Talk:The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power/Archive 8

"It has received generally positive reviews from critics, with particular praise for its cinematography, visuals, and musical score, but some criticism for its pacing and characterization."
This is in the first section or so. And this is simply not true. Wherever I look the reviews are abysmally bad (Metacritic User rating 2.5 (2500 reviews), Rotten Tomatoes 39%, ...). Should this not be mentioned? I quite often check wikipedia before I start watching a series to see what ratings it got, but here this is clearly misleading. helohe (talk)  10:55, 21 October 2022 (UTC)


 * User-generated content such as the audience scores on IMDb, Rotten Tomatoes, and Metacritic are not considered to be reliable sources on Wikipedia (see WP:USERG). That's why our critical response section refers to data coming from actual critics, and this is then reflected in the lede. TNstingray (talk) 11:03, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Then that policy has to be changed. Media are made for audiences, not for critics. Critics cannot and do not determine the quality or appeal of a product among consumers, especially in this case where Amazon has used its extensive influence to manufacture positive reviews from critics either by paying them directly or by giving them and their employers early access to publications. I do not see how a critic would be a more reliable source than, say, a YouTuber who has given reviews of Tolkien-related or other media-franchise-related publications for many years. Analyses of a product must be evaluated by their factual accuracy and not by some assumed authority of the originator. &#9798; CUSH &#9798; 14:59, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Anybody can say anything they want online, and there is no way to verify the truthfulness or accuracy of that. This is why we have policies in place regarding reliable sourcing. You would need a source to justify Amazon paying off critics, not just vague suspicions based on your opinion of the show. WP:UGC is a sub-point under WP:RS, which is a Wikipedia content guidelines, so I'm not sure how far up you would have to go to get that changed. Which, I guess I can't stop you from trying, but this talk page is not the place for that, and Wikipedia as a project would suffer in quality simply because users like you want to simply trash on articles regarding subjects that you personally don't care for. That's a can of worms that I'm glad consensus has closed due to content guidelines like these. TNstingray (talk) 15:23, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * "Users like you" as well as your implication that I am lying is a clear violation of WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. It is very easy to verify the truthfulness or accuracy of any statement made online. It is called fact checking. It is erroneous to assume that it takes someone who is paid for it, when all that is needed is an expert, or in the case of determining a discrepancy, anybody who is able to demonstrate the discrepancy. Comparing RoP to the source material or determining the cinematic qualities requires experts. Critics are usually only experts in the latter aspect. Given my history with Tolkien-related material and the Estate within the last 25+ years, I would count as an expert, but of course it would be WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, and possibly WP:COI if I wrote it all up myself. You seem to be using policy to depict RoP and the viewership's reaction to it in a better assessment than reviews written after September 1, 2022 as well as elaborate YouTube responses from knowledgeable contributors determine. &#9798; CUSH &#9798; 15:58, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with TNstingray. Media may be made, for the most part, for audiences but it doesn't follow that any member of that general group should have their opinion included in an encyclopaedia. No, opinions have to be limited to a narrower group of commontators where their comments are from a reliable, verifiable source; in this case critics. &#9798; CUSH &#9798; - you are trying to do the same thing when you try to argue for the inclusion of a 'knowledgeable' Youtuber. Your subset of the general 'audience' is merely your preferred subset, but one that is extremely difficult to ascertain as to their reliability (in the Wikipedia sense). You are merely trying to replace one 'authority' with another. While critics may differ in their opinions with the larger audience they are still part of that 'audience' and most have earned their place as experts (not an authority) on the subject matter they write about. You can try to change one of the core policies of Wikipedia but I think you'll be banging your proverbial head against a very large wall. Better to challenge some sources as reliable as there is ongoing debate about this. Robynthehode (talk) 16:08, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * What I said was a statement of fact. Removing the WP:UGC policy would open the floodgates of editors wanting to insert their thoughts and opinions about pop culture installments. I merely equated that with your position based on assumptions gathered from our previous interactions on this talk page. I also nowhere implied that you were lying about anything. I believe that Robynthehode rather nicely summarized anything else I could say. TNstingray (talk) 16:35, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * our critical response section refers to data coming from actual critics is so incomplete as to to be misleading. There is a lot of data coming from actual critics that is excluded from the critical reponses section.
 * There is a huge flaw in the way reliability guidelines and resources are applied. Despite pretty clear instructions about how to determine reliability or unreliability (i.e having vested interests or being independently known to be inaccurate mean a source is unreliable) what happens is people look at the list of sources to determine reliability when that list is merely reporting the state of play so far. "Verifiability" is the core determination of WP content, so genuinely reliable sources are perforce sources that verify - in other words sources that show statements to be true.  Sources that make statements that are already shown to be inaccurate are therefore no verifying anything.  While I generally mislike the perjorative use of the term "access media" the underlying description is valid.  Most professional critics (i.e. the only ones that WP calls "reliable") only keep getting privileged access from makers of content if they keep saying positive things about content from those makers.  They have a vested interest, so what they say is definitively unreliable, even though WP usage is that they are definitively reliable.  Hence many inaccurate (or even plain untrue) WP articles about the arts exist.  Professional critics who are genuinely critical (i.e. positive or negative as the material warrants) tend to wind up being somewhat independent and are therefore perversely bucketed as unreliable.  Eric Kain is a prime example; an experienced professional critic who is a content expert and therefore reliable, but because Forbes call him a "Senior Contributor" he gets dismissed due to the reporting of Forbes contributors as being generally agreed unreliable by WP editors in the past.  It is over-categorization (also known as "pigeon-holing"; or indeed "prejudice") in place of thinking and judgment - and at the risk of being politically insensitive comes across as a bit AS.  WP is already suffering in quality due to users  thinking guidelines and even historical reports are policies.  The fact is, the explanation and guidance on reliable sourcing SHOULD lead to the exclusion of many sources included and the inclusion of many sources excluded.  "But Policy" and "But Consensus" will likely continue to be used as weapons to beat about the head of good-faith users concerned that articles should be real-world accurate (even though neither rebuttal is true).
 * I linked above in a specific section for review articles a piece by a staff writer of The Guardian, which calls the show "a stinker" and then at length calmly and dispassionately explains how the show is a stinker. I didn't try to insert that anywhere in the actual article, because I don't want any more rounds of being called troll or claims I am trying to eradicate any positive commentary or any more suggestions that I am such a bleached-in-the-wool white racist I would only be satisfied with a cast entirely of white Europeans.  (and yes, I have received all three of those accusations, some more than once). LowKey (talk) 08:00, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I get what you are saying. But, it would always be more beneficial to suggest specific changes to the article rather than generally complaining about the state of the encyclopedia. There have to be these precedents to maintain a semblance of organization, and debating the validity of said precedents is not going to gain much traction at this level in Wikipedia. As of now, consensus generally agrees that the article does reflect the real world, which includes a consistent segment of critical response, not the loudest percentage of YouTubers and bloggers (that is not what you are suggesting adding, I know, but it needs to be stated). TNstingray (talk) 14:46, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I would actually say that there is no consensus on whether or not the article reflects the real world. There is in fact a fairly strong "contingent" of editors saying that it doesn't and a fairly strong contingent saying it does.  A bit like the show itself, there seems to be very little opinion falling between the extremes - therefore not really surprising, I suppose.  This is not a gripe, but I truly would not know where to start with editing the Reception section in whole or in part.  Yes, it is easier to point out holes than to weave patches, but to me it is like looking at an old string bag and trying to decide which bits are the holes, so I resort to pointing. I do think that maybe this whole section (and the whole body of source material, for that matter) will be significantly different.  The comments about WP as a whole are because the problems in this article are not limited to this article and a suggestion was made that not following this particular implementation of "policy" would degrade WP in general and this article in particular.  I was pointing out that in my opinion it is this particular implementation of "policy" that is the causing the degradation. Such restrictive and increasingly out-of-date "policies" do seem to be against the original spirit of WP (for those of us unfortunate enough to be of an age to be able recall this, but fortunate enough NOT to be of an age to no longer be able to recall it).  LowKey (talk) 05:17, 25 October 2022 (UTC)


 * "Critics cannot and do not determine the quality or appeal of a product among consumers" I agree. Throughout my life, my favorite films tend to get negative reviews by critics. While films I find to be below average are often critical darlings. I have mostly learned to ignore reviews by so-called experts that dismiss entire genres. The problem is that Wikipedia uses any opportunity to ignore audience reactions in favor of these so-called experts. I typically use other websites to get more reliable information on audience perceptions. Dimadick (talk) 19:48, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * At the end of the day, the audience member has an opinion, while a critic has as their job the responsibility to review a film or show on the basis of whether the project is quality cinema, whatever that definition means. At the end of the day, audience perception is generally meaningless, because it boils down to "some people like it, some people don't", and the problem with using these user-generated sites is that it is only reflecting the loudest voices of the audience. To synthesize that is inappropriate, not to mention logically fallacious (hasty generalization, cherry picking?). At the moment, film critics represent the more reliable source regarding the quality of a piece of content, and whether you agree with them is up to you; Wikipedia is not forcing you to agree with them. TNstingray (talk) 20:15, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the necro-post here, but this is something with which I fundamentally disagree, and I have been so far resisting the temptation to belabour it. Critics are not a reliable source at all anymore regarding the quality of a piece of content - at least, not the only critics WP treats as reliable.  Giving their honest analysis of quality is no longer their job.  Their job is to produce marketable meta-content in a timely manner, and their ability to continue doing that is dependent upon their ability to continue gaining timely access their source content.  The source content creators have the critics' careers at ransom (the degree is certainly arguable).  Ironically, the critics who decide to go ahead with honest assessments of quality have to do so independently, so we treat their efforts to remain reliable as a source of unreliability.
 * The problem is: what do we then do to report/record reception? I don't think there is a metric or segment that isn't gamed in some way, so financial performance and viewer counts may be all that is left for us, to the degree that even those can be verified. LowKey (talk) 00:19, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * "Giving their honest analysis of quality is no longer their job." When was honest analysis their job to begin with? I do read the "reception" sections in Wikipedia's articles, though they are often my least favorite (and least informative) section of an article. They seem to reject films based on their genres. Return to Oz (1985) is a dark fantasy film that got negative reviews because it was "creepy" and not suitable for young children. It was never a children's film to begin with. The Black Cauldron (1985) is a dark fantasy film about the creation of an army of the undead. It got negative reviews because its story was too complex (lacks simplicity according to the critics), and supposedly lacked the "child-sized wonder" of The Rescuers. They are not even in the same film genre. Howard the Duck (1986) got negative reviews because of its (direct quote) "excessive use of sexual innuendo", though it was based on a satirical comic that focused on an inter-species romantic relationship. The source material had plenty of innuendo as well. Dimadick (talk) 09:59, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * This is beyond the scope of the article. Again, no one is forcing you to agree with the critics. As of now, this is the precedent we follow on Wikipedia, so you would have to present a convincing argument at a higher level to get that changed. Not just "critics didn't like films I liked, and liked films I didn't". TNstingray (talk) 12:07, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * That is a conversation to be had at higher levels in the encyclopedia, as it is beyond the scope of this article. For now, the precedent stands, and we will follow that to the best of our ability and common sense. I think the article still honestly reflects the pros and cons of the series. TNstingray (talk) 12:05, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I think it is actually a choice between follow the "precedent" or following common sense. The guidelines and principles actually say to follow common sense, which is why I don't think that challenging the precedents is at all a "higher level" change.  Use common sense and change the precedent here at the article level, which is the level at which such precedents were set in the first place.  The critics currently considered reliable (in this article) are unreliable not because they disagree (anyone could cherry pick disagreements with any critic - art being subjective) but because they have a demonstrable commercial interest that conflicts with the integrity of their reviews.  Critics currently considered unreliable (in this article) should be considered reliable according to WP's own guidance on this.  I am not arguing that we change current guidelines but that we should actually follow them, which in this article (and certainly not ONLY this article) is not happening.  We very strongly disagree on what the article reflects. LowKey (talk) 00:55, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * But then we slip into the arbitrariness of, "well, this reviewer has been bought by Amazon", and arguments along those lines that have no basis other than our vague suspicions. You're right: we should be following the spirit of Wikipedia policy rather than the letter, but unfortunately, that spirit is still clear that everything needs to be rooted in reliability, verifiability, and neutrality. As always, I still don't know what specifically needs to be changed in this article to reach those ideals. TNstingray (talk) 12:35, 2 November 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm honestly not sure what the correct response here is. The critical consensus seems to be fairly negative, but RT have done that thing they do where, if a critic says anything positive about the show (or this or that episode) while being pretty down on the show overall, said critic's review is "fresh". If an RT-certified critic like Dan Murrell is overwhelmingly negative about the show, his review is not incorporated in the critical consensus. The idea that saying that the visuals and the music are nice but the story is boring or offensive or frighteningly unworthy of the property on which it purports to be based somehow constitutes a positive review is, of course, absurd; hopefully this will be addressed once RT has time to retroactively analyse the reviews for the entire season in detail (not likely) or once season two receives the Wrath of Khan treatment as the sequel to a financially successful but divisive initial entry, gets better as a result, and more critics post legitimately positive reviews of the show overall (slightly more likely). First seasons of speculative fiction television shows have always been pretty bad (Star Trek: The Next Generation, Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D., etc.) and the consensus seems to be that such shows always get better from the second or third season on. This, of course, violates WP:CRYSTAL, but unfortunately I don't think we have any way around it; the RT page has more red than green because of a lack of media literacy in the contemporary "conversation" about American popular culture, and Wikipedia has no choice but to reflect that, especially when so many of the people inclined to devote themselves to editing and monitoring these Wikipedia articles are apparently of the same view as whoever decides when a tepid critical review should be red and not green. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 12:01, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
 * "The idea that saying that the visuals and the music are nice but the story is boring" In other words, there is plenty of "eye candy", but no story to match it. Several big-budget productions overemphasize the visual appeal and the costume production, but suffer from lackluster scripts and one-dimensional characters. RT counts all such reviews as positive? Wow. I do agree, by the way, on the tradition of bad first seasons. I have revisited Highlander: The Series several times over the years. The first season had some decent episodes, but the season suffered from depicting the various immortal characters in scenarios based on black-and-white morality. Later seasons explored darker aspects of the heroes' personalities or past actions, featured villains who had survived their share of traumatic experiences or were more complex figures, and devoted more time to worldbuilding. When I participated in forums about the series, I noticed that the first season was regarded as one of the worst. Dimadick (talk) 10:26, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:FORUM. TNstingray (talk) 12:09, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The reply is a direct reply to the concerns raised by Hijiri 88 over both the reliability of RT as a source, and the overall quality of the first season of "The Rings of Power". In particular: " First seasons of speculative fiction television shows have always been pretty bad". Dimadick (talk) 14:36, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * It's just a reminder for anyone involved. These conversations just go in circles because this is not the place to tear down an existing Wikipedia precedent. TNstingray (talk) 14:42, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes. It is.  The "precedent" is set, and therefore reset, in articles.  Also, it is not even an issue of "precedent", because we are not applying common law.  You are referring (I believe) to past consensus on reliability, which is and can only be an indicator of the past because it cannot reflect changes that occur afterward.  Also, what consensus?  a discussion between 3 or 4 people could certainly achieve a consensus opinion (and let us not forget that this indeed that "consensus" in these contexts simply means a collectively agreed opinion) but why should that then be seen as a binding precedent on thousands of WP editors across thousands of articles? WP asks people to follow guidelines - things like the reliability list are simply an indicator of how those guidelines have been followed in the past and should not be mistaken as a replacement for actually using the guidelines themselves.  With critics as the example, I have shown how certain sources are excluded by using the list when the according to the guidelines they should be included.    LowKey (talk) 01:08, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * While I would agree in using sources which are independent from the subject matters (and the production companies), do you have specific examples in mind? We can not discuss the reliability of a source before identifying it. Dimadick (talk) 09:15, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I mentioned a few previously, but off the top of my head, some "Senior Contributors" at Forbes, specifically in this context Erik Kain and Paul Tassi (I think there are a couple others, there certainly are at other publications, but these two I can remember by name). Both have been professional critics for years.  Tassi is a published author (5 or 6 books, I think).  Kain is an approved Rotten Tomatoes critic - so we already officially accept his critiques via Rotten Tomatoes, but any other reference to his critiques, such as the actual content of them, gets shot down because the reliability ready reference list says "contributors" have been considered unreliable.  In fact, both would meet the WP description of content experts when it comes to writing and movies/tv series.  LowKey (talk) 12:48, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't remember specifics because my life does not revolve around stonewalling in this talk page, but this article has both used and dismissed sources provided based on the same common criteria. Consensus on reliability was not just established by three or four random users in some Wikipedia backroom. These are really important precedents and guidelines that are intended to be a template applied to any potential article. And yes, things do change. But this does not mean that we isolate one article just to assist the most vocal members of hater fandom dump on a show. I ran out of time writing this so its not a complete thought but I'll come back. TNstingray (talk) 12:58, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Part 2:
 * The Forbes situation has been discussed several times before, and the current status quo of the article is to not use any sources from Forbes contributors per the conversations associated with WP:FORBES and WP:FORBESCON. Forbes contributors are "generally unreliable" as a category, and it is easier to maintain that as a general rule rather than include them simply for criticizing the show, especially when other criticisms from better, reliable sourcing exists and is already included in the article. TNstingray (talk) 15:26, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, the last time I checked, Tassi was in fact on the staff, and therefore more usable, and Kain was not. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:28, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know exactly the current status quo. That is the point: the current status quo is incorrect - because it does NOT follow the guidelines - and any attempt to correct it is met with "well, that's the status quo" which is not even an argument. Discussions go nowhere because every discussion is shut down by referring to old discussion that went the way some editors wanted and now are "consensus" in the face of actual lack of consensus.  I specifically mentioned 2 editors, both of whom have written both positive and negative articles about this context (and articles with both positive and negative in the one article).  This isn't about shoe-horning some POV into the article but to correct the POV that has already been shoe-horned into the article.
 * These discussions go nowhere largely because there seems to be the belief that constantly invoking as valid and authoritative the very thing that the "objectors" raise as non-authoritative and no longer valid. I have not seen anywhere the suggestion that the "precedents" are intended to be used as templates. The fact is that if the precedents accorded with the guidelines in the past, many of them no longer do so.  This is obviously a pointless discussion.  In fact, it is becoming more and more obvious that any discussion is likely pointless as there seems to be concrete mindset about how articles are sourced and written.  So, I will simply say it again and take a breather - the editing and sourcing for this article does not follow the guidelines.  I have explained some of the how of that sufficient times to be weary of it.
 * Per @Dumuzid, I last checked Tassi and Kain shortly after my previous post (so less than 24 hours ago) and both Tassi and Kain show as "Senior Contributor". It is plainly more than "contributor" but not "staff".  But that doesn't matter, because applying the reliability guidelines shows that both should be considered reliable content area experts. LowKey (talk) 01:38, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Discussing Kain is a dead horse. He's not a notable film critic and is a Forbes contributor. It's not happening. Toa Nidhiki05 02:24, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * LowKey (talk) 03:48, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * (yes the sentence was incomplete, but is clear enough to be understood), if needed add, "...is rational/sound/persuasive." LowKey (talk) 03:50, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * As someone who has been lurking: it's abundantly clear what your stance on the matter is. It's also abundantly clear that not only does nobody else agree, but also that this stance violates our policy. I really don't think relitigating Forbes contributors over and over and over again is a productive means of discussion. Toa Nidhiki05 19:30, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * It certainly appears to be an attempt to insert undue POV, because there are other, better sources included that negatively criticize the show. These were added quickly and easily by other editors who follow the same procedures that us "objectors" follow. It's really quite simple.
 * I wouldn't call it a concrete mindset, but I would say that at this point in the encyclopedia, there is an expectation of consistency based on core tenets that WP stands for. Making one exception for one article based on one user is just not going to fly, and as such, consensus and precedent will prevail.
 * Wikipedia is an ongoing process, but you have STILL not pointed to a specific place in the article that needs to be changed (unless I have missed or forgotten something). I have time and time again asked for specifics, and you continue to rail against the general state of the encyclopedia or that it's just the entire article that needs to be re-written. The former can't be handled here, and the latter is an incredibly bold claim that most of the community seems to disagree with.
 * If you are truly taking a step back from the article to take a breather (definitely recommended), I do wish you the best. TNstingray (talk) 20:10, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Then to you my stance is plainly not abundantly clear at all. I am not even particularly interested in what you think my stance is. That you say it violates policy is sufficient for me to know you have missed it.  Also, "nobody else agree[s]" is wildly inaccurate - it is just that I am the only one that has stuck around.  Most briefly try to have the same issues addressed and give up (and I have perused the entire article and talk page history).  But, sure, make it personal.
 * Firstly, I don't care whether they criticize the show or not, as long as the sourcing is balanced (by that I mean representative of the balance of critiques, not that positive and negative need to balance out to zero). I would expect that the numerical majority would be positive, but the article presents actual criticisms in a very deprecating manner specifically to construct a rebuttal of them (which, just BTW, is counter to WP's whole ethos)  - partly because there are editors who have a very strong POV and summarily refuse anything being included that doesn't fit that POV (I am thinking here of "racist review bombing" discussion as an example - or even the "so many racist trolls" POV regarding the article and talk page, which I found to be wild exaggeration when perused the entire article and talk page history).
 * Yes, I did have that expectation, hence my frustration.
 * Then you have missed or forgotten plenty. When I tried to address specific sentences and references, I was summarily directed to go read policy.  When I try to address the fact that the policy as written is not being followed, I am told I am not addressing specific sentences and references.  Wikipedia whack-a-mole.  Meanwhile, the article is and will remain a fantasy alternative to reality.
 * Regarding "relitigating" Forbes contributors, I actually had a look at the "discussion" about this. The latest was early 2021, and involved exactly 2 editors, one simply referencing the perrenial sources list that referenced the discussion.  The previous discussion to that (again early 2021) was about a specific category of Forbes article. The previous one to that (mid 2020) specifically mentioned that the standard that being an expert can over-ride the "self published" notion (so there is more to it than simply ruling someone out because they are a Forbes contributor).  Erik Kain has been a professional critic for over a decade and is RT approved.  Tassi has been a professional critic for over a decade and has 5 published novels, so can certainly be considered a content expert.  (BTW, there are others).   Earlier discussion either invokes even earlier discussion or acknowledges that some Forbes contributors can be used for some articles, and need to be individually considered (which is the opposite of what happens here).  Happy editing; if you want to communicate with me, I would recommend posting on my talk page.  LowKey (talk) 03:01, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * If you have read the article recently, I struggle to see where exactly this is taking place. The only pushback against any criticism that I see is in the context of the casting backlash, and even then, the article clear states that the extreme cases of racism are likely, quoting sources from Deakin University.
 * The only examples I can remember (because I have a busy life outside of this article, as well as editing outside of this talk page) have involved your repeated attempts to have the Forbes critics added, as well as attempting to add primary sourcing of Tolkien's descriptions of the Harfoots, if memory serves me well (this was a little while ago). So yes, you only would have been directed to policy if your suggested edits clearly contradicted policy. There have been countless editors who have avoided any of this drama, many of whom added significant criticism of the show. I would think that most editors at this point would agree that the article does a pretty good job of presenting what Wikipedia is expected to present, eg. not the echo chambers of the Internet.
 * Regarding Forbes, I really don't know what else needs to be said since others have stated that they don't think these sources need to be included. If they are reliable sources, then surely they would have applicable content outside of the questionable container?
 * Sorry to see you go, but much of appears to be a great misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is expected to reflect when it comes to modern cinema in the context of unreliable audiences. TNstingray (talk) 12:15, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * No. Sorry, but I would be happy to sit this out, except for the fact that you keep trying to make out I am either ignorant of or too stupid to understand WP.  I have read a whole bunch of policy, guidelines, other articles, etc over the last couple of months, and NONE of it was hard to understand.  You still above take a potshot about using Tolkien as a primary source as if it is counter to policy guides when in fact the guidelines specifically allow for it in exactly this kind of context, and I already explained that quite clearly (possible more than once).  I was also castigated for a correcting edit (removing an erroneous statement that was NOT even about the show), with a secondary source that is not only reliable but is considered definitive, along with additional accusations of synthesis - argued from a perspective of other editors' synthesis.  I have recently been reading a clinical psychologist's discussion of personality types, and which ones take criticism and test it contrasted with other types who simply ignore it altogether because an error on their part is either inconceivable or immaterial. This has given me some insight into why I will continue to be frustrated here.  Due to the disagreement here I completely read the entire history of the article and the talk page (multiple times) and many WP editing references and guidelines with a view to evaluate my own position; and found I was actually mostly correct already - while from those opposite I keep getting various versions of thoroughly simplistic dismissals (e.g. you are racist, you are a troll, you are ignorant of "the rules", you just don't understand how WP works) based apparently in an inability to even consider that their approach is anything less than exemplary.   Hell, even when I said I was doing such research with an open mind, I was pre-emptively accused of doing it to facilitate bad-faith editing.  I rescind my invitation to contact me by my talk page.  It isn't welcome.  I want no more of this. Call it a difference of opinion about how to edit such articles; fine.  Climb back on your soapbox and take another shot to denigrate and insult me and it shall not likely be the end of it.   LowKey (talk) 08:42, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I absolutely do not think you are ignorant or stupid; rather, you are strong-willed and consistent, and there's definitely value in that. Hence, you have not been summarily faced with "simplistic dismissals"; that just is not accurate in the slightest, as I have gone to a great deal of effort to thoroughly explain current consensus. You have been unable to present a convincing argument that supersedes that, and have instead re-hashed the exact same talking points ad nauseam despite many others demonstrating why this article conducts a better application of policy than what you are suggesting.
 * Synthesis of your interpretation of a primary source is still inappropriate. If the creators of the show have done their own synthesis, that is not our job to jump in and debate the lore, because none of us own the definitive understanding of that work. Bringing that up wasn't a potshot, but a summary of what I remembered from your previous edits on the actual article.
 * I implore you to recognize the irony in this. Countless times, I have adjusted my position, even in the context of this article, when presented with a more accurate understanding of Wikipedia policy. My talk page and its archives are full of it, as well as conversations throughout the encyclopedia. I have actually apologized to you numerous times for the initial comparison to the trolls. Since then, nobody has been genuinely denigrating or insulting you, but if you feel that way, I am truly sorry for that.
 * In summary, your recent presence on this talk page comes across as either unclear or unjustified regarding actual changes to the article. I won't speak anymore about consensus, so I hope you at least understand where I am coming from. I wish you the best, and I would suggest walking away entirely to allow a cooler head to prevail, continuing to do your research on Wikipedia guidelines and precedents (I regularly have to do this), maybe editing other pages besides this talk page, and organizing exactly what you want to be changed about this article, because again, this has been incredibly unclear beyond "rewrite it entirely", "remove any reference to Tolkien because the show isn't Tolkien", or "add these specific Forbes sources" (despite much better sourcing existing for negative criticism of the show, many which have been quickly and easily added to this article by other editors). TNstingray (talk) 12:15, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * You are again mischaracterizing - misrepresenting, even - what I have said(written) and done here and on my own talk page. Such mischaracterization is indeed denigrating and insulting. For example, show me where I said  and I will retract it, or admit that that is simply your re-interpretation). For another example, check where I specifically said that those specific Forbes sources were examples.  Example the third, you know that I attempted in good faith to test my own understanding of both guidelines in general and the history of this article in particular - I even asked for your input on the latter - yet you strongly imply that I considered error on my part to be inconceivable to me. (Also, regarding repeated apology for accusing me of trolling, yes you did apologize a second time, because I called you on repeating the accusation after apologizing the first time).
 * In summary: stop it, or I shall treat it as a continued personal attack. I repeat;  LowKey (talk) 03:21, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * LowKey, you seem to have a real tendency to take the normal (and sometimes quite gentle) back-and-forth of debate as some sort of grievous insult. I'm sorry if you think your dignity has been affronted, but if you feel some line has been crossed, there are venues to deal with that sort of thing.  If not, it might be better for everyone to focus on the substance of the matter at hand.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 03:29, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Explicitly accusing me of trolling and of racism is not debate, let alone normal or gentle. Neither is repeatedly claiming I have said things I never said.  I am happy to drop that matter once those have ceased.  As to the matter of the article, as my input is not welcome (setting aside any notion of where fault [fault, not blame] lies in that) I am bowing out of that. LowKey (talk) 03:39, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Without offering more substantial input here (pearls before swine and all), I do have to highlight the sheer absurdity of that "As of now, consensus generally agrees that the article does reflect the real world" quote. The disconnect truly cannot be put into words. 1-jVX-9 (talk) 20:26, 4 November 2022 (UTC)


 * The only disconnect here is from the users assuming that the opinions expressed in the dark echo chambers of the internet are objective truth, and that no positive item or reference to the good Professor should ever be uttered about this show. The article currently reflects the reality of what the show is, the motivations of those who made it, extra-ordinary public sentiment, and the critical feedback to it as a piece of cinema (as is done in any other cinema article on the encyclopedia), both positive and negative. Why some people can't (won't) understand that, I have no idea. At times, it has truly felt like the long dark of Moria. TNstingray (talk) 22:41, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @1-jVX-9 I am not particularly fond of the "pearls before swine" phrase, because it does seem to include outright insult. However, I do very much feel the "my input is wasted here" vibe.  I have given up on fixing the article.  LowKey (talk) 03:30, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Can only be so polite as actual Wikipedia editors in the face of UPE, sadly. It of course goes without saying your input @LowKey is refreshingly well-articulated, accurate, and free of bias. Your enthusiasm to see the article reflect the reality we live in restores a degree of faith in a weary world. Unfortunately, as is clear from the behavior of the roughly two or three editors who claim jealous ownership of this article and achieve 'consensus' by matter-of-factly stating a meaningful consensus has been reached (any random reader of the article or its talk page history after a five minute skim can without question tell that it hasn't), no amount of good faith will cut through the mire here.

I am sorry your employer's client's series has not been received as well as its stakeholders feel it should have been, @TNstingray. Contradicting reality on Wikipedia day-to-day must be comparable to working in collections. 1-jVX-9 (talk) 03:41, 8 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Everyone here appreciates your kind words. Look for me in Crucible! Dumuzid (talk) 15:06, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * To be clear, our position is not held by . In actuality, that describes your position at the moment, as this article has been edited by countless users interpreting policies in the same way; in addition, there have been rogue, vocal trolls. The vast majority of our repeated conversations since roughly mid-September have assumed good faith, even when it was clear that you would continue to take issue with the page regardless of anything we said. I also love how there can be these sorts of accusations against me and others, and then follow it up with accusations of paid editing with no evidence (actually, I take that back. I clearly must be a sleeper agent installed on Wikipedia by Amazon exactly 3 years, 2 months, and 5 days ago for this very purpose). LowKey is at least an editor who says they are looking into understanding policy and having legitimate conversations; some of your comments make them look worse by association, unfortunately. This article seems to be a better reflection of reality than a lot of the stuff I have seen on this talk page. TNstingray (talk) 21:17, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Zyzzyva LowKey (talk) 22:14, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

WP:DEADHORSE I think this thread has gone on for waaaaaaay too long. Debresser (talk) 00:17, 9 November 2022 (UTC)


 * It did. and should've been shut down a long time ago, as it both runs afoul of WP:NOTAFORUM, and some of the editors look like they're WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. But in regards to to what's actually being said, contrary to what some people in the Post Truth era like to think, there is in fact an objective reality, and that objective reality is that Rings of Power received overwhelmingly positive responses from critics. That is what reliable sources report and that is what wikipedia reports. People who know better than the experts have the freedom to make a mental note of this objective reality and formulate their own opinions tn their own time and on their own dime - not at the expense of other editors' time. Wikipedia is not here to promote their alternative facts. 46.97.170.32 (talk) 10:44, 11 November 2022 (UTC)


 * You just have to have the last word, don't you? Couldn't just "walk away from the dead horse", could you? Debresser (talk) 11:55, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your summary of the situation. For posterity, I believe this is the approach generally and consistently expected throughout film and tv articles. Instead of "alternative facts", I would also describe it as "opinions", which there is nothing inherently wrong with (unless formulated in echo chambers or centered around problematic ideology), but this is not what is reflected on the encyclopedia. With that said, I am hereby dropping the stick in this discussion section. TNstingray (talk) 13:03, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I would also describe it as "opinions", which there is nothing inherently wrong with (unless formulated in echo chambers or centered around problematic ideology)...
 * Well isn't that interesting. It just so happens that those echo chambers are EXACTLY where these opinions are coming from. When mainstream marvel shows like She Hulk are modelling their villains after these people, the question we should be asking ourselves is not whether the alt right troll group currently calling itself The Fandom Menace is notable, but rather why is wikipedia so adamant on ignoring them. 46.97.170.32 (talk) 10:24, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * If you can find reliable sources explicitly mentioning The Fandom Menace by name then an inclusion may be warranted; if there aren't any, that's why. You have advocated for this in the past and obviously have a desire to see them named-and-shamed on Wikipedia, which is a violation of WP:ADVOCACY. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 21:21, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * It's an observation that is not reflected in the article, and as such, it also contributes nothing to attempt to rile up a ghost of a concluded conversation from weeks ago. WP:DEADHORSE. TNstingray (talk) 23:29, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't see how it can be concluded that there has been an overwhelming number of positive reviews without some kind of quantitative data to that effect. 142.181.247.43 (talk) 21:12, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:DEADHORSE TNstingray (talk) 15:04, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Potential revisions to Cast section
The name of the Queen regent of Numenor should be Tar-Miriel the twenty fifth ruler of Numenor. Rj05008 (talk) 00:09, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Why do you think "Tar" should be added? Debresser (talk) 21:25, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Made up homophobia?
"TheGamer's Ben Sledge compared the backlash to homophobic complaints about Ian McKellen's casting as Gandalf in the Lord of the Rings films."

Can somebody please find some evidence for this old furphy as I have never heard anybody complain about Ian McKellen's Gandalf nor him in person with regards to the LOR or any other movie (quite the opposite, he's widely acknowledged as a fantastic Actor). As far as I can make out this appears to be an invention of the diversity intelligentsia to use as a foil from which to launch/validate their POVs/reinterpretations. 2001:8003:70F5:2400:F855:A0F9:EF82:E1B4 (talk) 10:14, 16 December 2022 (UTC)


 * I simply googled it and there are a whole slew of pages that discuss this. "Complaints" is honestly too soft of a word: McKellen stated that he received death threats due to his sexuality. But of course, he probably made the whole thing up just like Ismael Cruz Córdova did this year because there is no such thing as racism, homophobia, or any sort of bigotry in today's world, and definitely not from the devout fandom (sarcasm). TNstingray (talk) 16:19, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * McKellen stated that he received death threats due to his sexuality ... no kidding of course I believe that. Were they specifically from LOR Fans and specifically to do with his casting as Gandalf? 2001:8003:70F5:2400:F855:A0F9:EF82:E1B4 (talk) 16:56, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Not about "death threats," as that's not what the source says, but McKellen addressed the matter himself here. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:18, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Conceded! Thank you. 2001:8003:70F5:2400:F855:A0F9:EF82:E1B4 (talk) 20:54, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Yep, sorry more contested points from TheGamer.
Sledge acknowledged the argument that Tolkien had hoped to create a mythology and fictional history for Britain in his writings, but said the assumption that all people in Britain's history were white was not historically accurate and did not apply to a fantasy story anyway

1. All people in Britain's history were white was not historically accurate

No ... all peoples in Britain's history derive from humans that migrated out of Africa about 60,000 years ago. These people developed among other things the capacity to colorise their features (skin, hair, eyes, ... ). There have been two well publicised attempts in recent times to place black (Niger-Congo, Bantu) people in Britain's History: Beachy Head Lady and Cheddar Man. Both of these have failed the scrutiny of Science (but not apparently the gleeful acceptance of TheGamer). Cheddar Man is an ancient European typical of the Western European hunter-gatherer population of the time and the Beachy Head Lady turned out to be likely from the Mediterranean (perhaps Cyprus).

No black person (Niger-Congo, Bantu) has been found in Britain's ancient history. Niger-Congo peoples have been localised to West Africa for tens of thousands of years and the Bantu only migrated into Eastern and Southern Africa in the past couple of thousand years. Nilotic, Cushitic, Pygmies and Bush persons comprise some of the other sub-saharan racial groupings (note skin colour in not a normative way to describe people in Africa - more of a Western thing). One other thing to note is that North Africans are in general genetically more similar to Europeans than they are to sub-saharan Africans.

'2. (racial characterics'') did not apply to a fantasy story anyway. '''

OK ... well I guess authors can abandon the requirement to describe their characters. The characterisation of fantastical beings is a huge part of Fantasy; so much so that changing them is an understandable anathema to the Reader/Fan.

3. Tolkien had hoped to create a mythology and fictional history for Britain in his writings.

Yes this is right. Tolkien was not oblivious to the rest of the world (he was after all born in Africa) but specifically drew from Western and Northern European Legends to create a mythos that would be applicable to the persons of the British Isles. The palette of the Rings of Power TV Series would have been as alien to him as it was for the inhabitants of the British Isles in his time and is to this day for the readers of his books. 2001:8003:70F5:2400:F855:A0F9:EF82:E1B4 (talk) 16:51, 16 December 2022 (UTC)


 * While part of me wants to jump in and discuss this with you, as it is familiar territory to me, instead please consider WP:FORUM. To debate the subject matter and then incorporate that into the article would be inappropriate for the intended purposes of Wikipedia (this would also be original research, see WP:OR). This article acknowledges Sledge as an appropriate source, and so we include his assessment of the situation; it is not our job as editors to weigh the validity of his statements, only to determine whether he is a reliable source or not.
 * Frankly, my perspective is that much of this is incredibly silly to get hung upon, as 1) Sledge is correct that the story is a fantasy, and 2) the work is entirely distinct from Tolkien's writings, which remain unaltered and intact for anyone to read as they please. This is me delving into FORUM territory, so I can't get too far off of the trail, but as a massive fan of Tolkien's position as an author, creator, and world-builder, I just have to provide my two cents. In the context of the article though, my personal opinion is as equally invalid as yours is, otherwise the encyclopedia would be a complete disaster of anarchy and confusion. If you can provide reliable sourcing, maybe elements of what you are saying can be included in the article to correct perceived unfairness in presenting the sides. TNstingray (talk) 00:09, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your reply. I will just contend with you on this point and then let it be:
 * the work is entirely distinct from Tolkien's writings.
 * Could not be further from the truth. The work derives from his notes (where it gets it's credence) and places itself in timeline before his main works. The capacity therein of ROP as it evolves to fundamentally change the entire world-space, dilute quality and crucially change the original artist's intent is what is at stake and why people rightly get annoyed. I would urge you to create something ... give it over to other people and see it evolve into something other than what was intended ... it is soul destroying!
 * You say you are a massive fan of Tolkien ... and yet you seem fine with vandals breaking into his house and wrecking it! Sacrosanct is a word that appears to mean nothing to this generation as few things are ... Tolkien's works as you so rightly point out are unparalleled in quality and scope and deserve to be protected (and the argument is not silly because exactly the same thing is occurring with many other works of Western Civilisation).
 * You find yourself in a position of editorial authority at a place where criticism (not validation) should be the paramount value. Bring some balance to this page please and on a personal note not everybody that has a contrary opinion to your own comes from a place of bigotry etc. etc. (I am guessing you are a well meaning youngish person ... good ... but try not to argue or maintain an argument on the basis of contemporary emotions that older persons (... I hate to say it because it always sounds condescending) have learned to keep in their back pocket and not at the forefront of everything they do. 2001:8003:70F5:2400:F063:79DC:4FE5:67E (talk) 12:33, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Once art is released to the public, it grows and evolves beyond the scope of the original artist. That is always how the fine arts have been, and that is always how they will be. Why some would try and exempt Tolkien from this is beyond me. Of course I hold his writings in the highest authority (and yes, I do place a lot of weight on the word/concept "sacrosanct"). When I stated that RoP is entirely distinct from Tolkien's writings, I was intending to imply that his actual works remain completely unaltered. I guess it's possible that Amazon spies have tracked down your copies to tear up pages and insert their own narrative, but I would assume that is highly unlikely. This show its clearly its own thing adjacent to Tolkien's mythology, just like any other adaptation of anything every is adjacent to the original work, not replacing it (whether its Homer, Shakespeare, Austen, Dickens, Rowling, or Stan Lee; no adaptation replaces the original, hence the "adaptation").
 * To get off the FORUM trail to actually concerning the article, it's not my responsibility to "bring some balance to this page" because consensus has it that the page is relatively balanced already, and that is based on the opinion of the vast majority of legitimate Wikipedia editors. There have been a few vandals and a few legitimate editors with concurring opinions, but the WP:BURDEN is on the person wanting changes to be made to provide reliable sourcing to back up the specific changes they want made. TNstingray (talk) 15:11, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I fail to see your point here. Sledge is talking about "Britain's history", and not the genetic history of the British Isles in the Paleolithic. Black British people have been recorded since the 16th century. I agree about the importance of the characterisation to fantasy narratives, but the physical descriptions of characters are not part of the package. Characters like Conan the Barbarian and Count Dracula have been depicted in many different ways over the last century or so, and their physical characteristics have changed to match the standards of each decade. What Tolkien intended to do is no longer relevant, as adaptations and continuations of his work are not bound by his original intentions. In general, I don't see any particular inaccuracies to address in Sledge's arguments, so I don't see why we should remove them from this article. Dimadick (talk) 12:32, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The 16th Century is hardly ancient. West African (Niger-Congo) people are the Africans that are typically encountered most in the West and were possibly known to the Carthaginians pre BC (from a single voyage). They remained unknown to Europe prior to Portuguese adventuring in the 15th Century. They are by no means a feature of ancient Europe. Sorry that Black Roman stuff you see on the BBC is complete BS.
 * Tolkien was not drawing from 16th Century British History and the likes of Francis Drake et.al. but mythical things (that existed alongside humans) that he wished to concoct into an early mythos for Britain along the lines of other European myths/folklores.
 * "What Tolkien intended to do is no longer relevant" - OK I am not religious ... but I guess in the same vein what Christ intended to do also had a limited lifespan! You cannot make that argument to adapt an artists work to fit with the whims of what you want it to be ... otherwise there would be no point of reference (or relevance) for anything anybody ever did! 2001:8003:70F5:2400:F063:79DC:4FE5:67E (talk) 13:02, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I believe the devout Catholic Tolkien would take issue with your comparison of him to Christ. While there may be overlap between religion and art, they are very different concepts. At the end of the day though, our musings do not belong in the article, as they violate WP:FORUM and WP:OR. Plus, as I have repeatedly said, Tolkien's immediate legacy remains intact, and beyond that, art evolves. No one complained when New Zealanders were cast as orcs in the Peter Jackson trilogy... why are there complaints now when the Harfoots actually have brown skin, and one Silvan Elf and one Númenórean are similarly portrayed by "non-white" actors. This is fiction, fantasy, not absolute immutable truth of Earth's actual history like some seem to believe. There's not really any other place for this conversation to go if you are going to just generally discuss the subject matter as opposed to requesting specific changes based in reliable sourcing. TNstingray (talk) 15:23, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Er ... no I did not compare Tolkien to Christ ... I used the analogy to point out the fact that a person's legacy and work is mutable to the point of irrelevance if it is not understood and recognised as such. Do you mean to infer New Zealanders look like Orcs ... no ... well that's the point they looked like Orcs as depicted in the film; a film that Peter Jackson pointed out made a conscious effort to stay faithful to the works of Tolkien - no one complained! Much of what is in RoP is incongruous with Tolkien's Books ... that is the crux of the problem! I am not requesting changes to the article ... as it stands better as a testament to the misinformation that characterised this whole Enterprise.

2001:8003:70F5:2400:F063:79DC:4FE5:67E (talk) 22:17, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * "what Christ intended to do also had a limited lifespan!" Exactly. Whatever the views of an itinerant preacher in 1st century Palestine were, Pauline Christianity held much different views. And the Nicene Creed expressed ideas which were much different than anything included in Jesus' depictions in the Gospels. Whoever the Historical Jesus was, he had little to no impact on Christian religious ideology. Dimadick (talk) 22:32, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * There are all sorts of dominions of the Catholic and other Christian creeds that would have serious qualms with that statement to the effect that Christianity does not exist without Christ (as it sort of undermines the central tenet of Christ's purpose within the faith and all these creeds are vetted with respect to their relevance to Christ (does sound familiar))! Not my concern ... but I do admire your determination and capacity to continuously reply with exemplars far-flung from the subject matter!
 * If I was was to venture into false-equivalence however (which is always fun ... though invariably dishonest) then I think it is fair to say RoP might be the Heretic/Deceiver to Tolkien's works ... enough though ... feel free to have the last word, but I think it's time for me to leave!


 * (Whoops not quite; I just noticed one other thing in your statement that might be erroneous (though I really don't have the time to venture there) ... surely you meant to say in proper spatiotemporal context Judea (Herodian / the Roman Province of)).

2001:8003:70F5:2400:D056:FE3C:E4E0:4926 (talk) 04:52, 19 December 2022 (UTC)


 * WP:DEADHORSE. TNstingray (talk) 03:17, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:FORUM. If you aren't going to discuss changes to the article, please desist. TNstingray (talk) 13:20, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Possible attempt at false balance hidden in plain sight
Under "Audience Response", change

Cindy White at The A. V. Club described some of the fan discourse as "a fight between loyal Tolkien fans who simply want to preserve the integrity of the thing they love and a multinational corporation looking to cash in on that devotion, and Anthony Palomba, professor of business administration at the University of Virginia, also partially attributed the responses to "super diehard people" who did not necessarily reflect the views of general audiences".

to

Anthony Palomba, professor of business administration at the University of Virginia, partially attributed the responses to "super diehard people" who did not necessarily reflect the views of general audiences".

The Cindy White commentary sounds like an attempt to validate the a false narrative pushed by the far right hate-group behind the racist attacks on the cast - something that wikipedia should not promote. The claim is contradicted in "casting backlash" anyway, so there's no point in featuring it. 46.97.170.191 (talk) 10:58, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Not done, for now. I think more input is needed because this detail has been heavily discussed for weeks and months ad nauseam. So I don't feel that a single editor can just go and make that change. I personally don't think the Cindy White source is validating, nor Wikipedia promoting the, but rather offers a perspective on the situation. If you would elaborate on the alleged contradiction, that would be great. TNstingray (talk) 15:49, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * It has been discussed ad-nauseam, and the people pushing this particular POV have failed to provide any proof of the validity of their position. Heck, you yourself have been the most vocal and effective in combatting their claims, every single time this was brought up. The toxic negativity towards this othervise positively received show comes from a vocal minority of far right culture-warriors who have pulled this exact same stunt repeatedly ever since their first emergence during the Gamergate campaign, and is in many ways comparable to other right wing harrassment campaigns such as the very real homophobic attacks on Sir Ian McKellen, which they now insist on gaslighting people on.
 * This is what all reliable sources agree on. Cindy White's opinion is the only outlying opinion, is just one comment in a much bigger article, and is not confirmed by any of the other reliable sources. Even if it doesn't push a false narrative, the consensus on this topic is so indisputably black and white, that even mentioning this lone dissenting commentary is WP:UNDUE. 46.97.170.191 (talk) 10:45, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I sincerely appreciate your input, as it is a breath of fresh air to have peaceful discourse and mutual understanding. I think the key word contextualizing White's comment is "some". The last thing we would want to do is characterize the sum total of negative opinions as being entirely comprised of racist trolls. As you said, the trolls are a vocal minority, while I have seen legitimate criticisms of the show regarding its writing, pacing, etc (some I might even agree with, even as one who overall enjoyed the show). As I currently read this Audience Response section, I currently feel that White's comment helps establish some of this nuance. However, I completely understand how it could be read as dismissive of some of the actual Gamergate stuff, so I will continue to think about it and extend an invitation to other perspectives. TNstingray (talk) 16:00, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I said nothing about characterizing the sum total of "negative opinions" as being entirely comprised of racist trolls. Legitimate criticisms of the writing, pacing, visuals and such exist. However, they come from a completely different place. I'm not sure you understand what White's comment, the comment I suggest to be removed says. She's specifically talking about "a fight between loyal Tolkien fans who simply want to preserve the integrity of the thing they love and a multinational corporation looking to cash in on that devotion". This comment says nothing about legitimate criticisms of the show, or any sort of such nuance. This is word for word the the window-dressing pushed by the trolls to provide cover for their flagrantly racist attacks against people of color involved in the project. "Preserving the integrity of Toliken's legacy" is a dogwhistle for "keeping it pure of the 'woke' corruption". I'm honestly surprised you didn't pick up on it. Keep in mind, this is only half a sentence that I wish to see removed. Acknowledgement of legitimate criticism is still there, and is obviously important. White's comment is NOT what helps establish nuance. 46.97.170.191 (talk) 10:42, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't the audience review scores be mentioned in the 'Audience Response section'? Currently at Amazon the audience review score is 3.4 out of 5, at Metacritic it is 2.6 out of 10, and at Rotten Tomatoes it is 38%.  Dionyseus (talk) 08:20, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not. If you scroll up, you will see this has already been explained, but I'll repeat here: Wikipedia does not consider user-generated content as reliable sources. The Manual of Style for film and for TV specifically disallow user-submitted scores on Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic. They are open-access polls (also known as "voodoo polls") which have no guarantee that they are representative of those who actually watched the series and are easily skewed by review bombing campaigns. What can confuse people sometimes is that Rotten Tomatoes shows the audience score right next to the critics' score, which actually is used by Wikipedia as a reliable source for what it claims to represent, whereas the audience score is not. The only way to get a reliable overview on whether those who watched it actually enjoyed it is a scientific opinion poll, like those conducted by CinemaScore and PostTrak. Anywikiuser (talk) 14:00, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * This commentary was loaded with so many "right-wing", "hate-group", "racist", "homophobe", "toxicity", "troll", "PoC" references that it might be suggested that it was intended by sheer weight of hyperbole to bury an alternative analysis contrary to the individuals world-view (the intended effect?). I do hope the Editors (who have signalled a communion of minds with the commentator) do not remove a perfectly valid assessment that does not appear to be even remotely controversial and certainly in my opinion a fair reflection of many fan-communities (but then, shaping the discourse so you can easily refute persons as any of the aforementioned ... is kind of the point of this sordid exercise isn't it?). 2001:8003:70F5:2400:7DDD:A9C4:602A:8A16 (talk) 09:34, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Well that didn't age well!
There seemed to be a desire to protect the overall reception of this show on the part of the overseers of this page by promoting the response of critics (generally good) over that of viewers (generally poor). Many of these critics were given advance viewings, trips, promotional material, funding (in the case of academics) and other inducements. It has since transpired that at least some of these critics did not even watch the show!

It might be worth examining the evolution of this page now that the show has received exactly 0 nominations in all categories from the Golden Globes (supposedly the industry pinnacle of critical peer review). 2001:8003:70F5:2400:F855:A0F9:EF82:E1B4 (talk) 08:21, 16 December 2022 (UTC)


 * I fail to see the point here. If you would like to discuss specific changes to the article, that would be helpful, as opposed to general ranting about how bad the show was. That's your opinion, which just so happens to not line up with mainstream critics. Not sure what the lack of nominations has to do with the "evolution" of this page. You would also need to provide reliable sourcing. TNstingray (talk) 16:12, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Wasn't a general rant(I don't think). The critics you refer to are also in some corners referred to as shills (my own preference is parrots as they tend to whistle the same tune). If I was addressing the page content I would of course provide citations (and not the light magazine type that couches the opinions of the individuals that make up the bulk of this article). My point of inquiry sourced from the fact that the Golden Globes (not that I give them much credence, but the point being the Industry does) seems to be more aligned with the bulk of the viewers of the show and not the bulk of the critics that this article instead favours in it's coefficients of 'balance'. 2001:8003:70F5:2400:F855:A0F9:EF82:E1B4 (talk) 17:12, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Then I'm still not entirely sure what needs to be changed regarding this Wikipedia page, as to debate the decisions or lack thereof of the Golden Globes would be beyond the scope of talk page policy. TNstingray (talk) 00:00, 17 December 2022 (UTC)


 * "It has since transpired that at least some of these critics did not even watch the show!" Big surprise there. In case you have not noticed some of the reviews cited in our film and television articles, some of the critics praise or dismiss a product's overall concept or production, and not the product itself. For example, our article on Heaven's Gate mentions why its first wave of reviews is now seen as inaccurate:


 * " Robin Wood noted, in his initial review of the film, reviewers tended to pile on the film, attempting to "outdo [one an]other with sarcasm and contempt." Several members of the cast and crew have complained that the initial reviews of the film were tainted by its production history and that daily critics were reviewing it as a business story as much as a motion picture." ... "Biskind speculated that Michael Cimino's personal unpopularity was the main reason this film became so widely reviled." Dimadick (talk) 11:48, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Well you have the reverse phenomenon happening here: Heaven's Gate was initially reviewed as poor and suffered from production problems due to budgetary constraints and then was later regarded more favourably. RoP had no such budgetary problems, was regarded favourably by early critics and now less so! I don't think this is some masterpiece simply waiting for some latent cognition to acknowledge it as such and I doubt many of the critics were so insightful as to have looked under the hood to assess the product based on its production values (although I do think many of them enjoyed the free-lunches they were given). If early critics were evaluating the product based on production values rather than the end product, then The Golden Globes is such a forum that does evaluate film media in it's totality and enjoys the fact that they have more time to make a more complete assessment. They seem to have completely overlooked RoP across the entire span of film-making. 2001:8003:70F5:2400:F063:79DC:4FE5:67E (talk) 22:47, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:DEADHORSE. TNstingray (talk) 03:18, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

It naturally goes without saying that this is not a dead horse issue, as the PR agency employees repeatedly cite whenever a reader with a pulse points out the fundamental ongoing flaws permeating the article in its entirety. Personally, my specific suggestions for this article are for an IP ban to reduce the flagrant UPE, more or less blank the page, and develop the topic fresh and at least reasonably free of undue criticism, UPE camping, and access media opinion. 1-jVX-9 (talk) 05:41, 22 December 2022 (UTC)


 * You can have your opinion, but you can not have your own facts. This article primarily presents unadorned facts regarding the production of the show. Your personal biases and hatred for this show and the actors therein do not give you the right to make such bombastic claims. There are no cases of UPE on this page, and you have no evidence for such accusations. Frankly, I wish I was being paid for my efforts to defend the integrity of this article and the encyclopedia, because a certain demographic of editors make it incredibly exhausting. WP:DEADHORSE absolutely applies, and that policy is not intending to be dismissive of well-meaning editors, but of those who repeatedly come onto talk pages such as this one trying to stir up trouble and strife, shouting vague conspiracy theories wherever they can. Please, desist. TNstingray (talk) 16:04, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

"This article primarily presents unadorned facts regarding the production of the show." You can have your opinion, but you can not have your own facts. WP:DEADHORSE absolutely does not apply, as indicated by the many discussions contributed to weekly by dozens of editors this year highlighting the need to correct this article's unrealistic narrative, biased voice, and citation bias. That policy is not intending to be dismissive of well-meaning editors, but of blatant UPEs who are camping the page, harassing editors who dare interfere, and rushing to dismiss all efforts to develop an unbiased, balanced article with vague conspiratorial accusations of "personal biases and hatred for the show and the actors therein" wherever they can (this "stop replying and just let me have my way" discussion aside, one sobering thought I would suggest considering when your temper cools is that many Wikipedia users don't particularly care or know enough about the series to even justify the usual "hatred-spewing conspiracy-pushing" go-to pejoratives. Many do enjoy reading articles that weren't paid for by Amazon from time to time, coincidentally). 1-jVX-9 (talk) 10:46, 30 December 2022 (UTC)


 * As an editor on Wikipedia, we are called to assume good faith regarding our fellow editors. However, I feel that I am attempting to apply WP:DEADHORSE here exactly as it is intended to be used if you actually take the time to read the essay. I do not feel that you are here to build an encyclopedia, considering 16 out of your 18 total edits have been to argue on this talk page. You have not presented any evidence for any of your claims, so the fact of the matter is this conversation and every other conversation on this page you have contributed to have reached their natural end. No one hear is being paid by Amazon, no one here is camping, no one here besides a minority of trolls are harassing editors, and no one is dismissing anything that has a foundation in Wikipedia policy, precedent, and procedure. Actually, I take that back: you and a couple of others are doing these things, some outright trolls and some who misunderstand the purpose of this encyclopedia. Of the "opposition", LowKey is the only editor that has had any semblance of justification or reasoning for his positions, and as such some needed changes and balance were added to the article, though there were issues with some of his positions as well. If you can't follow a handful of simple prerequisites when it comes to editing on Wikipedia, this conversation legitimately has nowhere productive to go, and I have no interest in discussing anything with you again until you can reflect on these things. Here are some links for your convenience (they have been posted numerous times by myself and other editors trying and failing to have productive conversations with users who clearly do not want to do the same): WP:OR, WP:FORUM, WP:SYNTH, WP:UGC, WP:POV, WP:RS, WP:UNDUE. Oh, and here's this one again: WP:DEADHORSE. TNstingray (talk) 18:16, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * [*** I thought it worth adding a post-note to correct some misinterpretations herein as like most persons I derive my general critical analysis of a show from critic aggregators: IMDB/Rotten Tomatoes, etc. and these formed my early impressions - as I later discovered (see later section for Rotten Tomatoes(RT)) these were not functioning 'normally'. Critical reviews appear to have been on the whole mainly negative and yet critic aggregators appear to have been accumulating these in a manner most 'odd' (at least in the case of RT - see later section) - the opening statement should replace "critics" <- "critic aggregators" ***] 144.134.150.203 (talk) 00:48, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Reviews, again
Is there any reason why the first paragraph of the critics reception includes the statistics from RT and metacritic, front and centre, but the audience section contains no statistics whatsoever? Is it possible the editors of this article have some reason why they feel no desire to show the 2.8 metacritic score and the 38% rotten RT score? Indeed, the audience reception section kicks off with an attempt to besmirch all of the audience critiques as essentially racist trolling. This certainly doesn't seem unbiased to me. Even if you make the (highly dubious and extremely flawed) claim that critics' opinions are considered valid sources while the views of paying customers are somehow invalid, the fact that the audience response section makes a clear attempt to muddy the waters and undermine the often legitimate arguments of the series' detractors, while ignoring the well known and well documented incentives that often result in positive critic reviews, is highly suspect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.58.197.95 (talk) 15:09, 8 January 2023 (UTC)


 * This has been addressed multiple times over the years, on several different articles, including a couple of days ago this very talk page. This reads suspiciously like a bad faith comment. 46.97.170.191 (talk) 10:41, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, two things: (1) MOS:TVRECEPTION; and (2) Amazon pays me one third of a cent every time I make a Tolkien fan mad. That's why I like to point out that in the original Hobbit, Gollum gives up the one ring quite pleasantly and politely.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 14:30, 9 January 2023 (UTC)