Talk:Gollum/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

The mural under "cultural references"

That's a mural with Yoda, not Gollum. 2603:8001:3902:DF14:70FB:6739:7613:F321 (talk) 18:05, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes it is. I've removed it, and annotated the image on Commons to say it's Yoda, too. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:12, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE and WP:COATRACK coverage of insults to Turkish President

(Per WP:BRD, after an initial bold addition and a reversion, the correct action is immediate discussion, not a second addition; we could by rights revert again to the status quo ante (no second paragraph) but I'll hold off on that action for now.)

Um, we seem to have acquired chunks about the Turkish President not only in "Cultural references" (Led Zeppelin songs, genus of ground sharks called Gollum) where a brief mention is just about on-topic, but now also in "Adaptations/Other media" (i.e. stage plays, comic books, video games) where the subject is completely misplaced.

At the very least, therefore, this new material should move to "Cultural references". (Done that now.) There, we already have a paragraph with four citations about a Turkish physician who unwisely shared a Gollum image and got banned and sued for his pains.

The new paragraph overlaps with the old material, though seemingly broadening it out. It then adds a longer and far less relevant sentence about the US comedian Stephen Colbert "during which he performed as one of the defendants lawyer dressed as actor Gregory Peck in the film To Kill A Mockingbird, demanding his release." I take it that the "his" refers to an unnamed Turkish citizen who had been accused of insulting the president, but the issue here is not loose wording but relevance to the article.

Material is WP:UNDUE if the coverage is excessively long relative to other items (Led Zeppelin, ground sharks). With the new material, we have I think crossed that threshold.

Material is off-topic (WP:COATRACK), inappropriate to an article, if it strays from the article's subject (a Tolkien character) and moves into a new topic area (Turkish politics, civil rights). We have I think also crossed that threshold, especially with the Stephen Colbert sentence.

We could merge the new material into the old, so we have brief coverage of the key points without overlap, and without straying into Stephen Colbert and such matters; or remove the Turkish President topic altogether, as straying from the topic of Tolkien studies. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:43, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't think that the (mis)use of images from adaptations of Tolkien's original is relevant here. Is Ebenezer Scrooge going to list every time someone is called a 'Scrooge'? The insult does not in any way extend our understanding or appreciation of Gollum. It has its own article, wikilinked to here. Let that suffice. -- Verbarson  ^talk_edits 14:39, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

For me the cultural references reads a bit like WP:TRIVIA section that’s been transformed from a bullet list to prose. This is better than some instances you see here on Wikipedia. Seems a little excessive though, I am not convinced it belongs here. Just because something has happened, and been reported on doesn’t mean it automatically needs inclusion. I think we need more references that are not just reporting the events. GimliDotNet (talk) 20:25, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks guys. I don't think there are any sources that go beyond "just reporting"; that would mean scholars relating the politics to Tolkien's writing, or to his own politics, and there has been no sign of that. I'll remove the mention for now as undue, trivial, and wandering off-topic. In the event of appropriate analysis in reliable sources, actually discussing the relationship of the events to Tolkien's thought, of course we can reconsider. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:29, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Sorry I am a bit late to the discussion and I disagree, but did not want mean to go against consensus, sorry for that. It is a President of a sovereign state who launched lawsuits for comparing him to Gollum. "Expert" witnesses, scientists were called to determine the character of Gollum. I am not sure how many times scientists were called in a lawsuit to determine the character of a fictional figure. Fan films, an unreleased video game and a Finnish television adaption a comic book etc. are deemed notable for the article. I believe a phrase or two on the Gollum comparison lawsuits of a president of a sovereign state for which he was mocked by a rather well known comedian could also be found.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 12:28, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

It may help to know that there is a whole article, Erdoğan–Gollum comparison trials, on the subject, which is certainly political as against this article which is literary and artistic. It seems a fair division. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:58, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

I guess the mention at see also is a good compromise for the moment and I'll consult here first, before I'd add a phrase on it in prose. The article on the trials was created by myself, if you haven't noticed. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 16:55, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, and I'm glad you think so. Given the extremely different contexts of the two articles, I think that the 'See also' is the only workable compromise, and I'd oppose any further addition here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:04, 23 February 2023 (UTC)