complaints. The rest of this section is filled with quotes from people refuting these complaints, in many different ways and with different arguments. There is not one actual quote or even paraphrase to explain the substance of the complaints, with the exception of the "Evil is not able to create anything new..." quote (quoted from online users), which is dismissed as an incorrect Tolkien quote. This unbalance must surely be in violation of WP policies.

2) The quote mentioned above is described as "incorrectly attributed to Tolkien", making it seem like Tolkien has never said such a thing, while in fact he has expressed exactly that, using other words (e.g.: "Thus it was seen in Arda that the things made or designed by Melcor were never “new” (though at first he strove to make them so) but were imitations or mockeries of works of others.") But the main problem with the phrase "incorrectly attributed to Tolkien" is that it is itself not attributed to any source, but given as an editorial opinion, and as far as I understand it that is in violation of WP policies. 2001:4643:1480:0:4404:C985:A902:A718 (talk) 09:43, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

WP:NPOV is what you are looking for, but I don't agree that it applies here. Wikipedia should not give equal weighting to both sides of an argument, it should apply WP:DUEWEIGHT based on reliable sources. The vast majority of reliable sources discussing the casting backlash are very much against it, and these make up a big chunk of the responses to the series in general which is why a large section discussing it is appropriate. And it should be pointed out that the primary argument against non-white casting other than racism is the whole 'Tolkien was making a history for Britain' thing which is addressed in the second paragraph. Also, the third paragraph downplays how widespread these opinions are in the fandom. As for the quote, it has already been discussed at this talk page and consensus is that the wording used for it is correct. The "incorrectly attributed" phrase is not editorial opinion, it comes from the source directly after that information. But again, this has already been discussed above. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:07, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

And it should be pointed out that the primary argument against non-white casting other than racism is the whole 'Tolkien was making a history for Britain' thing which is addressed in the second paragraph. Actually, no that isn't the primary argument at all. There are two main arguments being consistently made; one is about non-white actors in roles for Elves and Numenoreans when Tolkien gave a physical description otherwise. The other is the reason for choosing those actors - which from the promotional material is clearly to fit a socio-political agenda (I am not commenting on the agenda itself, just saying that its existence and imperative comes up in criticism). I have certainly heard "Tolkien was creating an mythology for England" but only occasionally.

Also, the third paragraph downplays how widespread these opinions are in the fandom. That's a pretty huge generalization. I think you would find that what is widespread in Tolkien fandom is a love of Tolkien's work, which is axiomatic almost to the point of being tautological.

I agree the casting backlash section is unbalanced, but really can't see how it can be fixed right now. LowKey (talk) 11:21, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

(First of all, there was no third paragraph when I wrote my post.)

The section could be fixed by first stating the opinions that LowKey mentions, possibly also the "mythology for England/Britain" argument, and then going into the different sources that are against the backlash. It would be more tidy that way too.

I guess I shouldn't have said editorial opinion regarding the "incorrectly attributed" phrase. But it is stated as an encyclopedic fact, when it is actually misleading to say that it's incorrectly attributed to Tolkien, since it's a paraphrase of something Tolkien has said. Additionally, the source that follows that information does not say "incorrectly attributed"; it says the quote is "attributed to Tolkien" with an added footnote that it "appears to come from TV Tropes". That is not quite the same as emphasizing the so-called incorrectness, as this article does. In any case, should WP include misleading statements just because there is a "reliable source" saying it? (I would think not, but I'm genuinely not sure about the answer.)

I would actually say the same thing about the phrase "the fact that Tolkien [...] did suggest the existence of dark-skinned Elves". This "fact" is in fact incorrect, but it's not presented here as some writer's opinion, but rather as an encyclopedic fact. If the article instead said "and stating/claiming that Tolkien..." instead of "and the fact that Tolkien", it would be acceptable. 2001:4643:1480:0:4404:C985:A902:A718 (talk) 12:52, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

The opinions I relayed are from all over the place. Although there are a some sources reporting that the reviewing trend doesn't support the Amazon spin on it, I haven't seen the reports about the earlier casting backlash that give any real specifics. The above is my own experience, i.e. not encyclopaedic content. LowKey (talk) 13:30, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I started reading through the different "reliable sources" arguing against the backlash now, and it's amazing that almost none of them actually address the other side's arguments. Even the article called "Why are people so angry about the Rings of Power?" doesn't actually address that question at all, but instead talks about why nobody should be unhappy about the series. Maybe this should be mentioned in this WP article - that the people that are against the casting choices have been uniformly condemned by the media without actually mentioning these people's complaints? However, I did find something: The piece by Dimi in The Conversation mentions some complaints: "Some fans argue that Tolkien never described elves, dwarves or hobbits as anything but white, and claim that the casting is disrespectful to his books." She also mentions the thing about "a mythology for England". Btw, the comment section to that article has some very good arguments against it, most of them not written by racists or reactionaries, but by Tolkien scholars, leftists and thoughtful people. Too bad that none of those good arguments are brought into the mainstream media. 2001:4643:1480:0:4404:C985:A902:A718 (talk) 15:03, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

It is not Wikipedia's job to elevate the concerns of people widely deemed to be racist trolls. That is how the majority of reliable sources see it and we need to reflect that with WP:DUEWEIGHT regardless of our own personal opinions on the matter. - adamstom97 (talk) 19:52, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I have no idea how many of the negative reactions are from racist trolls. I concede there must be many. But those can surely just be waved away with no need to refute any of their points at all, although of course their existence should be mentioned. I'm talking about actual criticism with substance though, which there is also quite a bit of. Those arguments are actually what for instance Dimi, quoted as a source, are trying to refute. As such I thought it would be prudent to also include the actual arguments, to the extent that they can be found reported in "reliable sources" of course. (As I said, it's also noteworthy that these arguments are practically absent in the articles trying to refute them. They are out there though, written by non-racist non-trolls.)

The other problem, which might have gotten lost here, is the stating of untruths as encyclopedic facts, as I mentioned above. 2001:4643:1480:0:4404:C985:A902:A718 (talk) 20:24, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Actually, the people with concern are being widely acknowledged as NOT racist trolls, but you go right ahead pretending otherwise. Maybe you should apply Wikipedia:Fruit of the poisonous tree yourself as almost all of those "deeming" the reaction to be backlash from racist trolls (and really, either they are either racist or trolls, if you understand how trolls work) are simply uncritically repeating what the show makers have said in their own self-serving dismissal of the extreme negative response they have received. Have the article your way. Realistically, that was always going to happen anyway. LowKey (talk) 20:32, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Look, everyone is trying there best here. As editors, we are trying to abide by the spirit of various Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Are there racists who are attacking the show? Yes. Are there non-racist, general fans of Tolkien with legitimate criticisms of the show? Yes. Reliable sourcing mostly discusses the former at the moment, so that is what we discuss. This is (or should be) par for the course for any other article for a movie or TV show. It has been repeatedly stated that when these reliable secondary sources come out with actual criticisms of the show, we will include that information and maybe even spin it out into its own article. But so many editors just want to use this Wikipedia page as a platform to generally discuss likes and (mainly) dislikes about the series. That is inappropriate, and that is why it has been met with alleged hostility. It is exhausting having the same conversation over and over with people, ranging from actual trolling IP addresses to serious established editors, who refuse to listen to this core reality of Wikipedia editing because they just don't like the show or the coverage of the show. TNstingray (talk) 23:47, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you TNstingray, my thoughts exactly. We reflect the reliable sources, not the opinions of editors. I expected this sort of thing from inexperienced editors and IPs, it's very surprising how many experienced editors are coming here to vent their personal grievances with the show rather than trying to make a Wikipedia article that applies due weight to the available information. For instance, deleting any mention of the casting backlash from the lead when that is clearly a significant part of coverage for the show and for this article. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:52, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

No, you don't. You reflect a minority of sources seemingly cherry-picked for aligning with your bias. Currently the unbalanced lead is being justified because it has to match the unbalanced section, which will remain unbalanced because you insist on injecting your own unbalanced view ("not all fans are racists", indeed; and you can't even see what is wrong with that statement). You insist on being the arbiter of due weight and reliability, and insist that your own personal view is the "consensus". You even repeatedly recast criticism as either trolling, or now "personal grievances with the show" when in fact what you are seeing is the frustration of long-time and experienced editors with your conduct here. It is quite arrogant, as is someone with two years of editing insisting that they better know the "core reality of Wikipedia editing" than people with an order of magnitude more experience. Yes it is exhausting have the same conversation over and over. The fact that you are having this same disagreement over and over with a whole range of people including "serious established editors" should be a hint that maybe it is you that should question your assumptions. The two of you seem to share a blind spot that is distorting your views of what is reliable, what is due weight, even the motives of people who try to discuss and edit here. In fact your assumption of bad faith is possibly causing to over-correct; as if you see yourselves as protecting the article from attackers. You have collectively accused me of trolling and bad-faith multiple times - even my attempt to better understand the policy guides with you keep beating everyone about the head, that brought and accusation that I was looking for an excuse to scour the article for opportunities to inject my opinion. Your hostile, assume-bad-faith approach is caustic and toxic and leads good-faith editors to either become hostile themselves or give up on the article. As I am sure that this will make not one iota of difference, I think I need to choose the latter. I originally came here only looking for information but the stat of the article brought me out of WP-retirement to try to help, but I see now that genuine help is not welcome. LowKey (talk) 01:14, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

It is you who is cherry picking sources to suit your own bias. In the next section down you provided three sources that supported your own perspective on the series, two of which are unreliable and one that actually had a much more balanced view than you made it look. Were you surprised that I actually read it and added both positive and negative elements from it to the article when you had only selected the negative quotes for your comment? You are so blinded by your own feelings that you are projecting bias on to me. I am actually reading all of the reliable sources out there and working to make sure that this article reflects what they actually say, regardless of my own opinion on the series and on what the sources are saying. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:06, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Nonsense - I don't particularly have feelings about the show, unless you count abstract curiosity as a feeing. I do have thoughts, many of which you probably couldn't guess. My first quote of the first article, which I believe you did use, is neither positive or negative to either "side". I specifically included it because it is neutral. I included the other quotes because they demonstrate fact checking. If you don't like the facts they checked, that is your own lookout. Like I said, use them or not. LowKey (talk) 09:05, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

So far no one is even responding to my points though. I had one concrete example of a real criticism referred to in one of the sources already quoted here. Why not include that at least? This is the second time I repeat this. Also I have pointed out two errors, and nobody even responds to this. Is that "trying their best"? 2001:4643:1480:0:5454:4A8C:7A99:7377 (talk) 10:52, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I believe I have addressed your concerns with my latest edit here - adamstom97 (talk) 11:42, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, at least that's a start. I still think "incorrectly attributed" is more wrong than correct. 2001:4643:1480:0:5454:4A8C:7A99:7377 (talk) 11:50, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Also, while it's true that the quoted "reliable sources" mostly refer to all criticism as racist, most of them don't even quote or paraphrase what the objections are. There are a few that give more detail: Ben Sledge in The Gamer discusses and tries to refute the claim that all people in Northern/Western Europe were white, which is part of a real criticism made by non-racists. (But then he claims that the people making that argument are all racists.) Dimitra Dimi in The Conversation discusses and tries to refute the claim that Tolkien meant Elves, Dwarves and Hobbits to be white, and that Tolkien wanted to create a mythology for England (presupposing that England had mostly white people), which are all part of real criticisms made by non-racists. Adam Chitwood in The Wrap addresses the same arguments. Most of these sources don't actually present any evidence that these arguments are all based on racism. If you go to the actual criticisms found different places, you will see that indeed there are many racists, but you will also see that there are non-racist reasonable criticism. So I guess it comes down to the same as I asked before: Should WP include misleading or erroneous statements just because there is a "reliable source" saying it? 2001:4643:1480:0:5454:4A8C:7A99:7377 (talk) 11:52, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I actually found now, on this talk page, that a Mic.com article cannot be used since ITS source is just "people online", which is not a reliable source. Given this criteria, it seems to me that I have my answer: Most of the sources quoted here that talk about the racist backlash cannot be used as sources since they in similar fashion just refer to "certain quarters of Tolkien fandom", "some fans", "a lot of people", etc. etc. As I mentioned before, almost none of them refer to anything specific, and even those that do don't quote or link to anything that shows that it's based on racism. So if this is indeed how sources are deemed usable on WP, most of these need to be deleted. 2001:4643:1480:0:5454:4A8C:7A99:7377 (talk) 12:11, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

These are not "erroneous statements", they are commentary, analysis, and opinions that are shared by a majority of reliable sources. The whole point of this section is to reflect all of that discussion that is out there. The difference with the Mic source was editors wanted to use it to support a supposed fact that was coming from undisclosed "people online", not just to support commentary on general online responses. - adamstom97 (talk) 12:14, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm not talking about the part of the writing that is commentary, analysis and opinions. I'm talking about the claim that the critisisms are all coming from racists (which forms the premise for the commentary, analysis and opinions). That claim is erroneous, and it's not supported by anything other than referring to "a lot of people" making racist comments. 2001:4643:1480:0:5454:4A8C:7A99:7377 (talk) 12:42, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

That argument about mic.com was pretty neatly shot down by an editor of substantial standing and much experience (who also happens to be an admin). Only Adam is still making that argument. The narrative has been chosen, and what supports it reliable and what contradicts it is unreliable for 'reasons'. LowKey (talk) 20:42, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I see that. Adamstom97 is being inconsistent in his arguments.

I do wonder about the whole concept of "reliable sources". Many of the ones sited here have several factual errors. So why are they deemed reliable in this context? 2001:4643:1480:0:24:658A:6269:FF2E (talk) 11:47, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Could you name some of the factual errors? Or did you mean to say, "differences in opinions"? TNstingray (talk) 14:34, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

This article says: "Tolkien [...] did suggest the existence of dark-skinned Elves". The source, Dimitra Fimi (The Conversation) says: "there is some evidence of dark-skinned elves and hobbits in drafts of The Silmarillion and the prologue of The Lord of the Rings." In fact, there is no evidence of dark-skinned elves. The term "Dark Elves" refers to elves that had not seen the light of the holy trees.

The same source claims that Tolkien never intended to to create "a mythology for England". In fact he did intend that, or for "Britain and the hither parts of Europe" as he stated. This was also supported by Christopher Tolkien. (Fimi's argument [1] is that Tolkien abandonding the time travel device severs any link to a "mythology for England", but that device was removed by Chr. Tolkien as editor.)

As I have noted before, almost all of these sources claim that all the casting backlash is from racists, which is not true. 2001:4643:1480:0:5571:9297:6782:2E8B (talk) 14:06, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Remember that Tolkien's lore did not spring fully-formed from the head of Zeus. From the first inklings of the Silmarillion, things were very much in flux, and not the least because Tolkien continued engaging with actual medieval texts. I believe Shippey's text on "Dark Elves" was referenced above, but here it is again. Especially as to Eöl and his son Meglin (who is described as "swart"), there indeed are texts which suggest the possibility of dark-skinned elves. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 14:46, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

As far as I can find out, there is only that one reference, to Meglin, not to Eöl, as "swart", which is not defined further. That's in The Book of Lost Tales, which must be the "drafts of The Silmarillion" referred to by Fimi. So there is ONE reference in the "drafts of The Silmarillion" to ONE elf possibly having dark skin (and none in the "prologue of The Lord of the Rings"), but this is not very relevant: Note the connection to the light-elves and dark-elves of Snorri (see Shippey); dark-elves are there described as being blacker than pitch, but are in all likelihood dwarfs. In early texts, Tolkien wrote of "Dark Elves" without defining what they were. In this context Eöl was created, one of the Dark Elves. Tolkien did not in the end base his definition of Light and Dark Elves on color, but on those who had and those who had not seen the Light of the Two Trees. And in the published Silmarillion Meglin/Maeglin is described as having white skin. Had Tolkien instead used a definition of skin color, all Dark Elves would have dark skin. But he did not. To say "there is some evidence of dark-skinned elves" is highly misleading. 2001:4643:1480:0:5571:9297:6782:2E8B (talk) 16:58, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

As has been discussed ad nauseam, the individual interpretation of Tolkien's work by us Wikipedia editors doesn't matter. Who are we to speak for Tolkien? Wikipedia reports what has been stated by the show-runners and recorded by reliable secondary sources. TNstingray (talk) 17:02, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

I replied to what Dumuzid brought up, using the source he linked to (Shippey), not my interpretation. You asked for factual errors, I provided them. As can be seen, these "reliable" secondary sources are using their own individual "interpretations" that are actually not always correct. But you don't really seem to be interested. 2001:4643:1480:0:5571:9297:6782:2E8B (talk) 19:47, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Regarding the actual content of this article, Shippey's comments really don't and can't apply because he was not discussing this show. My point was that this conversation has shifted into WP:FORUM and WP:SYNTH. While I may personally align with Shippey as a Tolkien scholar more than the show-runners, we must record everything properly in the context of the show. TNstingray (talk) 21:16, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Again, I replied to your question about factual errors. You thought maybe I was talking about "differences in opinions" instead, but as you can see I was not. In my comment that you responded to I was wondering why these sources are deemed reliable in this context when they contain such errors. These "reliable" sources contain factual errors in the argument they are making about this show; they are addressing the objections to the casting choices on the basis of _Tolkien's work_. When they are wrong about Tolkien's work, and thereby wrong on their arguments, that is not relevant because the subject of Tolkien's work is not related to the show? This seems very strange. 2001:4643:1480:0:E83D:C131:5044:DF8D (talk) 08:30, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Also, as I have noted many times, they are wrong in saying that all casting backlash is from racists. We can see this for ourselves if we go to various forums. I know that those forums are not "reliable sources" and so can't be used here. But it's another example of how the sources that are deemed reliable are demonstrably wrong. 2001:4643:1480:0:E83D:C131:5044:DF8D (talk) 08:33, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

@TNstingray you keep saying that things said before this show existed don't and can't apply to the show. I really don't know if this is simply ingenuous or if you truly don't understand applicability. LowKey (talk) 02:52, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Scholarly discussion on Tolkien's writings belong on the articles about Tolkien's writings. To pull those out of that context to generally converse about the subject matter of the show would be inappropriate. I may be missing some of the context here, as this conversation concluded almost two weeks ago. TNstingray (talk) 20:41, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

You will find that almost none of the conversations here conclude at all. Generally people just give up because reason is ineffective.

The context is that this article about the show makes statements about Tolkien's writings which are inaccurate, or out-of-context fragments presented as saying something other than Tolkien was saying (the practice commonly called quote-mining). Whenever somebody points out in the context of this article's statements about Tolkien's writings that Tolkien's writings say something different, you almost invariable respond with saying either that Tolkien could not have been talking about this particular show and therefore such discussion is irrelevant, or like above you say that discussion of Tolkien's writings belongs in articles about Tolkien's writings, when it is the discussion of Tolkien's writings in THIS article that is already the issue that people are trying to address. You have stated that you are massive Tolkien fan. Frankly, I find that incredibly hard to believe because you think it is fine for this article to misrepresent Tolkien's writings and to repeat uncritically such known and plain misrepresentations. You say above "who are we to speak for Tolkien?" when the article already does that, and counter to what Tolkien has already said speaking for himself and his work. When I was trying to get this article on track to being about the show rather than presenting a persistently favourable comparison of the show to Tolkien's work, the was a huge, aggressive and frankly abusive resistance to removing references to Tolkien's work. On the other hand, whenever somebody else references Tolkien's work to show it is being misrepresented, you argue against presenting at all (although it is already presented in the article, inaccurately). I mostly stayed away. But the season is now more than half over, and when I look for ROP news online the absolute best I can find is drily neutral, while more and more critics complain about almost any given aspect of the show. News is coming out about Amazon purging 1 star reviews, only to restore them (or appear to) when the action becomes public knowledge. The article still speaks of review bombing, which on Amazon Prime is technically not even possible (they have actual verified details of every account, and reviews can only be left after viewing the episode on AP's platform). The article still has a lengthy "casting backlash" section which is a complete misrepresentation but is maintained this way because only sources in agreement with the chosen polemic of the article are accepted as reliable. Even then discussions about what is reliable establish that a source can indeed be considered reliable, it is still kept out of the article and still called unreliable. Conversely sources are considered "reliable" because they are considered reliable, even if they are making statements that are both outside of their area of reliability and demonstrably false. This article is well placed to become exactly the kind of laughing stock that ROP is becoming. LowKey (talk) 22:36, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm going to respond on the bottom of this section to condense the conversation into one place. TNstingray (talk) 01:12, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

UPE babble aside, it goes without saying that scholarly discussion with respect to Tolkien's writings (and Tolkien's writing itself, I will add) are entirely appropriate and fundamental resources for any article documenting the facts of a series based on Tolkien's writings. 1-jVX-9 (talk) 00:02, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

If you are being paid to edit this page, you really should declare your conflict of interest. It is only proper. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 00:04, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

If you are analyzing them as a primary source, or a secondary source not discussing the show, then no, they are not entirely appropriate. TNstingray (talk) 00:46, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

When THIS ARTICLE compares the show to Tolkien's writing - either the comparison itself is already inappropriate or it is entirely appropriate to reference scholarly discussion about the same aspect of Tolkien's writing. For example - Tolkien wrote at length about his concerns regarding a screen adaptation that compresses his timeline and was quite specific and detailed about the detriments of that to his stories, characters and world. While the letter was indeed about a different show, his concerns as expressed are certainly applicable, particularly when the showrunners expressly stated their intent to compress the timeline and asserted that their show was "Tolkienian". LowKey (talk) 22:44, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

@LowKey. Thank you for your thoughtful response. I sincerely appreciate your shared passion and enthusiasm for Tolkien's great works.

This article attempts to reflect the direct context surrounding the production of the show The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power. That is why we include commentary from show-runners, actors, critics, etc. In the same vein, this is why we do not delve into scholarly debate within the article, because such content falls into one of two categories: 1) WP editor opinion, or 2) out-of-context quotes from true scholars like Tom Shippey and others. At least, to my knowledge and recollection, that is what has been presented thus far. So, I think there has been a well-meaning attempt on my part, and particularly the main editors who have worked the most on this page, to reflect what those involved with the show actually said and from where they drew their inspiration and reasoning. To argue whether or not they were taking Tolkien out of context or not is inappropriate original research on our part. That's the distinction that is and should be made, based on the understanding I currently hold regarding Wikipedia's general guidelines.

It has been briefly discussed that a separate article be made to discuss differences between this show and Tolkien's lore if quality sources are written, as is the case for the Peter Jackson films. I believe this may still be WP:TOOSOON, but it is something to think about.

I genuinely understand wanting an adaptation to faithfully represent the source material. However, every adaptation ever created has made changes in order to stand apart from the original and its fellow adaptations. This is the norm, and Tolkien has never been exempt from this. Generally speaking, I am not aware of this sort of thing being discussed throughout Wikipedia, though I could be wrong and there could be exceptions. Even so, this show is not based on a definitive work of Tolkien like The Lord of the Rings or The Hobbit. Maybe Tolkien's concerns about timeline compression are worthy of mention, but we would need a reliable source to include that information, not synthesis on our part as editors (I must note that timeline compression is nowhere discussed on The Lord of the Rings (film series), though this is not sufficient reasoning for or against its inclusion here). "Tolkienian" merely means that something relates to Tolkien and/or his writings, which the show is.

I hope you can understand where I am coming from. You have stated that you are massive Tolkien fan. Frankly, I find that incredibly hard to believe because you think it is fine for this article to misrepresent Tolkien's writings and to repeat uncritically such known and plain misrepresentations. I'm sorry that you feel this way about me, but I must assure you that this is an inaccurate assessment of me, my character, and my purpose in editing this page. I hold Tolkien in high esteem, though perhaps I am not as experienced a scholar as you, having only read three of his Middle-earth works (The Lord of the Rings, The Hobbit, and The Silmarillion) and one translation (Sir Gawain and the Green Knight). At the end of the day, my "mission" on this page is to still fairly represent both Tolkien and those involved in making this show, as different as they sometimes may be. I am always willing to reasonably discuss specific changes to the article, but I hope I have adequately explained the general framework when it comes to approaching this subject matter based on the spirit of Wikipedia policy. If others would like to jump in and elaborate on areas where I missed something or misrepresented something, please do so.

Namárië

TNstingray (talk) 01:53, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

I truly think you miss what I am saying. The article has made definitive statements about Tolkien's works. It has used the showrunners etc as the source, but the article has not presented this as the showrunners position but simply accepted the showrunners (for example) as reliable sources for Tolkien's work. This is what I tried to have removed, and after a huge amount of work managed to get, what, 1 small edit remaining unreverted and 1 or 2 other small edits made by someone else. When the article references something as coming from Tolkien, then it is appropriate to use actual reliable secondary sources to demonstrate what comes from Tolkien. As to including commentary, this has been very selective. There has long been quite a lot of detailed and informed commentary criticizing many aspects of this show, but very little of this is reflected in the article beyond using one or two passing references that are just barely more than strawmen. They are invoked briefly and followed by a string of counter claims to hammer the bejeebers out of them. That is why there are repeated complaints about various aspects of the article being unbalanced. It does not reflect the balance of the discourse in the real world. I would say Shippey is a perfectly good example of a source who should be considered well reliable for reference in this article, since the show's creators hired him as a reference for the show. As to a reliable source for Tolkien's concerns about screen adaption, they are in the letters (available through a reliable secondary source). In fact the article implies that the letters support the showrunners' approach, mostly because it relays the showrunners' own statements claiming this. the fact is, based on the amount of valid criticism available soundly refuting and criticizing these statements (and others) from the showrunners, I would say there is a very strong case for not considering them any kind or reliable source for Tolkien. (e.g. they have repeatedly stated how well they know Tolkien's world and peoples yet say that Harfoots are proto-Hobbits in direct contradiction of Tolkien).

I would hardly be considered an experienced scholar. I am a passionate and avid reader of Tolkien (I dislike the term "fan" but I admit I sound more and more fanatical about Tolkien as I get older). I am very familiar with the "big three" having until the last few years read them each every year. I have read many of the letters (one of my favourites has Tolkien suggesting elven names for a breeder's cattle) , and some of his other fiction and theological works. I would recommend The Children of Hurin, but only if you are prepared to read a tragedy (some people strongly dislike not having a happy ending).

I would happy for this article to not represent Tolkien at all, but merely represent the show. From what I have read of the latest couple of episodes, it can not really be compared to Tolkien's legendarium so much as contrasted with it, which is not really the function of an article about this show. Honestly, remove Tolkien's language from the show (mostly place and character names, as well as maybe stuff like "mithril") and little to connect it at all. The named characters and places have very little connection to their namesakes in backstory or attributes. LowKey (talk) 03:23, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Could you provide specific examples for where you feel Tolkien is misrepresented in this article? After (quickly) rereading the article, consider:

• These events take place over thousands of years in Tolkien's original stories but are condensed for the series.
• The series shows the character's journey from a warrior to the "elder stateswoman" that she is portrayed as in Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings. The showrunners based her initial depiction in the series on a letter in which Tolkien described a young Galadriel as being of "Amazon disposition".
• The character is mentioned in Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings in a poem called "The Fall of Gil-galad", and Walker said the series would expand on that.
• Tolkien's estate was prepared to veto any changes from his established narrative, including anything that contradicted what Tolkien wrote in other works. The writers were free to add characters or details, and worked with the estate and Tolkien lore experts to ensure these were still "Tolkienian". They referenced letters that Tolkien wrote about his works and mythology for additional context on the setting and characters. Simon Tolkien, a novelist and the grandson of J.R.R. Tolkien, consulted on the series and helped develop its story and character arcs. He is credited as a "series consultant". The showrunners disagreed with suggestions that the series was only "vaguely connected" to Tolkien's writings. McKay said they felt it was "deeply, deeply connected" and a "story we're stewarding that was here before us and was waiting in those books" to be told. A disclaimer is featured in the series's end credits stating that some elements are "inspired by, though not contained in, the original source material".
• The biggest deviation made from Tolkien's works, which was approved by the estate and lore experts, was to condense the Second Age from thousands of years to a short period of time. This avoided human characters frequently dying due to their relatively short lifespans, and allowed major characters from later in the timeline to be introduced earlier in the series. The showrunners considered using non-linear storytelling instead, but felt this would prevent the audience from emotionally investing in the series. They said many real-life historical dramas also condense events like this, and felt they were still respecting the "spirit and feeling" of Tolkien's writings.
• Tolkien's writings state that the Hobbits were not known during the Second Age, so they chose to explore the Harfoots instead, saying they were "satisfyingly Hobbit-adjacent".
• The early marketing material led to a "cacophony" of online fan discourse, including concerns about accuracy to the source material and the series's compression of Tolkien's Second Age timeline.
• Star Lenny Henry revealed in October 2021 that he and other people of color had been cast as Harfoots, which was explained with Tolkien's description of the Harfoots as being "browner of skin".
• Sledge acknowledged the argument that Tolkien had hoped to create a mythology and fictional history for Britain in his writings, but said the assumption that all people in Britain's history were white was not historically accurate and did not apply to a fantasy story anyway...Tolkien often did not discuss the biology of his characters but did suggest the existence of dark-skinned Elves in drafts of The Silmarillion.

I fail to see where Tolkien is misrepresented through definitive statements. This article is not intended to be a forum for general discussion of what Tolkien meant versus what he didn't, but either way, it seems that his material and the differences from it are presented fairly, though specific examples may be helpful.

Tom Shippey's early work as a reference for the show do not automatically make all of his previous work and commentary game for inclusion in this article. Doing so would delve into WP:FORUM and WP:SYNTH concerns of taking things an author said and making them apply to a different context.

I truly feel that you are missing the point of the Harfoot quote. This Harfoot tribe is presented as a proto-group to the Hobbits we are familiar with. Who's to say that the Stoors and Fallohides won't also show up in the show? This show takes place in the Second Age, so we could very well get a Sméagol cameo in later seasons. But maybe that is my interpretation, but your view is also your interpretation, and that means we are stuck and can only present what the show-runners said, which is what we should be doing anyway as Wikipedia editors. TNstingray (talk) 12:20, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

LowKey, I understand your frustration with editing this article, and it has been quite something. That said, it would be much easier if you could present some concrete changes you'd like to make rather than more general critiques--for instance, I can't tell if your proposals would veer into WP:OR territory, but as particularized, they might not. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 13:19, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

@Dumuzid I tried with very small very specific changes and was rebuffed quite soundly, along with more than one accusation of trolling, and of wanting to remove anything "positive" about the show from the article, and more than one invitation to leave. To at this stage imply that I had not been presenting concrete changes is rather, well, baffling to say the least. I suggested structural changes (i.e. not even content changes) and explained why, and met with a similar reception. It truly feels like being gamed.

@TNstingray Concerning Hobbits, Tolkien's writings state more than "not known during the Second Age". Tolkien specifically wrote of his earlier-set works, "no Hobbits." He was speaking of the exact issue the showrunners spoke of - essentially the popularity of the Hobbits and the tone they brought to the work (as well as the whole happy ending thing). He stated this three separate times. The first was when the success of LOTR gave him hope of having works on the 1st and 2nd ages published and applied to both the 1st and 2nd ages of Middle Earth. He also said it twice more. On of those was specifically referencing the tale of the silmarils, but the other he quite specifically said of the whole of the history of Arda before the 3rd age, "there are no Hobbits." You say that the article presents Harfoots as a proto-group to the Hobbits that we are familiar with - but that is misrepresenting what the showrunners said. They specifically said "not Hobbits", and the article quotes "satisfyingly Hobbit-adjacent". This is quite explicitly the show's workaround for there being no Hobbits at the time. According to Tolkien Hobbits existed as a people before Harfoots, so if there were no Hobbits pre-3rd age, there were no Harfoots either. Likewise, Smeagol - who was some 500-600 years old by the end of the 3rd age, so was born some 2400-2500 years AFTER the 2nd age ended with Sauron's defeat by the Last Alliance (also, he was a Stoor, so again a regular Hobbit). The fact that the article includes the word "instead", ie Harfoots instead of Hobbits, shows the misrepresentation. Tolkien could have added Hobbits earlier, but did not.

(Oh, and "dark elves" did not mean "dark-skinned elves" - it referenced that they never saw the light of the Trees - yes that is me disagreeing with a secondary source, so couldn't go in the article based on that; nonetheless this point has been made by other sources).

The article says that the showrunners "referenced letters that Tolkien wrote about his works and mythology for additional context on the setting and characters." They quoted 1 portion each from two letters. One was to justify their misrepresentation of Galadriel as a warrior. The other was to justify making up their own stories in Middle Earth, by claiming that Tolkien was in favour of this. That quote-mine in-particular should be highlighted and contrasted with what Tolkien was actually saying there (hint: it was part of a very long letter where he explained his writing of the whole of the history/legendarium). There are commentators pointing this out, but I am sure Adam would insist that they are each and every one not reliable.

The invocation in the article of the Tolkien Estate and "lore experts" to imply that any contradictions of Tolkien's works could/would be vetoed is egregious. Likewise, invoking Simon Tolkien as a novelist and Tolkien's grandson seems to be to add "authenticity" when anyone knowledgeable of events over the last decades would instead find it at best concerning. Who exactly are the "lore experts"? The only one that I saw named was Shippey, whose involvement ended a couple of years ago. Notably, he was the one who stated then that Amazon must not contradict Tolkien. Given that the show plainly DOES contradict Tolkien and the one lore expert known to have said it must not is no longer involved, I would submit that the statement should removed. It is also interesting that Shippey uses the word "Tolkienien" and with a meaning well beyond simply being "related to" Tolkien. The compression may well have been approved by the Estate and un-named "lore experts" but was soundly and comprehensively rejected and condemned by Tolkien himself. It was also not the "biggest deviation" by far. I at one point spoke of Marvel's Thor character in contrast to the Norse mythological character - I think that same thing applies here. Amazon's product may have taken names from Tolkien's work, but beyond that and a few similarities that is where it ends. That is not a criticism, by the way. However, as the show only has limited similarity to Tolkien's work, there should not be more than passing reference to Tolkien in this article.

Honestly the article so hugely does not represent what is going on in the real world in relation to this show that I would no longer even know where to start. LowKey (talk) 23:52, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

I really don't know what to say at this point, honestly. Really the whole premise of the debate surrounding this show is how the material relates to Tolkien, so to entirely remove that or scale it back seems to be a misrepresentation of the show's context. I'm just afraid most of what you have presented doesn't hold any weight in the context of the article. I know you won't like that response, but we just keep talking past one another, and that is not helping either of us. On this article, the goal should be to discuss the events surrounding the production and reception to the show, and I believe that is being done faithfully. There just seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding of what the scope of this article is intended to be. TNstingray (talk) 01:23, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

I certainly agree that the goal should be to discuss the events surrounding the production and reception to the show, however you seem to disagree with yourself about that. The simple fact is, the article as it is does not reflect that goal. Events surrounding the reception are very selectively discussed. Discussion of Tolkien's work and how this show compares is extensively included, but again selectively and pretty much only reflecting the show makers' narrative of that. I completely agree that much of what I stated above should be outside of the context of this article, except currently it is all discussion that is partially included. It should either be in or out - I have suggested "out" multiple times and you most recent post would seem to reflect the same opinion. However, it is NOT currently out of the article, but included and in an incredibly unbalanced fashion. The fact is - disagreement over "misrepresentation" aside for now - the article makes repeated representations about Tolkien's work. I say they shouldn't be there, but if they are to be there then they had better be accurate, and they can be seen to be currently inaccurate by the simple straightforward reading of sources (the letters are provided by reliable secondary source, for example). Nailing down any kind of reliable principles for editing this article is a bit like playing whack-a-mole. For example, a source is suggested, discussed, agreed to be reliable, then excluded from the article by one editor as unreliable, invoking the previous discussion that resulted in "reliable" as a basis for "unreliable." I took a break, noticed that more and more sources are discussing the actual reaction to the show (and seem to almost all agree that it isn't "casting backlash" or racism or review bombing at all) and thought I would see what of all that had been included in the article. The answer so far is "nothing". LowKey (talk) 02:45, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps the public reception deserves a few more sentences of context. Perhaps. However, the show-runners statements need to be highlighted, because this concerns the actual show. The article isn't (or shouldn't be) making representations of Tolkien's work: the show-runners are. Whether they are "correct" or not is not our place to decide. On Wikipedia, the general audience response is just not that important in and of itself, as it defaults to some people like it and some people don't. That is especially the norm now, though Tolkien fans have been exempt from this since 2014. Of course, if reliable sources are discussing this, that is another matter. We will use reliable sources if you can provide them (WP:RSP for your convenience), but the WP:BURDEN is on the editor wanting to make the changes. I can't speak for the rest of the "establishment" as some would label it, but that's my position. TNstingray (talk) 12:02, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

The stated goal of this article is to document the events surrounding the production and reception to the series. As this is a goal the article miserably fails to realize given it is a glaring advertisement maintained daily - likely by an agency retained by Amazon as part of the series's off-page marketing strategy - and as there is clearly little to no meaningful consensus on practically any topic the article struggles to cover beyond the input of the same three or four daily editors who have claimed jealous ownership of the page since promotion of the series began, the most appropriate long-term solution for this article once interest wanes/clients churn/pro-series editlawyering dies down will involve a comprehensive rewrite utilising only what can be salvaged from the existing article, bare statements of fact (ie: "The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power is an American fantasy television series based on the novel The Lord of the Rings and its appendices by J. R. R. Tolkien"), etc. 1-jVX-9 (talk) 05:30, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Once again, the critic defaults to a position of conspiracy when they can't get their way. TNstingray (talk) 11:00, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

To be honest, I would kind of like to experience the economy of the conspiracy version of Wikipedia. Would be interesting, if nothing else. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 13:55, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Defaulting to position of conspiracy is a bit like defaulting to a position of "trolling"; just that the boot is on different feet. LowKey (talk) 22:09, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Sure, but the latter is a judgment on the motives of the interlocutor; the former posits an entire (usually) fantasy infrastructure making the person positing powerless in the face of a nameless cabal. Dumuzid (talk) 22:17, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

The former is also a judgment on the motives of the interlocuter, while the latter posits and entire (usually) fantasy psychology, making the person powerless in the face of a behavioural/psychosocial disorder. The two are more similar than you may have thought. I was just pointing out a little hypocrisy in criticizing a manner of discourse in another when one practicing the same manner. Both are forms of attacks ad hominem dismissing the unaddressed argument.

Sorry for the intrusion. I am better off not even looking at the article, because I every time I do I experience a powerful urge to try to address it.

(aside: Who here knows US IP/Rights law? I reckon if USA recognizes moral rights to creative works, Amazon could be well and truly in breach.) LowKey (talk) 01:27, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

You're not wrong about ad hominem and I apologize for sidetracking there. The U.S. is a Berne Convention outlier in that moral rights really only apply there to visual works. But if we assume arguendo that moral rights did apply, then what would your theory be? Surely the fact that the current rights holder is involved and has (at least constructively) waived the rights would be a complete defense. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 01:38, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

The current rights holders hold the copyright, not the moral rights. Moral rights cannot be transferred, waived or assigned, with the exception that the creator may agree to specific non-attribution or even false attribution (think ghost-writers). The right of integrity is not subject to such an exception. It is why re-creations (i.e. screen/stage adaptions etc) will usually say "based on" or "inspired by". The right is protection against materially distorting or altering the work (also destroying or mutilating but that doesn't apply authors except in the original manuscripts and notes, I reckon). The term is "derogatory treatment" of both the work and the author. In this particular situation (the show) it isn't the deviation itself that is the issue, but the repeated and emphatic insistence that the new work is consistent with the author's work and that it is in keeping with the author's express wishes for the work - combined with the fundamental altering of characters and themes. Considering that Tolkien referred to himself as a Hobbit, those half-sized horrors in the show are particularly worrisome - they are almost the antithesis of Tolkien Hobbits. The right of integrity is to protect against damage to the reputation of the work or the author. I like that one of the remedies is a public apology.  :) None of this is relevant to the article, though.  ;) LowKey (talk) 03:18, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Apologies for diving further down the rabbit hole, but I can't resist. Moral rights actually can be waived in several jurisdictions (including mine!), but that's really the issue here: where exactly would we be thinking? As discussed, in the U.S. it would be a non-starter, but it would also be in the U.K. - for a couple of reasons. First of all, moral rights derive in the U.K. from the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (the "Act") which came into force on August 1, 1989, obviously outside the Professor's lifetime, and as far as I know (though feel free to point me to authority) it has no retroactivity, as moral rights belong to a living author. And you say that the current rights holders hold the copyright, not the moral rights, and while drawing this division is correct, it's not always an accurate statement of the law in the U.K. -- per Section 95 of the Act, moral rights transfer on death, either via a will or, failing that, if the copyright in the work in question forms part of his estate, the right passes to the person to whom the copyright passes. So, I would say no to the U.S. and no to the U.K., but there are many other jurisdictions! Cheers, and apologies for a bit of nerding out. Dumuzid (talk) 12:51, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

I am from Oz, hence the question initially about US rights law. Here (and elsewhere) moral rights do not expunge or transfer with the death of the creator. Otherwise, I could legally (if ridiculously) claim to have created the Mona Lisa. I would speculate (!!) that moral rights currently derive in the UK from that act, but would need to read up. US rights law is a different beast to most of the rest of the western world, though (e.g. in the US the first to apply can be granted a patent even if the documented first to create/invent was well ahead of them, and is challenging - or a US company can register a common-use word as a trademark and then prosecute everyone who uses that word over there - e.g. ugg boots). We down here have IP laws that are considered some of the best in the world, so there is a lot we take for granted that just doesn't work the same way elsewhere. LowKey (talk) 22:15, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Entirely fair. I will confess that everything I know of Australian law I learned from Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd! Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 22:17, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

In our earliest interactions, I may have been quick to equate you with actual racist vandals wreaking havoc there for a little while, committing ad hominen by labelling you a "troll". If I haven't apologized for that in the past, then I am truly sorry for that, as you certainly possess a rationale and sense of professionalism that others have not (plus you have actually read Tolkien... some Internet wraiths made me wonder if they had comprehended any of the actual messages in Tolkien's myths...). That being said, I do not think I have committed that logical fallacy in this recently reinvigorated conversation, and I think I have been fair in basing my reasoning in WP policy first and foremost. TNstingray (talk) 01:39, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

It wasn't only you and it wasn't only once. Nevertheless, I am genuine in apologizing for the intrusion. There are fundamentals about which we will plainly continue to disagree, so I need to just let go and let it unfold as it will. Happy editing. LowKey (talk) 02:54, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

I am sorry you were made to feel that way on the internet today, though you are correct that this is definitely highly conspiratorial, especially considering every user who doesn't particularly care for any given aspect of the series is an internet-savvy Klansman with an agenda. It is certainly fair to say no company is doing it if Amazon of all companies isn't. Let's be realistic: the article is not in the state it is in today by accident or folly (well, maybe a little folly).

The takeaway for all here after much gnashing of teeth is that no one including myself "owns" this article - no one is entitled to brute force this topic into presenting the inarguably biased viewpoint it currently presents. With time, the article will eventually reflect reality - it just won't be the board-approved one you are fervently passionate about promoting here. 1-jVX-9 (talk) 14:27, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

I will reply substantively once I am authorized to do so and the check clears (actually the e-transfer of an Edible Arrangements gift card, but you get the idea). Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 14:47, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

No one is entitled to brute force this topic into presenting the inarguably biased viewpoint it currently presents.[2] TNstingray (talk) 16:32, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Capitalization of the Stranger?

Character the Stranger is capitalized in the credits and in various news articles, reviews, etc. Should the characters name be capitalized in episode summaries? Crowdsourcing opinions as there is a disagreement among editors of the page. Ariesartist1 (talk) 19:24, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

(tagging @Debresser)

Hi, @Ariesartist1, thank you for creating this talk page section. I restored the WP:STATUSQUO which has the character's nickname in lowercase (the stranger). I am open to community input on this, because I understand both sides, but I probably lean more in agreement with you to capitalize his nickname (the Stranger). This has been used in media coverage as you pointed out, and it also helps the character stand out in our plot summaries. Eventually, we will find out his real name (I still think it could very well be Olórin himself, but that is of course speculation), but I don't see it as any different from The Hound from Game of Thrones or The Dark One from Once Upon a Time (just two examples off the top of my head). TNstingray (talk) 19:51, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

My opinion is that even if he is "the" stranger, that still is not a proper name, and so should not be capitalized. As far as sources go, we on Wikipedia adhere to the WP:MOS and should not perpetuate their mistakes. Debresser (talk) 20:08, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Understand where you are coming from @Debresserbut I think we should adhere more to the formal sources and way the actual properties and companies themselves (Amazon and Rings of Power) refer to the character, rather than what our opinions represent. Not a mistake if the company and creators refer to the character in that way. Ariesartist1 (talk) 20:26, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

And I understand where you are coming from. Apart from not appreciating you calling me "dude". So let's await the opinions of other editors now. Debresser (talk) 20:34, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Support capital s for "Stranger", with clear sources. U-Mos (talk) 21:04, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Udûn

"Udûn" is the title of the sixth episode. What does it mean? How it the title relevant to the content of the episode? Debresser (talk) 20:41, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

(Spoiler disclaimer) As the tunnels were flooding towards Orodruin/Mount Doom, that is the word the captured orcs started chanting before the volcano erupted. I had to do some research to see what it actually means. Apparently, it is a Sindarin word meaning "dark pit" or "hell", so I take it to reference the orcs' excitement at finally having a place (Mordor) where they can live without fear of the sunlight. The word also traces back to one of Morgoth's fortresses. TNstingray (talk) 21:17, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

"The dark fire will not avail you, Flame of Udûn!" ... and it's also is eventually the (Third-Age) name for a region in the northwest part of Mordor.--MattMauler (talk) 22:45, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

I forgot about its use in Gandalf's line to the Balrog. That's awesome. TNstingray (talk) 01:24, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Udûn is Sindarin for Utumno, Melkor's first stronghold in Arda.

It is also the name of the wide valley between the Ephel Dúath (Mountains of Shadow) and the Ered Lithui (Ash Mountains) in the north of Mordor, where later the Morannon (black gate) was built. ♆ CUSH ♆ 23:30, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Eldar being fair of skin/Hobbits browner of skin

I included a section of the 'Appendix F - On Translation' as contained within The Return of the King:

"[The Quendi] were a race high and beautiful, the older Children of the World, and among them the Eldar were as kings, who now are gone: the People of the Great Journey, the People of the Stars. They were tall, fair of skin, and grey eyed, though their locks were dark, save in the golden house of Finarfin; and their voices had more melodies than any mortal voice that now is heard."

I wished to use this - particularly the fair of skin mentionn - as a means of creating an equal standing for the Tolkien statement of "browner skin" for the Harfoots within the reception section -- which was rejected. The source that's being include for the latter quotation is a One Ring fansite article which is based on a photo from "Prologue: Concerning Hobbits, the Fellowship of the Ring, Page 3" -- as the image is included ~ That secondary source is questionable, surely, as the article is based on a Twitter post; as well as TON not having a Wikipedia page.

Can Tolkien quotations not be used on their own? As I provided the citation etc ~ Bartallen2 (talk) 15:09, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Generally, no. I would not say it's a hard prohibition, but we like secondary sources around here. Please see WP:PRIMARY and WP:OR. I did note that the Harfoot reference is from a fansite, and I intend to take a closer look once I have made progress on real-world work. The perfect source would be secondary and interpreting Tolkien's text with specific reference to the series. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:15, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

So I lied, and procrastinated at real work while looking at the link above. As a secondary source, it's perfect and does everything we could ask (interpreting the Tolkien reference in the specific context of this show). As a reliable source, I am not quite so sure. It is clearly a fan site, and while it seems more professional than many, I don't really know about editorial control or the reputation for fact-checking and accuracy we want to see from a reliable source. Does anyone else have thoughts? I remember going to the reliable sources noticeboard with regard to fandom, but this strikes me as a different issue. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:27, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

The OneRing.net seems borderline WP:UGC, but I do think it is fine as a source due to allegedly being the first to report Henry's casting in the series. Henry certainly alludes to the "browner of skin" quote, but it is the OneRing that makes the total connection. Maybe there is an argument for the removal of the phrase "which aligned to Tolkien's description of the Harfoots as being 'browner of skin'" for SYNTH concerns, and maybe the actual BBC interview should be used as a more reliable source for Henry's casting (https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m0010fk3). TNstingray (talk) 15:45, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, Dumuzid; there's section under 'Self-published sources (online and paper)' which states:

"Content from websites whose content is largely user-generated is generally unacceptable. Sites with user-generated content include personal websites, personal and group blogs (excluding newspaper and magazine blogs), content farms, Internet forums, social media sites, fansites, video and image hosting services, most wikis and other collaboratively created websites. Examples of unacceptable user-generated sites are Ancestry.com, Facebook, Fandom, Find a Grave, Goodreads, IMDb, Instagram, ODMP, Reddit, TikTok, Tumblr, TV Tropes, Twitter, and Wikipedia (self referencing). Although review aggregators (such as Rotten Tomatoes) may be reliable when summarizing experts; otherwise, their ratings based on the opinions of their users are not."

The One Ring is a fansite and is using user-generated content from Twitter ~ --Bartallen2 (talk) 15:42, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Bartallen2, I tend to agree with you. While it looks a lot slicker to me than normal user-generated sites, I don't think we should be using it simply because I can't prove it's WP:RS bona fides. I would propose leaving the sentence (or something similar) in, and citing to CNET, which I believe is still considered reliable (though things change so fast that my quick search of WP:RSN might have missed something). Thoughts on that? Or from TNstingray? Dumuzid (talk) 15:56, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

@Dumuzid I agree. This CNET source appropriately utilizes the Tolkien quote in the context of describing the Harfoots in the series while also discussing Henry's casting. I'll let you do the honors. TNstingray (talk) 16:00, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree -- but would my original statement be allowed if I were to cite The Tolkien Society? They have a section of the point I had relating to the Elves --Bartallen2 (talk) 15:59, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

@Bartallen2 Can we see the source first? If it is just a general discussion of Tolkien's writing about the Elves, then it would be an inappropriate violation of WP:SYNTH, I think. I'm not familiar with this source, so I would also be curious about the distinction between it and the aforementioned OneRing.net. TNstingray (talk) 16:03, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Bartallen2 -- Again, if it is given in the context of the show (or even Tolkien casting more broadly), I would say absolutely. I know this seems frustrating, but we're running in to a bit of a "man bites dog" situation here with regard to reliable sources. Casting people of color strikes people as worthy of comment, since it's a new phenomenon, while northern-european looks seem more par for the course. That doesn't mean such sources don't exist; just trying to explain why they seem thinner on the ground. It might be easier to look for secondary sources that say something like "this is a change from Tolkien's books" or some such. Dumuzid (talk) 16:04, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

I see, I see: the Tolkien Society states:

"Throughout the whole of The Lord of the Rings Tolkien never describes the colour of Legolas’s hair, or many other members of the Fellowship for that matter. Legolas’s father, the Woodland King, in The Hobbit (later revealed to be called Thranduil) is described as golden-haired, so Legolas may have taken after him. At one point in the chapter ‘The Great River’ Tolkien mentions “his [Legolas’s] head was dark” (p. 387) against the sky, but as this was during the night it certainly doesn’t help determine Legolas’s hair colour. In Appendix F of The Lord of the Rings it is explicitly stated that the elves were “tall, fair of skin and grey-eyed, though their locks were dark, save in the golden house of Finarfin” (p. 1137). However, this apparent clear statement was contradicted by the publication of The Book of Lost Tales in 1983. According to a passage in there the facial and dark hair characteristics were assigned to the Noldor. In summary, Legolas’s hair colour cannot be determined by reading Tolkien’s texts, it is another matter on which the reader is free to make up their own mind."

Very VERY unlikely you'd see anything in relation to the quote to the show though or the departure from the legendarium --Bartallen2 (talk) 16:07, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I am afraid I can't endorse that (though if you can establish consensus without me, more power to you!). The section in and of itself strikes me as rather uncertain. That is another thing that makes this all feel so groundless, for lack of a better term. I think it's obvious that Tolkien's understandings of both his legendarium and, derivatively, of the looks of those within evolved a great deal from 1915 until his last days. As I say, keep looking for a secondary source. I'm honestly willing to include criticism or comment along these lines: it just hasn't been as forthcoming in reliable sources as it has been from internet users generally. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:13, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

I hold a similar position. This source generally discusses Tolkien's work and his descriptions of some of the Elven characters. To then take this quote out of context and apply it to this show would be inappropriate. See WP:SYNTH - Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. TNstingray (talk) 16:20, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Aw, yeah, I totally get you :( --Bartallen2 (talk) 16:20, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Regarding the discussion in this section about TheOneRing.net, I just wanted to provide my perspective since I have used it a few times in this article. It is a fan website, but it is generally considered to be a borderline "official" fan site who get asked to be involved in actual marketing and fan events for the series (and films), so it has been a good source for the Marketing section especially. I don't believe it counts as WP:USERG because its articles are written by a specific group of writers and editors not just any random people. But I am still cautious whenever it is being used just because it is probably a lower tier source, better reliable sources are preferred where possible. - adamstom97 (talk) 19:56, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

adamstom97 - My gut reaction is that you're right, it's more reliable than your run-of-the-mill fan wiki, but as I said above, I can't prove that, which for me means erring on the side of caution. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:22, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Note that the source discussed above should not have been completely replaced by the CNET source because the latter only supports part of the sentence, it didn't cover "Henry revealed in October 2021 that he and other people of color had been cast as Harfoots in the series". - adamstom97 (talk) 06:05, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

This is perhaps neither here nor there, but Tolkien kept abreast of archeological findings as well as linguistic. As others have pointed out, he was trying to create a kind of deep legendary/historical background for England. But if you go deep enough in British archeology, the people there were, according to recent findings, actually of dark to black complexion. https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/feb/07/first-modern-britons-dark-black-skin-cheddar-man-dna-analysis-reveals So I think if Tolkien had somehow survived to the present, he would have approved having retellings of his works partly reflect recent archeology. In any case, I've always thought the the original movie series, for all it other great qualities, really went too far in whitewashing the entire cast (except for Orcs and Haradrim, problematic in itself). For the record, I think the editors have done a fine job on this article so far.Johundhar (talk) 17:49, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

The real issue with the proto-Hobbits is that, being depicted in-universe, as a population that has been cloistered for a 1000 years, not their colors, but their heterogeneity. As a rule, populations that keep to themselves become more homogeneous (a cardinal example being Japan). Where did the different-looking pseudo-Hobbits come from? And how is it that they don't even resemble one another? The second issue that arises - also in the case of the elves - is that since they are homogeneous by the time you get to the Third Age (according to their depictions in the 1970's cartoon series, in the Peter Jackson films), then how and why did that come about? Did the influx of outsiders suddenly cease, for instance? In the case of Numenor, you have a daughter of a king who bears no resemblance to him in neither familial appearance (which would persist even if colors are different) nor color. Was she adopted? There are continuity and consistency issues that arise when you overplay racialism and try to inject different-looking people just for the sake of having them there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.29.226.169 (talk) 01:17, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Wow, that was really fascinating, except it is purely original research, and thus unfit for inclusion within the article. Of course, you have got to love a good (in fact, the best) fantasy story with elves and orcs and dragons and wizards and big fiery shadow monsters, but let's draw the line at genetic diversity, because that is such a completely outlandish and unrealistic concept! TNstingray (talk) 02:03, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Read a bit about what Tolkien said regarding secondary belief and suspension of disbelief. Accepting the elves, orcs, wizards etc is secondary belief, but accepting that genetics just don't work is suspending disbelief. Where the physics of Arda has differed from our world, Tolkien was explicit about that. The existence of Hobbit genetic diversity was well and truly covered by JRRT. Hobbits in there migrations separated into 3 distinct populations, which was each largely homogenous but distinct from the other populations - giving rise to Harfoots, Fallowhides and Stoors. Only really in settling in The Shire did the 3 come back together and as the 3rd age draws to a close this is still some diversity amongst the Shire Hobbits that simply would not have existed within each of the 3 sub-groups. There was certainly diversity across regions but really very little within population groups, because that isn't how life generally worked in such a pre-industrial setting. Rohirrim were recognizable as Rohirrim; likewise Haradrim, and Dunedain (the descendants of the Numernoreans). Possibly not fit for inclusion in the article, but then again there could well be reliable sources discussing this. Regardless, it is valid and reasonable. LowKey (talk) 03:56, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

As you say, not fit for inclusion because it is not (at this point) discussed in RS related to the show. I understand your point, but I also think we need to remember that when it comes to suspending disbelief, people also did not generally have blazing white teeth or plucked eyebrows in a "pre-industrial setting," so people are still choosing what to be upset about, and this is why critiques of the show's diversity are so often treated as being made in bad faith ... because they often are.--MattMauler (talk) 14:22, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Absolutely well said. Also, the average viewer is not a Tolkien scholar, and even most avid readers won't be familiar with his comments on the suspension of disbelief. Besides, there's not even any major violations of basic population genetics (allowing for the possibility that the Harfoots in the show are composed of various scattered families relatively recently united into this tribe), but even if there were, it is a fantasy world. Maybe in a perfect world, genetics should be secondary belief, because ideally, one should be able to look at the screen and see the character, the person first, and not get hung up on their skin color. TNstingray (talk) 19:41, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

even most avid readers won't be familiar with his comments on the suspension of disbelief. I disagree completely. An "avid" reader would indeed be at least somewhat familiar with this because it comes up all the time when discussion suspension of disbelief. Coleridge promoted it, or at least endorsed it, while Tolkien said that it resulted from a failure of internal consistency. I do agree about the modern cosmetic treatments, though: they are jarring - especially when in a single setting some characters or even only one character is portrayed this way while everyone else is more in keeping with the setting. As to getting hung up on skin colour, there are two things to note; the inclusion of unrealistically variable skin colour (and no, "various scattered families recently united into this tribe" is pure speculation looking for a way to support the notion, despite the context being given of a reclusive, isolationist people who have been that way for generations) is a result of decision makers being hung up on skin colour. I fthey werent hung up on it, they wouldn't have changed it. The second is that there is plenty of scope for diversity without jarring situations like father & daughter appearing plainly unrelated. Just make all the hobbits brown and be done with it - no problem. Make the dwarfs dark skinned, fine - or even have some dark skinned lineages and some otherwise - also no problem. Mannish cultures from different regions looked different; so there is plenty of scope there without a level of small-population variegation that pulls one out of the setting. And that isn't racism at work, it is merely real-world understanding of small populations lacking common and extensive travel. LowKey (talk) 07:08, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

And I'm saying there are potential scenarios where all of the current genetic dynamics in the show could actually work in real life. How that should look is speculation on both of our parts. There are plenty of examples where a parent looks completely different from the child, if one fails to consider what the other parent may have looked like. And just maybe, this version of Middle-earth is more genetically diverse than ours. This conversation has definitely moved beyond the scope of Wikipedia, and I only say this to once again try to demonstrate why most reliable sourcing has not discussed many of the viewpoints held by the "opposition", because said viewpoints are either contrived, misunderstandings, or in some cases, outright racist. There are legitimate criticisms of the show, yes. Skin color should not be one. TNstingray (talk) 12:02, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

There are legitimate criticisms of the show, yes. Skin color should not be one. That is your opinion. I disagree, because I respect JRRT's work. JRRT was a very particular man. Skin colour is part of a characterisation, and it should be consistent with both what Tolkien wrote and common sense. I already explained how easily diversity of skin tone could have been achieved on screen while maintaining those consistencies. The thing is, that explanation is also coming from other sources. The fact is that reliable sources have discussed this (but "reliable" is then denied) and the critical viewpoints are by and large NOT contrived, not misunderstandings and not racist. The persistent attempts to recast them as such are either ignorant, shallow or dishonest. Have a look at critics who raised concerns about the arbitrary use of nonsensical physical diversity and see how many, after the show aired, described one of the darkest-toned characters as one of their favourites (or indeed, their clear favourite). That isn't racism at all. The issue isn't the inclusion of various skin tones, but how, who and why. The fact that there seems to be an inability to grasp this instead of simply crying "racism" says more about those dismissing the criticism than it does about those making it. Plenty of sources have looked at reviews and critiques and said "not racism" but the PR approach is to try to keep that accusation going, and this article still reads like a puff piece. LowKey (talk) 23:06, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Of course I respect Tolkien's work, but skin color is just such a contrived thing to get worked about even in this context. Tolkien's particulars are still perfectly intact in all of his writings, so none of this discourse is even a threat to his original vision. I am not calling you a racist (though I have definitely seen some in the course of editing this page), because I think that we would both agree that flippantly throwing around words like that cause them to lose their meaning. I just find that none of the casting has violated my understanding of the lore or genetic common sense as previously stated. Sure, there are other ways they could have gone about it, but at the end of the day the internal attributes of a character are infinitely more important than how much melanin their skin produces. The direction and expression of those attributes are what can be called legitimate criticisms (e.g. We can critique Galadriel's characterization, but Arondir's skin is not even something that should be noticed in a perfect world, which alas, we do not live in.).

Also, please don't keep playing the victim when it comes to community dismissal of "reliable" sources. We are all pulling from the same applicable guidelines and policies to determine what is reliable and what is not. Plenty of reliable sources critical of the show have been included, some of which I'm fairly certain were presented by you, though specific details run together. If you have more, please present them (preferably in a new section, as the constant revitalization of old sections muddies the waters and makes it more difficult to keep track of specific conversation threads). Don't just vaguely gesture to the allegedly vast sea of legitimate criticism; the WP:BURDEN is on the editor wanting to add the material. TNstingray (talk) 23:51, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

If it is such a contrived thing to get worked up about, then surely you would agree it was a contrived thing to arbitrarily cast primarily to make changes to it. Not because they were the best for the role, not because it told the story better, but specifically to change it for the sake of showing the change. There really isn't a common sense genetic way to have the kind of mish-mash of distinctly different genetic heritages shown within families in the show. Yes, the internal attributes of a character are vastly more important than skin tone - so why change it where Tolkien was specific about it? Arondir's skin tone is counter to Tolkien's very specific description of elves (and therefore of Numenoreans also, to an extent) but nevertheless wouldn't be jarring per se if he wasn't the ONLY elf depicted so.

Sorry, I wasn't playing the victim, just pointing out that reliable sources exist but are kept out of this article. I supplied several, and even wound up setting up a section just for that. The HOW of the inclusion of critical sources is still almost exactly as it was when I came across this article - hugely unbalanced, presented very briefly and then extensively dismissed several times over.

Wow, you don't call me a racist because it would be flippant. How about, don't do it because it would be an egregiously false accusation? You wouldn't have the foggiest notion of my genetic heritage, familial connections or culture.

Anyway, back to the title of this section. Tolkien did describe elves as generally fair-skinned with dark hair (with rare golden hair in one house). Some have used "Nordic" but that was a term that Tolkien vehemently rejected, specifically because it had become racialized. Normal, common hobbits were brown. Only Fallowhides were generally pale; thus Stoors were brown-ish to some extent and Harfoots, the most typical Hobbits, were "browner". I did read up extensively on reliable sources, and primary sources for this kind of thing can be used. I would say that in this case it should ONLY be used in the discussion of criticism over such or where Tolkien is invoked to support a particular choice. LowKey (talk) 01:00, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

I would agree that it is a contrived thing to arbitrarily cast on the basis of skin color. Casting should be based on who is best for the role, who can embody that character in the best way. But even if that point was conceded, none of the characters are even changed where Tolkien was specific about it (legacy characters), unless you have page numbers for Arondir... oh wait. There are explanations for every phenotype in the show, hinging on the idea that Middle-earth is a full world and we don't have all of the information. We don't know anything about Arondir's specific Nandor lineage, Míriel's mother, or the nature of how this particular Harfoot clan came to be (in the context of this show). Side note: do you take issue with Sean Astin as Samwise Gamgee, because he was of Harfoot descent, and should therefore be "browner of skin"? Maybe you do, and that would be consistent with what you have presented thus far, but I don't take issue with it, because he played a freaking fantastic character.

If you would like to propose specific changes with reliable sources, please do so (again, preferably in a new, dedicated section). I welcome your perspective if said changes fall into these categories.

I'm not sure why you feel the need to debate and take issue with my statement that I am not calling you a racist, because I made it clear for the record that I am excluding you from a group of actually racist and vandalous editors seen in this page's history. Your heritage, family, and culture have nothing to do with that, and I would be having the same conversation with you regardless. TNstingray (talk) 12:38, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

I had said somewhere around here that Samwise should have been browner. However, the fact that he wasn't was a point of concern that abated as the show progressed. Similar to what I have seen happen with ROP, actually. Also, there was no marketing campaign focusing primarily on casting Sam specifically to change his skin tone and make a huge issue of it. I took issue with the reason that you gave for not calling me a racist. If you can read that again and not see where the issue lies there isn't much else that can be said (or a lot else but not worth saying). LowKey (talk) 22:18, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Also, I have again gone through the article history (3rd or 4th time now) and while I can see the vandalism, I did not find wholesale racism. Ironically, the only reason I can see racism attributed to the vandalism is because the vandals mention either the fact of abandoning the lore or the fact of the show makers' agenda in doing so, and then prejudice/bigotry is applied to make assumptions about the motives. Apparently, a love of Tolkien's characters and lore is ruled out - for no good reason. I did, however, see Adam quite emphatically stating that objections to the show's injection of unrealistic and contradictory-to-legendarium diversity for social commentary purposes where necessarily racist. I also saw a wholesale acceptance that all comments deleted by Amazon were racist - which given the later exposure of Amazon deleting perfectly reasonable reviews entirely unrelated to skin tone purely because they were one-star shows how unreliable Amazon are as a source for the content of comments that they deleted. Essentially, editors here have bought into Amazon's "racism!" cat call and are doing Amazon's work by propounding racism as the primary objection to the show. It simply isn't. In my experience there are plenty of sources giving fair and balanced information about the show, but the reliability of sources here is repeatedly determined by whether they overall fit the narrative rather than whether they are independent and conscientious. LowKey (talk) 01:30, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

With the substantial edit history, I would have to dig pretty deep because I did not save specific links, but there have been some truly awful things put on the main article and reverted as obvious racist vandalism, not just strawmen. That was largely around the time of the first looks at the series, and that was when I first got involved in editing this page. Needless to say, it set the tone for my general outlook as "defending" this page, and in certain ways I haven't moved past that. However, I can assure you I am not attempting to uphold any narrative beyond reflecting that which is recorded by reliable sourcing. This particular conversation has gone nowhere, so I'm considering it closed, and I'll respond to your bottom heading tomorrow morning. TNstingray (talk) 01:46, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

You repeatedly claim extensive and extreme racist vandalism and trolling. I repeatedly search for it and it is not to be found. You essentially simply say "well, it happened" and declare the conversation closed. Frankly, that is a pretty poor level of discourse. The problem with your claim of "reflecting that which is recorded by reliable sourcing" is the dual effect of confirmation bias and a "no true Scotsman" approach. Anything in agreement with the chosen narrative has added weight given for reliability while anything counter is almost automatically unreliable. It would be risible if it wasn't so frustrating. LowKey (talk) 02:42, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Maybe I have better uses of my time besides going through the hundreds of diffs since then, but it might be worth it to prove you wrong. Your strawman representation of my philosophy is no different than your own when it comes to the allegedly overwhelming amount of reliable sourcing to back up your argument. I'm still waiting on that. It takes two to discourse, and I would argue that your side has been pretty poor as well. I feel that I have been extremely fair and reasonable in presenting Wikipedia policy to which all of us editors can freely access. Your whole schtick is to generally rail against the article since you apparently speak for Tolkien ex cathedra. That is not conducive to a collaborative, consensus-driven project like this encyclopedia. Again, this conversation has run its course; it now deals with issues way outside of the conversation thread and the article itself. If I find those edits, I will post them on your talk page. Namárië. TNstingray (talk) 12:36, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Objecting to a lack of verisimilitude in a work of fantasy is always going to be somewhat subjective, but these broader issues are also harder to communicate and make for less sensational entertainment news media focus than "fans are racist!".

Many viewers (indeed currently unrepresented within acceptable refs.) do object to a general sense that everything in the show looks synthetic and lacking in the grounded detail needed to engender "secondary belief".

Suspension of belief is of course also context dependent. The physical attributes of actors in a theatre production obviously do not matter as much, because the audience is there to see a dramatic performance, and "know" that's it's a bunch of people in costumes. "Realism" is a much more abstract concept on stage than on screen. I've read a lot of audience responses commenting that RoP feels more like a stage production than a TV show, for these sorts of reasons.

Stylistically, this level of suspension of disbelief is not implicit within Rings of Power's medium, in the way it probably would be if it had been a puppet play or a broadway musical. 14.2.42.140 (talk) 01:00, 3 October 2022 (UTC)