Talk:The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power/Archive 9

Out of casual curiosity I examined the current critic's score of RoP on Rotten Tomatoes. Currently it stands at 85%. There were only 4 Critical Reviews linked on the site and each was lacklustre with 1 tomato and 3 rotten. One thing however that did catch my eye was that the average score calculated amongst the critics was reported as 2/10 (20%) from 466 reviews total.

When calculating the Tomatometer Rotten Tomatoes does its own assessment of a review (Good vs Bad) and then calculates the percentile to provide the Tomatometer (% good). It also maintains a score (presumably that of the original Reviewers) which it then averages.

If I understand this correctly - the average rating of the Reviewers is 2/10 and yet Rotten Tomatoes has assessed the majority of those Reviews (398 of 466) as positive/fresh - thus coming up with its 85% rating (398/466)x100%. There is obviously a huge discrepancy between these scores as it appears the average critic is marking the show as poor and yet the Tomatometer appears to say the opposite.

From just a casual browse this appears to be unique to RoP. For example, a comparison with some other shows (Tomatometer / Average Score(%) [Difference] ):

Rings of Power(S1) - 85 / 20 [ 65 ] Star Wars: Rise of Skywalker - 52 / 61 [9] Wonder Woman 1984 - 58 / 61 [3] LoR: Return of the King - 93 / 87 [6] Wednesday(S1) - 71 / 68 [3]

The variance between the Tomatometer and the average critic score appears in reasonable agreement (<10%) for all these shows, excepting for the RoP instance (65%). Can somebody please provide a cogent explanation as to why there might be such a huge discrepancy between the two scores in RoP? In the absence of such an explanation I think it reasonable to suggest that the Rotten Tomatoes score for RoP is suspect!

It would of course be interesting to see if this apparent phenomenon spills over to other rating sites! 144.134.150.203 (talk) 07:51, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

This is fascinating, but not really a basis on which to emend the article per

WP:OR. I have no idea why any of this might be, as I know precious little of Rotten Tomatoes or their methodology, but if you can find some sort of corroboration in a reliable source, we might have something to talk about. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk

) 15:44, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Rotten Tomatoes data features large in the article even appearing in a prominent trend graph highlighting the show's ongoing reception amongst critics - so it plays an outsized influence on the Article's claims - the data (Tomatometer / Average critic score) appears to be an outlier when compared to other shows on the site.

As I guess it's original research the original source refers to the data taken from the Rotten Tomatoes website [ https://www.rottentomatoes.com/tv/the_lord_of_the_rings_the_rings_of_power/s01 ]. Other episodes as per their pages.

If the interpretation of the average critic score is correct (and here I would implore the interpretation of an expert) then the inference is that Rotten Tomatoes has skewed the Tomatometer during tabulation by interpreting third-party reviews as favourable (when it normally would not for other shows). The variance between the [Tomatometer / Average critic score] sticks out like a sore-thumb for RoP vis-a-vis other shows on the Website.

I would also suggest that Amazon owned, affiliated or influenced parties not be used in the article as per the obvious conflict-of-interest issues that arise (don't know if Wikipedia has any policies regarding that). 2001:8003:70F5:2400:7DDD:A9C4:602A:8A16 (talk) 21:49, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

A better tack here (though I have no clue if it is viable) would be to find other reliable sources or aggregators that cast things in a different light, and perhaps try to add context. For Wikipedia purposes, "fisking" an otherwise reliable source in this way without more to back you up is always going to be an uphill battle. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:54, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

OK - Thank you (didn't know what "fisking" was before you mentioned it ... but now I do ... I don't think that pointing out aberrant data falls under that category - it's aberrant data (evidently) - it needs an explanation as to why it deviates from the norm especially since the variance between a score of 85% and 20% completely changes the entire derived meaning of that data. For example a score of 85% and 20% on a mathematics exam indicates two very different outcomes)! 2001:8003:70F5:2400:7DDD:A9C4:602A:8A16 (talk) 21:58, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

It is interesting that Rotten Tomatoes is majority owned by NBC Universal - guess what News Channels & Publications were running the prep. work for the reimagining of Tolkien's world (and carrying promos and direct advertising for Rings of Power ... a degree of access that should be mutually profitable for many years to come should they play nice with their Paymaster) ... a tiny, tiny conflict of interest (10's of millions of dollars tiny for NBC and other media companies and 100's of millions (billions?) tiny for Amazon)!

This is not the first article that I have seen in Wikipedia that may be surreptitiously (some no doubt will argue the opposite) carrying promotional / buttress material for the content-creator. I have seen it done in several other articles most notably that of the author/historian Caroline Elkins which quoted and cited 'glowing' reviews which, it transpired on closer inspection, were actually written by the Publishers of her books! This is not unique to Wikipedia and media sources such as The Guardian are well known for disguising 'advertising' as authoritative commentary!

It is however a corrosive problem for a source that claims to be an encyclopaedia!

2001:8003:70F5:2400:7DDD:A9C4:602A:8A16 (talk) 02:56, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

JUST FYI: I have added some more figurative data deriving from Critic Reviews as before for Rotten Tomatoes from similar genres and the latest Star Wars trilogy (which was similar in fan backlash) for comparison:

Tomatometer - Average Score(%) [Difference] ):

LoR: Fellowship of the Ring: 91 - 82 [9]

LoR: Two Towers: 95 - 85 [10]

LoR: Return of the King: 93 - 87 [6]

The Hobbit (An Unexpected Journey): 64 - 66 [2]

The Hobbit (The Desolation of Smaug): 74 - 68 [6]

The Hobbit (The Battle of the Five Armies): 59 - 63 [4]

Wheel of Time (S1) 82 - 70 [12]

Star Wars (The Force Awakens): 93 - 83 [10]

Star Wars (The Last Jedi): 91 - 81 [10]

Star Wars (Rise of SkyWalker): 52 - 61 [9]

ST-D (S1): 82 - 70 [12]

ST-D (S2): 81 - 73 [8]

ST-D (S3): 91 - 77 [14]

ST-D (S4): 88 - 77 [11]

ST-SNW (S1): 99 - 81 [18]

at [65] the Rings of Power is definitely an outlier - something very odd appears to be happening in the analysis! 2001:8003:70F5:2400:E460:6D38:B6AA:E4FA (talk) 09:51, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Things make a lot more sense (including the current state of this article and the complete absence of any criticism) when you understand that Wikipedia exists solely to reinforce neoliberal establishment consensus and talking points; not to represent objective reality. To simplify, right wing trolls hate this show, and therefore we must pretend that the show is good, in spite of the overwhelming evidence that it is largely hated with prejudice by Tolkien fans across the political spectrum. There is a never-ending list of WP:BLAHBLAH that professional wikipedia editors will use to dismiss this reality and prevent anyone from changing the article to accurately reflect it. TurtleZoos (talk) 19:38, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

You forgot to mention that we're all paid by Amazon, otherwise, spot on. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:40, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Sadly I think most do it for free. And by the way, how does Star Trek: Discovery rank? I recall something very similar happening with it, where the "critical consensus" was the polar opposite of the fanbase response, and there is little mention of any criticism on its wikipedia page. All criticism was similar dismissed as "racist/sexist trolling" because the Captain is a black woman. TurtleZoos (talk) 19:46, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Don't know and don't care! Have a nice day. Dumuzid (talk) 19:47, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

You've made two utterly useless responses to me. Are you just here to troll? TurtleZoos (talk) 19:53, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Apparently I am here solely to reinforce neoliberal establishment consensus and talking points, but with that I'll cease bothering you. All the best. 19:55, 5 January 2023 (UTC) Dumuzid (talk) 19:55, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

That love-fest really made it all worth it (and I get the culture and emergent counter-culture ... and yes can derive sense/nonsense from that) ... but seriously would like to know why the Rotten Tomatoes score is so bent after having seen it and really don't have the inclination (or will-power) to read through 400+ critical reviews to have to do my own analysis ... anyone?

I put Star Trek Discovery in the table above since you mentioned it and yes it was a horrifically bad show appealing to the 'modern' cafeteria set and so naturally rated well with critics vis-a-vis 'normal' people - but no large deviation as per Rings of Power. I then added Strange New Worlds and there is quite a large deviation there (18) - so that's a mildly interesting figure skewed by the fact that Rotten Tomatoes only adjudged one critical review of 81 as negative and what that automatically suggests to me (see I knew something was gathering in my mind other than thoughts of dinner). The average score is a better indicator than the Tomatometer (but probably not something Rotten Tomatoes can patent/and or characterise as its own) - and the problem that engenders for this article is that for Rings of Power that score is currently 20 for some unknown reason!2001:8003:70F5:2400:E460:6D38:B6AA:E4FA (talk) 07:34, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

It is certainly a happy accident that the benefits of review aggregator "error" like what you have observed here consistently go in one direction. Of course this is an issue far larger than any one topic - certainly far larger than this vanity television project watched by so few that the corporate invention of there being some organized 'racist cabal' of rabid lore purists angered by Amazon's "modern" interpretation of Tolkien's world would be giving the series's reach too much credit - but it finely illustrates why Wikipedia, at the tail-end of the access media process, will never be considered a reliable source. These issues are simply the latest of many to highlight the need at the page level for vigilance against UPE, sponsored content, and all industry givens that make reliable sources demonstrably unreliable and article slop like this one inevitable. 1-jVX-9 (talk) 19:14, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Just thought it would be worth pointing anyone interested to

Wikipedia's thoughts on its own reliability. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk

) 19:23, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you and appreciations for the work you do. Circular sourcing would appear to be highly problematic in articles such as this, as many of these apparently independent sources are probably owned by the same media companies/conglomerates or cabals of the same (not to mention the contemporary forces that encourage people within these organisations to think the same)!

Modern movies are in general, rubbish because the feedback mechanisms required to improve them do not work (precisely because content creators are able to eschew critical feedback on the basis of ideological/elitist/other grounds. Alternatively (and equally depressing), the economics of modern media content is no longer reliant on quality).

Maybe Wikipedia might want to look at the origin of sources that contribute to an article (e.g. 100s of references that can be traced back to 2 or 3 media companies is not really 'balance') - not saying that's the case here - but I do see echoes of the Caroline Elkins article I referred to earlier which was likely crafted by her publicist and had removed all prior criticisms of her work and actively kept it off the page - that's functioning as promotional not, encyclopaedic content! 2001:8003:70F5:2400:514F:41EF:1494:4EFA (talk) 12:34, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Helpful as ever, cheers. 1-jVX-9 (talk) 20:29, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not here to platform conspiracy theories and other "alternative facts". These observations are more at home on r/kotakuinaction. 46.97.170.191 (talk) 10:39, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for rolling out the 'ol buzzwords (they were missing from the conversation). You should read some Wikipedia articles on History (or History Revisioning) and qualify your statement against these. Articles written by 20-something ideologues that quite successfully distort whole tracts of History for an entire generation of people. Wikipedia purports to be an Encyclopaedia and some would like to nudge it towards that role as in many, many articles it instead fulfils the role of propagandist and (as perhaps in this instance) a mouthpiece for advertising agencies. 2001:8003:70F5:2400:C924:4CF0:377D:D967 (talk) 23:37, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

WP:DROPTHESTICK 46.97.170.191 (talk

) 12:01, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

WP:GAME, etc. TLDR: It is a discussion worth having, try to be more open-minded towards views you personally disagree with. Have a nice day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by V-Moltisanti (talk • contribs

) 19:04, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

I would agree it's a conversation worth having; just not here. I don't really think it's Wikipedia appropriate at all, but something that might be raised at

WP:RSN or the like. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk

) 19:09, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree that this talk page may not be the appropriate venue, though given that the full extent of the problem for the time being is unknown and is currently only shown to apply to this one television show, the odds of changing WP policy to address issues of opinion/tone within this one article are low. As continued use of the source makes it impossible to maintain a

are not necessarily disallowed on bias alone, any biased source is not necessarily required to be used. A situation as unique such as this negatively affects RT's validity and weight as a source for this topic, therefore, it may be best to exclude it entirely until a change is made on RT's part to more accurately reflect critical opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by V-Moltisanti (talk • contribs

) 20:09, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

With all due respect, I think you've fallen victim to the poor naming of

original research, but I, for one, am not willing to sort of throw our typical guidelines out the window on that basis. As ever, if you can establish a consensus without me, then you don't have to worry about my quibbles! Cheers. Dumuzid (talk

) 20:37, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

There is a logical nullity you may be falling victim to yourself in that when dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider [...] the level of independence from the topic the source is covering. By your letter-of-the-law interpretation of an easily-misinterpreted policy (an easy mistake to make), it is fair to knowingly represent editorially-biased views based on the simple fact the source happens to be otherwise reliable with regard to other topics, thus negating the goal of

WP:NPOV

: to represent fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.. In short: that this particular source is otherwise reliable for any other topic does not make it specifically a necessary addition to a given topic. I'm sure there are plenty of equally reliable sources that are not majority-owned by NBCUniversal that carry a similarly "mostly positive" viewpoint. Even short of outright exclusion or the band-aid solution of balancing the RT material with equally-biased information representing the opposite POV, any continued inclusion of the RT material makes in-text attribution required (ie: "The feminist Betty Friedan wrote that..."; "According to the Marxist economist Harry Magdoff..."; "Rotten Tomatoes, an American review-aggregation website for film and television majority-owned by Amazon Studios-affiliated NBC Universal, summarized critical response to Rings Of Power as...").

All fair, but I stand by what I said: I, personally, would need to see something more than ipse dixit for this allegation of bias. Perhaps you can provide it! But until then, it's a no from me (which consensus might make otherwise irrelevant). Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:44, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

You are certainly entitled to that opinion! Have a nice day.

Thought it might be worth mentioning that the same source removed a comment using WP:DENY to an earlier statement that I made in the section:"Possible attempt at false balance hidden in plain sight" that they open as a pretext to removing a cited observation that they find objectionable in the article. In that thread another apparent Editor then welcomed the input of this Editor?/Commentator and expresses delight in working with someone of a shared mindset/temperament. At the end of this discourse I pointed out the nature of the conversation they were having and how it was directed towards an outcome simply by virtue of the excessive amount of invectives employed (obviously they didn't like the critique and so one of them removed it using WP:DENY - this is used to address Trolling. "Trolling is when someone deliberately tries to upset others online" - if the individual concerned feels upset when I point out that they have in the preceding paragraphs elected to slur and slander whole groups of people using multiple invectives in order to advance their point ... then "sorry" I guess?).

Two persons (both are Editors?) engaging to change an article because they don't like a dissenting statement from a cited source and then shutting down any critique by exercising inapplicable and seemingly arbitrary WP:* is not healthy and should be a huge red flag. Such behaviour might give weight to the suggestion of editorial bias when shaping this article!2001:8003:70F5:2400:5C2D:C27:374F:89B (talk) 06:26, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Do you have the usernames for these editors on hand? This does seem to be the pattern when reviewing the talk page archives and article statistics. From a quick glance at the article's authorship attribution measured by character count excluding spaces, 83.6% of the text within the current version of the article was written by the same three editors over the course of several years — 79.8% of which is attributable to a single editor — each of whom have expressed and been called out by numerous editors for expressing the same sentiments that can be found within the article. There is evidence for

WP:STN, I would imagine it is unlikely for any constructive changes to the article or its talk page environment to occur without some unfortunately necessary sanctions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by V-Moltisanti (talk • contribs

) 18:10, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't mean to be that guy (but maybe I am that guy?), however we are once more quickly veering toward

WP:NOTAFORUM territory. If there are concerns about particular editors (including me!), I would advise raising it with them or taking it to the appropriate noticeboard. These sorts of "conspiracy whispers" are not helpful and not really directed at improving the article. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk

) 18:22, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Your swift invocation of

WP:NOTAFORUM and reply to a substantial message suggesting the conversation move to the appropriate noticeboards with a request to take the conversation to the appropriate noticeboards have certainly been noted, Dumuzid. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by V-Moltisanti (talk • contribs

) 18:27, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

If you could sign your posts, that would be helpful, just add four tildes to the end of your edit. Cheers! Dumuzid (talk) 18:31, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Some severe last word syndrome going on with the Upwork editors today, whew. Intervention is absolutely needed at this point. There is no way for a neutral editor to contribute to the article or engage in civil discussion without attracting the toxicity of the same handful of bad apples. 1-jVX-9 (talk) 18:42, 11 January 2023 (UTC)