Talk:The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Irish Times as sole source for the show being "heavily critised" [sic]

Personally I think one source (an early review of the show) that takes umbrage with the creative choice to adopt a hybrid but non-specific West Country/Irish accent, seeing it as attempt to 'other' Irish people, is not enough to claim "heavy" criticism. It might be labelled as "criticism", sure, but there's what amounts to a single opinion piece. Also, having its own subsection places undue weight on a single source. It it my understanding that the visual production design in this instance is to achieve a camouflage effect, not somehow indicate slovenliness, much like hunters colouring their face and wearing imitation foliage. In any case, the characters in question are nomadic and possibly also semi-refugees (based on descriptions in interviews). This is not an attempt to smear Irish people, IMHO. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.217.84.79 (talk) 10:10, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

I 100% agree here. The person trying to publish this section seems motivated by personal bias. The claim that Tolkien created everything for a pre-Norman English mythology is inaccurate as well.ZX2021 (talk) 10:15, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't think everything was inspired by pre-Norman (i.e. pre-1066) sources but most of it certainly was. It's also evident that Tolkien did intend to replace the mythology lost in the Anglo-Saxon written tradition after the Norman conquering. There's are number of statements he made and letters he wrote that support these claims but I think Letter #131 is quite clear on its own:

"Also – and here I hope I shall not sound absurd – I was from early days grieved by the poverty of my own beloved country: it had no stories of its own (bound up with its tongue and soil), not of the quality that I sought, and found (as an ingredient) in legends of other lands. There was Greek, and Celtic, and Romance, Germanic, Scandinavian, and Finnish (which greatly affected me); but nothing English, save impoverished chap-book stuff. Of course there was and is all the Arthurian world, but powerful as it is, it is imperfectly naturalized, associated with the soil of Britain but not with English; and does not replace what I felt to be missing. For one thing its 'faerie' is too lavish, and fantastical, incoherent and repetitive. For another and more important thing: it is involved in, and explicitly contains the Christian religion." - J.R.R. Tolkien XwhereswhatX (talk) 19:51, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree that this seems to be WP:UNDUE. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:07, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

• I didn't see this before making an unrelated edit to the article just now, but then it occurred to me that the odds of this not having been discussed already seemed quite slim, so I searched the live talk page for "accent" and this came up. I will admit that I have not examined the page's history to see how (dis)similar the edit being discussed above is to my own -- ZX2021 and XwhereswhatX's comments seem to imply that the text in question bore little if any similarity to mine.

Anyhow, I can all but guarantee that pretty much every Irish person who sees the show is likely to either (a) feel the same way as Power regarding this matter or (b) at least see it as an embarrassing gag to be laughed off (as the authentic Irish accents in Peter Jackson's Hobbit movies were). Those Irish who have spent time abroad and/or among British and Americans who casually engage in micro-aggressions and offensive stereotyping like this are probably more likely to do (a); the near-universal reaction to Alexander (2004 film) among the Irish (or at least north Dublin) public is perhaps the most notable example of an earlier work that was subject to (b), but we do it whenever an anachronistic or out-of-place Irish accent appears in a Hollywood film, such as that time an Irish actor playing a Polish Jew born before c1935 and allowed his accent to come through at a very awkward point in the story, or, perhaps more relevantly, when random individuals from amongst Peter Jackson's Men of Dale spoke with thick Irish accents for no apparent reason. If our articles on those films don't mention the matter, it's probably some combination of (i) the fact that the actors using the Irish accents were actually Irish people using their real voices, (ii) the reaction falling under (b) was universal or nearly so among the Irish public, and -- most importantly -- (iii) multiple reliable sources discussing the matter were/are not readily available.

I don't doubt that some people would use Power's article (which praised the show overall) and similar ones from Irish critics to blanketly claim that the show has been "heavily criticized", but it seems highly inappropriate to cite WP:UNDUE to justify omitting the views of people of a nation of 5 million people whose speech, culture and history were quite obviously being referenced in the show, whether or not this was done in good faith by the creators of the show.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:44, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Those views are incredibly in the minority. No one has actually claimed there is an anti-Irish element outside of a few reight-wiong circles online. It's not even a discussion point in the broader media. WP:UNDUE ZX2021 (talk) 02:38, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

The paragraph has seven citations to sources (albeit the citations need improved formatting). I have seen (and heard) the stage-Irish mentioned a lot, albeit usually without epithets such as "hibernophobia" included. I can see why people of Irish background would be critical. I may be going out on a limb, but I am pretty sure that in the population of the developed world, Irish people are incredibly in the minority. The article as it was described the criticism, and explained that other critics disagreed with the "othering" claim portion of it. This article reporting the criticism is not this article making the criticism. LowKey (talk) 02:59, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

I think there are enough citations there to justify the small bit of info that was added, though it may appear to hold undue weight for now since the reception section doesn't have much in it yet. Once it is expanded with wider views I don't think we will have any concerns about including two short sentences about this. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:30, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you all for your replies. I shall respond to you in order.

ZX2021: This is quite a complex issue. I amn't entirely sure what you mean by "views". Irish people are indeed a small minority of the global population, and "ethnic Irish" are a minority in all countries they occupy except for metropolitan Ireland. 10% of the US population is not an "incredibly" small minority of that country, but most Irish-Americans have never met a native speaker of Hiberno-English, and certainly couldn't recognize our accents. Plenty of simple facts (in this case "The Harfoots speak with Irish accents") are only known to a minority of people, but that doesn't mean those facts are "wrong" or not noteworthy enough to be briefly addressed in a Wikipedia article. As for "a few reight-wiong circles online", I don't doubt that such people would like to latch onto this. There's a well-established precedent for (mostly non-Irish) white supremacists appropriating and distorting the bona fide history of oppression and bigotry against the Irish as an excuse to say "See? White people ha[d/ve] it bad too!" But that doesn't mean that said (ongoing?) history should be ignored or downplayed by Wikipedia if it isn't ignored/downplayed in reputable, mainstream sources. And speaking of "the broader media", I'm not sure if you've ever visited a newsagent's in Dublin or Galway or wherever, but The Irish Times and The Irish Independent are, perhaps after Raidió Teilifís Éireann, likely the two most ubiquitous and mainstream of domestic news media. I do not know Ed Power's political views or party affiliation, but it seems unlikely that, as you seem to be asserting, he could be a noted proponent of extremist or supremacist views, as, were this the case, (i) he would likely not have what seem to be recurring pop culture columns in multiple national papers in Britain and Ireland and (ii) he would not have praised everything about the show except for this aspect if he were only pretending to be angry about the accents as an excuse to attack a show that cyber-fascists seem to have branded as "woke".

LowKey: You have stepped on a number of my points before I could make them, for which you have my gratitude. I should like to add that I think a distinction needs to be made between "ethnic Irish" (of whom there are apparently more than 70 million worldwide) and "people who live in or have lived in Ireland" (of whom there are probably substantially less than 10 million). If there is "hibernophobia" at play here, it's not clear who the target is, since the vast majority of the former have never met a speaker of Hiberno-English and likely couldn't recognize our accents, but most (probably not "the vast majority", mind you) of the latter have an established history of laughing off "stupid Americans adding Irish accents where they don't belong" rather than getting that they're supposed to be offended.

Adamstom.97: I was on the fence about adding this to my edit summary or the above comment, but I'm in general agreement with you. Hopefully, eventually, there will be more context provided for this. At present, probably 90% of Irish people who have seen the show are either snickering or feeling annoyed, while 99% of everyone else probably doesn't even know that the accents in question were Irish (see the above hybrid but non-specific West Country/Irish accent). It may actually be that it was just a goof (i.e., that the Harfoots do in fact speak a hybrid dialect that combines the Englishes of various parts of Great Britain, Ireland, and surrounding smaller islands, and that initial impression is the result of non-hibernophone editors/directors having accidentally cut together exactly the wrong combination of lines/takes) and that we'll soon have the sources to say so. Hopefully we'll have sources discussing the reactions of more groups to more aspects of the show, too; from what I know now (personally, I haven't been following the "discussion" of this show in the media -- I don't think any Hollywood screenwriter can reasonably emulate the style of But how shall a man discover whether that time be come or no, save by daring the Door? And that way I would not go though all the hosts of Mordor stood before me, and I were alone and had no other refuge. Alas that a fey mood should fall on a man so greathearted in this hour of need!, which I think was always the main challenge facing both this show and Peter Jackson's Hobbit films, enough that I was never looking forward to this show, but I do have a Prime subscription so I am watching it and Googling stuff that catches my attention like the Irish accents) two or three short sentences on this topic is fine for the moment, but I imagine various people from different backgrounds to me probably already have their own takes on this or other elements of the show even as we have it now.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:26, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone for the discussion here (I'm the unsigned user who started this section). I think now that the section as a whole is more fleshed out, and we have a proportionate coverage (i.e. not a titled subsection of its own, but a few sentences) with more sources, it's much better.

@203.217.84.79: I was actually going to come here and say this anyway for the record, now that I've finally got around to watching all three episodes. In the most recent episode, Lenny Henry uses the word wikt:eejit, so I hope you regret your earlier remark and will not say anything like hybrid but non-specific West Country/Irish accent going forward. You should know for future reference that it's quite offensive when someone not of a particular background (I can only assume, given your earlier comment, that you are not Irish and have no Irish friends -- no one who grew up in Ireland could fail to recognize the accents for what they are) insists that people who are of that background are imagining things. Whether the assessment of the show as deliberately "othering" Irish people is accurate to the creators' intentions is frankly a lot less important than the ability to discuss such matters on a talk page without oneself engaging in microaggressions like the above. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:27, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Episode articles and drafts

1. A Shadow of the Past
2. Adrift (The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power)
3. Adar (The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power)
4. TBA
5. TBA
6. TBA
7. TBA
8. TBA

-- Alex_21 _TALK 08:15, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Let's Calm Down With Audience Scores

Full context: haven't seen the show, won't watch it until more episodes are in. While I understand a bunch of sources are reporting on audience scores, this doesn't impact our stance on them. They aren't reliable and shouldn't be mentioned in any real detail; in fact, I'd argue that the credibility of any source using audience scores as a basis for a critic-audience disparity should be seriously questioned. Using audience scores to justify these claims in article is a clear violation of WP:USERGENERATED, which categorically rejects audience scores without exception. We need to be very careful not to feed into internet outrage cycles, which rely heavily on justification from external sources to justify their existence. Toa Nidhiki05 03:02, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

As has been explained multiple times by multiple editors, the content in the audience response section is coming from reliable sources discussing the online reactions to the show. The audience scores are not reliable in terms of telling us what the actual audience of the show thinks, but that is not how we are using them. In fact, we aren't even stating the RT audience score at all. All your edit did was remove the explanation that the audience score is much lower than the critics score, which is necessary context for the rest of the section that discusses why that may be. As for deleting the details from the lead, the lead needs to reflect what is in the article. We currently have a large discussion about the online audience response and a larger discussion about the casting backlash. These need to be summarised in the lead with WP:DUEWEIGHT. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:12, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

To be clear, I do agree with you. Audience scores on RT, IMDb, Google, etc. cannot be trusted and should be avoided, that is why we have WP:USERG and MOS:TVRECEPTION, and it is why I have been fighting to keep those out of the article this whole time. However, we cannot deny that there has been significant coverage of the online response to the show (especially the casting backlash) in reliable sources for months now, and I have come to agree with the other editors who strongly felt that we should be giving due weight to that coverage in the article. As part of that, we need to at least mention what is happening to the audience scores to give context to the overall discussion (which we were doing without mentioning any specific scores). Either way, we absolutely need to summarise these sections in the lead. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:32, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

To be more specific, I wouldn't be opposed to a segment in the lede noting the show was review-bombed by hardcore Tolkein fans and racists. I just object to using audience scores to claim it was "divisive" or "polarizing" or whatnot. Toa Nidhiki05 18:28, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Do you have any prove that racists review-bombed the show? Please provide a source for that. 2A02:810D:8FC0:2C23:AC8F:210E:288:4325 (talk) 22:53, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Here's one. Review-bombing from like-minded pouty racists has gotten so rampant Amazon’s imposed a 72-hour delay on its user reviews for the show. I will say it again: I am not naïve enough to believe all backlash to the show is racist, but neither am I naïve enough to believe that none of it is racist. Happy Friday. Dumuzid (talk) 23:10, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

But "some racists" leaving negative review isn't review bombing. That source is tertiary at best, and is simply invoking what other sources say, without any underlying facts. Review bombing requires the mass reviews to be organized or co-ordinated, not just coming from people who happen to agree about something. It is an inflammatory term being used for inflammatory purposes and the sources that actually check the facts say that isn't what is happening. LowKey (talk) 23:22, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

The current version of the article already debunks widespread review bombing and widespread racism among negative responses. The question for this section, in my mind, is how to resolve the disagreement in wording that is primarily between myself and Toa Nidhiki05. I am hoping that my comment below and any subsequent discussion can resolve that. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:35, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

If the current version repudiates review bombing, then it needs to be changed, because that's silly. It's clearly being review bombed. Toa Nidhiki05 00:43, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

We have multiple reliable sources stating that while there is some review bombing, that is not the whole story. They trump your opinion. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:46, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Sources which rely on audience scores are inaccurate and should be disregarded. Toa Nidhiki05 04:28, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

@Adamstom.97 Fair enough. LowKey (talk) 00:59, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

@Toa Nidhiki05: Can you be more specific on your concerns about the wording you removed in this edit? Because the part you removed from the lead has nothing to do with audience scores, it is a summary of the critical commentary in the reception section. And the second part that you removed explains what has happened with the audience scores without actually stating them, which is necessary context for the following discussion about the general online response to the series. And the section refutes that these scores are representative of general audiences anyway. I feel this section is in the same boat as (or even better than) Captain Marvel (film)#Audience response which has long been accepted as a good approach to discussing this stuff without violating WP:USERG. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:17, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

It makes specific inaccurate claims about audience reception without acknowledging review bombing or the racist element. Accordingly, it's unacceptable. Toa Nidhiki05 00:43, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

That's not a very useful answer, how can we discuss this when you are only making vague comments and proclamations? Let's look at the actual wording and see if we can make any progress:

• Responses from audiences, including vocal Tolkien fans, have been mixed. There has also been significant criticism from some individuals complaining about the casting of non-white actors in the series, which has been widely covered and also rebuked by the cast, crew, and other supporters.
  • I believe this is a pretty accurate summary of the reception section that is currently in the article. "Responses from audiences have been mixed" covers all of the views in the main Audience response paragraph based on the different sources and discussions that we have, and "vocal Tolkien fans" highlights that the paragraph is often talking about online diehard Tolkien fans (i.e. "many of the negative responses were from Tolkien fans", "described some of the fan discourse as "a fight between loyal [Tolkien] fans...", "partially attributed the responses to "super diehard people"").
  • The rest of this wording is a summary of the casting backlash subsection which is a significant part of the article and needs to be represented in the lead with DUEWEIGHT. It says that there is criticism about the casting of non-white actors, doesn't say anything about racism so we are leaving that for more nuanced discussion below, says it is "some individuals" so isn't applying it to all fans, notes that is has been "widely covered" which is the whole reason that we have this discussion in the article and lead, and also notes the rebukes from cast, crew, and "other supporters" which was a way to address the latest anti-racism campaign from the movie actors as well. So can you tell me specifically what about this wording is not a good summary of the reception section in your opinion?
• At that time, the series had an audience rating on Rotten Tomatoes that was considerably lower than the critics rating,
  • There is nothing inaccurate about this. It is also not a WP:USERG issue because we are not using the actual audience score and we are including it as context to discuss the wider online response and whether these scores are representative of the whole audience. By removing this, all you have done is remove necessary context from the paragraph which now doesn't make complete sense.

- adamstom97 (talk) 01:45, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Both sections are wholly inappropriate. The first relies on sources which rely on audience scores - which we both know are unreliable. It also explicitly doesn't include the widely-reported fact that much of this review bombing has been based on racism. There's no reason to provide a "nuanced discussion" here - reliable sources report differently. Elevating unreliable audience scores from review bombers is simply unacceptable, and I'll oppose any addition to the page which relies on them. The second bit, again, falls under the same camp; there's no need to report on the exact scores, or even hint at them. The review-bombing facts make it more than apparent that yes, the score is lower. But even equating "audience scores" (garbage) with critic scores simply isn't appropriate. Toa Nidhiki05 04:26, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

We are not using audience scores and we are not using sources that rely on audience scores. Once again, all you have done is removed context from the discussion, and violated WP:DUEWEIGHT and WP:LEAD by removing an accurate summary of two important sections from the article. You have yet to give a reasonable argument for your changes, and you made your position clear when you said "I wouldn't be opposed to a segment in the lede noting the show was review-bombed by hardcore Tolkein fans and racists. I just object to using audience scores to claim it was "divisive" or "polarizing" or whatnot." That sounds like you just don't want us to include details about positive fan responses regardless of what reliable sources actually tell us. See also "If the current version repudiates review bombing, then it needs to be changed, because that's silly. It's clearly being review bombed." And "There's no reason to provide a "nuanced discussion" here". This is all just your opinion, and it does not align with what reliable sources are telling us. Additionally, phrases such as "I won't tolerate", "it's unacceptable", "simply unacceptable, and I'll oppose any addition to the page" all sound like you think you can just do whatever you feel like, which you cannot. If you can't be civil and provide reasonable arguments for your actions then we may need to take further action here, because you are blocking important changes from the article for no good reason. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:54, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

The summary is not accurate. The claim the series has received a mixed or divided reception from audiences is based almost exclusively on audience scores, and also whitewashes what reliable sources have confirmed - there is review bombing going on, and a substantial amount of it is based on racism. Toa Nidhiki05 19:47, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

It is not based on audience scores, it is based on the commentary in the section. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:21, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

It absolutely is based on audience scores, and this isn't deniable. Toa Nidhiki05 04:53, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

...what reliable sources have confirmed - there is review bombing going on, and a substantial amount of it is based on racism. Reliable sources have also debunked both of those opinions. So you are left with showing the disagreement with attribution of due weight, based on something other than your own apparent outrage. Also worth checking; has any reliable source shown the necessary smoking gun for a claim of review bombing? HINT: a whole lot of negative reviews is not it. LowKey (talk) 03:02, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Reliable sources have not, in fact, debunked either. Toa Nidhiki05 04:53, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

The sources that we have to discuss review bombing say there is some going on, but it is not the whole story, and they say this based on more than just audience scores (they acknowledge and interpret the audience scores, yes, but they also look at the actual reviews, social media comments, and even talk to fans off the internet). You have still yet to provide a good reason for us to remove the sourced information and "nuanced discussion" that we have about this other than you clearly not liking it, which is not how Wikipedia works. There is plenty of support at this talk page for including more details on the audience response, and we have reliable sources to do just that. You either need to provide your own reliable sources that refute the ones we have or WP:DROPTHESTICK. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:35, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

All of this seems like your original research and synthesis. If sources are relying on audience scores, we can't use them - and most of them are. And there's no reason to pretend the review bombing isn't playing the pivotal role here. Toa Nidhiki05 01:59, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

How much does Amazon pay you guys then? Morph8845 (talk) 02:01, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

It's really something how everyone who disagrees with you is part of a big conspiracy. Must be hard. Dumuzid (talk) 02:04, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Well, either way I agree with Adam that the nuanced discussion should remain. My personal belief is that it would be insanity to remove it... how others can't see this bewilders me hence my comment. Morph8845 (talk) 02:30, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

And that is fine and reasonable! Thank you for explaining. WP:AGF is not only done for civility reasons, but because "everyone who disagrees is paid" kind of shuts down any debate. When you're not doing that, I, at least, welcome your input. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 02:34, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Did I strike a nerve? https://emojipedia.org/fishing-pole/ Morph8845 (talk) 02:32, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Fans are criticising Rings of Power and in response Amazon claims review bombing as if a secret cabal is out to get them. Everyone who disagrees with Amazon is part of a big conspiracy. Must be hard 195.136.76.5 (talk) 12:16, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Yeah I agree with you, it really must be hard to deal with trolling IP addresses. TNstingray (talk) 12:47, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't think I deserve much in this life, but I do think I deserve a better qual;ity of hecklers. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 13:56, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

I think you deserve much. Your hard work defending Amazon's product from fans is truly inspirational. Don't give up 88.156.136.157 (talk) 20:58, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

That's an improvement! Dumuzid (talk) 21:10, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Obscenely biased

I have just read the Lord Of The Rings: Ring of Power article in its entirety and I can only say it is the most obscenely, disgustingly biased article I have ever read. Wikipedia needs to be very careful not to allow itself to become a propaganda tool for Twitter types and if this particular article is anything to go by, it already has. Where is the information regarding the huge backlash against this show, it's massive inaccuracies, the fans attacking the show on YouTube and the fact that every single trailer released on YouTube has attracted hundreds of thousands of dislikes compared to a few thousands likes? Sort out the blatant bias guys. 2A02:C7E:21B:A200:C8F5:624E:E00D:78C7 (talk) 19:30, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

I like to be obscene and not heard. That's why I'm here. Dumuzid (talk) 19:31, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Re-read the article. We present both sides as neutrally as possible, taking care to not provide undue weight to any perspective beyond what it is. Entitled fans rage against any new entertainment property, and just because we do not provide an excessive platform for such toxicity from a vocal minority of racist viewers who have probably never read a work of Tolkien in their entire life, does not mean we are biased. I would really like to know where people have seemingly watched the show in its entirety to be able to make some of these claims. TNstingray (talk) 20:05, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Just would like to say that I liked TNstingray reply. Debresser (talk) 00:34, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

See also the numerous previous discussions at this talk page that led to the current version of the article, including the discussion of non-racist fan complaints in the marketing section. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:55, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

And here it is again. You can't go without calling every critics racists, can't you? It seems to me the only people who never read any work of Tolkiens are people like you who are fanatics with an insane ideological mindset that have to push their agenda even on Wikipedia. 2A02:810D:8FC0:2C23:4EB:B99A:791F:B9D4 (talk) 05:19, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

I have it on good authority that fanatics with an insane ideological mindset that have to push their agenda even on Wikipedia just adore Tolkien's work on Ancrene Wisse. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 05:23, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Don't even bother, Wikipedia has been propaganda for a long time now. It's never been cited as a reliable source, but now it's just ridiculous. Just reading this section confirms it, everyone who hates a lore being tarnished is now suddenly a racist. I bet if they got Black Panther and cast a white actor, they'd be rioting in the streets. <-·'¯'·.Ð駧í©átéÐ ©ó®þ§é.·'¯'·-> (talk) 12:39, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Even Wikipedia agrees that Wikipedia is not a reliable source! Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 12:59, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Nope, this is not neutral at all. There is a huge backlash, over the fundamental inconsistencies with Tolkien's work - but it is portrayed in the article as being about the colour of the actors. The article even mentions harfoots in the article section, but completely fails to mention that these are hobbits, and according to Tolkien had no mentionable role in the 2nd age. Likewise important characters are completely changed or omitted altogether (Giladriel is portrayed as fundamentally different, and her husband is absent entirely). The criticism is coming from people with a deep and detailed knowledge of Tolkien's work. No the article is not neutral at all. But then, that does pretty seem to be the norm for WP these days. LowKey (talk) 05:52, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

What you are talking about is fan concerns based on trailers and other marketing, these people may have "deep and detailed knowledge of Tolkien's work" but they haven't seen the series yet so they are actually in no position to make legitimate criticisms of its content yet. Also, I think you will find that the people making the series also have "deep and detailed knowledge of Tolkien's work". - adamstom97 (talk) 06:18, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Well, the people making the series are on record as saying that harfoots are not hobbits, which even a middling knowledge would show to be false. The marketing material is sufficient to establish certain things, such as the extreme compression of the 2nd age, which is something that Tolkien himself spoke against quite strongly. The statements and material produced by those making the work are certainly sufficient for valid criticisms of its content - but even if that wasn't the case, the criticisms are not even reported in the relevant section. Also, your argument regarding validity of criticism establishes that you are not neutral. LowKey (talk) 08:51, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia editors are not required to be personally neutral in any meaningful way. They are required to adhere to Wikipedia policies (including WP:NPOV and WP:COI), but if you tried to filter out people who had opinions about things, precious few people would be left, if anyone at all. I would certainly be gone for my heterodox opinions (like that anchovies make the best olive filling). Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:39, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

I get that, and it is fair enough. But the editor's bias is being expressed in a misleading article being aggressively protected from improvement. I honestly cannot be bothered taking on a keyboard warrior over something like this. I have commented, it has been rebuffed. I won't be trying to edit. LowKey (talk) 04:55, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Both side are not presented neutrally. How can you claim this when there is no mention of the time compression in the backlash section whatsoever? The passage of time is essential to the story of the downfall of Numenor. Compressing thousands of years into "a single human lifespan" guarantees they will not be faithfully portraying the source material.

"I cannot see why definite time-statements, contrary to the book and to probability, should be made" - J.R.R Tolkien

"I fail to see why the time-scheme should be deliberately contracted" - J.R.R. Tolkien

"The canons of narrative in any medium cannot be wholly different; and the failure of poor films is often precisely in exaggeration, and in the intrusion of unwarranted matter owing to not perceiving where the core of the original lies." - J.R.R. Tolkien

XwhereswhatX (talk) 20:06, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

not true, for rotten tomatoes you show the numbers from the critics but not for the audience...ridicolous Nogard EU (talk) 09:48, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Peruse this talk page even for a few seconds, and you will find the reasoning for this. TNstingray (talk) 12:23, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

No sorry, you cannot give me the "it is answered somewhere below" for faireness you should also remove the positive score then. Why aren't you doing that?

Numbers are numbers you cannot accept some and some others.

I usually give £1000 per annum to wikipedia...not anymore Nogard EU (talk) 15:05, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Please see MOS:TVRECEPTION, a policy which applies generally, and not just to this page. If you have a better suggestion, you can raise it on the associated talk page. Constructive feedback is always welcome. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:11, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

We have multiple talk page sections discussing the matter, and a new header on the talk page itself answering this frequently asked question. So yes, I can direct you to these areas, because this talk page is incredibly clogged with redundant conversation, and revisiting old discussions such as this heading means that it takes even longer for it to archive and clear out. Hence my frustration. TNstingray (talk) 16:13, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Please provide reliable sources to support your argument. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:41, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

I think it's time to change "reliable sources" if they fail to report reality. We have massive backlash of fanbase that hasn't been seen in decades and wikipedia's sources fail to report on it. 88.156.136.52 (talk) 21:32, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia will certainly have epistemological blind sports due to the way we choose to filter information. There's no doubt about that. Any heuristic you could possibly choose will have drawbacks; the Wikipedia community so far seems to think the current regime works, and I would agree. You are perfectly entitled to argue that the philosophy underlying Wikipedia sourcing should be changed, but I would respectfully suggest that this talk page is not the best place for that. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:36, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

You are right. The article says the quote "Evil cannot create anything new only corrupt" to not be attributed to him. The words convey the message of the silmarillion and other works of Tolkien that say that evil only corrupts and cannot create. Its one of the main themes of why Morgorth want 185.161.118.125 (talk) 07:07, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia has been compromised for neutrality for a while now. It's a shame. I don't know why the editors that control Wikipedia can't just be honest. They always seem to want to spin the facts as much as possible to suit some narrative, while hiding behind the "reliable source" epinonym, while intentionally disregarding any other "reliable source" that disagrees with the "reliable sources" that they intentionally cherry-pick. Wikipedia is compromised. I've tried to make edits to move things back into an uncompromised state of honesty, but all my edits get immediately reverted, and I got banned for 3 days once for making an edit that one of the higher up editors didn't agree with. Wikipedia is biased. It's been unbiased for a long time. I LOVED Wikipedia for so long from and always admired so much how Wikipedia never accepted any money from advertisers from the moment it started in 2001 and still doesn't accept money from advertisers, because of how they understood that would lead to Wikipedia becoming compromised. Well, at this point, Wikipedia is compromised anyway by the "in crowd" editors that have dominating control over the platform. Wikipedia was a great source of information for a long time, but today, Wikipedia is HUGELY biased. This Rings Of Power article is a great example of how the Wikipedia editors just can't seem to simply be honest. That sucks.

JUST BE HONEST. What's so freaking hard about that? This Rings Of Power TV show is getting INCREDIBLE BACKLASH RIGHT NOW, and there are TONS OF RELIABLE NEWS SOURCES THAT HAVE BEEN PUBLISHED WHICH SAY THAT...... WHY CAN THAT NOT BE SHOWN IN THE ARTICLE????? WHY???????

On a related note, why is it not allowed to even mention the Rotten Tomatoes Audience Score in any Wikipedia article? That's VERY RELEVANT INFORMATION. VERY VERY VERY VERY RELEVANT INFORMATION. Yes, the professional critics rated it X%, and the audience score rated it Y%. These numbers are HUGELY IMPORTANT, and help someone to understand what's going on WAY BETTER. Don't even try to tell me it's just because people review bomb something to lower the score - even if that does happen there is A REASON PEOPLE ARE REVIEW BOMBING IT, and TO TRY TO SUPPRESS THAT INFORMATION IS A DISSERVICE TO THE GOAL OF FREE AND OPEN KNOWLEDGE AND SHARING OF INFORMATION.

Wikipedia, you were great for a long time. But lately you have degraded into a terribly dishonest source of information where you always have to check and double-check everything you read here to make sure the Wikipedia article isn't lying to you in some way. IT REALLY IS UNFORTUNATE, IT DOES NOT HAVE TO BE THIS WAY. Skcin7 (talk) 17:46, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Somehow I missed this in the chaos of this talk page. Wikipedia is constantly evolving, and it's a shame you aren't willing to work with us to make necessary changes. So many people on this page want to complain without proposing any applicable changes. I would recommend scrolling through this talk page and opening basically any blue link starting with "WP". Might be helpful reads. TNstingray (talk) 11:59, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

I mean, Wikipedia has not been neutral for quite some time. I just came here to see how biased the article was and I'm not surprised. It's literally a propaganda piece - written as if by Amazon PR. This is why I stopped donating to Wikipedia. Eorekan (talk) 22:43, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

The shame here is that in being so biased, Wikipedia ceases to be an online encyclopaedia and instead become a minion of Amazon. This website is not here to run cover for the failed ambitions of trillion dollar corporations. It's here to describe our world in a truthful way. It would not hurt Wikipedia simply to allow a small section truthfully describing the genuine outrage expressed by Tolkien fans. The future will certainly know this truth, so why not put it here, instead of disgracing Wikipedia in this way? Inspicienti (talk) 12:32, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Actually, Wikipedia is here to summarize topics based on what is available in reliable sources. This means we don't do original research or synthesis and we're not here to be truth tellers. If following Wikipedia's policies is a disgrace, then I guess we're just kind of disgraceful around here? Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 12:38, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

You beat me to it. The real disgrace would be to allow everyone and their opinion to just take over with no sort of rules and regulations. Wikipedia should truthfully describe the world, but the important factor is that we do so through reliable sourcing of information. Just because something is "true" does not mean it should be reflected. But things that are definitely not "true" are the random opinions of people on the Internet.

@Inspicienti, if you would just provide reliable sourcing (examples of which can be found at WP:RSP), that would be great. Don't just make general complaints based on your opinion of a work (I am a genuine Tolkien fan, and my opinion is that the show is great so far. I also strive to follow the spirit of Wikipedia policy.). TNstingray (talk) 12:42, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

There's no need for me to provide reliable sourcing for the Metacritic page, because it's already been used and cited on this page. We can use the same reliable source already in use, but add that while the show has a 71 percent Metascore from paid critics, it has a 1.8 User score. Inspicienti (talk) 13:03, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Please see MOS:TVRECEPTION -- this is the normal way we treat these sources. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 13:05, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Then, this is fair enough. I won't argue with longstanding policy. This sadly does not change the fact that a large constituency within the Tolkien fandom are saddened and even offended by this production. This group is being mischaracterised in an attempt to discredit their criticism, but at some point it will have to be recognised that their criticism of this series is genuine, sincere and quite unprecedented in the history of television. What is actually happening here is that a trillion dollar corporation is suppressing criticism of the series in the official media, and because Wikipedia's policy is only to cite official media, it ends up citing the fake news of a desperate corporation instead of the reaction of genuine fans. Perhaps this is something Wikipedia might consider needs changing in order to improve the website. Inspicienti (talk) 13:19, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

The reviews of ordinary viewers, soon to be numbered in the hundreds of thousands on sites like Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic, are overwhelmingly negative. This will not change. Wikipedia classifies the reviews of professional critics, many of whom are paid to produce favourable reviews, as "reliable", but dismisses the reviews of a substantial constituent of an entire fandom as "unreliable" and in so doing makes itself vulnerable to charges of bias. Furthermore, the online backlash is not a figment of our imagination, but a real and unprecedented phenomenon which Wikipedia has decided has simply not happened. This will not make Tolkien fans like the series, but it will damage Wikipedia's reputation. Inspicienti (talk) 12:53, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic are classified by Wikipedia as reliable sources. We know this because they are selectively quoted on this page. I say selectively, because the negative reviews of ordinary viewers on those pages have been totally ignored. Again, this only damages Wikipedia. Inspicienti (talk) 13:00, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Inspicienti, I have no desire to make Tolkien fans like the series, and if following Wikipedia's policies is "damaging," well I guess I am in a no-win situation. What makes this sort of complaint all the more frustrating is that the content you want IS being added as reliable sources take note and report on it. I am sorry if you do not see your viewpoint represented in the article at exactly this moment, but that's simply not how things work around here. If you have suggestions backed by reliable sources, then I am all ears. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 13:05, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Dumuzid, nice talking to you. Inspicienti (talk) 13:20, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Without getting too in the weeds and setting aside the blatant "-ism" gaslighting that naturally accompanies the production of media like Rings Of Power, the flagrant bias on open display in this article is apparent to any and all who read it, including passerby who have little to no knowledge of the numerous issues plaguing this series (next to none of which are detailed in this article). The crude, selective enforcement of Wikipedia article standards by a vocal few in service of promoting positive messaging and censoring genuine negative responses from audiences of all backgrounds render the encyclopedic value of this article worthless at best. As a reader with no expectations for improvement to this article or any other topic unfortunate enough to draw the attention of those who maintain it, I respectfully hope at least some of you are receiving compensation for your time. 1-jVX-9 (talk) 20:16, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Your kind words are compensation enough for me. Cheers! Dumuzid (talk) 20:23, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Embarrassing. Cheers! 1-jVX-9 (talk) 20:40, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Seems like you got pretty far into the weeds with your open display of flagrant bias. I would love to hear your opinion regarding changes to the article based on actual Wikipedia policies and guidelines, but alas, I can only hope. In your free time, I would recommend reading this really great series called The Lord of the Rings by J.R.R. Tolkien. It seems as if none of the trolls have actually read it. TNstingray (talk) 22:25, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

I am not the person you were replying to but I have read everything Tolkien wrote (including the posthumus publications and Letters) multiple times over. I studied the associated philology in university too. These works have remained one of my main passions for the better part of 30 years now.

Your blatant bias and ingnorance is stupefying, in my opinion. You are in here calling other users "trolls" whilst advocating slander against the existing Tolkien fanbase by parroting media outlets that were clearly incentivized by Amazon PR to write off any and all criticism as "racism". The fact is, the story being told in Rings of Power is only related to Tolkien by the names of a few characters and places. The list of clear departures from the source material is so long I won't have time to write them all out but some of the more onerous ones include the following (all of these are explicitly contradictory to the books):

• Compressing thousands of years of the second age into a single human lifespan
• Galadriel going to Numenor
• Isildur and Tar-Míriel being alive before the forging of the rings of power
• Galadriel interacting with Númenóreans, including Tar-Míriel
• Galadriel not going directly to Lindon with Celeborn after leaving Valinor
• Misrepresenting how and when Galadriel's siblings pass away
• Galadriel attempting to go back to Valinor after first departing
• Galadriel being commander of the Northern armies when that was really Gil-Galad
• Galadriel hunting for Sauron instead of learning from Melian
• The Númenóreans using a cavalry for war
• The Númenórean army having a 50/50 gender split
• Two Durins being alive at the same time (this one is really really bad)
• Hobbits doing anything meaningful in the second age (Harfoots are Hobbits. The term "Harfoot" did not exist before the term "Hobbit")
• Galadriel and the Númenóreans are much shorter than they should be
• Tar-Míriel will be a ruling queen
• It will be easy to distinguish that the made-up dwarven princess is female (she also lacks a proper beard)

Other things people are rightfully upset about:

• More made up characters than Tolkien characters
• “It felt only natural to us that an adaptation of Tolkien’s work would reflect what the world actually looks like,” --> inserting modern elements from the real world
• Celebrimbor looks too old
• Galadriel's character has been described as being full of "piss and vinegar"
• Ar-Pharazon with a beard
• Tar-Míriel being race swapped --> "Tar-Míriel the Queen, fairer than silver or ivory or pearls" - Akallabêth
• “Can we come up with the novel Tolkien never wrote and do it as the mega-event series that could only happen now?” --> people take this as meaning it was never intended to be an adaptation of Tolkien's work
• There will be at least one non-Tolkienian elf-human romance --> This is supposed to be super rare. Too much creative license. Tolkien had the names of the first two involved in elf/-non-elf relation inscribed on his and his wife's gravestones (Beren and Lúthien)

Put some of this in the Backlash section and maybe it won't look so biased anymore. I can provide quote from the books or letters to support any of the above points. Just ask. XwhereswhatX (talk) 20:45, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm good, thank you, but perhaps someone else will be motivated to ask. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:48, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Quite frankly, most of these are incredibly petty (if not outright incorrect) reasons, and an astonishing example of original research on your part. I feel like I'm stuck in an alternate universe: do people not understand that every cinematic adaptation of a literary work makes changes? I might go through and address each point on your personal talk page because frankly, general conversation about the subject matter is inappropriate for the talk page of this article. TNstingray (talk) 21:16, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

What's written now is only one side of the debate and contains objectively false claims and misleading statements from media outlets. I'm fine keeping those because they are indeed part of the reception but this article needs more balance.

Do you agree that time compression has been a source of backlash? XwhereswhatX (talk) 21:45, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

The early marketing material led to a "cacophony" of online fan discourse, including concerns about accuracy to the source material and the series' compression of Tolkien's Second Age timeline. Time compression as a source of backlash is already presented under "Marketing." Other claims are up to interpretation, and it would be inappropriate to use the primary sources of Tolkien's work here since he is unable to share his opinion, and it would be original research on our part. This is why we rely on secondary sources in situations like this. Consensus indicates that both sides are fairly and duly presented, though if there are specific changes you would like to make rather than general backlash, that would be fantastic. TNstingray (talk) 21:56, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Here are the specific changes I propose:

1. Since everything in the "Casting backlash" section seems to have more to do with marketing than reception, it should be moved into the "Marketing" section.
2. The following should be modified as shown moved to its own paragraph: The early marketing material led to a "cacophony" of online fan discourse, including concerns about accuracy to the source material and the series' compression of Tolkien's Second Age timeline. This online discourse was amplified after the marketing release of the The Lord Of The Rings "Superfans" Review The Rings Of Power Official Teaser Trailer on YouTube which garnered strong criticism online for appearing fake and scripted. Nearly identical videos featuring the same script were released in multiple languages (English, German, Italian, Spanish, and others) but all were ultimately unlisted from YouTube search features. While none of the marketing material released on YouTube was met with a generally positive response in the YouTube comments sections, the content subsequent to the initial trailer and "Superfans" videos did fare better than what came before. It should also be noted that throughout the marketing campaign prior to the show's release, certain online forums were generally more positive than others.

Regarding your claim that Tolkien is unable to share his opinion about time compression, please read my comment above. He has indeed shared his thoughts on this topic before in his review of an earlier adaption of LOTR.

Lastly, consensus has very clearly not been reached on this article. As it stands, you and Dumuzid are in fact outnumbered on this polarized topic. XwhereswhatX (talk) 00:37, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

So, if there are arguments to be made about the restructuring of the article, that's one thing I will look into more. Unfortunately, your second request would need a reliable source to back it up, as it would be inappropriate per Wikipedia policy for you or I to make an observation about YouTube and directly insert that into any article. Regarding consensus, it has generally been reached by the percentage of editors attempting to follow the spirit of Wikipedia policy and procedure, unless you are counting the long list of actual trolls and vandals as legitimate votes. This page just seems to attract more users of an unsavory nature, hence the multiple increases in page protection. So far, opposition to consensus has failed to provide reliable sourcing, just opinions and primary research. TNstingray (talk) 10:58, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

I realize I need to provide more sources before that can be added. I will do so once I have time. Let's continue to talk amongst ourselves to iron that out. XwhereswhatX (talk) 15:25, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

XwhereswhatX - Yes, if you can provide more sources, that would be a great help. We are stuck in a situation where a great many fans have concerns that aren't really captured in mainstream publications, which is the basis on which Wikipedia has chosen to organize itself and its information. While I personally think your critiques have some validity, they are not notable by Wikipedia standards (that's no insult at all; nothing I say or do is notable either). It's simply not the case that the sorts of "reliable sources" on which Wikipedia relies will generally concern themselves with the sorts of issues a Tolkien fan would (although that doesn't mean "never" -- see Michael D.C. Drout in the New York Times). I can promise you this: I have no connection to Amazon or anyone involved with this production (well, I am a Prime subscriber). I apologize if I am sometimes curt or snarky with replies--after addressing things over and over, it's a real temptation. But let's keep working together, even if from disparate viewpoints, to get the article to the best state it can be. Happy Friday. Dumuzid (talk) 16:06, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

We are stuck in a situation where a great many fans have concerns that aren't really captured in mainstream publications. I couldn't agree more with this. That said, I'm not sure I have an actual solution in mind. I am happy to provide textual evidence of my claims in the list above but how would these possibly be integrated into the article? Surely it wouldn't be appropriate to just have a list of things we see in the show that contradict Tolkien's writings. At a high level, what I would like to see is representation of educated fans' general reactions to some of the claims made in the official marketing campaigns and related media. For example, when Lindsey Weber said, "It felt only natural to us that an adaptation of Tolkien’s work would reflect what the world actually looks like", any educated Tolkien fan would point to Tolkien's letter No. 165, which makes it clear that an accurate adaptation would reflect what the Old World actually looked like, not what the world looks like today. Obviously, the populations in the Old World were less diverse than they are today. That is a valid criticism of Weber's comment that has been widely shared in online forums and other media among fans yet there is no representation of this reactionary sentiment in this article. Relevant excerpt from Letter 165:

’Middle-earth’, by the way, is not a name of a never-never land without relation to the world we live in (like the Mercury of Eddison). It is just a use of Middle English middel-erde (or erthe), altered from Old English middengeard: the name for the inhabited lands of Men ’between the seas’. And though I have not attempted to relate the shape of the mountains and land-masses to what geologists may say or surmise about the nearer past, imaginitively this ’history’ is supposed to take place in a period of the actual Old World of this planet. - J.R.R. Tolkien Letter No. 165

I apologize if I am sometimes curt or snarky with replies--after addressing things over and over, it's a real temptation. But let's keep working together, even if from disparate viewpoints, to get the article to the best state it can be. I appreciate this sentiment and am keen to work in good faith with anyone and everyone who adopts this mentality. I think the biggest issue is finding a way to provide balance despite the imbalance present in most of the official media surrounding the show. I am open to any ideas you might have to address this in a way that is consistent with the wiki guidelines. XwhereswhatX (talk) 19:06, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

XwhereswhatX, I think I finally have a grasp on why the sides seem to be talking past one another on this. Incidentally, I finally watched episode one -- I was very "meh" on it, but I tend not to like Tolkien's religious musings, so there's that. Let's accept, arguendo, that the show is not the world as Tolkien intended it nor would he much care for it (any participation by the estate aside). Does that invalidate it as a work of art (I use the term loosely, but I trust you understand the sentiment)? This is not intended as any sort of gotcha. Just trying to clarify positions! Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:36, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Audience response edits

After the phrase "A day after the series premiered, Amazon began holding reviews of it on Prime Video for 72 hours to ensure each review was "legitimate" and not coming from internet trolls." I suggest we add: "Paul Tassi from Forbes summarized the audience reception by saying "Amazon was attempting to shield Rings of Power from the negative review bombing that was occurring on Rotten Tomatoes, where the show has a 39% score, and IMDB (which Amazon owns) where it has a 6.8/10, with 24% of all scores being 1 star ratings."

Reasoning:

Firstly: This does not violate Wikipedia's protocols, since according to this page the rules read: "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 above quote would fall under a "summarization by an expert", not original research.

Secondly: Paul Tassi mentions the Rotten Tomatoes score as a causal element of the unfolding events and of Amazon's actions. Therefore the audience score is relevant beyond just being a numerical figure, and Tassi ties it into why Amazon may have taken the action it did; making it relevant and newsworthy.

Thirdly: Further down in the Wiki paragraph we read "Average reviews on IMDb and Google were slightly higher than the Rotten Tomatoes audience score at that point" - and yet we haven't mentioned what the Rotten Tomatoes audience score was, therefore we are missing the context from which this sentence, and the rest of this section, makes sense. It's central to the flow of the article for there to be a mention of what the audience scores were, as summarized by Forbes, a reliable source. I hope I followed all of Wikipedia's protocols in this suggestion, as it is my first, thank you.

Jsandoval19 (talk) 10:06, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

I think it would be worth waiting for a reliable source to discuss the fact that review bombing on Amazon Prime is impossible from a technical standpoint. Reviews may only left by paying Prime members, so accounts held by people whose identity Amazon has already verified, and reviews may only be left after having watched the particular episode ON Amazon Prime. There are commentators pointing this out, so sooner or later someone will admit "reliable source" status to one of them. There is also the paid-reviews story that has been coming out. LowKey (talk) 10:52, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm also concerned that the source provided falls under WP:FORBESCON. TNstingray (talk) 12:57, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

I understand now about Forbes' unreliability, thank you for the clarification. I see that Hollywood Reporter is more accepted, which is where James Hibbard is from. In that case, I would like to propose an amendment to Hibbard's section, as I don't believe his opinion is being properly represented here. The section in question is: Hibberd said this was partially due to review bombing by users who were posting "numerous negative reviews for [the series] due to its perceived cultural or political issues rather than its actual quality."

This is somewhat incorrect. Hibbard's article from start to end questions the topic of whether what we're seeing is actually review bombing, and says that "there are some one-star entries that meet the definition", however "the majority of the negative reviews... criticized the show for non-diversity reasons." Towards the end he says "If review bombing is occurring, the audience score will likely rise..." - again confirming that he's reluctant to claim that review bombing is actually occurring. Therefore, I propose a better way to phrase this section is as follows:

Hibbard discusses whether review bombing might be taking place, stating that "there are some one-star entries that meet the definition", however "the majority of the negative reviews... criticized the show for non-diversity reasons." He ends by saying that

"if review bombing is occurring, the audience score will likely rise" as was seen in the concurrent Disney+ series She-Hulk: Attorney at Law.

(Let me know your thoughts, thanks.) Jsandoval19 (talk) 22:06, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

I categorically oppose any attempt to include specific audience scores. Toa Nidhiki05 16:32, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Of course you 2A02:810D:8FC0:2C23:3CD7:CB8D:6E2B:17FC (talk) 22:26, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Of course you do 2A02:810D:8FC0:2C23:3CD7:CB8D:6E2B:17FC (talk) 22:27, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Wow, don't injure yourself typing so fast! TNstingray (talk) 11:54, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Dark fantasy

@Sincereduck. Hi, I wanted to invite you to have a conversation here about my reversion of your edit. I think the categories are somewhat subjective, but I would not classify this show as Dark Fantasy. Sure, there are slightly darker, more violent elements than the Peter Jackson films, but I think as a whole the show still falls under High Fantasy alongside the rest of LotR. This might just be semantics, but I don't think there is enough to justify a description as a dark fantasy installment. However, I would love to hear your reasoning and have a productive conversation. Thank you. TNstingray (talk) 11:54, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

My very cursory searches didn't find this descriptor applied to the series, but I will be the first to admit that my knowledge is incomplete. I would think we'd need a couple sources to substantiate a descriptor like this. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 12:38, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Amelie Child-Villiers

Is Amelie Child-Villiers actually Lady Amelie Natasha Sophia Child Villiers (b. 14 April 2008), second daughter of William Child Villiers, 10th Earl of Jersey? E.Polti (talk) 10:13, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure. I struggled to find reliable sourcing. In any case, it is of extremely low importance, and it does not need to be reflected in the article. TNstingray (talk) 12:03, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

TNstingray, not so. If this is her, then it should be linked. Debresser (talk) 15:16, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

She is listed in the cast as is. She does not have her own Wikipedia article. I'm failing to see what the point here is, as there is nothing to link to, unless we have a red link. Linking to her father (William Child Villiers, 10th Earl of Jersey) is misleading, and currently unsourced in his article. None of this information is relevant to her casting in a minor role in the series. TNstingray (talk) 15:45, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Considering the child actress is the daughter of one of the United Kingdom's preeminent aristocratic families (itself is a notable fact worthy of inclusion) and that the series is described by many a reliable source as being "heavily inspired by the United Kingdom," yes, a red link to the actress's page is warranted and entirely relevant to her casting in a major role, however brief, as a young incarnation of the lead protagonist of the series. 1-jVX-9 (talk) 16:03, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree, but do we have an actual source? I don't really doubt the association, given the uniqueness of the name, but still think it should be backed up by something. Happy Friday. Dumuzid (talk) 16:13, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

That being said, I still don't see how her aristocratic status provides any valuable information about the production of the show. We have listed that she plays young Galadriel. Merely saying that the show is "inspired by the United Kingdom" is a really unconvincing argument (false equivalence fallacy, or something along those lines?). Red links are fine, I guess. I just don't understand what the purpose of this conversation is. TNstingray (talk) 16:30, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Naturally. 1-jVX-9 (talk) 16:33, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 September 2022

After "number of episodes" why not add "length of episodes" in the fact square? 90.87.175.57 (talk) 12:43, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

If you scroll down you should see "Running time: 65–72 minutes" is already included. Alduin2000 (talk) 18:18, 24 September 2022 (UTC)