Talk:The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Talk

copied from Adaptations of The Lord of the Rings at 01:27, 15 August 2019 Sitanor (talk) 14:09, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

"related to" vs "based on"

Per Jack Upland's helpful edit, "related to" may be correct, while "based on" certainly is not: given that the not-yet-known action happened a thousand years earlier in the Second Age, according to the sources, it certainly cannot be based on the action described in Tolkien's book The Lord of the Rings. It could perhaps be related to it, based on his extensive materials about events in the Second Age, but in that case it would be a false claim to say it was based on LoTR. If the sources say that, they are either mistaken (unreliable sources) or deliberately lying (advertising). In either case, they could not then be relied on for use in Wikipedia. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:28, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm also a bit confused by how the article describes this series. It says in the lead The Lord of the Rings is an upcoming web television series related to the novel of the same name by J. R. R. Tolkien. It was developed by JD Payne and Patrick McKay for the streaming service Prime Video, and is set in the Second Age of Middle-earth before the events of the Lord of the Rings books and films. - if it's set in the second age, it's not based on the LOTR. I have to agree with Chiswick here. I've seen this kind of misinformation in comic series, where reviewes of episodes talk about a character and name it according to the comic book name while the series never once even mentioned it. I'm assuming they used "Lord of the Rings" as it's much more recognizable to say that than "Middle-earth", "Silmarillion", "Tolkien's legendarium". --Gonnym (talk) 12:41, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Why is this article even named The Lord of the Rings in the first place? Shouldn't we just call it "untitled Middle-earth television series" or something like that? Does any source state that The Lord of the Rings is the name of the show? El Millo (talk) 19:34, 26 by Tolkien is the exact opposite April 2020 (UTC)

I'm not really sure why everyone is trying to decide what makes sense to them based on their own knowledge of the books. That's not how Wikipedia works. I have just spent the weekend researching this series and reading all the reliable sources that have been added to the article, and there are some very simple facts that they support: all the reliable sources refer to the series as The Lord of the Rings so that is what the page is called for now; Amazon bought the television rights to the LOTR books only and are adapting the show from material in those books (we even have someone who was involved in the show explaining this in detail) so saying it is based on the other works of Tolkien is the exact opposite of what our sources are saying. Until someone can provide a source that supports the show being based on any other books your claims fail WP:V and sound like a whole bunch of WP:SYNTH. Also, for the record, this article has accurately described the show as based on LOTR since long before I got involved with it a couple days ago so please don't pretend like I just introduced a BOLD change that goes against consensus. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:30, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Adamstom.97, "what everyone is" doing is called consensus here on Wikipedia, and you are trying to oppose it. Please stop at once. Further, resorting to personal abuse is forbidden. As for the sources, they are reporting false claims; someone, somewhere is saying the series will be LoTR when frankly it won't be: it will, as Gonnym correctly states above, be Middle-earth and Second Age. No doubt Amazon's marketing team would like it to be otherwise, and they may be able to deceive people who read press reports hastily without verifying them against Tolkien's actual writings, but that doesn't make those sources reliable. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:56, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

There is an extensive discussion on this same topic at Talk:The Lord of the Rings#Amazon TV series with additional arguments and evidence for the growing consensus. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:02, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

If the sources say that, they are either mistaken (unreliable sources) or deliberately lying (advertising) This is really troublesome WP:OR. What this statement essentially says is that any source that doesn’t fit your opinion is automatically discounted. This sets a very dangerous precedent. We identify the reliability of source by their reputation. If the sources are otherwise reliable, we cannot simply dismiss them. If there are conflicting sources, then those should be presented as well as long as neither present minority viewpoints.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 09:34, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree with TriiipleThreat in the discussion at Talk:The Lord of the Rings#Amazon TV series I brought up the fact that the sources call it the Lord of the Rings and we don't have a single source to say it's based on the Silmarillion. Unfortunatley some people know better that the sources, you cannot gain consensus when someone is not will to back up their point with sources. To much self analysing of the situation for my liking. Lava Lamps (talk) 11:00, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Lava Lamps, it is you who have refused to deal with sources, instead talking about your memories of something you read years ago.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:39, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

As per my argument above, I agree with the comments by TriiipleThreat and Lava Lamps. I would also like to acknowledge that Chiswick Chap has decided that there is already consensus in this discussion to support their WP:BOLD change and has reverted the article to their preferred version with this edit (including reverting clearly unrelated changes that should definitely be kept). It is obvious that there is no clear consensus in this discussion either way, and the discussion as Talk:The Lord of the Rings#Amazon TV series does not meet the requirements for consensus per WP:CON which states that all consensus must follow Wikipedia's policies. WP:V is clearly being violated here through the use of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:40, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

It seems that Amazon is using the title "The Lord of the Rings" - see [1]. But so what? Blade Runner is not an adaptation of The Bladerunner; it is an adaptation of Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?. The Game of Thrones TV series is an adaptation of A Song of Ice and Fire, not just the first novel. You can't base your argument on the title. That is OR! Tolkien scholar Tom Shippey clearly states the Amazon series will be based on the Second Age and nothing else. As has been pointed out ad nauseum, the Tolkien Trust does not have rights to the LOTR novel. To state that the series is based on the LOTR novel violates WP:COMMONSENSE.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:28, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

No one is using the title as the basis for this argument. If you are referring to my comment about the title above, that was in response to El Millo's question about the title and not part of the source material debate. Speaking of that debate, the full quote from Shippey which you have tried to take out of context is: The First and Third Ages are “off-limits”, you can’t have the First Age. Events could be mentioned at the most if they explain the events of the Second Age. But if it is not described or mentioned in the Lord of the Rings or in the appendices, they probably cannot use it. So that clearly contradicts what you are trying to say. Yes, the series is set in the Second Age. And yes, fans of Tolkien's works will primarily associate the Second Age with books other than LOTR. But Amazon bought the television rights to the LOTR only and cannot use material from outside of the LOTR and its appendices for this series. If you ignore the reliable sources saying that in favor of your personal knowledge of Tolkien's books then that is about as WP:OR as you can get. You say this violates COMMONSENSE because the Tolkien Estate and Trust do not have the television rights to LOTR. Do you have a source to support that claim? Because there are a bunch in this article that say otherwise. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:33, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

I have given no quote from Shippey. Please don't make false accusations. I'm not sure what Shippey means in the extract you have quoted. Just below, there is the following note: [The Tolkien Estate holds the rights to events in the First Age. The rights to the events in The Hobbit and in The Lord of the Rings, i.e. in the Third Age, lie with Middle-earth Enterprises and not with Amazon Studios. Whether and to what extent Amazon is conducting or has conducted negotiations with Middle-earth Enterprises is not known.] At the end of the interview is another note: For us it is now very clear that the title of the series, Lord of the Rings, does not actually mean the title of the book and thus the events of the Third Age, but Sauron as a character, as the lord of the Rings of Power. However, since his development starts in the First Age and he already plays a role there, it remains exciting to what extent Amazon can and will refer to this. Since we agree that the series is to be based on the Second Age, what are we arguing about? It is clearly not an adaptation of "The Lord of the Rings" as earlier believed. It is well-known the Middle-earth Enterprises owns the movie and merchandising rights to LOTR, including the Appendices, apparently. See [2]. New Line Cinema currently has the movie licence, and it is also involved with Amazon, but I have never seen an explanation of this.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:35, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

please don’t tag me again Jack, I do not wish to interact with you. Lava Lamps (talk) 04:44, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

I will just call you "he who must not be named".--Jack Upland (talk) 07:16, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Further to my comment above, it appears that, while Middle-earth Enterprises has the movie rights to LOTR, the Tolkien Estate still holds the TV rights.[3][4] This would explain Shippey's comment about the Appendices. However, I don't believe believe we should say the series is based on LOTR if it's based on the Appendices, and set thousands of years before the events of the novel. I think that's simply misleading.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:58, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

That is still a bunch of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR which cannot be used on Wikipedia I'm afraid. Your whole argument is based on the idea that an adaptation of the LOTR cannot posdibly be set before the events of the book, but of course it can as adaptations diverge from the source material all the time. Anyway, a source supporting the idea that the show is based on other Tolkien works or that Amazon has the TV rights to any other Middle-earth books has still yet to be produced. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:39, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Also, I have been polite and not edited the article for a bit since this discussion has been ongoing, but since others have clearly not extended that courtesy and decided that this would be a good time to add a whole bunch of unsourced fan trivia to the article I am going to be editing the page soon to remove all that or try find sources to support it. There are a lot of people who seem to know a lot about Tolkien's books here who think that they know a lot about the series by extension, but unfortunately Wikipedia relies on reliable sources for providing us with information, not personal speculation and opinions. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:48, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Merge to Middle-earth in film

No consensus to merge. WP:SNOW would also apply since filming has already begun. (non-admin closure) JOE BRO 64 20:22, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

According to WP:NTV, "in most cases, a television series is not eligible for an article until its scheduling as an ongoing series has been formally confirmed by a television network or streaming provider (for instance, it has been announced at an entity's upfront presentation as being scheduled and advanced to series, a promotional trailer has been released, and/or it has a scheduled premiere date)". In this case we don't have a scheduled premiere date and there hasn't been a trailer with live actors. As filming has been interrupted from coronavirus, it seems premature to have an article about it. Much of the information is out of date or dubious. As the above conversation shows, there is a lot we don't know about this series. For example, with regard to it being set in the Second Age, the source said this is "seemingly confirmed" by a Twitter post. This opinion is backed up by the interview with Tom Shippey, but he says, "I know very, very little about the project anyway". We don't have a good source about the deal Amazon signed. Yes, the series has got media attention, so we should include something about it, but it would be better at Middle-earth in film, which discusses various attempts to film Tolkien's fiction, successful and unsuccessful. This also avoids the question of whether it is an adaptation. If it is ever released, it can have its own article, with details like casting.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:01, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Support. The whole thing is overblown and WP:TOOSOON (Wikipedia normally doesn't allow CRYSTAL BALL articles on possibly-soon-to-be-made films). If there were actual films to be viewed and actual critics writing in reputable newspapers that the interpretation of such-and-such an episode in LoTR was or was not well done, then there would be something to talk about; but speculation consisting of multiple repetitions of the same press release or breathless statement by some insider does not constitute multiple independent reliable sources, practically the opposite. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:09, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Beg to differ. The article isn't so much a "Crystal Ball" as it is a well-written, comprehensive accumulation of information, a lot of it fairly concrete (in that it comes from the production company itself, even if it is through the conduit of Twitter) and some of it decently cross-referenced, and goes into this subject in much more detail than would be appropriate in Middle Earth in film. As reading Middle Earth in film would prove, the show is an official, ongoing production rather than some abstract project in development (Apple films' The Lord of the Rings comes to mind for reference). -Chen like how Geller (talk) 11:37, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Don't merge – Second season has been confirmed, lots of references to WP:RS. This is not some speculative pilot that is being made. Lava Lamps (talk) 11:48, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
This is absurd, if this information was crammed into another article it would be an obvious candidate for splitting to its own page. It also meets WP:NFF as filming has begun, it was ordered for a full season with an intended release date, and a second season has been ordered. This merge attempt seems more like a way to get rid of the article since certain editors don't like how it was written, rather than any genuine encyclopaedic benefit would be gained. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:34, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Don't merge. Completely agree with adamstom97. It's already been renewed, been given a release year, started filming, and received teaser marketing already. Also, even say for some reason, they were to decide to cancel plans for this series and their $1 billion commitment, we would still have more than enough content and reliable sources to create a separate article about the failed development of this series. - Brojam (talk) 21:05, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Oppose – A majority of the entries under the Category:Upcoming television series (including the upcoming Netflix programming category) do not have a scheduled release date either, but has since begun filming (despite virtually everything being put into a halt due to the pandemic) and some have even received a fair amount of coverage from reliable sources to warrant their own standalone articles per WP:N/WP:PAGEDECIDE (which is a sufficient and clear-set guideline as opposed to the supplemental WP:NME). This series has already been commissioned for airing for two seasons (which is a rare feat in itself), has been filming since the first quarter of 2020, and is receiving a significant amount of outside attention from reliable sources. Merging this to Middle-earth in film might result for most of the aspects of the article to get lost. Additionally, regarding the Second Age setting, Amazon has already issued a press release about it, thus ending that speculation concern. They're even using the sentence "Welcome to the Second Age" for their promotional activities. The proper title for the article is a concern, though. Amazon has yet to announce the actual title of the series, and it just might not be The Lord of the Rings. Chihciboy (talk) 17:02, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
- That press release indicates that the series is untitled, but all of our sources are using The Lord of the Rings as the WP:COMMONNAME at the moment so I'm not too concerned with the current state. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:20, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Industry gossip, trivia, and speculation

In general, there is way too much about the future, what hypothetically would have happened if not for COVID-19 etc, and what other options they considered. We should be documenting what happened, not what didn't happen.
"The Lord of the Rings is expected to premiere on Prime Video in 2021." Expected by who? The source is dated 2017.
The fact that Amazon has not restarted filming yet is a non-story. We should record when they do. And the question of how this fits in with their previous schedule is ephemeral.
The lawsuit between Warner Bros and the Tolkien Estate was about gambling. The source does not say the lawsuit led to the TV series. The source does not explain the role of Warner Bros in the series. This is industry gossip, synthesising various pieces of information and hypothesising the connection.
Stunt accidents happen all the time. We don't need a whole paragraph on this unless something more eventuates. And we shouldn't insinuate the law has been broken. This is gossip.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:03, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
- They had a plan, and then their plan changed because of COVID-19. We do not remove information because the plan changed, especially when there is a clear and noteworthy reason for that change to occur. The whole point of a production section is to detail the history of the production and what happened.
- Amazon has said that they expect to premiere the series in 2021. We have reliable sources confirming that they have said that. Until we get a source that updates that or the information is otherwise contradicted it is not up to us to question that planned date.
- The fact that Amazon has chosen not to restart filming when they could have and instead have extended their planned production break to include the unforeseen shutdown is obviously noteworthy and informative information.
- All of the information on the lawsuit, including its impact on the TV series deal, is clearly sourced from the cited articles. It is relevant because if the lawsuit was ongoing or had not been resolved positively then it is unlikely the two groups would now be working together on a TV show.
- Filming on TV shows happens all the time, should we not mention that either? Just because it happens often doesn't mean it shouldn't be mentioned, especially not when it has received a decent amount of coverage. Also, three short sentences in the middle of a paragraph is not a whole paragraph, and the only insinuation of the law being broken is your own interpretation of events. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:45, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
  - I have never insinuated anyone has broken the law. You have now violated WP:AGF three times against me. Please stop it. The article states that Amazon took a week to tell WorkSafe about the accident. Why is that important? The cited source says Amazon was obliged to report the accident to WorkSafe right away. But until WorkSafe raises the issue, there's no point in documenting it here. In fact, we shouldn't because it does insinuate that Amazon has done something wrong.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:07, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
    - Our sources tell us that Amazon should have told WorkSafe immediately about the incident, but didn't until a week after. That is noteworthy. Unless you are trying to cover for Amazon or something then I'm not sure why you would be against including something that should so obviously be mentioned. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:26, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Characters

Amazon had released a list of the main cast, but any names of characters that those cast-members may be attached to comes not from Amazon but from journalistic sources that may or may not be accurate. This is true not just of the names of the characters, but also of who's the lead and who's the antagonist: all that information is unconfirmed, and should presented with reservations. We don't even know if cast members who auditioned for a certain role were eventually cast in THAT role: all that information is second-hand at best.-Chen Geller (talk) 09:39, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

The studio isn't the only reliable source, those journalistic sources are reliable as well. El Millo (talk) 19:13, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Its enough to earn its way into the article, to be sure. But I don't think its quite reliable enough to be stated as though it were fact. It should be presented with the appropriate qualifiers and caveats.

Citing adamstom97, "it sounds like you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is". El Millo (talk) 19:48, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm well aware of WP:NEWSORG but I still think Robert Aramayo's identification as the lead, as well as Morfydd Clark's as Galadriel should be preceded by some sort of qualifier until they are confirmed by Amazon. At the very least, Joseph Mawle's role and his identification as the villain should have some sort of qualifier, as the source cited for his casting refers to it as "it is believed that English actor Mawle will play the series’ lead villain, Oren." -Chen Geller (talk) 20:30, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

":::::The article cited for Aramayo as Beldor is this one from Deadline, which is more recent and confirms it. Galadriel is also confirmed in its respective reliable source. As for Oren, the "it is believed" part might be just referring to him being the lead villain, no to the character's name. In any case, you might be right about that last one. El Millo (talk) 21:02, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Sure, the Deadline report is more recent, but the fact of the matter is that we have reports that are conflicting in terms of how assuredly they phrase the identity of the cast, which I should think is enough to cast doubt over the veracity of the sources with regards to casting. This, in turn, would require putting some question marks around the actors' association with the roles. -Chen Geller (talk) 21:16, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I have removed the character names from the cast for now, except for Galadriel which is as confirmed as we ever get without an official announcement from the studio. As for listing Aramayo as the lead, that is supported not just by the casting sources but also by Amazon's cast announcement which listed him first. Of course that could just be an alphabetical listing and not the actual listing, but we almost always go by the studio listing for cast lists and at the moment this is what we have. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:24, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed that Aramayo is billed first on Amazon's cast list, but deducing that this makes him the lead is a getting close to WP:OR. I think removing mention of character names is a bit excessive, though. It just needs to phrased properly. Curiously, the association of Mawle as the antagonist, which we agreed is by far the least concrete, is now presented as though it were definitive. -Chen Geller (talk) 22:54, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

He is literally the leading cast member and that is all we are saying for now, nothing more. And if you truly think that we should be questioning the character names then we definitely should not be listing them in the actual cast list. That should wait until details are confirmed, and its not like they have been removed altogether. I'm also not sure what you mean by "we agreed". - adamstom97 (talk) 01:22, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Myself and El Millo have agreed that Mawle's association with the role of the villain Oren is doubtful, with Deadline saying that he is only "believed" to be playing that part, while TheObserver said he "is said to be" playing it; which is not cause to remove the name from the article, only to precede it with a "supposedly", "reportedly", etc... One should also note that TheObserver is conflicting with Deadline in terms of Aramayo's association with the role of Beldor, which Deadline reports as fact (albeit admitting that "Reps for Amazon and Aramayo declined comment", which leaves their argument unsupported) while The Observer only says he is "believed to have" been cast in the role. I think its cause enough to rephrase that section subtly. -Chen Geller (talk) 11:14, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I actually would rather have it removed than have it say "reportedly". I think the Deadline article actually confirms it, but if The Observer's article makes it dubious, then it should be removed. El Millo (talk) 18:58, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

What's the issue with "reportedly"? Its the cornerstone of good research to present one's arguments with the right level of doubt and reservation, where-ever necessary. Better to have it there with a question mark over it than not have it all, methinks. -Chen Geller (talk) 19:44, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I should add that I myself am beyond positive Aramayo is the lead, that Mawle is the antagonist and certainly that Clark is Galadriel. But I still have a tendency to treat journalism with suspicion unless its directly quoting a first-hand source, and so I can't let my own biases and conjectures get in the way. -Chen Geller (talk) 19:47, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

We absolutely should not be filling the casting section with details from that Observer article, or any other dubious source purporting to know details about the characters. We can add the notes that we have heard from reliable sources such as Aramayo being referred to as "Beldor", but everything else needs to be left out until a better source confirms it. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:23, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Not that I'm not doubting the character descriptions, but how are those dubious and the reports on who's-playing-who not? They both stem from uncorroborated news reports. -Chen Geller (talk) 09:24, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

There is a big difference between the trades telling us how characters have been referred to when revealing casting information, and "Observer" giving a list of character details from their sources that they aren't even confident enough in to state as fact in their article. - adamstom97 (talk) 19:34, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Premise

I was against the idea of merging this article into Middle-earth in film, but if the "Premise" section is to remain as laconic as some seem so insistent upon it being, it really has no buisness being a standalone article; which is a crying shame because there *is* a fair amount of insight to be poured into that section of the article.

I was always of the opinion that pointing out the readily-appearant should not count as "original research", but nevertheless I have made the effort of finding a source (or rather multiple sources) that did the work for us, pointing out indisputible place-names on the map so as to ascertain its date and therefore the timeframe of the series. The supposed "reliability" of the source is irrelevant because all it does is, again, point out that which is readily and indisputibly appearant: it may as well have been a Tumblr post, and its "reliability" would not be affected one bit, given the sheer obviousness of the point being made. Those aspects of the premise that are disputable have been placed in a more than appropriate level of conjencture.

With that said, I'm all the more puzzled that the additions to "Premise" should be discarded for supposed lack of "reliable sources", all the while also dispensing with the work done towards presenting the names of the characters, roles and even the name of the series itself within the appropriate level of conjencture. The fact of the matter is that, while we have an official cast list, we do NOT know for certain who is attached to what role, what that role entails (in terms of lead/supporting/villain) and whether the name of the role is a placeholder or not. None of that information is official or confirmed, and neither is the title of the show itself.-Chen Geller (talk) 09:40, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Everything you added to the premise section is speculation based on a map that was released for marketing purposes. Whether you were doing the speculating or you saw others doing it and referenced them is irrelevant, we can't add it because we don't know if it is even tangentially applicable. Until a reliable source tells us more about the premise of the show, or certain events from Tolkien's writings are confirmed to be included in the story, we should not be adding them here. As for the suggestion that without the speculation this article should not exist, that suggests an unfortunate misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works. The notability of articles has nothing to do with any story breakdowns, and this article definitely does not exist so people can guess what will happen in the show before it is released. We focus on the real world production and reception of the show, and, as has been pointed out by several editors in the merge discussion above, this article clearly meets those requirements. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:24, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

I think the core of any media-based article is the discussion of the actual content, rather than production notes. As for the premise here, there's a difference between "speculation" and pointing out that which is readily appearant. The map was joined to Amazon's announcement that the show will be set in the second age, an announcement we appearantly took as gospel (and not unjustly). The map has been designed with a specific date in mind, per Tom Shippey, and the place names betray this timeframe quite blatantly. Granted this is synthesis (of a sort, because again its really quite obvious), but since there's a source that does it for us... -Chen Geller (talk) 08:29, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

The problem is that most of this article is speculation, so removing speculation would remove most of the article.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:40, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

If your source is not reliable, then it's the same as having no source at all. If there's no reliable source to back it up, then it's not included. El Millo (talk) 17:59, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

What is the relevancy of source "reliability" when all said source does is point out the obvious, though? Source reliability is a function of what information that source is cited for. I don't need an article from Science to tell me the sun shines at dawn. So while, for example, even the press reporting the names of the characters in the show ISN'T sufficiently reliable for us to ascertain character names, any source pointing out the obvious clues in Amazon's map would suffice to ascertain the timeframe of the series. -Chen Geller (talk) 20:35, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

@Chen Geller: did you even try to find a reliable source? El Millo (talk) 20:58, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Of course: I've cited just about every source I did find. It goes without saying that I would have loved to be deriving a premise from an official synopsis, but we have more than enough to at least determine the timeframe. Like I said, source reliability is dependent upon function. The same source can be reliable or unreliable depending on what information one chooses to draw on it for. What we do have is totally fine to base the timeframe off of. - Chen Geller (talk) 21:55, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I think the core of any media-based article is the discussion of the actual content, rather than production notes. Once again it sounds like you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is. I suggest you read MOS:FICT to learn how we discuss fiction here. This is not a place for you to list fan speculation, sourced or unsourced. We are here to discuss the making of and reception to a television series. Per MOS:TVPLOT, we will include plot details in the article to provide context to the actual information we want to discuss, but we can't do that until we actually know those plot details. For now you need to be patient and wait until we learn concrete details about the plot before adding anything. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:50, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Be that as it may, most media-related articles I've seen do contain an extensive synopsis. Obviously that couldn't and shouldn't be the case here at this point, but there is room to expand upon the premise as it currently is. I'm certainly all for being patient, for instance with who's playing-who (which is a good example of not having concrete details) but I think there is room to expand upon the synopsis, at least in terms of a timeframe. Its not speculation: its pointing out the obvious; there's a difference. -Chen Geller (talk) 08:58, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

If it is so obvious, then find a reliable source that has said it. El Millo (talk) 19:15, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

There is a reliable source. Its reliable by dint of WP:CONTEXTMATTERS.-Chen Geller (talk) 20:15, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

there is room to expand upon the premise as it currently is no there isn't, because everything you have added so far has been speculation and we do not know if it will actually apply to the series. All we know is that the series is set in the Second Age. You deciding that events and locations from the Second Age in the books must therefore be depicted in this series is a blatant violation of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Just because the show is set in that era does not mean those things are going to be depicted in it, let alone be important enough to be mentioned in the premise of the show which is generally very brief. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:34, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Its NOT WP:OR nor WP:SYNTH if one has a source - any source - that does the research or synthesis, which we do have. Its a perfectly reliable source within the context of how its used: it doesn't "speculate": it points out the readily-appearant. I will concede that if this material is ever to be placed back into the article (which I would obviously be in favour of), it should probably be under "Writing" rather than "Premise", though. -Chen Geller (talk) 22:59, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough, you have a source to support the content. But the source is still speculating and my previous points still stand. The source is saying things will happen in the series because they happened in the books, and that is just not good enough. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:25, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

You're right, it should be presented as a context or timeframe within the "Writing" clause, rather than as the "Premise" proper. But its still a viable and valuable addition, if properly presented. -Chen Geller (talk) 11:14, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

No, we cannot add speculation to the article. Yes, if we had concrete details about this information then we could add it to the Writing section, but what you have added there is not appropriate for Wikipedia. You also continue to re-add your WP:BOLD additions despite being reverted multiple times and this discussion being ongoing. Can you please leave it out until there is consensus to add it, presumably once you are able to provide better sources that are not speculating about the series based on a map? - adamstom97 (talk) 02:25, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Putting two and two together is NOT speculation. -Chen Geller (talk) 09:22, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Writing a whole section of information based on a few names on a map is the definition of WP:OR. Citing unreliable sources is the same as not citing any source at all. "Putting two and two together" is an understatement of what this is. El Millo (talk) 12:31, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm not the one putting two and two together: the source is. And, as such, its more than reliable. -Chen Geller (talk) 13:50, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

I'll repeat: Citing unreliable sources is the same as not citing any source at all. It isn't reliable at all. El Millo (talk) 14:32, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Prey tell how and why its not reliable? -Chen Geller (talk) 14:44, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

It's not reliable because the sources it's based on are not reliable. El Millo (talk) 20:09, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Except they are. Look at this quote from the source:Citing "It’s more than the presence of Númenor. The map also includes Ost-in-Edhil, the main city of Eregion, and Lond Daer, the Númenóreans’ first port in Middle-earth. It shows Enedwaith and Minhiriath as heavily wooded, before those forests were felled to feed Númenor’s demand for timber. Lórien is labelled Lórinand, which means Galadriel hasn’t turned up there yet. And in addition to the presence of Amon Lanc, the nearby East Bight—the notch in southeastern Mirkwood—is missing. From this we can date the map surprisingly precisely: it’s not just Second Age, it’s prior to the forging of the One Ring (ca. SA 1600)." Can you argue with the veracity of this quote? No, of course you can't because its not speculation: its putting two and two together; and putting two and two together will never not equal four. Keeping in mind WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, its as reliable a source as any in terms of asserting the timeframe for the series. -Chen Geller (talk) 20:20, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

This is why this isn't "putting two and two together." This isn't common sense, this requires an in-depth knowledge of the Tolkien mythology to put together. That source is speculating because they don't know if all that will translate to the show, they're just assuming it will. This information could perhaps be part of the article if a bunch of reliable sources arrived to that same conclusion that the show is set before the One Ring existed, but none of those sources are reliable, and there's no context here that makes them reliable. As far as I understand it, WP:CONTEXTMATTERS indicates that reliable source may not be reliable in certain contexts, not than unreliable sources can be reliable in certain contexts. El Millo (talk) 20:39, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Its very much a "put two and two together", because what's being said is "location X on the map was erected in date Y, hence the map is set at date Y or later" to ascertain the timeframe. Its not the premise, its not the story of the show: its just the timeframe, and for deducing that, the deduction made by the source is impeccable, and therefore to cite it for the timeframe of the show is as reliable as they come. --Chen Geller (talk) 21:14, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

But it's not, because you just made a huge leap. "the deduction made by the source" tells us the timeframe that the map is likely representing, but it does not tell us what the timeframe of the series is, and it definitely doesn't tell us what events could be depicted in the series. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:35, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Its the same leap the article takes when it says the series takes place in the Second Age, because the map was attached to the "announcment" that the show will indeed by set in the that age. Its also the tenor of the conversation with Shippey: all of this isn't my reading: its all in the source. The map is representative of the show's setting. Now, to say the timeframe means the story will be this or that would be a leap, but that's not what's being said. In fact, I added the specific caveat that "what events (original or adapted) Amazon will choose to tell within the timeframe are not known." --Chen Geller (talk) 21:52, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Then talking about the timeframe in such detail isn't relevant as of now. As such, stating it takes place in the Second Age is enough. El Millo (talk) 22:40, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

If the article makes that leap then the author of it is speculating, and we should not include it in Wikipedia. Also, statements such as "what events (original or adapted) Amazon will choose to tell within the timeframe are not known." are not very encyclopaedic and should be avoided. We are here to tell people what is known, not what is unknown. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:53, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Its not really a leap. Tom Shippey clearly explains that the map betrays the timeframe of the show. I'm sure there are more encyclopaedic ways to explain this. --Chen Geller (talk) 10:24, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Title of the series

Do we know for certain that the title of this television series will be The Lord of the Rings? Or does it officially remain untitled with The Lord of the Rings as a "placeholder" title? -- /Alex/₂₁ 09:50, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

We know nothing about this series.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:53, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

We know plenty about this series, as is proved by the existance and span of this article, but my question concerns the series' title, nothing else. -- /Alex/₂₁ 10:00, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

No, sorry, we don't. The length of this article only shows the interest in the topic. Virtually none of this will still be here in 5 or 10 years time.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:08, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your personal opinion, but it is irrelevant to the question I have asked and not of interest to me. Please remain relevant to the topic at hand, or focus your efforts and agenda elsewhere if you cannot. Cheers. -- /Alex/₂₁ 10:35, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

It clearly is relevant.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:04, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Please remain relevant to the topic at hand, or focus your efforts and agenda elsewhere if you cannot. Cheers. -- /Alex/₂₁ 23:18, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

To answer your question, no, the series' official name is not known (indeed, not too much is known of this series with utmost certainty). The actual title may or may not be The Lord of the Rings. Currently it is used as the coloquial name for the series (per WP:COMMONNAME) but I think the article could stand to point out that its merely a tentative title at this stage. -Chen Geller (talk) 12:15, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. I'd recommend renaming it to Untitled The Lord of the Rings television series, and rewriting the lead to "An untitled television series based on the novel of the same name by J. R. R. Tolkien is an upcoming web television series." -- /Alex/₂₁ 23:19, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't think you can say "of the same name" if you're saying the series is "untitled". For what it's worth, Amazon is using the Twitter account @LOTRonPrime.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:26, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Technically the series has no title, but The Lord of the Rings is the COMMONNAME that is being used by almost every reliable source, plus the Amazon Twitter account as pointed out by Jack. None of our sources are explicitly noting it to be untitled. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:21, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Then I think that we should keep the article at its current title, but reword the first sentence of the lead to state that The Lord of the Rings isn't the official name, but the "unofficial"(?) name, much like DC Extended Universe. -- /Alex/₂₁ 06:18, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, or we could say something like "tentatively titled", or "placeholder title", anything that clarifies it isn't the official name of the show. El Millo (talk) 06:27, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Is there any reason to think Amazon won't use the title?--Jack Upland (talk) 09:31, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

We know they're not adapting the main plot of the books. Maybe they will use the title, but as of now its title is unknown. El Millo (talk) 17:44, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

The events of the Second Age do feature Sauron, i.e. the literal Lord of the Rings, so it is a potentially relevant title, but that's pure conjencture. I'm perfectly happy with the article being titled "The Lord of the Rings" per WP:COMMONNAME, but I'm also all for saying something like "tentatively titled" within the body of the article. --Chen Geller (talk) 13:28, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Given the marketing by Amazon, it seems to be pure conjecture to suggest any other title is possible.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:32, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

My problem with changing the current wording is I don't think we should put more emphasis on the fact that this isn't the official title than the majority of our sources are. They are all just calling it The Lord of the Rings, and as Chen pointed out it would make sense if they did keep that title (I personally believe the series will keep the name but add a subtitle, but who knows). If we do want to update the lead then here are some options that I have come up with and have also been suggested earlier for us to consider:

An upcoming web television series is being produced based on the novel The Lord of the Rings by J. R. R. Tolkien.
An upcoming web television series referred to as The Lord of the Rings is being produced based on the novel of the same name by J. R. R. Tolkien.
The Lord of the Rings is the tentative title for an upcoming web television series based on the novel of the same name by J. R. R. Tolkien

Looking at those options, what are people's thoughts? Anything better to suggest? - adamstom97 (talk) 04:56, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't think we should say it is a tentative title without sources to back that up. As stated before, I think the real problem is saying it's based on the novel, Lord of the Rings, and then undercutting this later by saying it's set thousands of years before. I would guess it will be called "The Lord of the Rings: The Second Age of Ice and Fire", but of course guessing is forbidden in the World of Wikipedia. I think the best option is to say as little as possible. Whereof we do not know, thereof we must be silent. Any suggestion that it will not actually be called "The Lord of the Rings" seems to have no evidentiary basis. There no reason to try to hint at this.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:22, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

The Lord of the Rings includes the appendixes, which contain stories going back thousands of years. The series is set before the main narrative of the novel, but not in a period before the work as a whole Lava Lamps (talk) 09:41, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

:Citing "Any suggestion that it will not actually be called "The Lord of the Rings" seems to have no evidentiary basis." We don't have solid information either way, and methinks ambiguity is evidence enough to express doubt. Trying to prove and trying to disprove aren't symmetrical endeavors in terms of the need for evidence. I think saying something along the lines of "the Lord of the Rings is the tentative title for an upcoming web television series" is reasonable enough. --Chen Geller (talk) 11:54, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

The press release specifies The highly anticipated, yet-to-be titled Amazon Original The Lord of the Rings television seriesRant423 (talk) 08:35, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

The current wording in the article does reflect this already. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:30, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

In-line citation needed

An in-line citation is needed for the release date as it is making a claim ThePorgieBaggins98 (talk) 04:18, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

What do you mean by "it is making a claim"? I have never heard that argument before. There is nothing in the lead of this article that is out of the ordinary or that is covered by the exceptions listed at WP:LEADCITE. Per that guideline, there is no requirement to cite uncontroversial statements in the lead that are already sourced and easy to find in the article body. Are you suggesting that you do not trust the information despite being able to check for it in the release section below? - adamstom97 (talk) 04:42, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Alleged "hearsay"

Very mature, @ThunderPeel2001:, warning me that I might break WP:3RR when you have made the same change three times yourself and ignored my explanations, my invitation to start a talk page discussion, WP:BRD, and WP:STATUSQUO. Reverting enough that you don't break 3RR but your change stays in the article is still borderline edit warring. I have clearly explained that this is a reliable source and a "better" alternative is not necessary. When we use trusted sources like this we often do not know where they get their information from, that is why they are trusted. It is common for trade reports like this to clearly identify when they are including something that is a rumour or that they have not been able to corroborate and that is not the case here. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:09, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

I"m sorry you don't understand WP policies. I'd suggest you study them further before continuing to edit. All the best. WikiMane11 (ThunderPeel) (talk) 14:05, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Haha that is not how Wikipedia works. If the only response you have to genuine discussion is "you don't understand WP policies" then there are clearly no grounds for the edit to remain, and if you continue to revert my changes and restore your preferred version of the article without contributing to the discussion then you will definitely be edit warring. So are you actually going to respond to me? - adamstom97 (talk) 22:03, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Instead of bickering you both should work on cleaning this already much to long article, long before the first episode has even been aired. There is so much early-production hearsay from half-serious sources that is more than outdated by now. Stick to real facts, elimiate uninteresting trivia and keep this article both interesting and up-to-date. As soon as the series starts, lots of readers will come here, and what they now find is an unstructured mix of unreliable chatter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.71.19.232 (talk) 14:07, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Basis for Series

Is this series based on The Silmarillion? If so, the article should say so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lolliapaulina58 (talk • contribs) 02:02, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

No, that is why it does not. The second paragraphs of the lead and the writing section explain what it is based on. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:40, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

To the regular committed editors

Kudos. It is rare I arrive at an article and say this, but as an editor of many years (approaching two decades), I find here something deserving of nary a critical comment, and so want to say bravo/brava to those creating and contributing. Well done, in crafting text clearly based on sources (including the casting list and sections, super), and maintaining that discipline as the article has begun to mature. Keep up the good work. That care and discipline distinguishes this as quality content that is distinctly and distinctively reliable, and broadly useful—content that clearly understands that reliability follows from WP:VER and other policies/guidelines—and so an article that is as reliable as we can produce. Again, kudos to all regularly and substantially involved. All the best. 2601:246:C700:558:800F:DCDC:70D5:9F8E (talk) 21:26, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Dubious sourcing.

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

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

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

Is it dubious sourcing or just a synthetic observation? CreecregofLife (talk) 18:08, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

This is what the source says (emphasis mine): Tolkien claimed young Galadriel could match strength with most male counterparts, and in a 1973 letter, wrote, “She was then of Amazon disposition and bound up her hair as a crown when taking part in athletic feats.” This is how she got her name, Galadriel, which means “maiden crowned with gleaming hair.” In The Unfinished Tales it says, “[Galadriel] looked upon the Dwarves also with the eye of a commander, seeing in them the finest warriors to pit against the Orcs.” I don't think it is a stretch to get from that to the wording used in the article. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:56, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

I figured it was a rephrase surmised from the info (which of course avoids plagiarism and such) but my inquiry was more about whether the concern was categorized correctly CreecregofLife (talk) 22:17, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Definitely not "dubious sourcing", just a question of specific wording based on the source provided. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:21, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Well, yeah, the source is an advert, which shouldn't really come anywhere close to RS, but that wasn't actually what I was getting at, I think the idea of quality sources only on wiki has long since died; what I meant was more that it's worded wrongly. It's phrased as though it's a quote, but isn't...it's...a twisted synthesis I guess you'd say. The source itself does the same thing in the exact part quoted above...."Tolkien claimed young Galadriel could match strength with most male counterparts". Not true. He did not claim that, which suggests the source isn't good. Again though, that's not really my point, my point's that the sentence is "Tolkien said X" when he absolutely did not. If this is about the discourse there are a few actual Tolkien quotes of her fighting that could be used directly (almost anything primary can be an RS for a direct quote merely saying that quote is in it), and the article already quotes the shows promos as her being a 'warrior'. I just don't like wiki saying "person A said B"...or claimed B, or suggested or described or whatever you want....when it isn't true. I don't care what policies you want to argue over, we shouldn't put words into someones mouth just because they don't qualify for the L in BLP. It's a phrase he never used sourced to an ad. 86.145.8.146 (talk) 17:57, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Vanity Fair articles aren’t advertisements, so right there you’re not off to a good start CreecregofLife (talk) 18:13, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Is that Article a joke?.

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

What's there to be critical of? CreecregofLife (talk) 03:19, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

This article IS a joke. The online mayhem regarding the marketing is one of the biggest examples of negative "fan reaction" I have seen in 20 years of Internet. And the silence of this article about is a rather clear reflection of who takes care of what. I wonder how much it pays, to gate-guard one Wikipedia article. Enough to buy a meal or two? 2003:DB:DF2B:A8B9:C51A:68CE:5626:42A9 (talk) 03:33, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

What was it regarding the marketing exactly they were mayheming over? CreecregofLife (talk) 03:52, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

you're kidding right? 174.61.111.165 (talk) 01:03, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm not seeing you answer... CreecregofLife (talk) 01:37, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

There is already appropriate criticism in the marketing section. The things you are concerned about missing were already discussed in the "Trailer reactions" section above. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:52, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Were is this "appropriate criticism"? The only ose of criticism in the article i can find is the segment: "Kevin E G Perry of The Independent was even more "critical" of the "visual effects", saying the trailer looked "cheap" and like a "cut scene from an old Final Fantasy computer game"." The article lacks a proper description of the heavily negative online fan reaction of the trailer and description of the show and it appears that the article is guarded by people wanting to censor this fact. The fact that "online trolling", "racism" and "harassement" is being used as arguments in the above discussions without evidence is a clear indication that the current article lacks a neutral point of view. Im adding a POV template to the top of the article.--Blockhaj (talk) 20:59, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Except that is a neutral point of view. A blunt statement of fact. Attempting to erase what actually happened actually takes the neutral point of view away CreecregofLife (talk) 21:02, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Also, do not remove a template prior to discussion and consensus.--Blockhaj (talk) 21:23, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

What am I talking about? Try rereading it so you know what it says. It's not that hard. As for the template, the discussion reached consensus three months ago. You were involved in the discussion. Just because you disagree doesn't mean it didn't happen. The template will be removed CreecregofLife (talk) 21:29, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Again, do not remove the template until consensus is reached. The above discussions never ended on a consensus and here the discussion has been opened again. As for your statement – "Attempting to erase what actually happened actually takes the neutral point of view away", refers to what? I'm implementing the template because the trailer and show has gotten a lot of backlash, yet this article doesnt reflect that and several users have pointed it out. But several other users states that this is just "trolling" and the like and thus not worth describing on the page, thus "erasing what actually happaned", etc, which indeed "takes the neutral point of view away". Once again i will add the POV template to the article because it is clear that this page has a lot of personal feelings and agendas behind it, thus not being neutral. If you still find this to be an incorrect use of the template etc then please contact a moderator to join the discussion because we cannot have an edit war about this.--Blockhaj (talk) 21:43, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Again, consensus was already reached in February. It is not neutral to validate racism. You are pushing your own personal feelings and agendas. This was already explained to you. Please stop readding the template CreecregofLife (talk) 22:08, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

@Blockhaj: Just because the previous discussion did not end on a definitive decision to take action does not mean that there was no consensus. I and others who opposed adding commentary on the "heavily negative online fan reaction of the trailer" were of the opinion that we should wait to see whether it really was so big and so well covered in reliable sources that it should be added, and the people who wanted to add things about it immediately either changed their minds or decided to stop arguing for it. That means there is (at least) implicit consensus from the previous discussion to wait until there is more evidence that this should be included. Now, a few months later, I don't see evidence that this has been a long-term high profile issue. It isn't something that major sources are still covering at the moment, maybe that will change once the series comes out and we can compare the initial reaction by some people online to their actual reactions to the show (which is what I was arguing for above). So I don't think it is appropriate to add a POV template to the article since the current lack of negative fan reaction discussion is a result of talk page consensus, for now. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:46, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

+1 to adamstom97 above; I distinctly remember the initial furor, but some quick canvassing of news and other reliable sources seem to indicate it was something of a flash in the pan. I don't think it WP:DUE for the article, and it is not an NPOV issue to leave it out, by my lights. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 01:12, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

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

With all due respect, your experience of YouTube is WP:OR, and it would naturally be colored by YouTube's algorithm; the searches might go differently for someone else. If you really want to make this point you need to show some reliable sources that are not in the immediate aftermath of the clips' debut. Until then, for me, anyway, I am afraid it is simply unconvincing. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 01:23, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Seems like stirring up the same old vitriol, whipping up the same people. There is no need to give it equal weight to nuanced professional response CreecregofLife (talk) 02:43, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm only here to improve the article to but this subject is more trouble than its worth. All i want is to tag the page as lacking context while i conduct research.--Blockhaj (talk) 03:44, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

You should do at least some research before tagging it, to effectively prove the page lacks context to the other editors here. —El Millo (talk) 03:46, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

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

The "backlash" against the casting of non-white actors is already discussed in the casting section, what we are holding off here is adding about other fan concerns regarding the trailer and/or series in general in the marketing section or a reception section. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:03, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Its not about non-white actors, its about changing the source material.--Blockhaj (talk) 13:23, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

One would think that the casting of so many non-elvish actors would be an even larger concern in that regard. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 14:00, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Considering the sources here, it does warrant somewhat greater prominence than a few sentences at the end of the casting section.—S Marshall T/C 15:57, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

With all due respect, Professor Fimi herself describes the backlash as having "caused uproar in certain quarters of Tolkien fandom." That sort of qualification, combined with the apparently short-lived nature of the backlash, convinces me that we have it about right. Deserves mention certainly, but I my preference would be to keep the article largely as is. Reasonable minds may differ, of course. Dumuzid (talk) 16:52, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Prof Fimi is the only scholarly source in an article that's otherwise sourced to showbiz outlets and churnalism.—S Marshall T/C 17:49, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Exactly. And I am trying to say (but communicating poorly) that she qualifies the backlash as being somewhat limited ("certain quarters"). For me, that leads to the conclusion that we're on the right track, but happy to bow to consensus should it decide otherwise. Dumuzid (talk) 17:52, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

It is limited. Not everyone who likes Tolkien is offended by the sight of black people in fantasy; Prof Fimi rightly excludes herself and for the record me too. Nevertheless racism in Tolkien fandom is quite a big deal nowadays and I don't think it's a matter we should minimize.—S Marshall T/C 21:00, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

This sounds like you want to give the racism a big a platform as possible CreecregofLife (talk) 22:03, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't think I am minimizing it. I think I am giving it a due amount of attention. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 02:51, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Does it really though? CreecregofLife (talk) 19:20, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Clearly yes. Tell me, do you have any connection with anyone in the television series? Has anyone offered you any kind of reward or incentive to frame the article as it currently is?—S Marshall T/C 21:00, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

That doesn't sound like good-faith discussion to me CreecregofLife (talk) 22:02, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

@S Marshall: I agree with CreecregofLife that such accusations are out of place and unwarranted, not to mention that I have been the primary contributor at this article and one of the main proponents for not adding more on this topic so far, so if anyone should be getting paid to keep negative content out of the article then it should be me!

As has been pointed out by others above, there is little evidence to suggest that this is a widespread or long-lasting issue. Yes, there are a loud group of Tolkien fans on the internet who are super racist, they have been covered by some sources, and they have been responded to by the creative team (all of which is mentioned in the article), but a "group of Tolkien fans on the internet" is not a significant sample of people by any measure, and the coverage of them by reliable third-party sources has been small and brief. If this happens again with the next trailer and/or the actual series release and we get more ongoing commentary about it then I agree that we should have a more prominent discussion about it in the article, but for now we would just be elevating a fringe group.

Also, I would point out that this thread was not started by someone who wanted the article to discuss the racist fans more, it actually seems to have been started by one of those fans who thinks the article is being too nice on the series and producers. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:58, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

To ask a question is not to accuse. Levels of UPE on Wikipedia are very high, but when I see someone whitewashing content I don't assume they're engaged in UPE. I ask them. Taking offence is a common way to try to quash a discussion you don't want to have.

Honestly, I find it a bit hard to reconcile the very high levels of detail we have on which actors have been hired and in one case fired, with the brief mention at the end of the bottom-most paragraph under "casting" that discusses the backlash covered in a whole bunch of sources (I got to seven and stopped counting). I'm not in the least bit surprised you've got all these IP editors wanting to add stuff about the backlash, whatever their motives.—S Marshall T/C 00:12, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Of course I wouldn't want to entertain such ludicrous questioning that responded to "Does it really though"? To claim I took offense to avoid discussion when I've been in the discussion for months. You're just not making sense CreecregofLife (talk) 01:38, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't think it is difficult to reconcile the idea that we have more details on the people cast in the show than mentions of a small group of racists on the internet. One is an integral part of the topic, the other is barely relevant. I would be concerned if the article treated racist internet fans more importantly than the actual production of the series. The fact is that you can always find someone on the internet with a strong view about something, that doesn't mean we need to give them a bigger platform here than is due. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:04, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

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

I think you need to be a bit more careful about your word choices, because do you have any connection with anyone in the television series? Has anyone offered you any kind of reward or incentive to frame the article as it currently is sounds exactly like you are accusing someone of being paid to do something that you don't like, and I find it a bit hard to reconcile the very high levels of detail we have on which actors have been hired and in one case fired, with the brief mention at the end of the bottom-most paragraph under "casting" that discusses the backlash sounds exactly like you think this issue is more important than the actual casting of the show.

I'm not saying that we won't eventually end up with a section dedicated to this issue, I'm just saying that we need more proof that it is actually widespread and long-lasting. Yes, there are sources out there discussing this, but most of them are just brief news stories from a short period of time when the small group of people that we are talking about were first "outraged". If the series comes out and this is no longer a major issue then in the full scope of the topic this would just be a brief issue that warrants only a small mention in another section. If the series comes out and this continues to be a big issue and gets even more coverage by good sources with actual analysis and discussion, then I think it will make sense to expand on what we have. We are in WP:NORUSH, especially since the series hasn't been released yet. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:06, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Break

The relevant policy here is WP:NPOV. Let me quote the key paragraph in full.

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

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

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

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

I have been (wrongfully) accused of PR whitewashing at other articles which have received similar backlash from toxic fans (especially Star Trek: Discovery and Star Trek: Picard) so I am sensitive to such accusations, which usually come from the other side (including the IP that started this thread). I can see that your intentions were genuine, I'm just pointing out how your question came across. I'm also not saying that there aren't good sources covering this, clearly there are and we could put together a good summary of the ones you have there. My concern is that we would be violating NPOV by putting a significant amount of emphasis on some racist fans who were loud enough to get the media's attention for a couple weeks in February when the trailer came out, but do not necessarily represent a significant portion of the series' audience and/or will not have a lasting presence in coverage of the series. Whether they would or not could definitely be determined once the series is released and we see how sources cover it and the backlash then.

However, something that I have just seen which sways me more towards the side of inclusion now is this article from The Gamer. I had seen that several Tolkien fan websites had been invited to a special screening of the series and I was planning on adding some details about it to the marketing section soon, but this article draws an explicit line from the fan backlash to Amazon setting up the screening which would indicate that this group of fans is having an impact on the producers which makes the whole thing more noteworthy. My concern with approaching this would be, where is the best place to put it all? I don't think it is incorrect to note some of the casting backlash in the casting section as we currently have, and I think it makes sense to add this fan screening info to the marketing section, so should discussion of the backlash be spread between those two locations? Or should we just bite the bullet and create an audience response section that discusses everything? I feel like you are leaning towards the latter. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:34, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Just because they’re allegedly Tolkien “fans” doesn’t mean their input is valid. If they are intentionally misleading producers it should be portrayed as such. I refuse any and all uncritical inclusion of the racist platitudes. After the accusations Marshall made against me any claims of genuine concern are dubious. Nothing has changed in the noteworthiness.CreecregofLife (talk) 23:38, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

We're not here to parse which input is "valid" and which isn't. The Gamer article is another data point, and more recent, but I am not sure it really changes my mind, as it uses the controversy as sort of rhetorical throat clearing, without going into it substantively. I think we're still covered at the moment, but as ever, happy to go with consensus. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 23:45, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps I could put together an example of what I am thinking based on the Gamer article since I want to work on including the fan screening info in marketing anyway, and we can see what others think about that? - adamstom97 (talk) 23:47, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

That would be appreciated! Dumuzid (talk) 23:51, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

That tone is not very conducive to civil discussion CreecregofLife. We are not suggesting an "uncritical inclusion of the racist platitudes" at all. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:46, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Neither was the accusation of being paid off, or a still unfounded claim of bias in the article, yet here we are, entertaining yet another person who has done so CreecregofLife (talk) 23:50, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

That's not an excuse to be uncivil towards other editors, but it is understandable given Marshall keeps at it with completely unfounded accusations such as CreecregofLife's refusal to deny a COI is rather surprising, which are as bad-faith as it can get, especially when there are other clearly more plausible "biases" someone can have in this situation, such as having liked the trailer or considering giving racist arguments more attention to be harmful. —El Millo (talk) 02:14, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

To ask a question is not to accuse. There is a large gap between "Did you have anything to do with Mr Smith's disappearance?" and "I'm arresting you on suspicion of murdering Mr Smith." And people don't normally take offence when they're in the right. If a client asked me to prove that I'm qualified to do my job, I wouldn't take offence; I'd laugh, say that I am, and show them my certificates, and I'd expect any colleague of mine to do the same. Not to take offence and huffily refuse to answer.

To Dumuzid I would say that you're right to focus on "going into it substantively", and I would point out that we've got far weightier, more numerous and more substantive sources for the "backlash" than for sections or subsections such as "Design", "Casting", or "Filming". The sources and particularly the independent, mainstream media, non-showbiz sources are remarkably focused on it.—S Marshall T/C 12:51, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

You were asking accusatory questions. If you were actually consistent with yourself, by your logic you have been accusing me because you took offense multiple times when it was rightly pointed out you were being accusatory. “People don’t normally take offense when they’re in the right” needs a big citation needed. What am I supposed to produce based on your accusations? CreecregofLife (talk) 13:48, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

A simple denial would suffice.—S Marshall T/C 14:45, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

A denial you already rejected. Sorry it wasn’t simple enough for you. CreecregofLife (talk) 14:51, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Where did you deny it?—S Marshall T/C 15:59, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Every goddamn time. I denied it every goddamn time. Please don’t be obtuse CreecregofLife (talk) 16:07, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry I'm too obtuse to have noticed your denial. Mind linking it for we extremely stupid people?—S Marshall T/C 16:20, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

You make an extremely baseless accusation you extend to no one else with absolutely zero proof or reason and yet I have to do all the work even after I explicitly denied it for you? You asked for an explicit denial, I gave it to you, and yet that’s not enough. How can you claim “A question is not to accuse” and then turn around and say I have to explicitly deny something that you claim aren’t accusations? CreecregofLife (talk) 16:31, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

I would like to declare my conflict of interest: S Marshall, because of your uncivil and time-wasting nonsense I find myself in a position where I am extremely unlikely to support anything you might suggest. Dumuzid (talk) 17:05, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

As am I. “I’m just asking questions” is loaded with insinuation that there’s more to it, but the fact is they dropped that facade that they the moment they asked for a denial. I said they weren’t acting in good faith the moment they first accused, and they never let up. CreecregofLife (talk) 18:34, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

CreecregofLife -- while I generally agree with you regarding S Marshall's behavior, I would urge you to be more collegial as well. Though I think the article at present has a decent balance of issues, the argument that more attention needs to be paid to the fan backlash is creditable, even if one does not agree with it. While I also don't care for giving air to racist nonsense, that's not really a consideration here. Where the reliable sources notice such nonsense (even to say "hey, this is racist nonsense"), we should as well. As ever, just one old guy's opinions, and feel free to disregard. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 18:44, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Yeah I think both CreecregofLife and S Marshall need to take a chill pill and focus on the issues again. I will work on my proposal for making some changes, per my previous comment, as soon as I have the chance. Hopefully won't be too long and then we can continue with the discussion properly. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:36, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

According to this comment, one line about the very frequent usage of a phrase and suddenly their behavior is not one of the issues in this discussion? How is that supposed to make me calmer? Equating my behavior with theirs actively gives them more footing. It continues to validate them. They spent so much time attacking me they never showed evidence of bias present in the article. Why should I tolerate this? CreecregofLife (talk) 03:45, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

I believe both adamstom97 and I would agree that S Marshall's accusations have been out of bounds. But for me, your hardline stance against including "racist platitudes" in the article goes too far. While I agree that the backlash under discussion is ignorant and downright stupid, if it gets covered in the reliable sources, it should be proportionally covered in the article. I have yet to see anything that convinces me we need more than what is already present, but adamstom97 has said he will draft something for review--that's the way Wikipedia should work, to my mind. So I'd like to wait and see, and ask for a bilateral armistice in the meantime. As ever, reasonable minds may differ, and I would ask that we all keep that in mind. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 12:33, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

I haven't been able to spend as much time on this as I had planned to, so I decided to be WP:BOLD and make the formatting change I was thinking by moving most of the racist backlash stuff to a reception section. This can be given an appropriate subheading once we get different reception info (viewership, critics, etc.). If you guys wish to add more commentary to the reception section from the sources that S Marshall provided above then you should feel free, but I think I have satisfied the wish to make it more prominent. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:33, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Trailer reactions

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

Not to preempt any other following comment, but should you look back, @User:Klokar: The chats are original data, and for editors here to study and report on them would violate WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH. If a publication (online or print independent source) looks at that same data, and reports on it—then, post that source here, and it can then be evaluated, and statements from it possibly summarised for this article. Cheers. 2601:246:C700:558:800F:DCDC:70D5:9F8E (talk) 21:12, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Firstly, "this show has not been well received" is not true, there are a wide variety of responses out there and most legitimate commentary for the trailer has been very positive. That doesn't mean certain people online haven't been saying negative things about it, but what they are posting on YouTube, Rotten Tomatoes, etc. falls under WP:USERG and should not be included unless commented on by reliable sources. Luckily in this case we actually do have reliable sources, including producers of the show, who have commented on the backlash from certain people online towards the "diverse" cast, which is why there is already a whole paragraph about that in the casting section. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:18, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

I can't believe Klokar looked at it so uncritically that they said "Yup, this is valid perspective"--CreecregofLife (talk) 01:23, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Also, the fact that this was a TEASER, and none of those commenting have actually seen the final product, and therefore have no room to critique based on quick scenes with no context. TNstingray (talk) 01:43, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

While you all make good points, I believe the article fails to mention one key detail. It seems to downplay the backlash, and compltely ignore the fact that it was racist in nature (and described as such by reliable sources), or that it came from the Comicsgate hate movement. 46.97.170.40 (talk) 10:43, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

This is a valuable stray IP comment, in that it suggests the existence of sources that discuss a backlash to the drop of the trailer by the producers. THAT is news, and likely discussion-worthy herein. Someone should have a look for the "reliable sources" discussing the matter, in my opinion. Cheers. 2601:246:C700:558:800F:DCDC:70D5:9F8E (talk) 21:15, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't make judgements like that. I believe the information in the casting section accurately conveys the details from the source article and also makes it clear what these people's concerns are. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:57, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

No strong disagreement with any of the foregoing, but please see my interjection above, about the most fundamental reason (even more so than the focus of the comments on responses to a trailer, or the quality of the source, and possible motivations for the initiating comment or the online responses). Not meaning to wikilawyer, but absent an independent, published (non self-)source discussing the matter, we have no business summarising from it, and reporting the matter here. So I agree with the conclusion of all foregoing responses. Cheers. 2601:246:C700:558:800F:DCDC:70D5:9F8E (talk) 21:27, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia wouldn't make that judgement. Vanity Fair already has an article on it. 46.97.170.40 (talk) 11:24, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Some sources for the trailer reactions: Tolkien Fans Are Underwhelmed By Amazon’s ‘The Lord Of The Rings: The Rings Of Power’ Trailer, Why LOTR Fans Are Spamming The Rings Of Power Trailer & What The Quote Means. Corwin of Amber (talk) 03:00, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

I would avoid adding those since they are based on hand-picked Twitter and Reddit comments which fall under WP:USERG as I said above. We already have reactions from critics/online commentators that cover a decent range of views, and we already discuss the casting backlash as well. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:09, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

It is not WP:USERG, there are secondary reliable sources reviewing the reaction. And it's not 'casting backlash', it's concerns about too much CGI, 'Galadriel's character wearing the wrong sigil on her armor, the series using a cleaner aesthetic than Peter Jackson's original The Lord of the Rings trilogy, several characters having modern-looking haircuts, and Disa not having a beard as Dwarven woman'. I think it's wrong to ignore fans reaction (described by reliable secondary sources, not from twitter or youtube comments). Corwin of Amber (talk) 03:45, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Just because a generally reliable source reports on fan reactions does not mean those reactions are now noteworthy. The same sources present all sorts of social media-based minority reviews and comments as "news". Putting them in the article would suggest that those specific fans' complaints are more noteworthy than the opinions of all the fans who are not included (there is no evidence in those articles to suggest that these opinions are actually widespread or considered to be generally valid by legitimate commentators) and also that they are of equal status to the commentary from non-fans that is already there. It would violate WP:UNDUE and borderline violate WP:NPOV. There is a big difference between something like #ReleaseTheSnyderCut, which was widely reported on by major publications for years and was acknowledged by the cast, crew, and studios as having an explicit impact, versus a small group of online fans complaining about a trailer. The former is clearly noteworthy and is discussed in the relevant articles, but the latter happens for literally every major film and TV series these days and is not worth noting. Imagine if every Marvel, Star Wars, and DC film and TV article included a round-up of trivial fan complaints after each trailer, episode, or film is released. Definitely something we want to avoid. The only way to know if these specific complaints are actually noteworthy is to see if they are more widely reported on and how (i.e. do reliable sources take them seriously or are they just considered fringe complaints), to see if they are something that the cast, crew, or even critics engage with (as has happened for the racist stuff which is why it is already included), and to see whether they persist beyond just the first teaser. I wouldn't expect to know for sure until at least the first reviews for the series start coming out, so I think WP:NOHURRY applies. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:54, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. Such content falls foul of WP:NOTNEWS as well. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia not a place to report the views of disgruntled fans. Keep that for social media or the pub. Robynthehode (talk) 22:02, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

For the history of 'nothing to report' and WP:NOTNEWS: [5], [6], [7], [8]. Of course the opinion of single The Hollywood Reporter's James Hibberd who described the teaser as 'epic' is much more important. Anyway (even ignoring my points above) I think that The Independent is a VERY reliable source and the reaction should be added: For a billion dollar show, why does the new Lord of the Rings trailer look so cheap? Corwin of Amber (talk) 14:56, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Also: The Guardian article: 'we’re used to online revolts by now, but fans objecting to the Rings of Power’s very existence is something unprecedented', 'this Lord of the Rings rebellion seems quite unprecedented. These fans – or at least a faction of them – seem to be rebelling against the entire product, something that feels far harder to correct than gussying up a misshapen hedgehog.'. Keep the Guardian for the pub, yep. Corwin of Amber (talk) 11:57, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

People, the Guardian and the Independent are of course reliable sources. The point is that in the long run (think 5 years ahead, or further) all mention of a trailer will seem very minor (and out of date), while mention of early reactions to the trailer will seem footling if not arcane and irrelevant. It may help to recall that WikiProject Middle-earth is not a news site. I suggest you put in a *very brief* mention, cited to these sources, remembering that all this will in a few months be rendered obsolete by far more substantial news of what the series actually contains. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:07, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree, but IF we pay so much attention to the announcement video (describing 'sparkler dust, argon pours, and liquid hydrogen', 'Phantom Flex4K camera') and the first teaser (describing it as 'epic', and things like 'it showed off the series' large budget') we should at least mention the negative reaction. OR we should delete this section. Corwin of Amber (talk) 16:04, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

So because you don't like genuine positive reaction there should be no reaction at all? You can't stand that people may have liked it, and don't see the shallow, disingenuous negative reaction for what it really is--CreecregofLife (talk) 18:25, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

No. The article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a verifiable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each (WP:RSUW). Maybe you can't stand that people may have disliked it? Corwin of Amber (talk) 02:59, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

When the viewpoint is transparently disingenuous it should not be given equal weight. You're falling into Wikipedia:DONTGETIT--CreecregofLife (talk) 03:40, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Who defines what is disingenuous? You? Per WP:NPOV we should avoid editorial bias. I added two critical opinions from National Review and The Independent and now the trailer reception seems more balanced. As for the trailer 'backlash' from the fans I don't insist on adding this information, I just make some points and links to discuss. Maybe, as adamstom97 and Chiswick Chap said, it is too early and we should wait for the premiere. Corwin of Amber (talk) 04:14, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

No. the fact that the "backlash" is coming from a known internet troll clique that has a long history of astroturfing "backlash" to basically everything, is what makes it disingenuous. 46.97.170.40 (talk) 10:17, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Looks like a conspiracy theory. I doubt this 'internet troll clique' could make 123,000 dislikes on YouTube video. Corwin of Amber (talk) 11:52, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Your doubts show a lack of knowledge of what the internet has been, especially in the last six and a half years.--CreecregofLife (talk) 06:13, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Your unfounded claim proves I'm right. Tolkien community is much bigger and older than Marvel's. Corwin of Amber (talk) 15:35, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

This is not a conspiracy theory, this is a well documented phenomenon. We even know who these people are. Jeremy Hambly - Former member of the Magic: The Gathering community on youtube, has been blacklisted by Wizards of the Coast for harrassment of other members of the community as well as members of their judge program. Arch - former member of the Warhammer 40.000 community who was publicly denounced by Games Workshop for using their IP to propagate neonazi views. ClownfishTV - a married couple who fell out of favor with the comic book industry, now they mostly push conspiracy theories on youtube. JustSomeGuy - a comicsgate affiliate troll and heckler who has a long history of harrassing high profile writers and artists working for Marvel and DC. Eric July - conspiracy theorist and lead vocalist of band Backwordz. Geeks+Gamers - a group of comicsgate affiliate youtubers with a history of peddling pop-culture related misinformation inciting harrassment against women and hijacking charity events to promote their own brand. Short Fat Otaku - the less said of this one, the better. There are much more of them, and then there's also Bounding into Comics - an alt-right rumour mill affiliated with Arkhaven - a publisher run by an actual neonazi, Vox Day. All of these people have hundreds of thousands of subscribers in total, even accounting for the inavitable overlap in viewership. More than enough for mass dislike-bombing pretty much everything that doesn't align with Comicsgate's political agenda. These same people were behind the fake backlash against Ghostbusters, the fake backlash against the Last Jedi, the fake backlash against Captain Marvel, the fake backlash against Dr Who's last couple of series, the fake backlash against MotU: Revelations and several dozen other fake backlashes of the past several years. Their persistent brigading is practically the reason why youtube decided to hide dislikes. 46.97.170.40 (talk) 11:06, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

If this is a well documented phenomenon could you provide any 'documentation' / the evidence (articles in reliable sources?). I can beleive there are some trolls / racists / harassers etc. but many real fans are not happy with this project not because of the skin color but because of 'the deviation from the text', for example 'compressing' things that take place over thousands of years into a single point in time, modern haircuts, bad and excessive CGI etc. Calling everybody displeased with the trailer / Vanity Fair preview 'trolls' is wrong. Can you imagine that many people really didn't like the trailer? Corwin of Amber (talk) 15:35, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I can immagine that many people didn't like the trailer. Can YOU imagine that a very vocal minority, whipped into a frenzy by the exact same people who love stirring up trouble every single time they see women, LGBTQ people or women of color represented in a show/film/game, is not indicative of anything? Please don't act like you don't know what "brigading" means. It is YOU who needs to provide reliable sources that show that the reactions to the trailer were overwhelmingly negative. You will find no reliable sources that support this claim, not even LotR fan sites and fan communities. The negativity is coming exclusively from a group of youtubers who up until a year ago didn't make a single video on Lord of the Rings, or any of Tolkien's works. 46.97.170.40 (talk) 16:03, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

If the general backlash from certain fans does prove to be noteworthy in the long run then it would be better suited in the general reception section rather than in the marketing section, per the quotes included above from the Guardian. But I do think it is too early. Quite a lot of WP:RECENTISM going on here. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:04, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Here's what I don't understand. The trolls behind the "backlash" have been doing this for over 4 years, and despite the fact that they have been exposed so many times by reliable sources, and despite the sheer number of brigading they have been involved in, wikipedia still doesn't consider them noteworthy. I don't understand why. Just like Gamergate, and Comicsgate, The Fandom Menace is real, in fact, it consists of many of the same people. 46.97.170.40 (talk) 10:17, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

The fact that they have been doing it for so long is part of the reason that it is not noteworthy at most articles. At this point it can be expected and generally ignored. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:10, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Ive just skimmed through this discussion and bruh. There should definitely be a section about the inital backlash. Basically everyone dislikes it. There will always be woke pl defending the changes but ive seen tons of black LOTR fans hating on this show as well.--Blockhaj (talk) 02:30, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

WP:NPOV, your obvious personal bias is not relevant here. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:38, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Internet trolls from a known hate group are not "basically everyone". Fansites like theonering(dot)net, influencers in the LotR fan community and prominent contemporary tolkien scholars all had positive reactions. Also, the fact that you are using terms like "woke" (I don't think that word means what you think it does) shows that you are not qualified to contribute to this discussion in any meaningful way. 46.97.170.40 (talk) 10:14, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, but this is a part of a much larger phenomenon, that can be seen as the continuation of the Gamergate harrassment campaign and the Comicsgate movement. The Fandom Menace is an organized troll group that runs multiple websites like Bounding into Comics (which in turn has ties to both white supremacist Vox Day and prominent Comicsgate leaders) and has a long history organizing "backlash" against recent instalments in popular franchises. At one point, wikipedia needs to have an article on these people. 46.97.170.40 (talk) 10:14, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

The trailer was not well received.

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

Please see the section above where this is already being discussed. Online trolls complaining about a trailer on Reddit/Twitter/YouTube/etc. is not noteworthy on its own since it happens for most films and TV series these days. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:20, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Not noteworthy according to who? Excuse me but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, the goal of an encyclopedia is to bring ALL the facts, not to take part for one side or another. There were a lot of negative reviews from several platforms. The backlash was and remain big, at least quite massive to be noted by Amazon and some media and I think it's important to report it. Of course maybe my first approach wasn't really correct, we could say that "the trailer wasn't well received by the public on internet". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A03F:6B8E:EE00:BC27:6FE2:F86E:E861 (talk) 12:45, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

I would recommend looking at the earlier discussion regarding this concern. Backlash to the project at the moment seems to consist of a smaller, online community of fans, which occurs with literally every single new installment put out by any production company over the past few years (see Star Wars, DC, Fantastic Beasts, even Marvel). If there are notable, reliable sources discussing this, then it is worthy of inclusion. But the statement of "overwhelming backlash" is generic and currently unsubstantiated (though I might even agree with some of the complaints). See the above discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TNstingray (talk • contribs) 17:03, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

To claim that this is a smaller online community and of troll nature requires proof. There is no indication that the dislike against the new series and the trailer is of troll nature and its indisputably bigger than a small online community.--Blockhaj (talk) 11:58, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Wrong. You are the one who needs to show proof that there has been a genuine backlash from tolkien fans. So far, every single source that covers this, links it to a vocal minority of far right hecklers, with ties to Gamergate. 46.97.170.40 (talk) 11:10, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Citation, please. That's a broad, broad brush "So far, every single source that covers this, links it to a vocal minority of far right hecklers, with ties to Gamergate." You're the one who's insisting on something NOT being included. The burden is on you, not with the OP for this request. And you know better. 2603:6011:C003:1256:9C2:2913:4FF2:F65 (talk) 17:14, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

WP:ONUS. The burden is on those who want to include disputed text to gain consensus. My initial reaction is that the article doesn't need this, but if you'd like to suggest the reliable sources on which you rely F65, I would be happy to reevaluate (at least for myself). Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:23, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Denofgeek article

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

Per my points above, I think we should still be waiting to see what the long-term view of this is, and no matter how long we wait I believe much of this discussion, if it is to be added, should be going in the general reception section rather than in the marketing section since we are clearly no longer talking about just one trailer. People have decided that this is how they will respond to the series as a whole despite not seeing it yet. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:33, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. I do like that the article exists, that it takes a critical eye to what we’ve seen and acknowledges it as what it actually is, and not representative of the overall reception of the overall product--CreecregofLife (talk) 21:46, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

But just because it's not representative of the overall reception, it doesn't change the fact that this is a real and well documented phenomenon with years of history behind it, that wikipedia should cover. 46.97.170.40 (talk) 10:58, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

I think you are missing my point. First off, people need to subscribe to Amazon Prime to watch the series in the first place, so even if in theory the majority of the people who say it disliked it, it wouldn't mean anything, as it would not reflect on Amazon's profits, or the ratings of the series. WHich means critical reception is the only objective metric by wich the reception can be determined. And yes, reception of the Rings of Power so far is positive. That's not what this story is about, this story is about a brigading campaigns organized by politically motivated gamergate-adjacent internet trolls who do this regularly, and who's activities have been reported on by far too many reliable sources for wikipedia to simply ignore them. If it doesn't belong in the article, then a separate article needs to be made on The Fandom Menace (instead of a redirect to the Star Wars fandom, which is not accurate) to inform people of their activities). 46.97.170.40 (talk) 10:56, 25 February 2022 (UTC)