Talk:The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Reversion of BenBarek1903 edit.

@Dumuzid reverted an edit [here] but didn't supply a summary, and I am not sure of the reason for the full reversion. The addition was a bit clunky in the phrasing, but the content was accurate and reliably sourced. Is there some reason for the removal that I am not seeing? LowKey (talk) 05:25, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Forbes contributors writing with minimal editorial oversight are not considered to be reliable sources on Wikipedia.

There appears to be no consensus regarding Business Insider. I'm sure Dumuzid reverted it because the subject matter appears to be vastly outside the scope of the article. Why is an Amazon employee falling asleep while watching the show notable? TNstingray (talk) 11:02, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Why is an Amazon employee falling asleep while watching the show notable? You are kidding, aren't you? Eric Kain is accepted as reliable in the "backlash" section - thereby showing exactly what I stated about reliability being determined by conforming to the narrative. Kain and Tassi are both entertainment reviewers/critics with years of experience. They are subject matter experts. Tassi is well qualified to speak on the writing of a piece of fiction, having 5 published novels under his belt beside review experience. Forte is not an actual employee of Amazon but analyses Amazon for prospective investors. He was one of the analysts (plural) who fell asleep trying to watch episodes (multiple times). While that isn't a critic's review, it isn't Robinson Crusoe when it comes to stuff being misplaced in this article. Nevertheless, he has a master's in writing, so probably has some insight into ROP writing. Also, there is other content in that article that is even more notable - Forte calculates that as many as 95% of Amazon Prime subscribers either don't like the show or don't care about it and that certainly is within his professional area of expertise as an equity analyst. That probably belongs at least somewhere in the reception section. LowKey (talk) 11:52, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Sorry for the tsuris--real life has me fairly busy lately. That was a mobile undo, which I don't usually employ, precisely because you can't give reasons. I probably should have used discretion here too. But yes, Erik Kain and WP:FORBESCON was part of my issue, but also the "criticism began to mount" framing struck me as classic WP:SYNTH; I didn't see that in the sources, but if it's there, I will of course apologize. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 12:29, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

I didn't write this article, and I don't have every nook and cranny memorized. Had I caught that there was already a Forbes reference in the backlash section, I probably would have removed it per WP:FORBES. As such, I will need to refresh my understanding of this policy before I can comment further. I must add, again, that while there is no perfect article (including this one), there is also no predetermined narrative beyond the straw that you are forcing into your scarecrow. TNstingray (talk) 12:54, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and removed the Forbes contributor. Hopefully this should resolve that (justified) complaint. As for the other content BenBarek1903 added, I'm glad it was reverted because it was frankly ridiculous. Toa Nidhiki05 13:02, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

@Toa Nidhiki05. There are two more Forbes articles in the body: under Marketing Writing for Forbes, Scott Mendelson said... and under Reception#Viewership Amazon announced.... Since we are now generally discussing Forbes, can we put this topic to rest by determining what to do with these. The first may warrant deletion due to being a contributor, but is the second one just recording what Amazon themselves said? Also be sure to delete the defined references if deletion is pursued. TNstingray (talk) 13:53, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Quick pop in to say that these are both likely okay per WP:FORBES, as they are staff writers. It's the contributors we have to worry about. Of course, does not mean they're necessarily WP:DUE or needed, but I don't think there's a WP:FORBESCON issue. As ever, reasonable minds may differ. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 13:59, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Those are articles by Forbes staff writers, not contributors. See here, but essentially, Forbes contributor content is self-published while Forbes staff/news pieces are not. Toa Nidhiki05

Thank you both for the clarification. TNstingray (talk) 14:01, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Editors show consensus for treating Forbes.com contributor articles as self-published sources, unless the article was written by a subject-matter expert. In this context, Kain and Tassi both are subject matter experts and should be considered reliable. Both have 10+ years experience and Tassi is a published author (6 books?). A blanket "Forbes contributors are not reliable" is indeed clear but it is also wrong. Also what is the distinction between a contributor and a senior contributor? LowKey (talk) 00:46, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Critics

So do we also list the User Score / Normal non-paid shill Audience Score or is that forbidden? 2A02:810D:8FC0:2C23:3432:25DC:2D2B:6D10 (talk) 16:36, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

That's a good question, actually! Well, except for the silly conspiracy theory. But I don't know if we consider, say, user reviews at Rotten Tomatoes notable? I'll take a look when I have a moment, but would be eager to hear others' thoughts. Happy Friday. Dumuzid (talk) 16:39, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

MOS:TVRECEPTION says Do not include user ratings submitted to websites such as the Internet Movie Database, Metacritic, or Rotten Tomatoes (including its "Audience Says" feature), as they are vulnerable to vote stacking and demographic skew. so I think we should not mindlessly include audience scores from there. If an actual set of WP:RSes decide to talk about it, maybe include something. I see such a section was just re-added [1] (with a WP:NYPOST ref!). I am not reverting it currently since I reverted such a section earlier today. But I think it shouldn't be there as currently written/sourced. Skynxnex (talk) 16:50, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Skynxnex, that certainly answers my question, and strikes me as a sound rationale. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:52, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Well, it should have a coverage, similar to The Last Jedi's audience reception section. And also, something like New York Post reported that audiences had negative reactions to the the series based on the user-generated score at Rotten Tomatoes, which only requires registration and does not ensure that contributing voters have watched the show. is better than just mentioning the audience rating. ภץאคгöร 17:01, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Nyxaros, with all due respect, this strikes me as not terribly persuasive per WP:OTHERCONTENT. Combine that with the Post's general unreliability (even though we can see the basic fact they are reporting here) and I would still say it should be excluded. As ever, reasonable minds may differ, and happy to hear what others think. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:08, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

I think a well-written paragraph or two, similar to The Last Jedi, but smaller, would probably be WP:DUE and improve the article since I think the on-going pattern of negative reactions is part of this subject and is notable but not sourced to NYPost or similar generally unreliable sources. Skynxnex (talk) 17:12, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't think it should be used too. I just wanted to point out that there are better written articles that have audience reception section and simply stating the unreliable RT audience score with NY Post ref doesn't mean anything. ภץאคгöร 17:16, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Also IMDB removed the negative reviews.

https://i.imgur.com/m5TfWh4.png 2A02:810D:8FC0:2C23:3432:25DC:2D2B:6D10 (talk) 17:49, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

So, given MOS:TVRECEPTION (to which Skynxnex alerted me), I would generally vote for exclude unless we can find a reliable source that actually makes some kind of substantive mention (i.e., beyond "here are the numbers"). All that said, of course, happy to go wherever consensus dictates. Also, left a note for Beth Timken after a second undo (apologies), but would like to invite them to participate here. Said it above, but I will say it again: Happy Friday, everyone! Dumuzid (talk) 17:55, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Except there seems to be an assumption that critic reviews are notable and reliable. Negative critic reviews are being published, then taken down. I can't recall other critics, but Christopher Stevens reviewed but that was only up for hours. I haven't looked this morning, but I keep expecting EW's review to disappear given how negative it is in a specific and detailed way in contrast with all the work EW have done to promote the show. LowKey (talk) 21:53, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't really want to get into the argument, just want to note the irony that the article repeats the critics' score based on numbers, and you find a problem with reporting audience scores based on numbers. 2A01:C846:1081:1500:9554:98C4:FFD9:250F (talk) 09:43, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Clearly, you wanted to get into the argument, by arguing with a ghost from thirty-four days ago. It isn't the numbers that are the issue. It's the weight between critical and audience reception, and Wikipedia always records the two differently. Read the blue link in the comment to which you responded. TNstingray (talk) 13:44, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

I think I was just called a ghost! I take offense, as anyone should be able to clearly see that I am, in fact, a wraith. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 13:49, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FbrCcPVWQAM4qnl?format=png&name=small 2A02:810D:8FC0:2C23:3432:25DC:2D2B:6D10 (talk) 22:32, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

So does nobody want to address the fact that Amazon is literally controlling the narrative? How is this even allowed?

https://web.archive.org/web/20220902154059/https://www.imdb.com/title/tt7631058/ 2A02:810D:8FC0:2C23:3432:25DC:2D2B:6D10 (talk) 11:34, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

It would seem that critical reception is in, but general response is out - I am not sure how to fix that apart from waiting until more time has passed and trends settle in. So far, both from critics and from audience there doesn't seem to be much in the "middle of the road". There is some, but otherwise the responses seem strong one way or the other. I think EW's review is notable simply because they have been promoting the show quite extravagantly before release and then called it a catastrophe after the release. Maybe not for this article, but interesting nonetheless. Likewise Daily Mail's amazingly negative review that was taken down and apparently not replaced (it was so critical and insulting I could imagine DM being worried about legal ramifications, but usually that would mean at least a retraction or backpedal and I couldn't find one). I found many YT reviews, but as these are considered "self published" (actually they are published by Google, I think) I am pretty sure that they are not considered reliable. I found very many negative, quite a few mixed/moderate and a small handful of positive. There is no formal aggregation of which I am aware, though, so my subjective experience is only that. LowKey (talk) 01:17, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Critical reception is in because there are a lot of reliable sources for that. General response will also be in once those sources exist, but we have to wait until reliable sources adequately address non-critic responses. We can't use things such as audience reviews on Rotten Tomatoes or IMDb, as this section has suggested, because of WP:USERG and MOS:TVRECEPTION. As for "formal aggregation" of the critical response, that is what we use Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic for. We can also use other reliable sources that do review round-up type articles (one is being used in the article at the moment) but we do have to be careful that we don't give them too much WP:UNDUEWEIGHT because they generally do not look at nearly as many reviews as RT does. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:40, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

but the very first mention of critical reception is totally uncited "It has received generally positive reviews from critics, with particular praise for its plot, cinematography, visuals and musical score, but some criticism for its pacing." I find it a bit outrageous there's so much fuss about not being enough citations for "general audience response", but the comment I quote can be made with no citation. I'm very willing to accept that with just one of the "lot of reliable sources". But, it can't just be accepted at face value. After watching a few episodes, I'm a little skeptical that the critical response is as good as has been claimed here. Rather than put another "citation needed" (and Wikipedia is littered with such that haven't been responded to in years) I just deleted it. I'd rather get a new, better, thoughtful statement backed with a real citation from the get go. Cuvtixo (talk) 03:36, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Cuvtixo - My apologies, I undid your removal per MOS:LEADCITE; we generally try to keep leads uncluttered by citations. The criticism within the body of the article strikes me as ample evidence for the statement in the lead--reasonable minds may differ, of course. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 03:50, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Is the allegation that IMDb (owned by Amazon) have expunged negative reviews of the show, itself a notable fact? Unfortunately the only source I have for this is Reddit (https://www.reddit.com/r/lotr/comments/x46870/imdb_have_deleted_all_the_negative_reviews_for/) which I'm assuming is not considered reliable, or drawing comparisons between IMDB and Rotten Tomatoes or using sites like Internet Archive which I assume would be considered original research. 66.131.160.74 (talk) 13:27, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

References

Loss of page protection

What are everybody else's thoughts on recent page activity following the expiration of page protection? Is it worth requesting protection for a few more weeks once the finale is over and people move on? Or is there nothing substantive to worry about? TNstingray (talk) 16:45, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

So far I see two reverts of 1 IP editor, That is not yet reason to protect. Let's wait and see. Debresser (talk) 17:47, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Just for the record, the MusikBot removed the protection template here: 14:42, 5 October 2022. Since then, I count ten edits by seven recorded IP addresses, all reverted for one reason or another by five users (four regulars including myself). In addition, there has been the one problematic user Cuvtixo who declared that he would start an edit war. I'm still in agreement with Debresser about waiting to see what else happens, but I thought I would try and record the facts. This statement holds as of this [2] version of the article. TNstingray (talk) 19:19, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

I will say, seeing someone literally declare they are starting an edit war is a first for me. And I've been here a while. Toa Nidhiki05 20:06, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

I had to double check that I hadn't reverted twice at that point, because quite frankly, it seemed premature to me! Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 20:08, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Referencing critics in the lead

Per WP:LEAD, "The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus." Seems to me that such references in this case would help keep some vandals at bay.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 19:32, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

I think someone put an invisible comment, so hopefully that helps. TNstingray (talk) 15:32, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Reversion of 78.18.240.18

Hi @78.18.240.18. I reverted one of your edits, and realized that I did not explain the reasoning fully in my edit summary. Basically, the community here is still trying to sort out to what extent we should discuss the opposing sides. It has been a LONG process. As such, my initial reaction was to assume that your edit ([3]) was beyond the scope of the lede, and pertaining to an ongoing conversation. I would like to invite you to share your viewpoint either in this thread, or at the conversation several sections up (link here [4] for your convenience). Cheers. TNstingray (talk) 01:23, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the explanation and I can understand your concerns. Personally, I am still watching the series and remain on the fence about the casting (and other perceived issues). I think there will be more perspective (for me, and others) by the series' end. I do think a lot of good work and editing has gone into debating and crafting the sizeable section on casting in the body, and I think it is worthy of consideration to alert the casual reader of the lede, that there is much debate here, as they will find in the body. However, I will leave it to the active participants of the article and talk page to decide. Thank you again for your consideration. 78.18.240.18 (talk) 08:47, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree. Reliable sources seem to mainly be covering the positives of the series, so curating this talk page has been difficult, because everyone has their unique opinion. General fan backlash is hard to capture in the lede, because that is just par for the course for cinema (there's people complaining about Hugh Jackman coming back as Wolverine, like come on!). But I do agree that there is a significant section in the body, so it should definitely be taken into consideration. TNstingray (talk) 12:18, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

If you complain about Hugh Jackman as Wolverine, you are a bad person who should feel bad about the bad way you live your bad life. Cheers! Dumuzid (talk) 13:09, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Loved Hugh Jackman as Wolverine (and several other roles, incredibly versatile actor). 78.18.254.195 (talk) 23:26, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Particular praise for its plotline?

@Nyxaros TNstingray, this is not the place where you can make things up and do whatever you want. Read the sources (especially the quoted The Hollywood Reporter reference) and try not to violate WP:SYNTH. I don't know where the snark in your edit summary is coming from, but it is a very unprofessional look. The sources provided offer mixed perspectives, not "particular praise for its plotline". I just read the Hollywood Reporter reference, and even it offers two opposing perspectives. I would reconsider whether your accusations might apply more aptly to yourself. However, I will assume good faith, and I await input from you and the community at large. My stance remains remove "particular praise for its plotline" from the lede and clarify in the body that the varying plotlines have received mixed reviews and different amounts of audience/critical investment. TNstingray (talk) 15:31, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Literally nothing about "the varying plotlines have received mixed reviews" in the critical reception section as of right now. If you want to clarify, you have to do the job and add sourced information. We have to avoid the WP:SYNTH approach of looking at individual reviews and reaching a higher-level conclusion not indicated by any of the sources. We have to be mindful of batching critics' individual opinions to imply an overall trend. We need to leave it to other sources to do that on a high level. THR reference does that. I am keen to use information directly from the source, but you keep writing things out of nowhere. That's not an accusation. You have been removing the information without a valid reason... ภץאคгöร 22:33, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

The plotline is not considered a distinctive aspect by critics. Quite apart from the bizarre notion that critics could praise a plotline while the series has only just started, having read a fair amount of the critics' references, very few single out the plotline (and several criticize it). They do consistently repeat the other items listed. 78.18.254.195 (talk) 23:22, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

@Nyxaros. I'm not trying to add anything to the article. My entire argument is based on the three sources currently used to back up that sentence (Rotten Tomatoes, Hollywood Reporter, Washington Post). As a collective, they do not support "particular praise for its plotline". In fact, there remains a spread of positive, mixed, and negative criticism regarding the overarching plot as well as varying degrees of interest in the specific plot-lines. Plus, all three sources detail pretty exclusively with the first two episodes, so would that not be WP:SYNTH to extrapolate these criticisms to define the entire series? If there is no acknowledgement of the mixed reaction to the plot, then it is WP:UNDUE to only list the positive feedback, hence my removal. I feel that these are valid reasons. TNstingray (talk) 23:32, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, you are not adding anything to the article. That's the problem. Where are the sources/reviews that criticise the writing for the entire series that you are talking about? THR source is a roundup and is appropriate for the lead for now. If you add the roundup resource that covers the whole season and criticizes the scriptwriting in a way that does not violate WP:SYNTH AND WP:UNDUE, what you wrote will make sense. You still don't get the fact that you can't just make your own assessment based solely on negative reviews that are not even mentioned in the article. THR, a reliable source, matters here. ภץאคгöร 06:48, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

The "plotline" is not considered a distinctive attribute of this series by critics in general (or even by a minority). To try and shoehorn a single source into the article claiming it is, is UNDUE and fails basic COMMONSENSE. As editors, we do use our COMMONSENSE, and are not slaves to any individual outlier reference. 78.18.247.73 (talk) 10:31, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

@Nyxaros. You clearly aren't understanding what I am saying. Look at the three sources used in the sentence.

[5] The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power is a series with good bones. It has a strong cast, the action is stellar, and the plots are interesting. Yet, I was left wanting something more. I don’t want to be interested, I want to be excited. — Jamie Lovett, Comicbook.com Emphasis mine. Mixed take, interesting but lacking.

[6] While most are hailing the project for its promising plotline and impressive cinematography, some reviews are mixed, as skepticism about such a high price tag for the beloved franchise remains. Emphasis mine. Promising means it has potential, as this is only based on the first two episodes. But again, this also lists mixed skepticism.

...It’s technically impressive, reasonably ambitious, packed with Easter eggs that I’m certain I’m not versed enough to get and, with my interest in different plotlines already varying wildly, it could fall off a precarious cliff at any moment.” Emphasis mine. Quote from Hollywood Reporter's Daniel Fienberg. Plotlines vary in terms of their investment.

...a gorgeously immersive and grandly ambitious spectacle packed with stunning imagery and compelling plot threads. Emphasis mine. Quote from TV Line's Dave Nemetz. This one does praise the plot.

[7]. Can someone with a Washington Post subscription please read this to find any mention of plot praise or criticism? The title indicates a generally middle-of-the-road approach to the show, though titles can be misleading.

Based on the sources provided, there is not enough evidence for you to extrapolate these sources to support "particular praise for its plotline". As the editor above me indicated, it is WP:UNDUE to take the one positive review (that isn't even from The Hollywood Reporter, mind you, only quoted by them) and make that stand for the sum of all three of these sources AND the lede. It is also WP:SYNTH to take articles discussing the first two episodes and make them apply to the entire series.

I'm not trying to add anything to the article; I'm just making an assessment based on what is already there. As it stands, your argument represents exactly what you are accusing me of doing. TNstingray (talk) 12:41, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

To be absolutely clear, these are the three sources listed within the article under Reception#Critical response, after this sentence: The first two episodes received generally positive reviews from critics, with particular praise for its cinematography, visuals, and musical score and some criticism for its pacing and characterization. TNstingray (talk) 12:44, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

THR quote is not from a review and the source itself is not a review, it is what is simply called a "review roundup". You don't even know what "review" is and/or which source is in question here. So, "while most are hailing the project for its promising plotline" is not from a positive review. You can't make your assessment. You have to let the sources speak for themselves. It's not automatically an "accusation" when something is mentioned about you. The section currently goes against WP:UNDUE, and I won't waste any more time. ภץאคгöร 20:16, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

@Nyxaros. You are deliberately blowing past what I am saying to burn a field of strawmen of your own making. You have not addressed the fact that the sources provided do not "round up", so to speak, to "particular praise for its plotline". At best, they are a mixed bag, meaning that there is nothing particular to say one way or another, let alone to present in the lede as a defining feature of the show. You jumped in right off the bat in an argumentative, belittling fashion. Label that however you want; I'll call them hypocritical accusations per my last response. I would appreciate input from other editors at this point, and if someone would also direct me to specific policy about "review roundups", that would be fantastic, as I am just discussing what I see in front of me. TNstingray (talk) 20:46, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

I think you are each using "review roundup" a little differently. I think Nyxaros is using it in the sense of a "collective summary" while TNstingray seems at times to be interpreting it as "rounding up [mathematically] the collective summary". In the sense of a collective summary, as long as the source is deemed reliable, it shouldn't be any different to any other source that is deemed reliable. Whether WP editors can themselves make such summary statements in articles, I would expect that falls under the synthesis label. That said, there has not been particular praise for the plotline in the reviews either being cited or being summarized in cited sources. This stands to reason because it is only the first two episodes that are under discussion and as such there are not yet plotlines available for praise or criticism or whatever. Potential plotlines are anticipated, but as has been said in a mixed fashion and not in a way that could be called "particular praise". One would think plotlines will be discussed of the series/season as a whole after this week. LowKey (talk) 22:29, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Casting backlash subsection badly unbalanced - still

The "casting backlash" section is badly unbalanced. In all it is almost 1,000 words long, in 4 paragraphs, and there is no explanation at all of the reason for the "backlash" (actually, objections, but let's not let precision keep us from inflammatory language) beyond half a sentence (roughly 2% of the section). The remaining entirety of the section is devoted to debunking the claimed "racism" - that's 98% of the section tearing down the hastily erected 2% strawman. Essentially, the whole section needs to be scrapped, and if re-written then actually based on sources that are looking at what the objections are, rather than simply relying on Amazon Prime's portrayal and going from there. Beyond AP's assertions, the only support at all for "racist" backlash is one unsourced sentence from SMH (as in - no citation is included) about "many" of the most-liked negative reviews including something about the skin-tone of characters. I have provided several sources that actually looked at the objections and negative reviews - including some that specifically said that the objections are generally not racist at all. I am not going back now and finding them again unless there looks to be an actual attempt to redress the imbalance here. LowKey (talk) 22:55, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Looking at the dates in the article and sources, it seems that the section is discussing the initial response to the series, which included substantial racism. That probably does not impact your worldview in any way, but there is that to consider. That was notable; general fan concerns might not be. However, that is for reliable sources to decide, and it would be helpful if those were presented alongside specific changes rather than generic railing against the article. TNstingray (talk) 12:48, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Notable, but not able to be verified beyond the claims of the company with a vested interest in dismissing criticism - a clear conflict of interest. The "reliable" sources very much tend to simply quote AP, or repeat its claims uncritically. No fact checking - therefore not actually verifiable or reliable. The issue regarding "reliable" is real, and has become the chief source of my frustration here. There were substantial objections to the racialization and race swapping and those were reliably reported at the time. It is hypocritical to give a pass to those concerned enough about race to not like the status quo and change it and then call racist those others concerned enough about it to not like the change. Someone who is incapable of identifying with a character unless that character matches their own physicality is more of an issue than someone who simply wants people from a book to be portrayed as written.

Now, on a much more serious note, why has there NOT been a backlash over Jackson's ridiculously huge Hobbit feet? LowKey (talk) 08:39, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Someone who is incapable of identifying with a character unless that character matches their own physicality is more of an issue than someone who simply wants people from a book to be portrayed as written. I just have to point out the irony in this statement. I think I generally agree with it, actually: being hyper-focused on race when it doesn't match what you want it to be is utterly ridiculous, and instead, the focus should be on how the actor is portraying the character. Just leaving that out there. TNstingray (talk) 14:10, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

The statement was already pointing out the irony. If it is wrong to object to casting based primarily on skin tone (i.e. before other considerations like lore, authoritative characterization etc), it is also wrong to cast based primarily on skin tone ((i.e. before other considerations like lore, authoritative characterization etc) - the underlying attitude is racist. Having read a lot about this show, both pro and con, I can say that many who have objected to "race swapped" characters did so based on the combination of specific descriptions from Tolkien and AP and cast conveying that the decision was made for messaging/representation reasons. However, many also objected conditionally upon (i.e. expressed concern about) an expected jarring "random" multi-ethnicity in settings where it made no sense. That is the objection that has persisted, for example a dark skinned elf is the ONLY dark skinned elf shown at all. Likewise a village portrayed in a European "dark age" style and setting has a bizarrely multi-ethnic population (of 20 something people cloned many times, heheh). It has been pointed out that if the show wanted to portray multi-ethnicity it could have done so within the lore by simply using Pelargir or some other (even original) Numenorean Middle-Earth settlement. There have been far more objections and complaints about a character physically cast close to lore (but way too short) but portrayed in the writing completely (and in a negative way) to the original. LowKey (talk) 22:30, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

So, to sum up your argument, the only non-racist casting would have been all white Europeans? Dumuzid (talk) 22:35, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Did you read the preceding paragraph before you typed that? That isn't summing up my argument at all, but completely and offensively misrepresenting it. I specifically drew attention to the problem of having only one dark skinned elf. How could I be arguing for all white Europeans at the same time I am arguing for more dark skinned characters? Likewise I gave an example of how using a different setting within Middle-Earth lore would justify using exactly the kind of casting that has been used. I have said several times how diversity within the show-world would work fine. I honestly cannot see how to take this as anything other than trolling. I don't say things like that lightly, but I simply cannot see any good faith here. LowKey (talk) 02:33, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

In any context, does the existence of a character need to be fully justified by seeing their entire pedigree on-screen? No, I would say that this is wrapped up in Tolkien's exploration of secondary belief. So for many, that is the default: we don't have to see Arondir's parents, extended family, and genetic pedigree to justify his existence. Maybe his family members were all killed by Morgoth's forces, or all sailed to Valinor, or just live in another part of Middle-earth. There are perfectly reasonable explanations, but it all depends on one's mindset going in.

As a really bad comparative example: Bucky Barnes shows up at the end of Black Panther. Despite watching the entire movie centered around this African culture, the viewer doesn't question his existence. Of course we have previous films of context, but even before processing that we know that there must be some explanation for why one single white guy is living in a fictional Wakandan village. Would you subject that character to the same level of intense scrutiny? TNstingray (talk) 03:06, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Entire pedigree? No. Does their existence need to be justified? Yes. In relation to your example; yes, we have previous films for context. Without that context, it would indeed have been massively jarring - at least to me. There wouldn't be a problem in having Arondir's family written out in some way as long as there is at least some indication. Or some indication of why all the other elves with him are different. It wouldn't need masses of exposition, just something beyond the out-of-show corporate statements that said it was for representation. Unfortunately, that was their mindset going in and it shows in how little thought they seem to have given to the storytelling aspect of it. None of that explains why my saying there should be more dark skinned elves in this particular show should be met with to sum up your argument, the only non-racist casting would have been all white Europeans when that is PLAINLY not what I am saying at all. LowKey (talk) 03:44, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

So, I actually think that's fair. I didn't watch any of the show-runner or cast interviews, so maybe that explains the difference in perspectives. You watch the show and see unexplained diversity inserted for the sake of diversity, explained by the show-runners who implied there is no established in-universe basis for it other than "diversity". I watch the show without any of that context and just see characters and can automatically, unconsciously fill in the backstory when prompted, and it doesn't pull me out of it. Interesting.

Sorry, I took us farther down this WP:FORUM rabbit trail. I just had to clarify something, and your answer was satisfactory (in a good way). TNstingray (talk) 14:01, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

If anything, the section doesn't go into enough detail about the racist casting backlash. Toa Nidhiki05 12:58, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Probably because there aren't details, it being largely made up. LowKey (talk) 08:07, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

I apologize that you did not see any good faith in my earlier question. It was meant to be pointed, but not to insult. I think it would be best if I simply disengage. Happy Friday. Dumuzid (talk) 15:00, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

I went to Dumuzid's talk page to take this up, as an apology of this sort is not actually an apology. "I am sorry you were wrong" apologizes for nothing. Dumuzid ultimately has struck the original offensive comment, but at the same time quite imperiously ordered me off their talk page. Fine; although they were happy to "drop by" on mine (which I am also fine with). I had urged two optional actions; explain the remark or retract it. What was chosen was to simply strike through it without even a edit comment - neither explaining it nor retracting it. Making this a good article article is going to be long haul on a rough road if this kind of prejudicial and hostile response continues. Meanwhile the section is still badly unbalanced, because it treats as "reliable" sources that are simply repeating the claims of a vested interest without fact checking or in fact providing facts. LowKey (talk) 22:44, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Halbtand/Sauron

I think the name Halbrand should precede the name Sauron, since the character was known for 7.5/8 episodes by the name Halbrand. Others disagree. Your opinions, please. Debresser (talk) 20:12, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Characters should still be listed by their primary name followed by their aliases. Even if their primary identity is a mystery for most of the installment, the cast list still follows this format (example Jason Todd / Red Hood in Batman: Under the Red Hood, or Kathryn Hahn as Agatha Harkness [not Agnes] in WandaVision). In this case, the character is Sauron first and foremost, holding a human guise named Halbrand. Our perception of that doesn't matter. Plus, there are the future seasons to consider. TNstingray (talk) 20:21, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

For season 1, I can see the point Debresser is making, and I think it has merit. "Sauron" in the show is an unseen BigBad/Macguffin, while on-screen the character played by that actor is "first and foremost" <grin> known as "Halbrand". Once season 2 is out, it would likely be different, but that is at least a couple of years away. For now, I somewhat agree that it should be Halbrand/Sauron.

I think there is a good example with Sauron himself in Tolkien's writings (not arguing about comparison to Tolkien etc, just using an example as close to this character/situation as I could find). Bear with me here, I do make a point.

Although everyone uses "Sauron" as the character's name, that actually isn't his name. It is a Noldorin translation of the Sindarin epithet "Gorthaur"; both used the first age. In the 2nd age he had those epithets, as well as Zigur (sorcerer) from the Numenoreans, and gave a number of aliases to the elves. From the forging of the One he is known the Lord of the Rings, among many other titles (but these are titles more than names - I'll revisit that). During the events in There and Back Again, he is known only as The Necromancer.

Through all of this, his actual name is Mairon.

If dealing with There and Back Again, the character would be referenced as The Necromancer - and only when discussing wider lore would that then be linked to other names.

If dealing with The Lord of The Rings, the character would be referenced primarily as Sauron, or The Dark Lord (which is very much a context-sensitive title) or indeed as some variant of ring-Lord.

If dealing with "earlier" lore, more context and more names are likely to be needed. Only in this context is "Mairon" likely to come up (almost only, actually).

Generally, the name should come before nicknames. Titles could either be incorporated in the name or given afterwards. For example, "Celebrimbor, Lord of Eregion".

We are for now dealing with Season 1 of a show, where the character's name was given as Halbrand and the character was later revealed to be the one titled or nicknamed "Sauron" by the elves. I would say that the name should come first and the nickname/epithet should come second. If that changes from Season 2, that would be fitting, because indeed "Sauron" seems to have become that character's name.

Long-winded, I know, but I figured I would lay out my thinking as much as possible to avoid too much back-and-forth explaining and elaborating. LowKey (talk) 23:34, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Fair points, and I do understand where both of you are coming from. I guess I am trying to maintain consistency with other cast lists. I guess my point is that the character is definitively the "Dark Lord" first, whose name can be debated from a lore standpoint, but in the show is primarily referred to as Sauron. "Halbrand" is a disguise, an alter ego if you will, that in this version of the story, was created after the Maia is referred to as Sauron by the Elves.

There is also WP:COMMONNAME to consider. TNstingray (talk) 00:24, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

There is also also The Usual Suspects and Keyser Söze to consider :)

Kevin Spacey played Keyser Söze but is credited only as Verbal Kint in the article cast list. It is likely that neither is the character's real name (just like Halbrand and Sauron). Not that I think the order is a major issue here but I do think Halbrand first is slightly better. (And Halbrand is the character's common name in the show, while I don't think he ever openly claims "Sauron" beyond allusion.) LowKey (talk) 02:57, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Interesting. I would argue that he should also be credited as Söze but I guess that's another matter altogether. TNstingray (talk) 17:51, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Surely the list of characters should not have a spoiler for Sauron?

The matter is left open till episode 8, and some people are waiting to see the lot together. So surely they reference work need not give this away? GwydionM (talk) 14:13, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Wrong. The article should logically have this at the precise place it does, and at Wikipedia we do not care about spoilers, see WP:SPOILER. Debresser (talk) 14:21, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

But the actor is credited as Halbrand in every other media source, including IMDB. The reveal for Sauron should be in the character or episode description, not the character name. 96.246.156.251 (talk) 03:04, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Like it or not, Debresser is correct per WP:SPOILER (personally, I guessed it when he took out those guys in Numenor; but a great twist - finally). 78.18.241.130 (talk) 15:16, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

I attributed that to him being a king. Debresser (talk) 12:08, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

The violence with which he took out those guys, would make him a pretty nasty king? 78.18.241.130 (talk) 13:14, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Twist? He was obviously Sauron, was he not? I haven't watched more than snippets since episode 2, but even by then I thought everyone was just kind of waiting for the inevitable reveal. The first time I read a review that referenced "totally-not-Sauron" there was no pondering required to translate that into a character and it seemed to be an indication that it was one of those "secrets" that only the characters are not supposed to know while the audience is in on it (a bit like superheroes with their "secret" identities) Oh, well.

The character name in the listing should reflect the character name in the series. If a character has more than one name (alias in this case would apply, but not always), I think the standard approach is to simply list them separated by a slash - e.g. Bruce Wayne / Batman or Norman Osborn / Green Goblin. LowKey (talk) 00:53, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

By this logic, the Stranger and Adar should be named as Sauron as they are the only persons addressed as Sauron in the whole series. Halbrand is never addressed as Sauron. Halbrand may be Sauron, but the character Halbrand is different to Sauron, he is a disguise and crediting him as Sauron is disingenuous, it should be in an episode summary rather than the cast. – Dyolf87 (talk) 13:14, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

That reasoning is not great. It would be disingenuous to not refer to Sauron as Sauron. They clearly established this in the show, as well as that characters were mistaken in referring to the Stranger and Adar as such. The character of Halbrand is not different from Sauron... in essence the character does not even exist. You are correct that he is merely a disguise, and thus not the core reality of the character. TNstingray (talk) 13:30, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

The character being played throughout is Halbrand and not Sauron - even if Sauron is playing Halbrand. Halbrand is not Sauron's true form, not his true personality – he's a reinvention of Annatar for the series. Vickers plays Halbrand, Sauron's disguise, not Sauron proper. I doubt we'll even see Vickers in the second season - we know who Halbrand is now, and he has returned to Mordor, so his "fair form" won't be needed (though what Amazon have planned is anyone's guess). But the point is true - Vickers plays a disguise - Halbrand, not Sauron throughout the series. – Dyolf87 (talk) 15:41, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

I'd say that it is WP:TOOSOON to know that for certain. After all, we see Vickers still in this human form in Mordor at the end, likely traveling to kill Adar in season two. To be a relatable antagonist, I would expect them to keep Vickers around until the Last Alliance of Elves and Men. Apparently he was intentionally cast as Sauron. Your arguments that he is playing a disguise, etc. just further confirm for me that it should be listed Charlie Vickers as Sauron / Halbrand, and we will add more actors to that as necessary as the seasons progress ("Charlie Vickers and --- as Sauron / Halbrand / ---", or "Charlie Vickers as Sauron / Halbrand ... --- provided the voice/motion capture" maybe it will even look like "Sauron: The Dark Lord of Mordor... Charlie Vickers as Halbrand, x as Annatar, x as Mairon, whatever" etc). It's all speculation at this point, and the character is Sauron in a human guise. TNstingray (talk) 18:00, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree with @TNstingray. The Stranger and Adar were both misidentified as Sauron by other characters. I know it is due to the Bad Robot School of Stupid and Annoying Mystery Boxes, but still, those characters were never Sauron in disguise or otherwise. Halbrand is Sauron is Halbrand. Halbrand may well be a disguise, although it may well have been Mairon genuinely re-inventing himself. The show played it in a way that could support that. Also, to a Maia physical form is simply like a suit of clothing; it a choice of presentation so "disguise" doesn't really apply. This now gets into Tolkien's lore, though, which the show has abandoned, so who knows? According to Tolkien, Sauron was physically manifested and in Numenor when Eru Illuvatar sank it, destroying his physical form; although Sauron's spirit survived, he could no longer "dress nicely" in a fair form. LowKey (talk) 23:58, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Which is all irrelevant because Númenor hasn't sunk, Sauron wasn't taken there as Ar-Pharazôn's prisoner, he hasn't turned the Númenóreans to Melkor worship and human sacrifice, etc. I imagine this will come in season two, unless Amazon change it all, of course. – Dyolf87 (talk) 08:49, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Not all irrelevant. Only the very last sentence may be somewhat irrelevant which I indicated just ahead of it. LowKey (talk) 14:52, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Source of TV rights

The article currently states:

> Amazon bought the television rights for The Lord of the Rings from the Tolkien Estate

I am a little confused, because to my best knowledge any filming rights (film and TV) belong to Saul Zaentz's Middle-earth Enterprises; do we have any credible source that confirms that they were actually purchased from the TE? BerislavLopac (talk) 16:06, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

There are a few, but here is a sampling: from Yahoo news. from CNN, and an in-depth discussion from The A.V. Club. I'll be the first to say that it's entirely possible this is eliding over actual ownership or other issues, but that is the basic narrative I see in the press. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:12, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, but the press is a notoriously unreliable source when it comes to legal details. The A.V. Club article links to another article stating that "Tolkien scholar Tom Shippey is on board as a consultant to ensure on behalf of the Tolkien estate that 'the main shape of the Second Age is not altered.'” -- but we know that Mr Shippey was fired shortly after the production began. I am still extremely sceptical about any involvement of the Tolkien Estate in the production. BerislavLopac (talk) 19:08, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

As I said, I am with you, but the press is what we have to go on. If you have suggestions for a rewrite or different sources, I am all ears. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:10, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

I just sent an email to Middle-earth Enterprises, and to my complete surprise they responded in barely an hour! O.o

This is the email, verbatim:

You are correct that Middle-earth Enterprises owns the film rights to The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit books, which we have licensed to New Line Cinema/Warner Bros., for many years, under exclusive license.

However, your colleagues are also correct, as the Rings of Power is not a film or a series of films, but an episodic, multi-season, television series, and those TV rights are held by the Tolkien Estate, who licensed those particular TV series’ rights exclusively to Amazon, in 2017.

So the current wording does seem to be correct; I'm still baffled by the contradiction between the original reports that the series' plot will be strictly controlled by the TE, and the firing of Shippey and the eventual result; but that is an unrelated topic. :shrug: BerislavLopac (talk) 21:56, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Cast list

I find the Cast list cluttered and hard to navigate. Should we not break it into sub-sections: Elves, Numenorians, Dwarves, Orcs, Harfoots etc.? 78.18.241.130 (talk) 15:19, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

I was going to do it myself, but I notice messages left in the Cast section to leave as per credits. 78.18.241.130 (talk) 15:19, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree the cast list is a bit unruly, but I think it is best to accurately reflect the credits of the actual project. I'm sure the structure will change as we get future seasons. TNstingray (talk) 00:48, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Okay, I might try an trim some of the text. Thanks. 78.18.241.130 (talk) 09:41, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Maybe just add a table at the end of Cast and characters section? Similar to this but with seasons and episodes count. Sub-sections could be based on race (Elves, Numenoreans, Southlanders, Harfoots, Dwarves) or region (Lindon, Numenor, the Southlands, Rhovanion, Khazad-dum), like it's done on the official website. Vicquemare (talk) 18:02, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Just for info, the cast list has now been extensively re-ordered. I don't have a major issue with that, except the categorization by race becomes a problematic with Halbrand and Adar. LowKey (talk) 23:37, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Not sure how I feel about the current cast list. I'll have to give it some more thought. Is it just the starring cast? If so, that needs to be qualified in an invisible comment for future editors. TNstingray (talk) 01:53, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't know if it is just starring cast, or a fuller list. I saw it in the history and had only a brief look. LowKey (talk) 03:03, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

How come with the new reconfiguration there is no Peter Mullan, king of the dwarves. "I will not risk dwarven lives so that the elves can cheat death", one of the most impacting moments in the series, and he is not on the cast list.???James Kevin McMahon (talk) 10:58, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

I think this might only be the starring cast list, as is usually the case for TV articles. This page is like the hub, and other relevant actors should be listed in the articles for each episode. Still going to look into that though, as that is one of the ones I noticed disappearing. TNstingray (talk) 11:01, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

He should definitely be included. – Dyolf87 (talk) 13:06, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Doesn't WP typically present just the starring cast on the main page though? To avoid the subjectivity? TNstingray (talk) 15:31, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

@Dyolf87: He should not, you can't just add a main cast member based on what you think, there has to be a source for it. Yes, it is a starring cast list and there was a hidden note about it for editors which was deleted for some reason. And please don't come and attack me on my own talk page while making unsourced edits. Vicquemare (talk) 18:42, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

I didn't make an unsourced edit - I didn't add Peter Mullan to the list. Please refrain from casting aspersions simply because you're butt-hurt over your precious cast list. However, This cast list seems to contradict yours. Furthermore, if we are to use the primary source you have insisted be used ([8] then we are also to place Vickers with the Men and credit him only as Halbrand and not Sauron! and exclude the Stranger and Adar too as they aren't on the page that you insist be the only source for the "starring cast". – Dyolf87 (talk) 21:00, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Okay, let's take this back a notch. Cast lists on the main page for a TV series reflect the starring cast. For example, see Once Upon a Time (TV series)#Cast (just the first one I thought of). Now, the cast list provided by Dyolf appears to be comprehensive, which is fine for filling out articles for the individual episodes, but I would say that probably does not apply for this central page. On Vicquemare's talk page, he provided this link: [9] listing the character posters, and I think that is the metric we use for now. These include Galadriel, Disa, Durin IV, Gil-Galad, Elrond, Celebrimbor, Arondir, Bronwyn, Theo, Halbrand, Poppy, Largo, Nori, Sadoc, Marigold, Isildur, Míriel, Eärien, Elendil, the Stranger, Adar, Pharazôn, and Kemen. That's what Amazon considers to be the frontrunners for the series, so that's who we list for now. Peter Mullan will be listed in his individual episode appearances. I find this to be the most objective standard. TNstingray (talk) 23:22, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

It probably will change as time goes by, but from memory many TV cast lists are broken into main and recurring. One issue with the exclusion of Peter Mullan is the inclusion of Sara Zwangobani, Tyroe Muhafidin, Joseph Mawle and Tristan Gravelle. There is also the exclusion of the actor playing Kemen. The linked "official website cast list" is nothing of the sort. It says, "meet the cast" but is a thumbnail gallery of characters and each thumbnail brings up a single photo of the actor - no text details at all. The main reason I didn't name the actor playing Kemen is that the "official website cast list" doesn't, although the character is shown among the so-called main characters. The following section does give some character description, but again is characters-only and a single photo of the actor, this time in TROP costume. IMDb doesn't help, as it lists THREE actors as "starring" but in the "Top Cast" lists those playing Valandil, Waldreg, Malva and Vilma. Considering there is particular critical praise for the acting of Peter Mullan in the show, his exclusion is a bit odd. LowKey (talk) 00:46, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Also, those under "meet the cast" are a selection of characters but there is no suggestion of them being main or otherwise. "Main" is an interpretation.LowKey (talk) 00:52, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

I can't figure out how to get a permalink to the images I am referring to, but in the link I provided, go next to Assets and then to Key Art. Those character posters reflect the current list. I'm with you: Kemen is such a minor character, and Peter Mullan's appearances were all stand-out scenes. So I don't know what to do. Going by Amazon's character posters seems to be the most objective way of who they billed as the lead roles in the show, and that puts an end to any future discussion until season two. Otherwise I see know end to the debate... if we list Durin III, then what about the Witches of Morgoth? Isildur's friends? Finrod? Etc. Mullan's performance was powerful, but if you recall, he only had, what, three scenes? TNstingray (talk) 01:00, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 October 2022

Change (Episode 4 Summary):

>Míriel has a vivid dream of the tidal-wave destruction of Númenor. Chancellor Pharazôn encourages discord between the Númenóreans and Elves. Halbrand manipulatively advises Galadriel, then Pharazôn. Míriel shows Galadriel the vision of Númenor's destruction in a palantír. Galadriel persuades Míriel to wage war against the Orcs in the Southlands and war preparations begin. Isildur and his friends are kicked out of the Sea Guard but then join the war effort. Adar appears to be a scarred elf from the Elder Days, and he releases Arondir to give a surrender offer to the human villagers of Tirharad taking refuge in the Elven watchtower of Ostirith. The Tirharad tavern-owner Waldreg introduces himself to Theo as a servant of Sauron, and the Orcs are informed that the ancient artifact of the broken sword, which they have been seeking, is now in the watchtower of Ostirith. The Dwarves have found mithril and keep it a secret, but Elrond discovers the existence of the mine. The ore is very dangerous to mine, and several dwarves are killed in the process. King Durin III sends Prince Durin to discover what the Elves of Lindon are up to.

To:

Míriel has a vivid dream of the tidal-wave destruction of Númenor. Chancellor Pharazôn encourages discord between the Númenóreans and Elves. Halbrand manipulatively advises Galadriel, then Pharazôn. Míriel shows Galadriel the vision of Númenor's destruction in a palantír. Galadriel persuades Míriel to wage war against the Orcs in the Southlands and war preparations begin. Isildur and his friends are kicked out of the Sea Guard but then join the war effort. Adar appears to be a scarred elf from the Elder Days, and he releases Arondir to give a surrender offer to the human villagers of Tirharad taking refuge in the Elven watchtower of Ostirith. The Tirharad tavern-owner Waldreg introduces himself to Theo as a servant of Sauron, and the Orcs are informed that the ancient artifact of the broken sword, which they have been seeking, is now in the watchtower of Ostirith. The Dwarves have found mithril and keep it a secret, but Elrond discovers the existence of the mine. The ore is very dangerous to mine, and several dwarves are nearly killed in the process. King Durin III sends Prince Durin to discover what the Elves of Lindon are up to. 173.69.165.96 (talk) 02:23, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for the edit request. I could be wrong, but didn't some of the dwarves die off-screen? I thought that was the point of the dramatic song sequence with Sophia Nomvete. I'll have to revisit it, but I'm sure there's a better way we can word this plot summary anyway. Thanks. TNstingray (talk) 12:21, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Critical response

On the review aggregation website Rotten Tomatoes, The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power holds an 85% approval rating, with an average rating of 10/10 Carlitus90 (talk) 07:20, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Good catch. It has been removed. TNstingray (talk) 11:10, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Some articles about reviews, to hopefully return a little balance and due weight to the reception section

The Rings of Power's sparkling success can't save it from baffling fan backlash | TechRadar According to data accumulated by BrandWatch, a social media-led consumer research company, 60% of online discussions concerning the Rings of Power post-premiere were mainly negative, with just under 40% of mentions on social media falling into the positive comment category. and Per BrandWatch's research, audience members found The Rings of Power's plot to be "slow", "full of bad writing", and having a "lacking cast". Other viewers complained about the series' overreliance on CGI components, while some suggested that the show's characters weren't in keeping with similar individuals developed by Tolkien when he wrote The Lord of The Rings, The Hobbit, The Silmarillion, and other Middle-earth literature. That "some suggested" bit is the bit that is then completely overblown AND attributed to racism rather than the many others reasons given in reviews.

'Rings Of Power' Getting Destroyed By Fans At Rotten Tomatoes | Cosmic Book News More a general discussion of why it is getting negative reviews, with several examples of reviews provided. Interestingly it does mention that House of the Dragon doesn't seem to be suffering the same issue.

Why is Amazon suspending reviews for ‘Lord of the Rings: Rings of Power?’ (mic.com) Yet, on Rotten Tomatoes, where Amazon is centering its action, the negative reviews appear to largely voice legitimate criticisms of what viewers perceive to be a lackluster and emptily expensive show.

These will all likely be deprecated as unreliable or using would be giving undue weight or something. I am too tired of the bullsh to argue about it, use them or not. LowKey (talk) 23:48, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I have added data and commentary from the TechRadar source. I don't think Cosmic Book News is reliable, and they didn't really have much in way of commentary that we don't already have. Same with the last source, which has already been discussed as unreliable above. You may be tired of arguing against Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, but we still have to follow them. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:32, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

It's isn't the policies and guidelines, it is your peculiar use of them. You win, I give up. You have successfully driven off another editor, so notch that wherever. LowKey (talk) 01:16, 9 September 2022 (UTC) p.s. I will add that "which has already been discussed as unreliable" is at best mistaken, at worst complete misrepresentation. You claimed it was unreliable, but another editor who frankly would know better disagreed with your claim. A problem is the basis of your claim (that the article uses "people online") applies to most of the sources you deem reliable. LowKey (talk) 20:50, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

You made an honest effort, have to admire that. The company behind this show among others is certainly getting what it paid for. 1-jVX-9 (talk) 14:58, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

If you are insinuating we are being paid by Amazon to cover this stuff up, that is news to me. I could use the paycheck. TNstingray (talk) 17:04, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Well, as you know, one of the fundamental principles of Wikipedia is to assume bad faith undisclosed paid editing whenever someone disagrees with you. Or something like that. I haven't looked in a while. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:22, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

@TNstingray For the record, I have never claimed or thought the editors here are in some way being recompensed for particular editing. I did say the article read like a paid-for puff piece in tone, because it did. I was speaking of tone, though, not trying to imply an actual arrangement. @Dumuzid Assuming bad faith was certainly going on before I was involved here, and while I was trying to edit here. It isn't only coming from the drive-by brigade. LowKey (talk) 10:36, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Disingenuousness, internet-assembled egos, and clunky half-truths aside, there comes a point when a spade can be called by no other name. The article is inarguably biased to the point of parody in a way that is clear to even uninformed readers. The television series is being produced and aggressively promoted by a universally-controversial corporation which is noted by numerous reliable sources to have a uniquely larger stake in the success of this particular series than that of its closest contemporaries in the same space. One does not require early 2010s Wikipedia Talk Page e-Battle scars to know without question this article is not being maintained in the way it is by well-intentioned if overly-enthusiastic fans without a college degree who simply never learned to minimize language and citation bias. 1-jVX-9 (talk) 20:58, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Not to sound unhumble, but I have a college degree, for what it's worth (it's a B.A., so not a lot!). Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:03, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/tv/0/rings-power-episode-5-partings-review-seriously-needs-improve/ Partly because I find the title extremely apt! Also, it is a reasoned and rational review based on the series so far. It does mention the "notoriously mixed reviews" for the 1st two episodes, which is something this article does not currently reflect. Read it, include it, ignore it, as you will. I offer it merely as possible source material. LowKey (talk) 00:16, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/entertainment/duncan-lay-rings-of-power-would-have-tolkien-turning-in-his-grave/news-story/68b8f10272392cdc634c989d2780ebbf "It's like being served rancid cat food on a beautiful antique plate." LowKey (talk) 02:23, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

BTW, this is a review that has both positive and negative elements, disagreeing with some criticisms while agreeing with others. "Balanced" when it comes to this show does indeed seem to fall into the negative area. LowKey (talk) 02:25, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2022/oct/17/now-its-over-lets-come-out-and-say-it-the-rings-of-power-was-a-stinker This is becoming more common with 3rd party articles ABOUT the show verses articles written with the input from creators. LowKey (talk) 23:42, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

(Staff, not contributor). LowKey (talk) 23:45, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

When The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power debuted at the same time as House of the Dragon, much noise was made about which show attracted more eyeballs. According to Nielsen, it was a conclusive victory for Tolkien, with The Rings of Power viewers watching the first two episodes for 1.25bn minutes, compared with House of the Dragon’s 741m. But over the weeks, something strange has happened. House of the Dragon has sucked up the spotlight. It has attracted tweets, theories, memes, discussions, all on a rolling boil since the first episode. Meanwhile, if The Rings of Power has been seen anywhere, it was only in places paid for by Amazon. There are billboards and adverts and special Amazon packing tape adorned with the show’s logo. But, in terms of spontaneous, organic excitement, it has been a wilderness. LowKey (talk) 23:49, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Given the specific accusation that I have insisted that articles from specific sources at Forbes should be referenced in the article, I double-checked this list where I have suggested candidate articles for consideration. I counted any Forbes article at all included above. I work with numbers a lot, so I am pretty sure my arithmetic is accurate, but I did it twice just be sure. Rounding up to the nearest whole number, I get a total of zero. LowKey (talk) 04:50, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Were elves et al "only white," or did Tolkien only describe them as white?

Hi all, Artur Buchhorn recently moved the modified only in the sentence about backlash going from Tolkien only described Elves, Dwarves, and Hobbits as white to Tolkien described Elves, Dwarves, and Hobbits as white only, with an edit summary suggesting the former version did not make sense, I reverted, and he did so in return. I would respectfully disagree with him insofar as I think the former makes not only sense, but is more accurate: I am not aware of any Tolkien quotes or texts where he makes the positive claim that his fantasy races are all "white," but it does strike me as true that all descriptions he gave of them were, for lack of a better term, "white." Would be interested for input from others, and as ever, happy to go where consensus leads. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:52, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Hey, sorry about that. I accidentally hit enter before I could add my reason for reverting your reversion. Instead of reversing my reversion and then reversing your reversion again, I opted for commenting on your talk page.

Anyway, the reason I gave is that the "only" in the original is a qualifier for "only these three races" being described as white. This would be an argument for other races apart from these 3 being possibly non-white. To this then be followed by referring to these 3 races again, is confusing.

The source seems to support my reading: "Some fans argue that Tolkien never described elves, dwarves or hobbits as anything but white, and claim that the casting is disrespectful to his books." a.buchhorn (talk) 20:01, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Also, I don't think it is relevant what Tolkien described them as. The only relevant part is the argument the source makes. a.buchhorn (talk) 20:02, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Okay, I am getting a better sense of the ambiguity we're tussling over. How about rephrasing to something like "Tolkien's descriptions invariably portrayed Elves, Dwarves, and Hobbits as white...."? Dumuzid (talk) 20:07, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Sounds good to me! a.buchhorn (talk) 21:35, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, will put that in now! Dumuzid (talk) 21:37, 24 November 2022 (UTC)