Talk:Rings of Power

A modern perspective
An editor has now twice seen fit to remove a reliably-cited paragraph from the article without obtaining consensus, and the second time of course knowing that at least one editor did not agree. That is by definition edit-warring.

Here is the text:


 * "In a 2019 article published by Kaspersky Lab, Nikolay Pankov analysed Sauron's efforts to dominate or ensnare the bearers of the Rings of Power from a modern perspective, with reference to the context of Tolkien's enthusiasm in the field of cryptanalysis as well as his participation in a language course run by the Government Code and Cypher School during the late 1930s.   Pankov used analogies to real-world information security terms such as supply chain attacks, phishing techniques, and botnet software to describe the struggles between Sauron and the various Ring-bearers who are representatives of the Free Peoples of Middle-earth. "


 * Editors are invited to discuss a) whether this is relevant to this article, and b) if so, where it should be placed in the article; or c) whether other claims from the Kaspersky source are worth mentioning here; or d) whether the cybersecurity aspect on Tolkien should be in another article, such as Influences on J. R. R. Tolkien. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:19, 15 April 2024 (UTC)


 * While the sources show that Tolkien was interested in cyptography, the primary source for linking this interest with the rings of power specifcally in the discussed passage is a blog opinion post, not an scholarly article. The text in question has no connection to the section "power and morality" and is not even in the "read further" article. The text also does not talk about the Rings of Power at all, hence WP:IRI.
 * Would also appreciate a more civil tone going forward with good faith, instead of assuming malice/edit warring. Posting on my talk page that I'm disruptive and can be banned after making a single revert is also against the spirit of Civility. Thank you. Beestax (talk) 17:46, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Two reverts, actually: see WP:BRD. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:54, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Initial edit was incorrectly tagged as revert. One edit, and one revert as my initial edit on relevance was not addressed.
 * Initial deletion is a revert, policy is clear on the matter, and BRD means BOLDLY (ONCE ONLY), REVERT (ONCE ONLY), DISCUSS, it has no other meaning. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:20, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Regardless, what is your suggestion for the passage? Beestax (talk) 18:14, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I've suggested alternatives above. I think we should await input from project members. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:19, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I don’t think that Karpersky Lab blog meets the bar for inclusion in a Wikipedia article. Some blog posts are allowed, of course: If the blog were purely about a topic that Kapersky is expert on, then WP:BLOG would permit it. However, without having high credibility on matters Tolkien or literary critique, it’s hard for me to accept as notable or reliable enough. Strebe (talk) 19:26, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * It's all a bit over-egged. Tolkien attended a course at Bletchley. His passing 'with flying colours' is assumed (per Telegraph - was it even assessed?) and his 'enthusiasm' is scarcely shown by his declining to take the job. There is no carry-over from Tolkien's GCHQ connection to Sauron's strategies, especially not in terms of modern cyber warfare. After that, any parallels that may arise need a more notable reliable source than the rather tongue-in-cheek blog that is offered (krimpatul = crimping tool?!). -- Verbarson talkedits 10:57, 16 April 2024 (UTC)