Talk:The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power/Archive 5

868:

racists. I just object to using audience scores to claim it was "divisive" or "polarizing" or whatnot." That sounds like you just don't want us to include details about positive fan responses regardless of what reliable sources actually tell us. See also "If the current version repudiates review bombing, then it needs to be changed, because that's silly. It's clearly being review bombed." And "There's no reason to provide a "nuanced discussion" here". This is all just your opinion, and it does not align with what reliable sources are telling us. Additionally, phrases such as "I won't tolerate", "it's unacceptable", "simply unacceptable, and I'll oppose any addition to the page" all sound like you think you can just do whatever you feel like, which you cannot. If you can't be civil and provide reasonable arguments for your actions then we may need to take further action here, because you are blocking important changes from the article for no good reason. -

151:"Also – and here I hope I shall not sound absurd – I was from early days grieved by the poverty of my own beloved country: it had no stories of its own (bound up with its tongue and soil), not of the quality that I sought, and found (as an ingredient) in legends of other lands. There was Greek, and Celtic, and Romance, Germanic, Scandinavian, and Finnish (which greatly affected me); but nothing English, save impoverished chap-book stuff. Of course there was and is all the Arthurian world, but powerful as it is, it is imperfectly naturalized, associated with the soil of Britain but not with English; and does not replace what I felt to be missing. For one thing its 'faerie' is too lavish, and fantastical, incoherent and repetitive. For another and more important thing: it is involved in, and explicitly contains the Christian religion." - J.R.R. Tolkien 332:). It may actually be that it was just a goof (i.e., that the Harfoots do in fact speak a hybrid dialect that combines the Englishes of various parts of Great Britain, Ireland, and surrounding smaller islands, and that initial impression is the result of non-hibernophone editors/directors having accidentally cut together exactly the wrong combination of lines/takes) and that we'll soon have the sources to say so. Hopefully we'll have sources discussing the reactions of more groups to more aspects of the show, too; from what I know now (personally, I haven't been following the "discussion" of this show in the media -- I don't think any Hollywood screenwriter can reasonably emulate the style of 2001:

numerous issues plaguing this series (next to none of which are detailed in this article). The crude, selective enforcement of Knowledge (XXG) article standards by a vocal few in service of promoting positive messaging and censoring genuine negative responses from audiences of all backgrounds render the encyclopedic value of this article worthless at best. As a reader with no expectations for improvement to this article or any other topic unfortunate enough to draw the attention of those who maintain it, I respectfully hope at least some of you are receiving compensation for your time.

2689:. Hi, I wanted to invite you to have a conversation here about my reversion of your edit. I think the categories are somewhat subjective, but I would not classify this show as Dark Fantasy. Sure, there are slightly darker, more violent elements than the Peter Jackson films, but I think as a whole the show still falls under High Fantasy alongside the rest of LotR. This might just be semantics, but I don't think there is enough to justify a description as a dark fantasy installment. However, I would love to hear your reasoning and have a productive conversation. Thank you. 529:, we cannot deny that there has been significant coverage of the online response to the show (especially the casting backlash) in reliable sources for months now, and I have come to agree with the other editors who strongly felt that we should be giving due weight to that coverage in the article. As part of that, we need to at least mention what is happening to the audience scores to give context to the overall discussion (which we were doing without mentioning any specific scores). Either way, we absolutely need to summarise these sections in the lead. - 1912:

point it will have to be recognised that their criticism of this series is genuine, sincere and quite unprecedented in the history of television. What is actually happening here is that a trillion dollar corporation is suppressing criticism of the series in the official media, and because Knowledge (XXG)'s policy is only to cite official media, it ends up citing the fake news of a desperate corporation instead of the reaction of genuine fans. Perhaps this is something Knowledge (XXG) might consider needs changing in order to improve the website.

499:

how we are using them. In fact, we aren't even stating the RT audience score at all. All your edit did was remove the explanation that the audience score is much lower than the critics score, which is necessary context for the rest of the section that discusses why that may be. As for deleting the details from the lead, the lead needs to reflect what is in the article. We currently have a large discussion about the online audience response and a larger discussion about the casting backlash. These need to be summarised in the lead with

746:? Because the part you removed from the lead has nothing to do with audience scores, it is a summary of the critical commentary in the reception section. And the second part that you removed explains what has happened with the audience scores without actually stating them, which is necessary context for the following discussion about the general online response to the series. And the section refutes that these scores are representative of general audiences anyway. I feel this section is in the same boat as (or even better than) 2376:’Middle-earth’, by the way, is not a name of a never-never land without relation to the world we live in (like the Mercury of Eddison). It is just a use of Middle English middel-erde (or erthe), altered from Old English middengeard: the name for the inhabited lands of Men ’between the seas’. And though I have not attempted to relate the shape of the mountains and land-masses to what geologists may say or surmise about the nearer past, imaginitively this ’history’ is supposed to take place in a period of the actual 111:

there's what amounts to a single opinion piece. Also, having its own subsection places undue weight on a single source. It it my understanding that the visual production design in this instance is to achieve a camouflage effect, not somehow indicate slovenliness, much like hunters colouring their face and wearing imitation foliage. In any case, the characters in question are nomadic and possibly also semi-refugees (based on descriptions in interviews). This is not an attempt to smear Irish people, IMHO.

324:

Ireland" (of whom there are probably substantially less than 10 million). If there is "hibernophobia" at play here, it's not clear who the target is, since the vast majority of the former have never met a speaker of Hiberno-English and likely couldn't recognize our accents, but most (probably not "the vast majority", mind you) of the latter have an established history of laughing off "stupid Americans adding Irish accents where they don't belong" rather than getting that they're supposed to be offended.

1004:

talk to fans off the internet). You have still yet to provide a good reason for us to remove the sourced information and "nuanced discussion" that we have about this other than you clearly not liking it, which is not how Knowledge (XXG) works. There is plenty of support at this talk page for including more details on the audience response, and we have reliable sources to do just that. You either need to provide your own reliable sources that refute the ones we have or

306:

have never met a native speaker of Hiberno-English, and certainly couldn't recognize our accents. Plenty of simple facts (in this case "The Harfoots speak with Irish accents") are only known to a minority of people, but that doesn't mean those facts are "wrong" or not noteworthy enough to be briefly addressed in a Knowledge (XXG) article. As for "a few reight-wiong circles online", I don't doubt that such people would like to latch onto this. There's a

31: 1430:

are hobbits, and according to Tolkien had no mentionable role in the 2nd age. Likewise important characters are completely changed or omitted altogether (Giladriel is portrayed as fundamentally different, and her husband is absent entirely). The criticism is coming from people with a deep and detailed knowledge of Tolkien's work. No the article is not neutral at all. But then, that does pretty seem to be the norm for WP these days.

1933:"reliable", but dismisses the reviews of a substantial constituent of an entire fandom as "unreliable" and in so doing makes itself vulnerable to charges of bias. Furthermore, the online backlash is not a figment of our imagination, but a real and unprecedented phenomenon which Knowledge (XXG) has decided has simply not happened. This will not make Tolkien fans like the series, but it will damage Knowledge (XXG)'s reputation. 2502:- and yet we haven't mentioned what the Rotten Tomatoes audience score was, therefore we are missing the context from which this sentence, and the rest of this section, makes sense. It's central to the flow of the article for there to be a mention of what the audience scores were, as summarized by Forbes, a reliable source. I hope I followed all of Knowledge (XXG)'s protocols in this suggestion, as it is my first, thank you. 2335:

While I personally think your critiques have some validity, they are not notable by Knowledge (XXG) standards (that's no insult at all; nothing I say or do is notable either). It's simply not the case that the sorts of "reliable sources" on which Knowledge (XXG) relies will generally concern themselves with the sorts of issues a Tolkien fan would (although that doesn't mean "never" -- see Michael D.C. Drout in the

800:

for more nuanced discussion below, says it is "some individuals" so isn't applying it to all fans, notes that is has been "widely covered" which is the whole reason that we have this discussion in the article and lead, and also notes the rebukes from cast, crew, and "other supporters" which was a way to address the latest anti-racism campaign from the movie actors as well. So can you tell me

2868: 2339:). I can promise you this: I have no connection to Amazon or anyone involved with this production (well, I am a Prime subscriber). I apologize if I am sometimes curt or snarky with replies--after addressing things over and over, it's a real temptation. But let's keep working together, even if from disparate viewpoints, to get the article to the best state it can be. Happy Friday. 2272:

marketing material released on YouTube was met with a generally positive response in the YouTube comments sections, the content subsequent to the initial trailer and "Superfans" videos did fare better than what came before. It should also be noted that throughout the marketing campaign prior to the show's release, certain online forums were generally more positive than others.

320:

as, were this the case, (i) he would likely not have what seem to be recurring pop culture columns in multiple national papers in Britain and Ireland and (ii) he would not have praised everything about the show except for this aspect if he were only pretending to be angry about the accents as an excuse to attack a show that cyber-fascists seem to have branded as "woke".

1755:

HUGELY IMPORTANT, and help someone to understand what's going on WAY BETTER. Don't even try to tell me it's just because people review bomb something to lower the score - even if that does happen there is A REASON PEOPLE ARE REVIEW BOMBING IT, and TO TRY TO SUPPRESS THAT INFORMATION IS A DISSERVICE TO THE GOAL OF FREE AND OPEN KNOWLEDGE AND SHARING OF INFORMATION.

1279:

article is anything to go by, it already has. Where is the information regarding the huge backlash against this show, it's massive inaccuracies, the fans attacking the show on YouTube and the fact that every single trailer released on YouTube has attracted hundreds of thousands of dislikes compared to a few thousands likes? Sort out the blatant bias guys.

1460:

spoke against quite strongly. The statements and material produced by those making the work are certainly sufficient for valid criticisms of its content - but even if that wasn't the case, the criticisms are not even reported in the relevant section. Also, your argument regarding validity of criticism establishes that you are not neutral.

391:

are) insists that people who are of that background are imagining things. Whether the assessment of the show as deliberately "othering" Irish people is accurate to the creators' intentions is frankly a lot less important than the ability to discuss such matters on a talk page without oneself engaging in microaggressions like the above.

269:

on a limb, but I am pretty sure that in the population of the developed world, Irish people are incredibly in the minority. The article as it was described the criticism, and explained that other critics disagreed with the "othering" claim portion of it. This article reporting the criticism is not this article making the criticism.

2415:, that the show is not the world as Tolkien intended it nor would he much care for it (any participation by the estate aside). Does that invalidate it as a work of art (I use the term loosely, but I trust you understand the sentiment)? This is not intended as any sort of gotcha. Just trying to clarify positions! Cheers. 841:

the page which relies on them. The second bit, again, falls under the same camp; there's no need to report on the exact scores, or even hint at them. The review-bombing facts make it more than apparent that yes, the score is lower. But even equating "audience scores" (garbage) with critic scores simply isn't appropriate.

2461:"Paul Tassi from Forbes summarized the audience reception by saying "Amazon was attempting to shield Rings of Power from the negative review bombing that was occurring on Rotten Tomatoes, where the show has a 39% score, and IMDB (which Amazon owns) where it has a 6.8/10, with 24% of all scores being 1 star ratings." 2372:. Obviously, the populations in the Old World were less diverse than they are today. That is a valid criticism of Weber's comment that has been widely shared in online forums and other media among fans yet there is no representation of this reactionary sentiment in this article. Relevant excerpt from Letter 165: 2574:

This is somewhat incorrect. Hibbard's article from start to end questions the topic of whether what we're seeing is actually review bombing, and says that "there are some one-star entries that meet the definition", however "the majority of the negative reviews... criticized the show for non-diversity

2000:

Without getting too in the weeds and setting aside the blatant "-ism" gaslighting that naturally accompanies the production of media like Rings Of Power, the flagrant bias on open display in this article is apparent to any and all who read it, including passerby who have little to no knowledge of the

1962:

Inspicienti, I have no desire to make Tolkien fans like the series, and if following Knowledge (XXG)'s policies is "damaging," well I guess I am in a no-win situation. What makes this sort of complaint all the more frustrating is that the content you want IS being added as reliable sources take note

1723:

Knowledge (XXG) has been compromised for neutrality for a while now. It's a shame. I don't know why the editors that control Knowledge (XXG) can't just be honest. They always seem to want to spin the facts as much as possible to suit some narrative, while hiding behind the "reliable source" epinonym,

1685:

Knowledge (XXG) will certainly have epistemological blind sports due to the way we choose to filter information. There's no doubt about that. Any heuristic you could possibly choose will have drawbacks; the Knowledge (XXG) community so far seems to think the current regime works, and I would agree.

390:

going forward. You should know for future reference that it's quite offensive when someone not of a particular background (I can only assume, given your earlier comment, that you are not Irish and have no Irish friends -- no one who grew up in Ireland could fail to recognize the accents for what they

2356:

I couldn't agree more with this. That said, I'm not sure I have an actual solution in mind. I am happy to provide textual evidence of my claims in the list above but how would these possibly be integrated into the article? Surely it wouldn't be appropriate to just have a list of things we see in the

1947:

Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic are classified by Knowledge (XXG) as reliable sources. We know this because they are selectively quoted on this page. I say selectively, because the negative reviews of ordinary viewers on those pages have been totally ignored. Again, this only damages Knowledge (XXG).

1773:

Somehow I missed this in the chaos of this talk page. Knowledge (XXG) is constantly evolving, and it's a shame you aren't willing to work with us to make necessary changes. So many people on this page want to complain without proposing any applicable changes. I would recommend scrolling through this

1758:

Knowledge (XXG), you were great for a long time. But lately you have degraded into a terribly dishonest source of information where you always have to check and double-check everything you read here to make sure the Knowledge (XXG) article isn't lying to you in some way. IT REALLY IS UNFORTUNATE, IT

1630:

We have multiple talk page sections discussing the matter, and a new header on the talk page itself answering this frequently asked question. So yes, I can direct you to these areas, because this talk page is incredibly clogged with redundant conversation, and revisiting old discussions such as this

1459:

Well, the people making the series are on record as saying that harfoots are not hobbits, which even a middling knowledge would show to be false. The marketing material is sufficient to establish certain things, such as the extreme compression of the 2nd age, which is something that Tolkien himself

840:

include the widely-reported fact that much of this review bombing has been based on racism. There's no reason to provide a "nuanced discussion" here - reliable sources report differently. Elevating unreliable audience scores from review bombers is simply unacceptable, and I'll oppose any addition to

814:

There is nothing inaccurate about this. It is also not a WP:USERG issue because we are not using the actual audience score and we are including it as context to discuss the wider online response and whether these scores are representative of the whole audience. By removing this, all you have done is

498:

As has been explained multiple times by multiple editors, the content in the audience response section is coming from reliable sources discussing the online reactions to the show. The audience scores are not reliable in terms of telling us what the actual audience of the show thinks, but that is not

215:

spoke with thick Irish accents for no apparent reason. If our articles on those films don't mention the matter, it's probably some combination of (i) the fact that the actors using the Irish accents were actually Irish people using their real voices, (ii) the reaction falling under (b) was universal

187:

I didn't see this before making an unrelated edit to the article just now, but then it occurred to me that the odds of this not having been discussed already seemed quite slim, so I searched the live talk page for "accent" and this came up. I will admit that I have not examined the page's history to

110:

Personally I think one source (an early review of the show) that takes umbrage with the creative choice to adopt a hybrid but non-specific West Country/Irish accent, seeing it as attempt to 'other' Irish people, is not enough to claim "heavy" criticism. It might be labelled as "criticism", sure, but

2792:

Considering the child actress is the daughter of one of the United Kingdom's preeminent aristocratic families (itself is a notable fact worthy of inclusion) and that the series is described by many a reliable source as being "heavily inspired by the United Kingdom," yes, a red link to the actress's

2334:

XwhereswhatX - Yes, if you can provide more sources, that would be a great help. We are stuck in a situation where a great many fans have concerns that aren't really captured in mainstream publications, which is the basis on which Knowledge (XXG) has chosen to organize itself and its information.

2241:

Time compression as a source of backlash is already presented under "Marketing." Other claims are up to interpretation, and it would be inappropriate to use the primary sources of Tolkien's work here since he is unable to share his opinion, and it would be original research on our part. This is why

2046:

Seems like you got pretty far into the weeds with your open display of flagrant bias. I would love to hear your opinion regarding changes to the article based on actual Knowledge (XXG) policies and guidelines, but alas, I can only hope. In your free time, I would recommend reading this really great

1852:

You beat me to it. The real disgrace would be to allow everyone and their opinion to just take over with no sort of rules and regulations. Knowledge (XXG) should truthfully describe the world, but the important factor is that we do so through reliable sourcing of information. Just because something

1807:

The shame here is that in being so biased, Knowledge (XXG) ceases to be an online encyclopaedia and instead become a minion of Amazon. This website is not here to run cover for the failed ambitions of trillion dollar corporations. It's here to describe our world in a truthful way. It would not hurt

1735:

It's been unbiased for a long time. I LOVED Knowledge (XXG) for so long from and always admired so much how Knowledge (XXG) never accepted any money from advertisers from the moment it started in 2001 and still doesn't accept money from advertisers, because of how they understood that would lead to

1392:

Don't even bother, Knowledge (XXG) has been propaganda for a long time now. It's never been cited as a reliable source, but now it's just ridiculous. Just reading this section confirms it, everyone who hates a lore being tarnished is now suddenly a racist. I bet if they got Black Panther and cast a

1003:

The sources that we have to discuss review bombing say there is some going on, but it is not the whole story, and they say this based on more than just audience scores (they acknowledge and interpret the audience scores, yes, but they also look at the actual reviews, social media comments, and even

882:

The summary is not accurate. The claim the series has received a mixed or divided reception from audiences is based almost exclusively on audience scores, and also whitewashes what reliable sources have confirmed - there is review bombing going on, and a substantial amount of it is based on racism.

799:

The rest of this wording is a summary of the casting backlash subsection which is a significant part of the article and needs to be represented in the lead with DUEWEIGHT. It says that there is criticism about the casting of non-white actors, doesn't say anything about racism so we are leaving that

616:

The current version of the article already debunks widespread review bombing and widespread racism among negative responses. The question for this section, in my mind, is how to resolve the disagreement in wording that is primarily between myself and Toa Nidhiki05. I am hoping that my comment below

474:

Full context: haven't seen the show, won't watch it until more episodes are in. While I understand a bunch of sources are reporting on audience scores, this doesn't impact our stance on them. They aren't reliable and shouldn't be mentioned in any real detail; in fact, I'd argue that the credibility

323:

LowKey: You have stepped on a number of my points before I could make them, for which you have my gratitude. I should like to add that I think a distinction needs to be made between "ethnic Irish" (of whom there are apparently more than 70 million worldwide) and "people who live in or have lived in

310:

for (mostly non-Irish) white supremacists appropriating and distorting the bona fide history of oppression and bigotry against the Irish as an excuse to say "See? White people ha it bad too!" But that doesn't mean that said (ongoing?) history should be ignored or downplayed by Knowledge (XXG) if it

283:

I think there are enough citations there to justify the small bit of info that was added, though it may appear to hold undue weight for now since the reception section doesn't have much in it yet. Once it is expanded with wider views I don't think we will have any concerns about including two short

268:

The paragraph has seven citations to sources (albeit the citations need improved formatting). I have seen (and heard) the stage-Irish mentioned a lot, albeit usually without epithets such as "hibernophobia" included. I can see why people of Irish background would be critical. I may be going out

147:

I don't think everything was inspired by pre-Norman (i.e. pre-1066) sources but most of it certainly was. It's also evident that Tolkien did intend to replace the mythology lost in the Anglo-Saxon written tradition after the Norman conquering. There's are number of statements he made and letters he

2567:

I understand now about Forbes' unreliability, thank you for the clarification. I see that Hollywood Reporter is more accepted, which is where James Hibbard is from. In that case, I would like to propose an amendment to Hibbard's section, as I don't believe his opinion is being properly represented

2393:

I appreciate this sentiment and am keen to work in good faith with anyone and everyone who adopts this mentality. I think the biggest issue is finding a way to provide balance despite the imbalance present in most of the official media surrounding the show. I am open to any ideas you might have to

2205:

Quite frankly, most of these are incredibly petty (if not outright incorrect) reasons, and an astonishing example of original research on your part. I feel like I'm stuck in an alternate universe: do people not understand that every cinematic adaptation of a literary work makes changes? I might go

2071:

Your blatant bias and ingnorance is stupefying, in my opinion. You are in here calling other users "trolls" whilst advocating slander against the existing Tolkien fanbase by parroting media outlets that were clearly incentivized by Amazon PR to write off any and all criticism as "racism". The fact

1932:

The reviews of ordinary viewers, soon to be numbered in the hundreds of thousands on sites like Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic, are overwhelmingly negative. This will not change. Knowledge (XXG) classifies the reviews of professional critics, many of whom are paid to produce favourable reviews, as

1911:

Then, this is fair enough. I won't argue with longstanding policy. This sadly does not change the fact that a large constituency within the Tolkien fandom are saddened and even offended by this production. This group is being mischaracterised in an attempt to discredit their criticism, but at some

1429:

Nope, this is not neutral at all. There is a huge backlash, over the fundamental inconsistencies with Tolkien's work - but it is portrayed in the article as being about the colour of the actors. The article even mentions harfoots in the article section, but completely fails to mention that these

1278:

I have just read the Lord Of The Rings: Ring of Power article in its entirety and I can only say it is the most obscenely, disgustingly biased article I have ever read. Knowledge (XXG) needs to be very careful not to allow itself to become a propaganda tool for Twitter types and if this particular

319:

are, perhaps after Raidió Teilifís Éireann, likely the two most ubiquitous and mainstream of domestic news media. I do not know Ed Power's political views or party affiliation, but it seems unlikely that, as you seem to be asserting, he could be a noted proponent of extremist or supremacist views,

305:

sure what you mean by "views". Irish people are indeed a small minority of the global population, and "ethnic Irish" are a minority in all countries they occupy except for metropolitan Ireland. 10% of the US population is not an "incredibly" small minority of that country, but most Irish-Americans

2534:

I think it would be worth waiting for a reliable source to discuss the fact that review bombing on Amazon Prime is impossible from a technical standpoint. Reviews may only left by paying Prime members, so accounts held by people whose identity Amazon has already verified, and reviews may only be

2305:

generally been reached by the percentage of editors attempting to follow the spirit of Knowledge (XXG) policy and procedure, unless you are counting the long list of actual trolls and vandals as legitimate votes. This page just seems to attract more users of an unsavory nature, hence the multiple

2271:

on YouTube which garnered strong criticism online for appearing fake and scripted. Nearly identical videos featuring the same script were released in multiple languages (English, German, Italian, Spanish, and others) but all were ultimately unlisted from YouTube search features. While none of the

1444:

What you are talking about is fan concerns based on trailers and other marketing, these people may have "deep and detailed knowledge of Tolkien's work" but they haven't seen the series yet so they are actually in no position to make legitimate criticisms of its content yet. Also, I think you will

601:

But "some racists" leaving negative review isn't review bombing. That source is tertiary at best, and is simply invoking what other sources say, without any underlying facts. Review bombing requires the mass reviews to be organized or co-ordinated, not just coming from people who happen to agree

1754:

On a related note, why is it not allowed to even mention the Rotten Tomatoes Audience Score in any Knowledge (XXG) article? That's VERY RELEVANT INFORMATION. VERY VERY VERY VERY RELEVANT INFORMATION. Yes, the professional critics rated it X%, and the audience score rated it Y%. These numbers are

1496:

I get that, and it is fair enough. But the editor's bias is being expressed in a misleading article being aggressively protected from improvement. I honestly cannot be bothered taking on a keyboard warrior over something like this. I have commented, it has been rebuffed. I won't be trying to

970:

Reliable sources have also debunked both of those opinions. So you are left with showing the disagreement with attribution of due weight, based on something other than your own apparent outrage. Also worth checking; has any reliable source shown the necessary smoking gun for a claim of review

795:

I believe this is a pretty accurate summary of the reception section that is currently in the article. "Responses from audiences have been mixed" covers all of the views in the main Audience response paragraph based on the different sources and discussions that we have, and "vocal Tolkien fans"

341:

films, enough that I was never looking forward to this show, but I do have a Prime subscription so I am watching it and Googling stuff that catches my attention like the Irish accents) two or three short sentences on this topic is fine for the moment, but I imagine various people from different

327:

Adamstom.97: I was on the fence about adding this to my edit summary or the above comment, but I'm in general agreement with you. Hopefully, eventually, there will be more context provided for this. At present, probably 90% of Irish people who have seen the show are either snickering or feeling

2300:

So, if there are arguments to be made about the restructuring of the article, that's one thing I will look into more. Unfortunately, your second request would need a reliable source to back it up, as it would be inappropriate per Knowledge (XXG) policy for you or I to make an observation about

867:

by removing an accurate summary of two important sections from the article. You have yet to give a reasonable argument for your changes, and you made your position clear when you said "I wouldn't be opposed to a segment in the lede noting the show was review-bombed by hardcore Tolkein fans and

1704:

You are right. The article says the quote "Evil cannot create anything new only corrupt" to not be attributed to him. The words convey the message of the silmarillion and other works of Tolkien that say that evil only corrupts and cannot create. Its one of the main themes of why Morgorth want

1308:

Re-read the article. We present both sides as neutrally as possible, taking care to not provide undue weight to any perspective beyond what it is. Entitled fans rage against any new entertainment property, and just because we do not provide an excessive platform for such toxicity from a vocal

1523:

presented neutrally. How can you claim this when there is no mention of the time compression in the backlash section whatsoever? The passage of time is essential to the story of the downfall of Numenor. Compressing thousands of years into "a single human lifespan" guarantees they will not be

370:

Thanks to everyone for the discussion here (I'm the unsigned user who started this section). I think now that the section as a whole is more fleshed out, and we have a proportionate coverage (i.e. not a titled subsection of its own, but a few sentences) with more sources, it's much better.

2067:

I am not the person you were replying to but I have read everything Tolkien wrote (including the posthumus publications and Letters) multiple times over. I studied the associated philology in university too. These works have remained one of my main passions for the better part of 30 years

1878:

There's no need for me to provide reliable sourcing for the Metacritic page, because it's already been used and cited on this page. We can use the same reliable source already in use, but add that while the show has a 71 percent Metascore from paid critics, it has a 1.8 User score.

796:

highlights that the paragraph is often talking about online diehard Tolkien fans (i.e. "many of the negative responses were from Tolkien fans", "described some of the fan discourse as "a fight between loyal fans...", "partially attributed the responses to "super diehard people"").

1357:

And here it is again. You can't go without calling every critics racists, can't you? It seems to me the only people who never read any work of Tolkiens are people like you who are fanatics with an insane ideological mindset that have to push their agenda even on Knowledge (XXG).

334:

But how shall a man discover whether that time be come or no, save by daring the Door? And that way I would not go though all the hosts of Mordor stood before me, and I were alone and had no other refuge. Alas that a fey mood should fall on a man so greathearted in this hour of

790:

Responses from audiences, including vocal Tolkien fans, have been mixed. There has also been significant criticism from some individuals complaining about the casting of non-white actors in the series, which has been widely covered and also rebuked by the cast, crew, and other

2072:

is, the story being told in Rings of Power is only related to Tolkien by the names of a few characters and places. The list of clear departures from the source material is so long I won't have time to write them all out but some of the more onerous ones include the following (

2822:

That being said, I still don't see how her aristocratic status provides any valuable information about the production of the show. We have listed that she plays young Galadriel. Merely saying that the show is "inspired by the United Kingdom" is a really unconvincing argument

193:

Anyhow, I can all but guarantee that pretty much every Irish person who sees the show is likely to either (a) feel the same way as Power regarding this matter or (b) at least see it as an embarrassing gag to be laughed off (as the authentic Irish accents in Peter Jackson's

2264:

The early marketing material led to a "cacophony" of online fan discourse, including concerns about accuracy to the source material and the series' compression of Tolkien's Second Age timeline. This online discourse was amplified after the marketing release of the

2408:

XwhereswhatX, I think I finally have a grasp on why the sides seem to be talking past one another on this. Incidentally, I finally watched episode one -- I was very "meh" on it, but I tend not to like Tolkien's religious musings, so there's that. Let's accept,

2357:

show that contradict Tolkien's writings. At a high level, what I would like to see is representation of educated fans' general reactions to some of the claims made in the official marketing campaigns and related media. For example, when Lindsey Weber said, "

1792:

I mean, Knowledge (XXG) has not been neutral for quite some time. I just came here to see how biased the article was and I'm not surprised. It's literally a propaganda piece - written as if by Amazon PR. This is why I stopped donating to Knowledge (XXG).

1309:

minority of racist viewers who have probably never read a work of Tolkien in their entire life, does not mean we are biased. I would really like to know where people have seemingly watched the show in its entirety to be able to make some of these claims.

2535:

left after having watched the particular episode ON Amazon Prime. There are commentators pointing this out, so sooner or later someone will admit "reliable source" status to one of them. There is also the paid-reviews story that has been coming out.

2585:

Hibbard discusses whether review bombing might be taking place, stating that "there are some one-star entries that meet the definition", however "the majority of the negative reviews... criticized the show for non-diversity reasons." He ends by saying

1736:

Knowledge (XXG) becoming compromised. Well, at this point, Knowledge (XXG) is compromised anyway by the "in crowd" editors that have dominating control over the platform. Knowledge (XXG) was a great source of information for a long time, but today,

1963:

and report on it. I am sorry if you do not see your viewpoint represented in the article at exactly this moment, but that's simply not how things work around here. If you have suggestions backed by reliable sources, then I am all ears. Cheers.

1750:

What's so freaking hard about that? This Rings Of Power TV show is getting INCREDIBLE BACKLASH RIGHT NOW, and there are TONS OF RELIABLE NEWS SOURCES THAT HAVE BEEN PUBLISHED WHICH SAY THAT...... WHY CAN THAT NOT BE SHOWN IN THE ARTICLE?????

1545:"The canons of narrative in any medium cannot be wholly different; and the failure of poor films is often precisely in exaggeration, and in the intrusion of unwarranted matter owing to not perceiving where the core of the original lies." - 2704:

My very cursory searches didn't find this descriptor applied to the series, but I will be the first to admit that my knowledge is incomplete. I would think we'd need a couple sources to substantiate a descriptor like this. Cheers, all.

1482:), but if you tried to filter out people who had opinions about things, precious few people would be left, if anyone at all. I would certainly be gone for my heterodox opinions (like that anchovies make the best olive filling). Cheers. 2242:

we rely on secondary sources in situations like this. Consensus indicates that both sides are fairly and duly presented, though if there are specific changes you would like to make rather than general backlash, that would be fantastic.

1808:

Knowledge (XXG) simply to allow a small section truthfully describing the genuine outrage expressed by Tolkien fans. The future will certainly know this truth, so why not put it here, instead of disgracing Knowledge (XXG) in this way?

1066:

All of this seems like your original research and synthesis. If sources are relying on audience scores, we can't use them - and most of them are. And there's no reason to pretend the review bombing isn't playing the pivotal role here.

206:

among the Irish (or at least north Dublin) public is perhaps the most notable example of an earlier work that was subject to (b), but we do it whenever an anachronistic or out-of-place Irish accent appears in a Hollywood film, such as

2390:

I apologize if I am sometimes curt or snarky with replies--after addressing things over and over, it's a real temptation. But let's keep working together, even if from disparate viewpoints, to get the article to the best state it can

547:

To be more specific, I wouldn't be opposed to a segment in the lede noting the show was review-bombed by hardcore Tolkein fans and racists. I just object to using audience scores to claim it was "divisive" or "polarizing" or whatnot.

1864:), that would be great. Don't just make general complaints based on your opinion of a work (I am a genuine Tolkien fan, and my opinion is that the show is great so far. I also strive to follow the spirit of Knowledge (XXG) policy.). 1730:

I've tried to make edits to move things back into an uncompromised state of honesty, but all my edits get immediately reverted, and I got banned for 3 days once for making an edit that one of the higher up editors didn't agree with.

219:

I don't doubt that some people would use Power's article (which praised the show overall) and similar ones from Irish critics to blanketly claim that the show has been "heavily criticized", but it seems highly inappropriate to cite

2220:

What's written now is only one side of the debate and contains objectively false claims and misleading statements from media outlets. I'm fine keeping those because they are indeed part of the reception but this article needs more

2581:

review bombing is occurring, the audience score will likely rise..." - again confirming that he's reluctant to claim that review bombing is actually occurring. Therefore, I propose a better way to phrase this section is as

224:

to justify omitting the views of people of a nation of 5 million people whose speech, culture and history were quite obviously being referenced in the show, whether or not this was done in good faith by the creators of the

479:, which categorically rejects audience scores without exception. We need to be very careful not to feed into internet outrage cycles, which rely heavily on justification from external sources to justify their existence. 2278:

Regarding your claim that Tolkien is unable to share his opinion about time compression, please read my comment above. He has indeed shared his thoughts on this topic before in his review of an earlier adaption of

2768:

She is listed in the cast as is. She does not have her own Knowledge (XXG) article. I'm failing to see what the point here is, as there is nothing to link to, unless we have a red link. Linking to her father

1686:

You are perfectly entitled to argue that the philosophy underlying Knowledge (XXG) sourcing should be changed, but I would respectfully suggest that this talk page is not the best place for that. Cheers.

250:

Those views are incredibly in the minority. No one has actually claimed there is an anti-Irish element outside of a few reight-wiong circles online. It's not even a discussion point in the broader media.

1164:

Fans are criticising Rings of Power and in response Amazon claims review bombing as if a secret cabal is out to get them. Everyone who disagrees with Amazon is part of a big conspiracy. Must be hard

1113:

Well, either way I agree with Adam that the nuanced discussion should remain. My personal belief is that it would be insanity to remove it... how others can't see this bewilders me hence my comment.

2167:

This is supposed to be super rare. Too much creative license. Tolkien had the names of the first two involved in elf/-non-elf relation inscribed on his and his wife's gravestones (Beren and Lúthien)

2648: 2634: 211:

an Irish actor playing a Polish Jew born before c1935 and allowed his accent to come through at a very awkward point in the story, or, perhaps more relevantly, when random individuals from amongst

1359: 567: 2570:

Hibberd said this was partially due to review bombing by users who were posting "numerous negative reviews for due to its perceived cultural or political issues rather than its actual quality."

1671:

I think it's time to change "reliable sources" if they fail to report reality. We have massive backlash of fanbase that hasn't been seen in decades and wikipedia's sources fail to report on it.

1616:, a policy which applies generally, and not just to this page. If you have a better suggestion, you can raise it on the associated talk page. Constructive feedback is always welcome. Cheers. 132:

I 100% agree here. The person trying to publish this section seems motivated by personal bias. The claim that Tolkien created everything for a pre-Norman English mythology is inaccurate as well.

2239:

The early marketing material led to a "cacophony" of online fan discourse, including concerns about accuracy to the source material and the series' compression of Tolkien's Second Age timeline.

1280: 475:

of any source using audience scores as a basis for a critic-audience disparity should be seriously questioned. Using audience scores to justify these claims in article is a clear violation of

1341:

See also the numerous previous discussions at this talk page that led to the current version of the article, including the discussion of non-racist fan complaints in the marketing section. -

382:

I was actually going to come here and say this anyway for the record, now that I've finally got around to watching all three episodes. In the most recent episode, Lenny Henry uses the word

1131:

is not only done for civility reasons, but because "everyone who disagrees is paid" kind of shuts down any debate. When you're not doing that, I, at least, welcome your input. Cheers.

786:

That's not a very useful answer, how can we discuss this when you are only making vague comments and proclamations? Let's look at the actual wording and see if we can make any progress:

2512: 97: 89: 84: 72: 67: 59: 2491:. Therefore the audience score is relevant beyond just being a numerical figure, and Tassi ties it into why Amazon may have taken the action it did; making it relevant and newsworthy. 2808:

I agree, but do we have an actual source? I don't really doubt the association, given the uniqueness of the name, but still think it should be backed up by something. Happy Friday.

311:

isn't ignored/downplayed in reputable, mainstream sources. And speaking of "the broader media", I'm not sure if you've ever visited a newsagent's in Dublin or Galway or wherever, but

188:

see how (dis)similar the edit being discussed above is to my own -- ZX2021 and XwhereswhatX's comments seem to imply that the text in question bore little if any similarity to mine.

859:

We are not using audience scores and we are not using sources that rely on audience scores. Once again, all you have done is removed context from the discussion, and violated

2457:"A day after the series premiered, Amazon began holding reviews of it on Prime Video for 72 hours to ensure each review was "legitimate" and not coming from internet trolls." 2206:

through and address each point on your personal talk page because frankly, general conversation about the subject matter is inappropriate for the talk page of this article.

587:

I will say it again: I am not naïve enough to believe all backlash to the show is racist, but neither am I naïve enough to believe that none of it is racist. Happy Friday.

422: 2478:"Although review aggregators (such as Rotten Tomatoes) may be reliable when summarizing experts; otherwise, their ratings based on the opinions of their users are not." 427: 602:

about something. It is an inflammatory term being used for inflammatory purposes and the sources that actually check the facts say that isn't what is happening.

47: 17: 1372:

I have it on good authority that fanatics with an insane ideological mindset that have to push their agenda even on Knowledge (XXG) just adore Tolkien's work on

198:

movies were). Those Irish who have spent time abroad and/or among British and Americans who casually engage in micro-aggressions and offensive stereotyping like

2725:

Is Amelie Child-Villiers actually Lady Amelie Natasha Sophia Child Villiers (b. 14 April 2008), second daughter of William Child Villiers, 10th Earl of Jersey?

2320:

I realize I need to provide more sources before that can be added. I will do so once I have time. Let's continue to talk amongst ourselves to iron that out.

1474:

Knowledge (XXG) editors are not required to be personally neutral in any meaningful way. They are required to adhere to Knowledge (XXG) policies (including

2770: 2259:

Since everything in the "Casting backlash" section seems to have more to do with marketing than reception, it should be moved into the "Marketing" section.

2740:

I'm not sure. I struggled to find reliable sourcing. In any case, it is of extremely low importance, and it does not need to be reflected in the article.

1592:

No sorry, you cannot give me the "it is answered somewhere below" for faireness you should also remove the positive score then. Why aren't you doing that?

836:

Both sections are wholly inappropriate. The first relies on sources which rely on audience scores - which we both know are unreliable. It also explicitly

768:

It makes specific inaccurate claims about audience reception without acknowledging review bombing or the racist element. Accordingly, it's unacceptable.

492: 2878: 2513:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/paultassi/2022/09/10/amazon-has-turned-rings-of-power-star-ratings-back-on-heres-how-fans-are-scoring-it/?sh=17f1aa3a773f

2793:

page is warranted and entirely relevant to her casting in a major role, however brief, as a young incarnation of the lead protagonist of the series.

216:

or nearly so among the Irish public, and -- most importantly -- (iii) multiple reliable sources discussing the matter were/are not readily available.

2177:

section and maybe it won't look so biased anymore. I can provide quote from the books or letters to support any of the above points. Just ask.

2361:", any educated Tolkien fan would point to Tolkien's letter No. 165, which makes it clear that an accurate adaptation would reflect what the 1724:

while intentionally disregarding any other "reliable source" that disagrees with the "reliable sources" that they intentionally cherry-pick.

1706: 2773:) is misleading, and currently unsourced in his article. None of this information is relevant to her casting in a minor role in the series. 1853:

is "true" does not mean it should be reflected. But things that are definitely not "true" are the random opinions of people on the Internet.

2306:

increases in page protection. So far, opposition to consensus has failed to provide reliable sourcing, just opinions and primary research.

1211: 673:

We have multiple reliable sources stating that while there is some review bombing, that is not the whole story. They trump your opinion. -

2827:

fallacy, or something along those lines?). Red links are fine, I guess. I just don't understand what the purpose of this conversation is.

517:

To be clear, I do agree with you. Audience scores on RT, IMDb, Google, etc. cannot be trusted and should be avoided, that is why we have

1672: 212: 118: 2652: 2638: 655:

If the current version repudiates review bombing, then it needs to be changed, because that's silly. It's clearly being review bombed.

2900: 1363: 1165: 585:

Review-bombing from like-minded pouty racists has gotten so rampant Amazon’s imposed a 72-hour delay on its user reviews for the show.

571: 2115:

Hobbits doing anything meaningful in the second age (Harfoots are Hobbits. The term "Harfoot" did not exist before the term "Hobbit")

1284: 1742:. This Rings Of Power article is a great example of how the Knowledge (XXG) editors just can't seem to simply be honest. That sucks. 580: 968:...what reliable sources have confirmed - there is review bombing going on, and a substantial amount of it is based on racism. 400: 353: 236: 1838:. If following Knowledge (XXG)'s policies is a disgrace, then I guess we're just kind of disgraceful around here? Cheers. 2138:“It felt only natural to us that an adaptation of Tolkien’s work would reflect what the world actually looks like,” --: --> 2267: 2159:“Can we come up with the novel Tolkien never wrote and do it as the mega-event series that could only happen now?” --: --> 2473: 2354:

We are stuck in a situation where a great many fans have concerns that aren't really captured in mainstream publications.

2927: 2908: 2853: 2836: 2817: 2802: 2782: 2763: 2749: 2734: 2714: 2698: 2670: 2656: 2642: 2628: 2604: 2562: 2544: 2528: 2424: 2403: 2348: 2329: 2315: 2295: 2251: 2233: 2215: 2200: 2186: 2062: 2040: 2025: 2010: 1986: 1972: 1957: 1942: 1921: 1906: 1888: 1873: 1847: 1817: 1802: 1783: 1768: 1714: 1695: 1680: 1666: 1662: 1640: 1625: 1607: 1587: 1573: 1559: 1506: 1491: 1469: 1454: 1439: 1420: 1402: 1387: 1367: 1350: 1336: 1318: 1303: 1288: 1233: 1219: 1205: 1187: 1173: 1159: 1140: 1122: 1108: 1094: 1080: 1017: 998: 980: 962: 910: 896: 877: 854: 831: 781: 763: 722: 700: 682: 668: 626: 611: 596: 575: 561: 538: 512: 464: 405: 358: 293: 278: 263: 241: 178: 160: 141: 126: 810:

At that time, the series had an audience rating on Rotten Tomatoes that was considerably lower than the critics rating,

328:

annoyed, while 99% of everyone else probably doesn't even know that the accents in question were Irish (see the above

342:

backgrounds to me probably already have their own takes on this or other elements of the show even as we have it now.

1210:

I think you deserve much. Your hard work defending Amazon's product from fans is truly inspirational. Don't give up

2589:"if review bombing is occurring, the audience score will likely rise" as was seen in the concurrent Disney+ series 38: 2874: 476: 2359:

It felt only natural to us that an adaptation of Tolkien’s work would reflect what the world actually looks like

2336: 1005: 1710: 1215: 2286:

been reached on this article. As it stands, you and Dumuzid are in fact outnumbered on this polarized topic.

1676: 122: 2904: 2622: 1658: 1169: 1074: 992: 956: 890: 848: 775: 694: 662: 555: 486: 2600: 2524: 1982: 1953: 1938: 1917: 1884: 1813: 114: 2399: 2325: 2291: 2229: 2182: 2124:

It will be easy to distinguish that the made-up dwarven princess is female (she also lacks a proper beard)

1564:

not true, for rotten tomatoes you show the numbers from the critics but not for the audience...ridicolous

1555: 156: 2550: 1603: 1569: 860: 500: 2049: 1450: 1346: 1013: 906: 873: 827: 759: 747: 678: 622: 534: 508: 377: 289: 203: 174: 2730: 2395: 2321: 2287: 2225: 2178: 1798: 1551: 1529:"I cannot see why definite time-statements, contrary to the book and to probability, should be made" - 152: 2686: 2596: 2520: 1978: 1949: 1934: 1913: 1880: 1857: 1809: 1099:

It's really something how everyone who disagrees with you is part of a big conspiracy. Must be hard.

2923: 2832: 2778: 2745: 2694: 2666: 2558: 2311: 2247: 2211: 2058: 1869: 1779: 1636: 1583: 1398: 1314: 1183: 417: 1599: 1565: 1445:

find that the people making the series also have "deep and detailed knowledge of Tolkien's work". -

2759: 1332: 1155: 1118: 1090: 2845: 2794: 2726: 2032: 2002: 1794: 1408: 2617: 1069: 987: 951: 885: 843: 770: 737: 689: 657: 550: 481: 397: 350: 255: 233: 208: 133: 1831: 751: 518: 252: 221: 166: 1631:

heading means that it takes even longer for it to archive and clear out. Hence my frustration.

2849: 2824: 2813: 2798: 2710: 2420: 2344: 2196: 2036: 2021: 2006: 1968: 1902: 1843: 1691: 1621: 1487: 1416: 1383: 1299: 1229: 1201: 1136: 1104: 592: 458: 1475: 864: 566:

Do you have any prove that racists review-bombed the show? Please provide a source for that.

2540: 1764: 1502: 1465: 1446: 1435: 1342: 1009: 976: 902: 869: 823: 755: 718: 710: 674: 618: 607: 530: 504: 307: 285: 274: 259: 170: 137: 1861: 1835: 1479: 1128: 750:

which has long been accepted as a good approach to discussing this stuff without violating

2919: 2828: 2774: 2741: 2690: 2662: 2554: 2307: 2243: 2207: 2054: 1894: 1865: 1775: 1774:

talk page and opening basically any blue link starting with "WP". Might be helpful reads.

1632: 1613: 1579: 1394: 1310: 1179: 522: 1827: 1823: 1654: 1578:

Peruse this talk page even for a few seconds, and you will find the reasoning for this.

337:, which I think was always the main challenge facing both this show and Peter Jackson's 2755: 2161:

people take this as meaning it was never intended to be an adaptation of Tolkien's work

1328: 1151: 1114: 1086: 804:

what about this wording is not a good summary of the reception section in your opinion?

525:, and it is why I have been fighting to keep those out of the article this whole time. 1374: 392: 345: 228: 1822:

Actually, Knowledge (XXG) is here to summarize topics based on what is available in

901:

It is not based on audience scores, it is based on the commentary in the section. -

2809: 2706: 2416: 2340: 2268:

The Lord Of The Rings "Superfans" Review The Rings Of Power Official Teaser Trailer

2192: 2017: 1964: 1898: 1839: 1687: 1617: 1483: 1412: 1379: 1295: 1225: 1197: 1132: 1100: 588: 449: 1178:

Yeah I agree with you, it really must be hard to deal with trolling IP addresses.

815:

remove necessary context from the paragraph which now doesn't make complete sense.

148:

wrote that support these claims but I think Letter #131 is quite clear on its own:

2191:

I'm good, thank you, but perhaps someone else will be motivated to ask. Cheers.

1860:, if you would just provide reliable sourcing (examples of which can be found at 2899:

After "number of episodes" why not add "length of episodes" in the fact square?

2536: 1760: 1498: 1461: 1431: 972: 714: 687:

Sources which rely on audience scores are inaccurate and should be disregarded.

603: 270: 46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

2472:

Firstly: This does not violate Knowledge (XXG)'s protocols, since according to

2100:

Galadriel being commander of the Northern armies when that was really Gil-Galad

2079:

Compressing thousands of years of the second age into a single human lifespan

2147:

Galadriel's character has been described as being full of "piss and vinegar"

2053:

by J.R.R. Tolkien. It seems as if none of the trolls have actually read it.

2301:

YouTube and directly insert that into any article. Regarding consensus, it

2085:

Isildur and Tar-Míriel being alive before the forging of the rings of power

742:

Can you be more specific on your concerns about the wording you removed in

2155:"Tar-Míriel the Queen, fairer than silver or ivory or pearls" - Akallabêth 2091:

Galadriel not going directly to Lindon with Celeborn after leaving Valinor

386:, so I hope you regret your earlier remark and will not say anything like 2411: 2615:

I categorically oppose any attempt to include specific audience scores.

1537:"I fail to see why the time-scheme should be deliberately contracted" - 2112:

Two Durins being alive at the same time (this one is really really bad)

1148: 2262:

The following should be modified as shown moved to its own paragraph:

383: 949:

It absolutely is based on audience scores, and this isn't deniable.

2394:

address this in a way that is consistent with the wiki guidelines.

2165:

There will be at least one non-Tolkienian elf-human romance --: -->

202:

are probably more likely to do (a); the near-universal reaction to

2224:

Do you agree that time compression has been a source of backlash?

2118:

Galadriel and the Númenóreans are much shorter than they should be

106:

Irish Times as sole source for the show being "heavily critised"

2489:

a causal element of the unfolding events and of Amazon's actions

2097:

Galadriel attempting to go back to Valinor after first departing

298:

Thank you all for your replies. I shall respond to you in order.

2862: 2754:

TNstingray, not so. If this is her, then it should be linked.

25: 1196:

think I deserve a better qual;ity of hecklers. Cheers, all.

1127:

And that is fine and reasonable! Thank you for explaining.

971:

bombing? HINT: a whole lot of negative reviews is not it.

2103:

Galadriel hunting for Sauron instead of learning from Melian

2088:

Galadriel interacting with Númenóreans, including Tar-Míriel

2487:

Secondly: Paul Tassi mentions the Rotten Tomatoes score as

2094:

Misrepresenting how and when Galadriel's siblings pass away

1897:-- this is the normal way we treat these sources. Cheers. 1595:

Numbers are numbers you cannot accept some and some others.

1598:

I usually give £1000 per annum to wikipedia...not anymore

1294:

I like to be obscene and not heard. That's why I'm here.

2496:"Average reviews on IMDb and Google were slightly higher 2016:

Your kind words are compensation enough for me. Cheers!

2549:

I'm also concerned that the source provided falls under

743: 199: 2074:

all of these are explicitly contradictory to the books

1327:

Just would like to say that I liked TNstingray reply.

985:

Reliable sources have not, in fact, debunked either.

2494:

Thirdly: Further down in the Wiki paragraph we read

1407:

Even Knowledge (XXG) agrees that Knowledge (XXG) is

617:and any subsequent discussion can resolve that. - 423:Adrift (The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power) 1192:I don't think I deserve much in this life, but I 388:hybrid but non-specific West Country/Irish accent 330:hybrid but non-specific West Country/Irish accent 2859:Semi-protected edit request on 24 September 2022 428:Adar (The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power) 2380:of this planet. - J.R.R. Tolkien Letter No. 165 2135:More made up characters than Tolkien characters 2109:The Númenórean army having a 50/50 gender split 1393:white actor, they'd be rioting in the streets. 301:ZX2021: This is quite a complex issue. I amn't 2130:Other things people are rightfully upset about 469: 18:Talk:The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power 2140:inserting modern elements from the real world 8: 2771:William Child Villiers, 10th Earl of Jersey 2661:Wow, don't injure yourself typing so fast! 1524:faithfully portraying the source material. 112: 2879:The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power 2256:Here are the specific changes I propose: 1085:How much does Amazon pay you guys then? 1395:<-·'¯'·.Ðé§§í©átéÐ ©ó®þ§é.·'¯'·-: --> 2649:2A02:810D:8FC0:2C23:3CD7:CB8D:6E2B:17FC 2635:2A02:810D:8FC0:2C23:3CD7:CB8D:6E2B:17FC 2505: 2498:than the Rotten Tomatoes audience score 2106:The Númenóreans using a cavalry for war 748:Captain Marvel (film)#Audience response 2918:: 65–72 minutes" is already included. 2389: 2353: 2238: 1360:2A02:810D:8FC0:2C23:4EB:B99A:791F:B9D4 967: 809: 789: 584: 568:2A02:810D:8FC0:2C23:AC8F:210E:288:4325 387: 333: 329: 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 2595:(Let me know your thoughts, thanks.) 2153:Tar-Míriel being race swapped --: --> 1977:Thanks Dumuzid, nice talking to you. 1281:2A02:C7E:21B:A200:C8F5:624E:E00D:78C7 7: 1149:https://emojipedia.org/fishing-pole/ 470:Let's Calm Down With Audience Scores 2914:If you scroll down you should see " 2575:reasons." Towards the end he says " 2480:The above quote would fall under a 2282:Lastly, consensus has very clearly 2568:here. The section in question is: 24: 2121:Tar-Míriel will be a ruling queen 2866: 1739:Knowledge (XXG) is HUGELY biased 29: 1727:Knowledge (XXG) is compromised. 2928:18:18, 24 September 2022 (UTC) 2909:12:43, 24 September 2022 (UTC) 2854:16:33, 23 September 2022 (UTC) 2837:16:30, 23 September 2022 (UTC) 2818:16:13, 23 September 2022 (UTC) 2803:16:03, 23 September 2022 (UTC) 2783:15:45, 23 September 2022 (UTC) 2764:15:16, 23 September 2022 (UTC) 2750:12:03, 23 September 2022 (UTC) 2735:10:13, 23 September 2022 (UTC) 2715:12:38, 21 September 2022 (UTC) 2699:11:54, 21 September 2022 (UTC) 2671:11:54, 19 September 2022 (UTC) 2657:22:27, 18 September 2022 (UTC) 2643:22:26, 18 September 2022 (UTC) 2629:16:32, 18 September 2022 (UTC) 2605:22:06, 18 September 2022 (UTC) 2563:12:57, 18 September 2022 (UTC) 2545:10:52, 18 September 2022 (UTC) 2529:10:06, 18 September 2022 (UTC) 2425:19:36, 12 September 2022 (UTC) 2404:19:06, 12 September 2022 (UTC) 2367:not what the world looks like 1759:DOES NOT HAVE TO BE THIS WAY. 1641:16:13, 14 September 2022 (UTC) 1626:15:11, 14 September 2022 (UTC) 1608:15:05, 14 September 2022 (UTC) 1588:12:23, 14 September 2022 (UTC) 1574:09:48, 14 September 2022 (UTC) 1234:21:10, 13 September 2022 (UTC) 1220:20:58, 13 September 2022 (UTC) 1206:13:56, 13 September 2022 (UTC) 1188:12:47, 13 September 2022 (UTC) 1174:12:16, 13 September 2022 (UTC) 1160:02:32, 13 September 2022 (UTC) 1141:02:34, 13 September 2022 (UTC) 1123:02:30, 13 September 2022 (UTC) 1109:02:04, 13 September 2022 (UTC) 1095:02:01, 13 September 2022 (UTC) 1081:01:59, 13 September 2022 (UTC) 1018:23:35, 12 September 2022 (UTC) 999:04:53, 11 September 2022 (UTC) 981:03:02, 11 September 2022 (UTC) 963:04:53, 11 September 2022 (UTC) 911:00:21, 11 September 2022 (UTC) 897:19:47, 10 September 2022 (UTC) 878:04:54, 10 September 2022 (UTC) 855:04:26, 10 September 2022 (UTC) 832:01:45, 10 September 2022 (UTC) 782:00:43, 10 September 2022 (UTC) 723:00:59, 10 September 2022 (UTC) 701:04:28, 10 September 2022 (UTC) 683:01:46, 10 September 2022 (UTC) 669:00:43, 10 September 2022 (UTC) 465:08:15, 12 September 2022 (UTC) 406:11:27, 10 September 2022 (UTC) 165:I agree that this seems to be 1: 2349:16:06, 2 September 2022 (UTC) 2330:15:25, 2 September 2022 (UTC) 2316:10:58, 2 September 2022 (UTC) 2296:00:37, 2 September 2022 (UTC) 2252:21:56, 1 September 2022 (UTC) 2234:21:45, 1 September 2022 (UTC) 2216:21:16, 1 September 2022 (UTC) 2201:20:48, 1 September 2022 (UTC) 2187:20:45, 1 September 2022 (UTC) 1987:13:20, 7 September 2022 (UTC) 1973:13:05, 7 September 2022 (UTC) 1958:13:00, 7 September 2022 (UTC) 1943:12:53, 7 September 2022 (UTC) 1922:13:19, 7 September 2022 (UTC) 1907:13:05, 7 September 2022 (UTC) 1889:13:03, 7 September 2022 (UTC) 1874:12:42, 7 September 2022 (UTC) 1848:12:38, 7 September 2022 (UTC) 1818:12:32, 7 September 2022 (UTC) 1803:22:43, 6 September 2022 (UTC) 1784:11:59, 7 September 2022 (UTC) 1769:17:46, 3 September 2022 (UTC) 1715:07:07, 2 September 2022 (UTC) 1560:20:06, 1 September 2022 (UTC) 1421:12:59, 6 September 2022 (UTC) 1403:12:39, 6 September 2022 (UTC) 764:23:17, 9 September 2022 (UTC) 627:23:35, 9 September 2022 (UTC) 612:23:22, 9 September 2022 (UTC) 597:23:10, 9 September 2022 (UTC) 576:22:53, 9 September 2022 (UTC) 562:18:28, 9 September 2022 (UTC) 539:03:32, 9 September 2022 (UTC) 513:03:12, 9 September 2022 (UTC) 493:03:02, 9 September 2022 (UTC) 359:13:26, 6 September 2022 (UTC) 294:06:30, 6 September 2022 (UTC) 279:02:59, 6 September 2022 (UTC) 264:02:38, 6 September 2022 (UTC) 242:12:44, 5 September 2022 (UTC) 179:20:07, 1 September 2022 (UTC) 161:19:51, 1 September 2022 (UTC) 142:10:15, 1 September 2022 (UTC) 127:10:10, 1 September 2022 (UTC) 2482:"summarization by an expert" 2893:to reactivate your request. 2881:has been answered. Set the 2063:22:25, 31 August 2022 (UTC) 2041:20:40, 31 August 2022 (UTC) 2026:20:23, 31 August 2022 (UTC) 2011:20:16, 31 August 2022 (UTC) 1696:21:36, 22 August 2022 (UTC) 1681:21:32, 22 August 2022 (UTC) 1667:18:41, 20 August 2022 (UTC) 1507:04:55, 23 August 2022 (UTC) 1492:21:39, 22 August 2022 (UTC) 1470:08:51, 22 August 2022 (UTC) 1455:06:18, 22 August 2022 (UTC) 1440:05:52, 22 August 2022 (UTC) 1388:05:23, 20 August 2022 (UTC) 1368:05:19, 20 August 2022 (UTC) 1351:04:55, 19 August 2022 (UTC) 1337:00:34, 19 August 2022 (UTC) 1319:20:05, 18 August 2022 (UTC) 1304:19:31, 18 August 2022 (UTC) 1289:19:30, 18 August 2022 (UTC) 412:Episode articles and drafts 213:Peter Jackson's Men of Dale 2944: 2591:She-Hulk: Attorney at Law. 2082:Galadriel going to Numenor 1826:. This means we don't do 1733:Knowledge (XXG) is biased. 1657:to support your argument. 308:well-established precedent 2484:, not original research. 2144:Celebrimbor looks too old 1834:and we're not here to be 2173:Put some of this in the 2150:Ar-Pharazon with a beard 284:sentences about this. - 2451:Audience response edits 1224:That's an improvement! 2365:actually looked like, 2031:Embarrassing. Cheers! 1550: 1542: 1534: 1147:Did I strike a nerve? 2721:Amelie Child-Villiers 2050:The Lord of the Rings 1543: 1535: 1527: 1409:not a reliable source 317:The Irish Independent 204:Alexander (2004 film) 42:of past discussions. 418:A Shadow of the Past 2459:I suggest we add: 1659:AirshipJungleman29 2897: 2896: 2825:false equivalence 2647:Of course you do 2455:After the phrase 1828:original research 403: 356: 239: 129: 117:comment added by 103: 102: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 2935: 2888: 2884: 2870: 2869: 2863: 2515: 2510: 2476:the rules read: 2273: 2270: 1824:reliable sources 1655:reliable sources 1274:Obscenely biased 741: 477:WP:USERGENERATED 461: 455: 452: 396: 381: 349: 232: 81: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 2943: 2942: 2938: 2937: 2936: 2934: 2933: 2932: 2886: 2882: 2867: 2861: 2723: 2683: 2518: 2511: 2507: 2453: 2266: 2263: 1895:MOS:TVRECEPTION 1748: 1747:JUST BE HONEST. 1740: 1728: 1707:185.161.118.125 1653:Please provide 1614:MOS:TVRECEPTION 1276: 1006:WP:DROPTHESTICK 735: 523:MOS:TVRECEPTION 472: 463: 459: 453: 450: 414: 375: 313:The Irish Times 108: 77: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 2941: 2939: 2931: 2930: 2895: 2894: 2871: 2860: 2857: 2842: 2841: 2840: 2839: 2790: 2789: 2788: 2787: 2786: 2785: 2722: 2719: 2718: 2717: 2682: 2679: 2678: 2677: 2676: 2675: 2674: 2673: 2645: 2633:Of course you 2612: 2611: 2610: 2609: 2608: 2607: 2593: 2587: 2583: 2572: 2517: 2516: 2504: 2500:at that point" 2471: 2465: 2452: 2449: 2448: 2447: 2446: 2445: 2444: 2443: 2442: 2441: 2440: 2439: 2438: 2437: 2436: 2435: 2434: 2433: 2432: 2431: 2430: 2429: 2428: 2427: 2387: 2386: 2384: 2383: 2382: 2337:New York Times 2280: 2276: 2275: 2274: 2260: 2222: 2203: 2171: 2170: 2169: 2163: 2157: 2151: 2148: 2145: 2142: 2136: 2127: 2126: 2125: 2122: 2119: 2116: 2113: 2110: 2107: 2104: 2101: 2098: 2095: 2092: 2089: 2086: 2083: 2080: 2069: 2047:series called 2029: 2028: 1998: 1997: 1996: 1995: 1994: 1993: 1992: 1991: 1990: 1989: 1945: 1930: 1929: 1928: 1927: 1926: 1925: 1924: 1854: 1805: 1790: 1789: 1788: 1787: 1786: 1756: 1752: 1746: 1743: 1738: 1726: 1718: 1717: 1702: 1701: 1700: 1699: 1698: 1651: 1650: 1649: 1648: 1647: 1646: 1645: 1644: 1643: 1628: 1596: 1593: 1562: 1547:J.R.R. Tolkien 1539:J.R.R. Tolkien 1525: 1519:Both side are 1517: 1516: 1515: 1514: 1513: 1512: 1511: 1510: 1509: 1427: 1426: 1425: 1424: 1423: 1390: 1355: 1354: 1353: 1322: 1321: 1306: 1275: 1272: 1271: 1270: 1269: 1268: 1267: 1266: 1265: 1264: 1263: 1262: 1261: 1260: 1259: 1258: 1257: 1256: 1255: 1254: 1253: 1252: 1251: 1250: 1249: 1248: 1247: 1246: 1245: 1244: 1243: 1242: 1241: 1240: 1239: 1238: 1237: 1236: 1212:88.156.136.157 1162: 1145: 1144: 1143: 1083: 1041: 1040: 1039: 1038: 1037: 1036: 1035: 1034: 1033: 1032: 1031: 1030: 1029: 1028: 1027: 1026: 1025: 1024: 1023: 1022: 1021: 1020: 965: 930: 929: 928: 927: 926: 925: 924: 923: 922: 921: 920: 919: 918: 917: 916: 915: 914: 913: 820: 819: 818: 817: 816: 807: 806: 805: 797: 733: 732: 731: 730: 729: 728: 727: 726: 725: 707: 706: 705: 704: 703: 640: 639: 638: 637: 636: 635: 634: 633: 632: 631: 630: 629: 542: 541: 515: 471: 468: 457: 446: 445: 442: 439: 436: 433: 430: 425: 420: 413: 410: 409: 408: 368: 367: 366: 365: 364: 363: 362: 361: 343: 325: 321: 299: 281: 245: 244: 226: 217: 190: 189: 184: 183: 182: 181: 149: 107: 104: 101: 100: 95: 92: 87: 82: 75: 70: 65: 62: 52: 51: 34: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 2940: 2929: 2925: 2921: 2917: 2913: 2912: 2911: 2910: 2906: 2902: 2892: 2889:parameter to 2880: 2876: 2872: 2865: 2864: 2858: 2856: 2855: 2851: 2847: 2838: 2834: 2830: 2826: 2821: 2820: 2819: 2815: 2811: 2807: 2806: 2805: 2804: 2800: 2796: 2784: 2780: 2776: 2772: 2767: 2766: 2765: 2761: 2757: 2753: 2752: 2751: 2747: 2743: 2739: 2738: 2737: 2736: 2732: 2728: 2720: 2716: 2712: 2708: 2703: 2702: 2701: 2700: 2696: 2692: 2688: 2680: 2672: 2668: 2664: 2660: 2659: 2658: 2654: 2650: 2646: 2644: 2640: 2636: 2632: 2631: 2630: 2627: 2626: 2625: 2621: 2620: 2614: 2613: 2606: 2602: 2598: 2594: 2592: 2588: 2584: 2580: 2579: 2573: 2571: 2566: 2565: 2564: 2560: 2556: 2552: 2548: 2547: 2546: 2542: 2538: 2533: 2532: 2531: 2530: 2526: 2522: 2514: 2509: 2506: 2503: 2501: 2499: 2492: 2490: 2485: 2483: 2479: 2475: 2469: 2468: 2463: 2462: 2458: 2450: 2426: 2422: 2418: 2414: 2413: 2407: 2406: 2405: 2401: 2397: 2392: 2388: 2385: 2381: 2379: 2374: 2373: 2371: 2370: 2364: 2360: 2355: 2352: 2351: 2350: 2346: 2342: 2338: 2333: 2332: 2331: 2327: 2323: 2319: 2318: 2317: 2313: 2309: 2304: 2299: 2298: 2297: 2293: 2289: 2285: 2281: 2277: 2269: 2261: 2258: 2257: 2255: 2254: 2253: 2249: 2245: 2240: 2237: 2236: 2235: 2231: 2227: 2223: 2219: 2218: 2217: 2213: 2209: 2204: 2202: 2198: 2194: 2190: 2189: 2188: 2184: 2180: 2176: 2172: 2168: 2164: 2162: 2158: 2156: 2152: 2149: 2146: 2143: 2141: 2137: 2134: 2133: 2131: 2128: 2123: 2120: 2117: 2114: 2111: 2108: 2105: 2102: 2099: 2096: 2093: 2090: 2087: 2084: 2081: 2078: 2077: 2075: 2070: 2066: 2065: 2064: 2060: 2056: 2052: 2051: 2045: 2044: 2043: 2042: 2038: 2034: 2027: 2023: 2019: 2015: 2014: 2013: 2012: 2008: 2004: 1988: 1984: 1980: 1976: 1975: 1974: 1970: 1966: 1961: 1960: 1959: 1955: 1951: 1946: 1944: 1940: 1936: 1931: 1923: 1919: 1915: 1910: 1909: 1908: 1904: 1900: 1896: 1892: 1891: 1890: 1886: 1882: 1877: 1876: 1875: 1871: 1867: 1863: 1859: 1855: 1851: 1850: 1849: 1845: 1841: 1837: 1836:truth tellers 1833: 1829: 1825: 1821: 1820: 1819: 1815: 1811: 1806: 1804: 1800: 1796: 1791: 1785: 1781: 1777: 1772: 1771: 1770: 1766: 1762: 1757: 1753: 1749: 1744: 1741: 1734: 1729: 1722: 1721: 1720: 1719: 1716: 1712: 1708: 1703: 1697: 1693: 1689: 1684: 1683: 1682: 1678: 1674: 1673:88.156.136.52 1670: 1669: 1668: 1664: 1660: 1656: 1652: 1642: 1638: 1634: 1629: 1627: 1623: 1619: 1615: 1611: 1610: 1609: 1605: 1601: 1597: 1594: 1591: 1590: 1589: 1585: 1581: 1577: 1576: 1575: 1571: 1567: 1563: 1561: 1557: 1553: 1549: 1548: 1541: 1540: 1533: 1532: 1531:J.R.R Tolkien 1526: 1522: 1518: 1508: 1504: 1500: 1495: 1494: 1493: 1489: 1485: 1481: 1477: 1473: 1472: 1471: 1467: 1463: 1458: 1457: 1456: 1452: 1448: 1443: 1442: 1441: 1437: 1433: 1428: 1422: 1418: 1414: 1410: 1406: 1405: 1404: 1400: 1396: 1391: 1389: 1385: 1381: 1377: 1376: 1375:Ancrene Wisse 1371: 1370: 1369: 1365: 1361: 1356: 1352: 1348: 1344: 1340: 1339: 1338: 1334: 1330: 1326: 1325: 1324: 1323: 1320: 1316: 1312: 1307: 1305: 1301: 1297: 1293: 1292: 1291: 1290: 1286: 1282: 1273: 1235: 1231: 1227: 1223: 1222: 1221: 1217: 1213: 1209: 1208: 1207: 1203: 1199: 1195: 1191: 1190: 1189: 1185: 1181: 1177: 1176: 1175: 1171: 1167: 1163: 1161: 1157: 1153: 1150: 1146: 1142: 1138: 1134: 1130: 1126: 1125: 1124: 1120: 1116: 1112: 1111: 1110: 1106: 1102: 1098: 1097: 1096: 1092: 1088: 1084: 1082: 1079: 1078: 1077: 1073: 1072: 1065: 1064: 1063: 1062: 1061: 1060: 1059: 1058: 1057: 1056: 1055: 1054: 1053: 1052: 1051: 1050: 1049: 1048: 1047: 1046: 1045: 1044: 1043: 1042: 1019: 1015: 1011: 1007: 1002: 1001: 1000: 997: 996: 995: 991: 990: 984: 983: 982: 978: 974: 969: 966: 964: 961: 960: 959: 955: 954: 948: 947: 946: 945: 944: 943: 942: 941: 940: 939: 938: 937: 936: 935: 934: 933: 932: 931: 912: 908: 904: 900: 899: 898: 895: 894: 893: 889: 888: 881: 880: 879: 875: 871: 866: 862: 858: 857: 856: 853: 852: 851: 847: 846: 839: 835: 834: 833: 829: 825: 821: 813: 812: 811: 808: 803: 798: 794: 793: 792: 788: 787: 785: 784: 783: 780: 779: 778: 774: 773: 767: 766: 765: 761: 757: 753: 749: 745: 739: 738:Toa Nidhiki05 734: 724: 720: 716: 713:Fair enough. 712: 708: 702: 699: 698: 697: 693: 692: 686: 685: 684: 680: 676: 672: 671: 670: 667: 666: 665: 661: 660: 654: 653: 652: 651: 650: 649: 648: 647: 646: 645: 644: 643: 642: 641: 628: 624: 620: 615: 614: 613: 609: 605: 600: 599: 598: 594: 590: 586: 582: 579: 578: 577: 573: 569: 565: 564: 563: 560: 559: 558: 554: 553: 546: 545: 544: 543: 540: 536: 532: 528: 524: 520: 516: 514: 510: 506: 502: 497: 496: 495: 494: 491: 490: 489: 485: 484: 478: 467: 466: 462: 456: 443: 440: 437: 434: 431: 429: 426: 424: 421: 419: 416: 415: 411: 407: 402: 399: 394: 389: 385: 379: 378:203.217.84.79 374: 373: 372: 360: 355: 352: 347: 344: 340: 336: 331: 326: 322: 318: 314: 309: 304: 300: 297: 296: 295: 291: 287: 282: 280: 276: 272: 267: 266: 265: 261: 257: 254: 249: 248: 247: 246: 243: 238: 235: 230: 227: 223: 218: 214: 210: 205: 201: 197: 192: 191: 186: 185: 180: 176: 172: 168: 164: 163: 162: 158: 154: 150: 146: 145: 144: 143: 139: 135: 130: 128: 124: 120: 119:203.217.84.79 116: 105: 99: 96: 93: 91: 88: 86: 83: 80: 76: 74: 71: 69: 66: 63: 61: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 2916:Running time 2915: 2901:90.87.175.57 2898: 2890: 2875:edit request 2843: 2791: 2724: 2684: 2681:Dark fantasy 2623: 2618: 2616: 2590: 2577: 2576: 2569: 2551:WP:FORBESCON 2519: 2508: 2497: 2495: 2493: 2488: 2486: 2481: 2477: 2470: 2466: 2464: 2460: 2456: 2454: 2410: 2396:XwhereswhatX 2377: 2375: 2368: 2366: 2362: 2358: 2322:XwhereswhatX 2302: 2288:XwhereswhatX 2283: 2226:XwhereswhatX 2179:XwhereswhatX 2174: 2166: 2160: 2154: 2139: 2129: 2073: 2048: 2030: 1999: 1745: 1737: 1732: 1725: 1552:XwhereswhatX 1546: 1544: 1538: 1536: 1530: 1528: 1520: 1373: 1277: 1193: 1166:195.136.76.5 1075: 1070: 1068: 993: 988: 986: 957: 952: 950: 891: 886: 884: 861:WP:DUEWEIGHT 849: 844: 842: 837: 802:specifically 801: 776: 771: 769: 695: 690: 688: 663: 658: 656: 556: 551: 549: 526: 501:WP:DUEWEIGHT 487: 482: 480: 473: 447: 369: 338: 316: 312: 302: 195: 153:XwhereswhatX 131: 113:— Preceding 109: 78: 43: 37: 2844:Naturally. 2687:Sincereduck 2597:Jsandoval19 2521:Jsandoval19 1979:Inspicienti 1950:Inspicienti 1935:Inspicienti 1914:Inspicienti 1893:Please see 1881:Inspicienti 1858:Inspicienti 1810:Inspicienti 1612:Please see 1411:! Cheers. 1378:. Cheers. 791:supporters. 711:Adamstom.97 36:This is an 2920:Alduin2000 2883:|answered= 2829:TNstingray 2775:TNstingray 2742:TNstingray 2691:TNstingray 2663:TNstingray 2555:TNstingray 2467:Reasoning: 2308:TNstingray 2244:TNstingray 2208:TNstingray 2055:TNstingray 1866:TNstingray 1776:TNstingray 1751:WHY??????? 1633:TNstingray 1580:TNstingray 1447:adamstom97 1343:adamstom97 1311:TNstingray 1180:TNstingray 1010:adamstom97 903:adamstom97 870:adamstom97 824:adamstom97 756:adamstom97 675:adamstom97 619:adamstom97 581:Here's one 531:adamstom97 505:adamstom97 384:wikt:eejit 286:adamstom97 171:adamstom97 2756:Debresser 2624:Nidhiki05 2474:this page 2378:Old World 2363:Old World 1832:synthesis 1600:Nogard EU 1566:Nogard EU 1329:Debresser 1152:Morph8845 1115:Morph8845 1087:Morph8845 1076:Nidhiki05 994:Nidhiki05 958:Nidhiki05 892:Nidhiki05 850:Nidhiki05 777:Nidhiki05 744:this edit 696:Nidhiki05 664:Nidhiki05 557:Nidhiki05 488:Nidhiki05 393:Hijiri 88 346:Hijiri 88 229:Hijiri 88 209:that time 98:Archive 9 90:Archive 7 85:Archive 6 79:Archive 5 73:Archive 4 68:Archive 3 60:Archive 1 2582:follows: 2412:arguendo 2221:balance. 2175:Backlash 752:WP:USERG 519:WP:USERG 303:entirely 253:WP:UNDUE 222:WP:UNDUE 167:WP:UNDUE 115:unsigned 2846:1-jVX-9 2810:Dumuzid 2795:1-jVX-9 2727:E.Polti 2707:Dumuzid 2417:Dumuzid 2341:Dumuzid 2193:Dumuzid 2033:1-jVX-9 2018:Dumuzid 2003:1-jVX-9 1965:Dumuzid 1899:Dumuzid 1840:Dumuzid 1795:Eorekan 1688:Dumuzid 1618:Dumuzid 1497:edit. 1484:Dumuzid 1476:WP:NPOV 1413:Dumuzid 1380:Dumuzid 1296:Dumuzid 1226:Dumuzid 1198:Dumuzid 1133:Dumuzid 1101:Dumuzid 865:WP:LEAD 838:doesn't 589:Dumuzid 527:However 39:archive 2537:LowKey 1862:WP:RSP 1761:Skcin7 1499:LowKey 1480:WP:COI 1462:LowKey 1432:LowKey 1129:WP:AGF 973:LowKey 715:LowKey 604:LowKey 339:Hobbit 271:LowKey 256:ZX2021 196:Hobbit 134:ZX2021 2887:|ans= 2873:This 2369:today 2279:LOTR. 451:Alex_ 335:need! 225:show. 16:< 2924:talk 2905:talk 2850:talk 2833:talk 2814:talk 2799:talk 2779:talk 2760:talk 2746:talk 2731:talk 2711:talk 2695:talk 2667:talk 2653:talk 2639:talk 2601:talk 2586:that 2559:talk 2541:talk 2525:talk 2421:talk 2400:talk 2345:talk 2326:talk 2312:talk 2292:talk 2248:talk 2230:talk 2212:talk 2197:talk 2183:talk 2068:now. 2059:talk 2037:talk 2022:talk 2007:talk 1983:talk 1969:talk 1954:talk 1939:talk 1918:talk 1903:talk 1885:talk 1870:talk 1844:talk 1814:talk 1799:talk 1780:talk 1765:talk 1711:talk 1692:talk 1677:talk 1663:talk 1637:talk 1622:talk 1604:talk 1584:talk 1570:talk 1556:talk 1503:talk 1488:talk 1478:and 1466:talk 1451:talk 1436:talk 1417:talk 1399:talk 1384:talk 1364:talk 1347:talk 1333:talk 1315:talk 1300:talk 1285:talk 1230:talk 1216:talk 1202:talk 1184:talk 1170:talk 1156:talk 1137:talk 1119:talk 1105:talk 1091:talk 1014:talk 1008:. - 977:talk 907:talk 874:talk 863:and 828:talk 760:talk 754:. - 719:talk 679:talk 623:talk 608:talk 593:talk 572:talk 535:talk 521:and 509:talk 503:. - 460:TALK 315:and 290:talk 275:talk 260:talk 200:this 175:talk 169:. - 157:talk 138:talk 123:talk 2885:or 2877:to 2619:Toa 2391:be. 2303:has 2284:not 2076:): 1830:or 1521:not 1071:Toa 989:Toa 953:Toa 887:Toa 845:Toa 772:Toa 691:Toa 659:Toa 583:. 552:Toa 483:Toa 448:-- 444:TBA 441:TBA 438:TBA 435:TBA 432:TBA 2926:) 2907:) 2891:no 2852:) 2835:) 2816:) 2801:) 2781:) 2762:) 2748:) 2733:) 2713:) 2697:) 2669:) 2655:) 2641:) 2603:) 2578:If 2561:) 2553:. 2543:) 2527:) 2423:) 2402:) 2347:) 2328:) 2314:) 2294:) 2250:) 2232:) 2214:) 2199:) 2185:) 2132:: 2061:) 2039:) 2024:) 2009:) 1985:) 1971:) 1956:) 1941:) 1920:) 1905:) 1887:) 1872:) 1846:) 1816:) 1801:) 1782:) 1767:) 1713:) 1694:) 1679:) 1665:) 1639:) 1624:) 1606:) 1586:) 1572:) 1558:) 1505:) 1490:) 1468:) 1453:) 1438:) 1419:) 1401:) 1386:) 1366:) 1349:) 1335:) 1317:) 1302:) 1287:) 1232:) 1218:) 1204:) 1194:do 1186:) 1172:) 1158:) 1139:) 1121:) 1107:) 1093:) 1016:) 979:) 909:) 876:) 830:) 822:- 762:) 721:) 681:) 625:) 610:) 595:) 574:) 537:) 511:) 454:21 404:) 401:やや 357:) 354:やや 292:) 277:) 262:) 240:) 237:やや 177:) 159:) 140:) 125:) 94:→ 64:← 2922:( 2903:( 2848:( 2831:( 2823:( 2812:( 2797:( 2777:( 2769:( 2758:( 2744:( 2729:( 2709:( 2693:( 2685:@ 2665:( 2651:( 2637:( 2599:( 2557:( 2539:( 2523:( 2419:( 2398:( 2343:( 2324:( 2310:( 2290:( 2246:( 2228:( 2210:( 2195:( 2181:( 2057:( 2035:( 2020:( 2005:( 1981:( 1967:( 1952:( 1937:( 1916:( 1901:( 1883:( 1868:( 1856:@ 1842:( 1812:( 1797:( 1778:( 1763:( 1709:( 1690:( 1675:( 1661:( 1635:( 1620:( 1602:( 1582:( 1568:( 1554:( 1501:( 1486:( 1464:( 1449:( 1434:( 1415:( 1397:( 1382:( 1362:( 1345:( 1331:( 1313:( 1298:( 1283:( 1228:( 1214:( 1200:( 1182:( 1168:( 1154:( 1135:( 1117:( 1103:( 1089:( 1012:( 975:( 905:( 872:( 826:( 758:( 740:: 736:@ 717:( 709:@ 677:( 621:( 606:( 591:( 570:( 533:( 507:( 398:聖 395:( 380:: 376:@ 351:聖 348:( 288:( 273:( 258:( 234:聖 231:( 173:( 155:( 136:( 121:( 50:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index