Talk:The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Facu-el Millo (talk | contribs) at 02:14, 23 May 2022 (→‎Break). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Trailer reactions

I think this needs to be talked about, YouTube has disabled dislikes for their videos, but if you download a chrome extension you can still see them, in doing that, the trailer has been dislike bombed and the comments are filled with dislikes. The themes of the comments are about the races of actors playing elves and dwarfs, as well as the movie not feeling like lord of the rings and finally the disloyalty to the source materials. Tis show has not been well received and I feel this needs to be brought up in the page and linked to other pages about review bombs. Go check for yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Klokar (talk • contribs) 00:52, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not to preempt any other following comment, but should you look back, @
WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH. If a publication (online or print independent source) looks at that same data, and reports on it—then, post that source here, and it can then be evaluated, and statements from it possibly summarised for this article. Cheers. 2601:246:C700:558:800F:DCDC:70D5:9F8E (talk) 21:12, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Firstly, "this show has not been well received" is not true, there are a wide variety of responses out there and most legitimate commentary for the trailer has been very positive. That doesn't mean certain people online haven't been saying negative things about it, but what they are posting on YouTube, Rotten Tomatoes, etc. falls under
WP:USERG and should not be included unless commented on by reliable sources. Luckily in this case we actually do have reliable sources, including producers of the show, who have commented on the backlash from certain people online towards the "diverse" cast, which is why there is already a whole paragraph about that in the casting section. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:18, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
I can't believe Klokar looked at it so uncritically that they said "Yup, this is valid perspective"--CreecregofLife (talk) 01:23, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the fact that this was a TEASER, and none of those commenting have actually seen the final product, and therefore have no room to critique based on quick scenes with no context. TNstingray (talk) 01:43, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
While you all make good points, I believe the article fails to mention one key detail. It seems to downplay the backlash, and compltely ignore the fact that it was racist in nature (and described as such by reliable sources), or that it came from the Comicsgate hate movement. 46.97.170.40 (talk) 10:43, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is a valuable stray IP comment, in that it suggests the existence of sources that discuss a backlash to the drop of the trailer by the producers. THAT is news, and likely discussion-worthy herein. Someone should have a look for the "reliable sources" discussing the matter, in my opinion. Cheers. 2601:246:C700:558:800F:DCDC:70D5:9F8E (talk) 21:15, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia doesn't make judgements like that. I believe the information in the casting section accurately conveys the details from the source article and also makes it clear what these people's concerns are. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:57, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No strong disagreement with any of the foregoing, but please see my interjection above, about the most fundamental reason (even more so than the focus of the comments on responses to a trailer, or the quality of the source, and possible motivations for the initiating comment or the online responses). Not meaning to wikilawyer, but absent an independent, published (non self-)source discussing the matter, we have no business summarising from it, and reporting the matter here. So I agree with the conclusion of all foregoing responses. Cheers. 2601:246:C700:558:800F:DCDC:70D5:9F8E (talk) 21:27, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia wouldn't make that judgement. Vanity Fair already has an article on it. 46.97.170.40 (talk) 11:24, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would avoid adding those since they are based on hand-picked Twitter and Reddit comments which fall under
WP:USERG as I said above. We already have reactions from critics/online commentators that cover a decent range of views, and we already discuss the casting backlash as well. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:09, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
It is not
WP:USERG, there are secondary reliable sources reviewing the reaction. And it's not 'casting backlash', it's concerns about too much CGI, 'Galadriel's character wearing the wrong sigil on her armor, the series using a cleaner aesthetic than Peter Jackson's original The Lord of the Rings trilogy, several characters having modern-looking haircuts, and Disa not having a beard as Dwarven woman'. I think it's wrong to ignore fans reaction (described by reliable secondary sources, not from twitter or youtube comments). Corwin of Amber (talk) 03:45, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Just because a generally reliable source reports on fan reactions does not mean those reactions are now noteworthy. The same sources present all sorts of social media-based minority reviews and comments as "news". Putting them in the article would suggest that those specific fans' complaints are more noteworthy than the opinions of all the fans who are not included (there is no evidence in those articles to suggest that these opinions are actually widespread or considered to be generally valid by legitimate commentators) and also that they are of equal status to the commentary from non-fans that is already there. It would violate
WP:NOHURRY applies. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:54, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Agreed. Such content falls foul of
WP:NOTNEWS as well. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia not a place to report the views of disgruntled fans. Keep that for social media or the pub. Robynthehode (talk) 22:02, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
For the history of 'nothing to report' and
WP:NOTNEWS: [1], [2], [3], [4]. Of course the opinion of single The Hollywood Reporter's James Hibberd who described the teaser as 'epic' is much more important. Anyway (even ignoring my points above) I think that The Independent is a VERY reliable source and the reaction should be added: For a billion dollar show, why does the new Lord of the Rings trailer look so cheap? Corwin of Amber (talk) 14:56, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Also: The Guardian article: 'we’re used to online revolts by now, but fans objecting to the Rings of Power’s very existence is something unprecedented', 'this Lord of the Rings rebellion seems quite unprecedented. These fans – or at least a faction of them – seem to be rebelling against the entire product, something that feels far harder to correct than gussying up a misshapen hedgehog.'. Keep the Guardian for the pub, yep. Corwin of Amber (talk) 11:57, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
People, the Guardian and the Independent are of course reliable sources. The point is that in the long run (think 5 years ahead, or further) all mention of a trailer will seem very minor (and out of date), while mention of early reactions to the trailer will seem footling if not arcane and irrelevant. It may help to recall that WikiProject Middle-earth is not a news site. I suggest you put in a *very brief* mention, cited to these sources, remembering that all this will in a few months be rendered obsolete by far more substantial news of what the series actually contains. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:07, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, but IF we pay so much attention to the announcement video (describing 'sparkler dust, argon pours, and liquid hydrogen', 'Phantom Flex4K camera') and the first teaser (describing it as 'epic', and things like 'it showed off the series' large budget') we should at least mention the negative reaction. OR we should delete this section. Corwin of Amber (talk) 16:04, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So because you don't like genuine positive reaction there should be no reaction at all? You can't stand that people may have liked it, and don't see the shallow, disingenuous negative reaction for what it really is--CreecregofLife (talk) 18:25, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No. The article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a verifiable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each (
WP:RSUW). Maybe you can't stand that people may have disliked it? Corwin of Amber (talk) 02:59, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
When the viewpoint is transparently disingenuous it should not be given equal weight. You're falling into
Wikipedia:DONTGETIT--CreecregofLife (talk) 03:40, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Who defines what is disingenuous? You? Per
WP:NPOV we should avoid editorial bias. I added two critical opinions from National Review and The Independent and now the trailer reception seems more balanced. As for the trailer 'backlash' from the fans I don't insist on adding this information, I just make some points and links to discuss. Maybe, as adamstom97 and Chiswick Chap said, it is too early and we should wait for the premiere. Corwin of Amber (talk) 04:14, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
No. the fact that the "backlash" is coming from a known internet troll clique that has a long history of astroturfing "backlash" to basically everything, is what makes it disingenuous. 46.97.170.40 (talk) 10:17, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like a conspiracy theory. I doubt this 'internet troll clique' could make 123,000 dislikes on YouTube video. Corwin of Amber (talk) 11:52, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your doubts show a lack of knowledge of what the internet has been, especially in the last six and a half years.--CreecregofLife (talk) 06:13, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your unfounded claim proves I'm right. Tolkien community is much bigger and older than Marvel's. Corwin of Amber (talk) 15:35, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a conspiracy theory, this is a well documented phenomenon. We even know who these people are. Jeremy Hambly - Former member of the Magic: The Gathering community on youtube, has been blacklisted by Wizards of the Coast for harrassment of other members of the community as well as members of their judge program. Arch - former member of the Warhammer 40.000 community who was publicly denounced by Games Workshop for using their IP to propagate neonazi views. ClownfishTV - a married couple who fell out of favor with the comic book industry, now they mostly push conspiracy theories on youtube. JustSomeGuy - a comicsgate affiliate troll and heckler who has a long history of harrassing high profile writers and artists working for Marvel and DC. Eric July - conspiracy theorist and lead vocalist of band Backwordz. Geeks+Gamers - a group of comicsgate affiliate youtubers with a history of peddling pop-culture related misinformation inciting harrassment against women and hijacking charity events to promote their own brand. Short Fat Otaku - the less said of this one, the better. There are much more of them, and then there's also Bounding into Comics - an alt-right rumour mill affiliated with Arkhaven - a publisher run by an actual neonazi, Vox Day. All of these people have hundreds of thousands of subscribers in total, even accounting for the inavitable overlap in viewership. More than enough for mass dislike-bombing pretty much everything that doesn't align with Comicsgate's political agenda. These same people were behind the fake backlash against Ghostbusters, the fake backlash against the Last Jedi, the fake backlash against Captain Marvel, the fake backlash against Dr Who's last couple of series, the fake backlash against MotU: Revelations and several dozen other fake backlashes of the past several years. Their persistent brigading is practically the reason why youtube decided to hide dislikes. 46.97.170.40 (talk) 11:06, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If this is a well documented phenomenon could you provide any 'documentation' / the evidence (articles in reliable sources?). I can beleive there are some trolls / racists / harassers etc. but many real fans are not happy with this project not because of the skin color but because of 'the deviation from the text', for example 'compressing' things that take place over thousands of years into a single point in time, modern haircuts, bad and excessive CGI etc. Calling everybody displeased with the trailer / Vanity Fair preview 'trolls' is wrong. Can you imagine that many people really didn't like the trailer? Corwin of Amber (talk) 15:35, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I can immagine that many people didn't like the trailer. Can YOU imagine that a very vocal minority, whipped into a frenzy by the exact same people who love stirring up trouble every single time they see women, LGBTQ people or women of color represented in a show/film/game, is not indicative of anything? Please don't act like you don't know what "brigading" means. It is YOU who needs to provide reliable sources that show that the reactions to the trailer were overwhelmingly negative. You will find no reliable sources that support this claim, not even LotR fan sites and fan communities. The negativity is coming exclusively from a group of youtubers who up until a year ago didn't make a single video on Lord of the Rings, or any of Tolkien's works. 46.97.170.40 (talk) 16:03, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If the general backlash from certain fans does prove to be noteworthy in the long run then it would be better suited in the general reception section rather than in the marketing section, per the quotes included above from the Guardian. But I do think it is too early. Quite a lot of

WP:RECENTISM going on here. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:04, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Here's what I don't understand. The trolls behind the "backlash" have been doing this for over 4 years, and despite the fact that they have been exposed so many times by reliable sources, and despite the sheer number of brigading they have been involved in, wikipedia still doesn't consider them noteworthy. I don't understand why. Just like Gamergate, and Comicsgate, The Fandom Menace is real, in fact, it consists of many of the same people. 46.97.170.40 (talk) 10:17, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that they have been doing it for so long is part of the reason that it is not noteworthy at most articles. At this point it can be expected and generally ignored. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:10, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ive just skimmed through this discussion and bruh. There should definitely be a section about the inital backlash. Basically everyone dislikes it. There will always be woke pl defending the changes but ive seen tons of black LOTR fans hating on this show as well.--Blockhaj (talk) 02:30, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NPOV, your obvious personal bias is not relevant here. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:38, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Internet trolls from a known hate group are not "basically everyone". Fansites like theonering(dot)net, influencers in the LotR fan community and prominent contemporary tolkien scholars all had positive reactions. Also, the fact that you are using terms like "woke" (I don't think that word means what you think it does) shows that you are not qualified to contribute to this discussion in any meaningful way. 46.97.170.40 (talk) 10:14, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but this is a part of a much larger phenomenon, that can be seen as the continuation of the Gamergate harrassment campaign and the Comicsgate movement. The Fandom Menace is an organized troll group that runs multiple websites like Bounding into Comics (which in turn has ties to both white supremacist Vox Day and prominent Comicsgate leaders) and has a long history organizing "backlash" against recent instalments in popular franchises. At one point, wikipedia needs to have an article on these people. 46.97.170.40 (talk) 10:14, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The trailer was not well received.

I think it should be noted into the marketing section. The trailer is facing an overwhelming backlash from people, not only on reddit or twitter but also on youtub. Even if without including the troll, I think it give us some indications about the final result of the show. 2A02:A03F:6B8E:EE00:9DD5:DF5F:B397:977C (talk) 20:17, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the section above where this is already being discussed. Online trolls complaining about a trailer on Reddit/Twitter/YouTube/etc. is not noteworthy on its own since it happens for most films and TV series these days. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:20, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not noteworthy according to who? Excuse me but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, the goal of an encyclopedia is to bring ALL the facts, not to take part for one side or another. There were a lot of negative reviews from several platforms. The backlash was and remain big, at least quite massive to be noted by Amazon and some media and I think it's important to report it. Of course maybe my first approach wasn't really correct, we could say that "the trailer wasn't well received by the public on internet". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A03F:6B8E:EE00:BC27:6FE2:F86E:E861 (talk) 12:45, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would recommend looking at the earlier discussion regarding this concern. Backlash to the project at the moment seems to consist of a smaller, online community of fans, which occurs with literally every single new installment put out by any production company over the past few years (see Star Wars, DC, Fantastic Beasts, even Marvel). If there are notable, reliable sources discussing this, then it is worthy of inclusion. But the statement of "overwhelming backlash" is generic and currently unsubstantiated (though I might even agree with some of the complaints). See the above discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TNstingray (talk • contribs) 17:03, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To claim that this is a smaller online community and of troll nature requires proof. There is no indication that the dislike against the new series and the trailer is of troll nature and its indisputably bigger than a small online community.--Blockhaj (talk) 11:58, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong. You are the one who needs to show proof that there has been a genuine backlash from tolkien fans. So far, every single source that covers this, links it to a vocal minority of far right hecklers, with ties to Gamergate. 46.97.170.40 (talk) 11:10, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Denofgeek article

Den of Geek has recently published an article talking about the so-called backlash to The Rings of Power, called "Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power - Why Fandom Has to Embrace Change". Thegamer also has multiple articles on the subject. Both are cited on hundreds of wikipedia articles, so I'm going to assume they're considered reliable. The Den of Geek article is especially useful, because it talks about pretty much everything I said in relation to this fake controversy, from the far right's attempts to claim Tolkien as their own throughout history, to the repeating trend of these people organizing mass review-bombings of anything that features characters other then white men, tracing it back all the way to Gamergate. It's a very informative article and I recommend it to everyone here. IMDB has also signalboosted it. It definitely needs mentioning, because this story is only going to grow bigger, as the release of the show nears. 46.97.170.40 (talk) 11:09, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Per my points above, I think we should still be waiting to see what the long-term view of this is, and no matter how long we wait I believe much of this discussion, if it is to be added, should be going in the general reception section rather than in the marketing section since we are clearly no longer talking about just one trailer. People have decided that this is how they will respond to the series as a whole despite not seeing it yet. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:33, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I do like that the article exists, that it takes a critical eye to what we’ve seen and acknowledges it as what it actually is, and not representative of the overall reception of the overall product--CreecregofLife (talk) 21:46, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But just because it's not representative of the overall reception, it doesn't change the fact that this is a real and well documented phenomenon with years of history behind it, that wikipedia should cover. 46.97.170.40 (talk) 10:58, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are missing my point. First off, people need to subscribe to Amazon Prime to watch the series in the first place, so even if in theory the majority of the people who say it disliked it, it wouldn't mean anything, as it would not reflect on Amazon's profits, or the ratings of the series. WHich means critical reception is the only objective metric by wich the reception can be determined. And yes, reception of the Rings of Power so far is positive. That's not what this story is about, this story is about a brigading campaigns organized by politically motivated gamergate-adjacent internet trolls who do this regularly, and who's activities have been reported on by far too many reliable sources for wikipedia to simply ignore them. If it doesn't belong in the article, then a separate article needs to be made on The Fandom Menace (instead of a redirect to the Star Wars fandom, which is not accurate) to inform people of their activities). 46.97.170.40 (talk) 10:56, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious sourcing.

In the cast section the line: "Tolkien had described Galadriel in her youth as being a strong fighter of "Amazon disposition"" Is not supported by the citation. That is, he did use the phrase 'Amazon disposition', but does not describe her as a 'strong fighter'.

The actual quote is an explanation for her (nick)name: "She was then of Amazon disposition and bound up her hair as a crown when taking part in athletic feats"

86.145.8.146 (talk) 17:47, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is it dubious sourcing or just a synthetic observation? CreecregofLife (talk) 18:08, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is what the source says (emphasis mine): Tolkien claimed young Galadriel could match strength with most male counterparts, and in a 1973 letter, wrote, “She was then of Amazon disposition and bound up her hair as a crown when taking part in athletic feats.” This is how she got her name, Galadriel, which means “maiden crowned with gleaming hair.” In The Unfinished Tales it says, “[Galadriel] looked upon the Dwarves also with the eye of a commander, seeing in them the finest warriors to pit against the Orcs.” I don't think it is a stretch to get from that to the wording used in the article. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:56, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I figured it was a rephrase surmised from the info (which of course avoids plagiarism and such) but my inquiry was more about whether the concern was categorized correctly CreecregofLife (talk) 22:17, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely not "dubious sourcing", just a question of specific wording based on the source provided. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:21, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yeah, the source is an advert, which shouldn't really come anywhere close to RS, but that wasn't actually what I was getting at, I think the idea of quality sources only on wiki has long since died; what I meant was more that it's worded wrongly. It's phrased as though it's a quote, but isn't...it's...a twisted synthesis I guess you'd say. The source itself does the same thing in the exact part quoted above...."Tolkien claimed young Galadriel could match strength with most male counterparts". Not true. He did not claim that, which suggests the source isn't good. Again though, that's not really my point, my point's that the sentence is "Tolkien said X" when he absolutely did not. If this is about the discourse there are a few actual Tolkien quotes of her fighting that could be used directly (almost anything primary can be an RS for a direct quote merely saying that quote is in it), and the article already quotes the shows promos as her being a 'warrior'. I just don't like wiki saying "person A said B"...or claimed B, or suggested or described or whatever you want....when it isn't true. I don't care what policies you want to argue over, we shouldn't put words into someones mouth just because they don't qualify for the L in BLP. It's a phrase he never used sourced to an ad. 86.145.8.146 (talk) 17:57, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Vanity Fair articles aren’t advertisements, so right there you’re not off to a good start CreecregofLife (talk) 18:13, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is that Article a joke?.

Why is there not a single critical sentence in the Marketing section? Or just make a new section like "Fan Reactions". It is pretty obvious that the trailer was not well received by fans. It almost seems like the editor is getting paid to prevent the predominant critical display. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:810D:8FC0:2C23:91B2:16D9:C3D1:A5A0 (talk) 02:58, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What's there to be critical of? CreecregofLife (talk) 03:19, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This article IS a joke. The online mayhem regarding the marketing is one of the biggest examples of negative "fan reaction" I have seen in 20 years of Internet. And the silence of this article about is a rather clear reflection of who takes care of what. I wonder how much it pays, to gate-guard one Wikipedia article. Enough to buy a meal or two? 2003:DB:DF2B:A8B9:C51A:68CE:5626:42A9 (talk) 03:33, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What was it regarding the marketing exactly they were mayheming over? CreecregofLife (talk) 03:52, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
you're kidding right? 174.61.111.165 (talk) 01:03, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing you answer... CreecregofLife (talk) 01:37, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is already appropriate criticism in the marketing section. The things you are concerned about missing were already discussed in the "Trailer reactions" section above. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:52, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Were is this "appropriate criticism"? The only ose of criticism in the article i can find is the segment: "Kevin E G Perry of The Independent was even more "critical" of the "visual effects", saying the trailer looked "cheap" and like a "cut scene from an old Final Fantasy computer game"." The article lacks a proper description of the heavily negative online fan reaction of the trailer and description of the show and it appears that the article is guarded by people wanting to censor this fact. The fact that "online trolling", "racism" and "harassement" is being used as arguments in the above discussions without evidence is a clear indication that the current article lacks a neutral point of view. Im adding a POV template to the top of the article.--Blockhaj (talk) 20:59, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Except that is a neutral point of view. A blunt statement of fact. Attempting to erase what actually happened actually takes the neutral point of view away CreecregofLife (talk) 21:02, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What are you talking about? Also, do not remove a template prior to discussion and consensus.--Blockhaj (talk) 21:23, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What am I talking about? Try rereading it so you know what it says. It's not that hard. As for the template, the discussion reached consensus three months ago. You were involved in the discussion. Just because you disagree doesn't mean it didn't happen. The template will be removed CreecregofLife (talk) 21:29, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Again, do not remove the template until consensus is reached. The above discussions never ended on a consensus and here the discussion has been opened again. As for your statement – "Attempting to erase what actually happened actually takes the neutral point of view away", refers to what? I'm implementing the template because the trailer and show has gotten a lot of backlash, yet this article doesnt reflect that and several users have pointed it out. But several other users states that this is just "trolling" and the like and thus not worth describing on the page, thus "erasing what actually happaned", etc, which indeed "takes the neutral point of view away". Once again i will add the POV template to the article because it is clear that this page has a lot of personal feelings and agendas behind it, thus not being neutral. If you still find this to be an incorrect use of the template etc then please contact a moderator to join the discussion because we cannot have an edit war about this.--Blockhaj (talk) 21:43, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Again, consensus was already reached in February. It is not neutral to validate racism. You are pushing your own personal feelings and agendas. This was already explained to you. Please stop readding the template CreecregofLife (talk) 22:08, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Blockhaj: Just because the previous discussion did not end on a definitive decision to take action does not mean that there was no consensus. I and others who opposed adding commentary on the "heavily negative online fan reaction of the trailer" were of the opinion that we should wait to see whether it really was so big and so well covered in reliable sources that it should be added, and the people who wanted to add things about it immediately either changed their minds or decided to stop arguing for it. That means there is (at least) implicit consensus from the previous discussion to wait until there is more evidence that this should be included. Now, a few months later, I don't see evidence that this has been a long-term high profile issue. It isn't something that major sources are still covering at the moment, maybe that will change once the series comes out and we can compare the initial reaction by some people online to their actual reactions to the show (which is what I was arguing for above). So I don't think it is appropriate to add a POV template to the article since the current lack of negative fan reaction discussion is a result of talk page consensus, for now. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:46, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
+1 to adamstom97 above; I distinctly remember the initial furor, but some quick canvassing of news and other reliable sources seem to indicate it was something of a flash in the pan. I don't think it
WP:DUE for the article, and it is not an NPOV issue to leave it out, by my lights. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 01:12, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

(edit conflict) I can only speak for my own experience here but 90% of all clips i get when searching Ring of power on Youtube are critique videos of how the situation has been handled since the release of the trailer. Some clips were uploaded as recent as 5 hrs ago (apparently 20 min of new footage has been shown today?). Youtube has also been accused of deleting 1 million dislikes from the trailer video etc, which despite 30 million views only have 115k likes (i lack the chrome extension atm so i cannot see the dislikes but the comments speaks for themselves). My point is that the blacklash has not died (it might have stagnated a bit due to beating a dead horse), thus i find it important that the article portrays this. However since it takes time to write a neutral segment about a hot topic like this, along with research, i think a proper quickfix is the POV template.--Blockhaj (talk) 01:13, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, your experience of YouTube is
WP:OR, and it would naturally be colored by YouTube's algorithm; the searches might go differently for someone else. If you really want to make this point you need to show some reliable sources that are not in the immediate aftermath of the clips' debut. Until then, for me, anyway, I am afraid it is simply unconvincing. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 01:23, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Seems like stirring up the same old vitriol, whipping up the same people. There is no need to give it equal weight to nuanced professional response CreecregofLife (talk) 02:43, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm only here to improve the article to but this subject is more trouble than its worth. All i want is to tag the page as lacking context while i conduct research.--Blockhaj (talk) 03:44, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You should do at least some research before tagging it, to effectively prove the page lacks context to the other editors here. —El Millo (talk) 03:46, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I do rather feel that we're taking the ostrich approach to a real phenomenon. Dimitra Fimi, Senior Lecturer in Fantasy and Children's Literature at the University of Glasgow, has published a piece here about it, which shows that a backlash exists and has attracted scholarly attention even prior to the series' release. "Backlash" is her word, and I suggest that we use it. There is scope to write a subheading under that title.—S Marshall T/C 09:54, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The "backlash" against the casting of non-white actors is already discussed in the casting section, what we are holding off here is adding about other fan concerns regarding the trailer and/or series in general in the marketing section or a reception section. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:03, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Its not about non-white actors, its about changing the source material.--Blockhaj (talk) 13:23, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
One would think that the casting of so many non-elvish actors would be an even larger concern in that regard. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 14:00, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Considering the sources here, it does warrant somewhat greater prominence than a few sentences at the end of the casting section.—S Marshall T/C 15:57, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, Professor Fimi herself describes the backlash as having "caused uproar in certain quarters of Tolkien fandom." That sort of qualification, combined with the apparently short-lived nature of the backlash, convinces me that we have it about right. Deserves mention certainly, but I my preference would be to keep the article largely as is. Reasonable minds may differ, of course. Dumuzid (talk) 16:52, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Prof Fimi is the only scholarly source in an article that's otherwise sourced to showbiz outlets and churnalism.—S Marshall T/C 17:49, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. And I am trying to say (but communicating poorly) that she qualifies the backlash as being somewhat limited ("certain quarters"). For me, that leads to the conclusion that we're on the right track, but happy to bow to consensus should it decide otherwise. Dumuzid (talk) 17:52, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is limited. Not everyone who likes Tolkien is offended by the sight of black people in fantasy; Prof Fimi rightly excludes herself and for the record me too. Nevertheless racism in Tolkien fandom is quite a big deal nowadays and I don't think it's a matter we should minimize.—S Marshall T/C 21:00, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This sounds like you want to give the racism a big a platform as possible CreecregofLife (talk) 22:03, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I am minimizing it. I think I am giving it a due amount of attention. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 02:51, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Does it really though? CreecregofLife (talk) 19:20, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly yes. Tell me, do you have any connection with anyone in the television series? Has anyone offered you any kind of reward or incentive to frame the article as it currently is?—S Marshall T/C 21:00, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't sound like good-faith discussion to me CreecregofLife (talk) 22:02, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@S Marshall: I agree with CreecregofLife that such accusations are out of place and unwarranted, not to mention that I have been the primary contributor at this article and one of the main proponents for not adding more on this topic so far, so if anyone should be getting paid to keep negative content out of the article then it should be me!
As has been pointed out by others above, there is little evidence to suggest that this is a widespread or long-lasting issue. Yes, there are a loud group of Tolkien fans on the internet who are super racist, they have been covered by some sources, and they have been responded to by the creative team (all of which is mentioned in the article), but a "group of Tolkien fans on the internet" is not a significant sample of people by any measure, and the coverage of them by reliable third-party sources has been small and brief. If this happens again with the next trailer and/or the actual series release and we get more ongoing commentary about it then I agree that we should have a more prominent discussion about it in the article, but for now we would just be elevating a fringe group.
Also, I would point out that this thread was not started by someone who wanted the article to discuss the racist fans more, it actually seems to have been started by one of those fans who thinks the article is being too nice on the series and producers. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:58, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To ask a question is not to accuse. Levels of UPE on Wikipedia are very high, but when I see someone whitewashing content I don't assume they're engaged in UPE. I ask them. Taking offence is a common way to try to quash a discussion you don't want to have.
Honestly, I find it a bit hard to reconcile the very high levels of detail we have on which actors have been hired and in one case fired, with the brief mention at the end of the bottom-most paragraph under "casting" that discusses the backlash covered in a whole bunch of sources (I got to seven and stopped counting). I'm not in the least bit surprised you've got all these IP editors wanting to add stuff about the backlash, whatever their motives.—S Marshall T/C 00:12, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I wouldn't want to entertain such ludicrous questioning that responded to "Does it really though"? To claim I took offense to avoid discussion when I've been in the discussion for months. You're just not making sense CreecregofLife (talk) 01:38, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it is difficult to reconcile the idea that we have more details on the people cast in the show than mentions of a small group of racists on the internet. One is an integral part of the topic, the other is barely relevant. I would be concerned if the article treated racist internet fans more importantly than the actual production of the series. The fact is that you can always find someone on the internet with a strong view about something, that doesn't mean we need to give them a bigger platform here than is due. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:04, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying it should be given more prominence than the actual production of the series and I don't know where you got that impression from. I'm saying it merits a subheading and a couple of paragraphs. I disagree that we're dealing with a "small group of racists on the internet". We're dealing with a substantial, if minority, group who have a racist issue with what they would call woke casting.—S Marshall T/C 09:11, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think you need to be a bit more careful about your word choices, because do you have any connection with anyone in the television series? Has anyone offered you any kind of reward or incentive to frame the article as it currently is sounds exactly like you are accusing someone of being paid to do something that you don't like, and I find it a bit hard to reconcile the very high levels of detail we have on which actors have been hired and in one case fired, with the brief mention at the end of the bottom-most paragraph under "casting" that discusses the backlash sounds exactly like you think this issue is more important than the actual casting of the show.
I'm not saying that we won't eventually end up with a section dedicated to this issue, I'm just saying that we need more proof that it is actually widespread and long-lasting. Yes, there are sources out there discussing this, but most of them are just brief news stories from a short period of time when the small group of people that we are talking about were first "outraged". If the series comes out and this is no longer a major issue then in the full scope of the topic this would just be a brief issue that warrants only a small mention in another section. If the series comes out and this continues to be a big issue and gets even more coverage by good sources with actual analysis and discussion, then I think it will make sense to expand on what we have. We are in
WP:NORUSH, especially since the series hasn't been released yet. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:06, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Break

The relevant policy here is

WP:NPOV
. Let me quote the key paragraph in full.

An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. For example, a description of isolated events, quotes, criticisms, or news reports related to one subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially for recent events that may be in the news.

— 
WP:BALASP

So let's look at the body of reliable, published material available. The main text is sourced to showbiz press such as Vanity Fair, Variety and Deadline Hollywood, plus newspaper churnalism recycling Amazon Studios' press releases. We do have one source from an independent academic which I've linked above, and it's almost entirely about the backlash to the trailer. Other sources about the backlash by named journalists include The Guardian, Escapist Magazine, Den of Geek, TSL news, The Gamer, Forbes, Slashfilm, IndieWire, Fortune, Evie Magazine.

Not all of these sources are brilliant, of course. Evie Magazine's and Forbes's pieces are both ghastly. They fail to distinguish between the fan groups and just say "the fans" hate it, and I'd suggest we don't use either in the actual article. There's also a piece in the Daily Mail which I won't even bother to link. But the sheer quantity of independent media coverage invokes WP:BALASP, and also I contend that the pieces by The Guardian and by Prof Fimi rank highly among the most reliable sources cited anywhere in the article, because they contain critical analysis by professionals.

In all cases where it seems plausible that an article is being whitewashed for PR purposes, I ask questions about COI, and I think you should too. CreecregofLife's refusal to deny a COI is rather surprising.—S Marshall T/C 22:58, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have been (wrongfully) accused of PR whitewashing at other articles which have received similar backlash from toxic fans (especially Star Trek: Discovery and Star Trek: Picard) so I am sensitive to such accusations, which usually come from the other side (including the IP that started this thread). I can see that your intentions were genuine, I'm just pointing out how your question came across. I'm also not saying that there aren't good sources covering this, clearly there are and we could put together a good summary of the ones you have there. My concern is that we would be violating NPOV by putting a significant amount of emphasis on some racist fans who were loud enough to get the media's attention for a couple weeks in February when the trailer came out, but do not necessarily represent a significant portion of the series' audience and/or will not have a lasting presence in coverage of the series. Whether they would or not could definitely be determined once the series is released and we see how sources cover it and the backlash then.
However, something that I have just seen which sways me more towards the side of inclusion now is this article from The Gamer. I had seen that several Tolkien fan websites had been invited to a special screening of the series and I was planning on adding some details about it to the marketing section soon, but this article draws an explicit line from the fan backlash to Amazon setting up the screening which would indicate that this group of fans is having an impact on the producers which makes the whole thing more noteworthy. My concern with approaching this would be, where is the best place to put it all? I don't think it is incorrect to note some of the casting backlash in the casting section as we currently have, and I think it makes sense to add this fan screening info to the marketing section, so should discussion of the backlash be spread between those two locations? Or should we just bite the bullet and create an audience response section that discusses everything? I feel like you are leaning towards the latter. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:34, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just because they’re allegedly Tolkien “fans” doesn’t mean their input is valid. If they are intentionally misleading producers it should be portrayed as such. I refuse any and all uncritical inclusion of the racist platitudes. After the accusations Marshall made against me any claims of genuine concern are dubious. Nothing has changed in the noteworthiness.CreecregofLife (talk) 23:38, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We're not here to parse which input is "valid" and which isn't. The Gamer article is another data point, and more recent, but I am not sure it really changes my mind, as it uses the controversy as sort of rhetorical throat clearing, without going into it substantively. I think we're still covered at the moment, but as ever, happy to go with consensus. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 23:45, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I could put together an example of what I am thinking based on the Gamer article since I want to work on including the fan screening info in marketing anyway, and we can see what others think about that? - adamstom97 (talk) 23:47, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That would be appreciated! Dumuzid (talk) 23:51, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That tone is not very conducive to civil discussion CreecregofLife. We are not suggesting an "uncritical inclusion of the racist platitudes" at all. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:46, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neither was the accusation of being paid off, or a still unfounded claim of bias in the article, yet here we are, entertaining yet another person who has done so CreecregofLife (talk) 23:50, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's not an excuse to be uncivil towards other editors, but it is understandable given Marshall keeps at it with completely unfounded accusations such as CreecregofLife's refusal to deny a COI is rather surprising, which are as bad-faith as it can get, especially when there are other clearly more plausible "biases" someone can have in this situation, such as having liked the trailer or considering giving racist arguments more attention to be harmful. —El Millo (talk) 02:14, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Lord_of_the_Rings:_The_Rings_of_Power&oldid=1089308492"