Talk:Tolkien fandom/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Untitled

Well, as for the check for copyright violation, I wrote the entire thing from memory. Wikify and formating would be a plus, but I wouldn't know where to begin. I purposely avoided a blow-by-blow comparison to other fandoms because as the article says, Ringers are such a motley group that they defy comparison. Namarie. - Ricimer 2:06, 12 Mar 2004 (EST)

So you're User:130.64.139.68, then? If so, I'd suggest you head to Wikipedia:Changing attribution for an edit so you can earn a little Wikilove for your efforts.

I'm also at a loss on where to start in formatting and sectioning. That's why I posted the To-Do list - so that someone else can come through and get the ball rolling. Wikification is fairly easy, though - it boils down to finding places in the text that could benefit from linkage, and adding such links.

And I didn't mean that the article necessarily needs "blow-by-blow" comparisons — I was thinking more along the lines of the occasional "Ringers generally X, unlike Y fans who generally Z". - jredmond 15:09, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

I intend to start contributing to the effort. This is interesting information that is worth compiling! I think I'll start with some links and breaking off into sections.

Some thoughts:

• The bell-ringers I know generally refer to themselves as "bell-ringers" or "bell players" or "change-ringers" or "pealers", depending on what kind of bells they play, but "ringer" is a perfectly acceptable word used by many people (in, say, the article on bellringing).
• Where did this term originate? First of all, it's not a universal term like "Trekkie" that covers the entire fan base. My impression has been that it has been popularized largely by theonering.net and I'd like to see this information included (once I can verify it, of course). Aranel 18:59, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Shouldn't it just be merged with Tolkienist? Ausir 19:22, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Sure, but "Ringer" is the more common term. And anyway, I'm currently mid-edit. It's a long edit. Don't do anything drastic. Aranel 19:27, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Some changes:

• I dispute the notion that prior to the movies, most fans were young obsessive-compulsive male geeks. The fans I knew prior to the movies were of a wide range of ages and plenty of them were female (we were, however, definitely obsessive-compulsive geeks). The majority might have been male, but then, the majority of internet users at that point was also male.
• I worked on the part about Arwen. I hope that it now simply illustrates the point, but I could use someone who's not already biased to tell me if it works or not. Because I am most definitely extremely biased. I tried in generally to make the whole thing sound less like it was written by one of the die-hards, but as I am one of the die-hards, I can't really judge this.
• We still need to establish the history of this term. When I say "we", maybe I mean "I". Certainly "someone".
• Where does the "Deplorable Cultus" reference come from?
• If anyone disagrees that it's generally better to use the (safer) "Tolkien fans" or "Lord of the Rings fans" when in doubt, I'd like to hear what you have to say. I, personally, am too much of a purist to call myself a "Ringer", but maybe it doesn't matter to most people.
• I don't thnk that Rhys-Davies or Christopher Lee fangirls are nearly as significant (or as annoying to die-hard book purists) as Orlando Bloom fangirls. If you disagree, you can put them back in.
• The Silmarillion is only technically a prequel. In my infinite obsessive-compulsiveness, I removed that reference, since actually the Silmarillion material predates LotR significantly, although Tolkien never published it.

Aranel 20:16, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Largely lacks discussion of Tolkien-related fanfiction, a less-visible but very present part of fandom. Fhocutt (talk) 06:17, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Tolkien fandom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071228132400/http://www.thecimmerian.com/?p=739 to http://www.thecimmerian.com/?p=739
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080414121722/http://lalaith.vpsurf.de/M-earth.html to http://lalaith.vpsurf.de/M-earth.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050520091848/http://www.worldpath.net/~bullsfan/entropy/issues/12.html to http://www.worldpath.net/~bullsfan/entropy/issues/12.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:13, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Some scholarly sources discussing Tolkien fan works

• Abrahamson, Megan B. (2013). "J.R.R. Tolkien, Fanfiction, and "The Freedom of the Reader"". Mythlore. 32 (1).
• Walls-Thumma, Dawn S. (2019). "Affirmational and Transformational Values and Practices in the Tolkien Fanfiction Community". Journal of Tolkien Research. 8 (1).
• Walls-Thumma, Dawn S. (2020). "Diving into the lacuna: Fan studies, methodologies, and mending the gaps". Transformative Works and Cultures. doi:10.3983/twc.2020.1871.
• Walls-Thumma, Dawn S. (2016). "Attainable Vistas: Historical Bias in Tolkien's Legendarium as a Motive for Transformative Fanworks". Journal of Tolkien Research. 3 (3).
• Alberto, Maria (2016). ""The effort to translate": Fan Film Culture and the Works of J.R.R. Tolkien". Journal of Tolkien Research. 3 (3).

I collected these up to source a section of Works inspired by J.R.R. Tolkien about fanwork and wound up using relatively little of these there, but there's a bunch of interesting stuff in them that would fit well in this article. FrankSpheres (talk) 07:03, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

TheOneRing.com (TORc)

An IP editor has repeatedly tried to remove mention of TheOneRing.com from this page. However, it is a long-established fan forum, very much the subject of this article. It gets less coverage (and less prominence) in the article than TheOneRing.net, but it is notable in its own right, and has been consulted by academics who value the informed opinions its members can provide. It is certainly a part of the Tolkien fan scene and a valid element in this encyclopedia article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:58, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

@Chiswick Chap:: Hi. Are you sure you're not confusing it with TheOneRing.net, which is already discussed in great detail within the article? TORc is a completely different site. If it is as notable as you claim it is, surely there are better sources to support it besides their own about us page. Wikipedia goes by reliable secondary sources, and this is neither secondary, nor reliable. My main reason for removal is encountering multiple mentions of the site among certain seedier parts of the internet, as well as consistent, concerning behavior over several months, including incitement of harrassment and promoting disinfo sites and false rumour mills, from what I have no reason to doubt is their official representatives on social media. A prestigious website would go after impersonators hard. I made the conclusion that this is an internet culture-war hub, similar to Bounding into Comics, and that its mention on this site, which doesn't cite any reliable sources, is self promotion, so I removed it. I made this reasoning explicit in my edit summaries TWICE, and the accusations that I didn't are getting a bit silly. 46.97.170.151 (talk) 11:28, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

As I said, it's a second fansite. Our job is to report on the scene evenly and impartially. Big items naturally get more coverage. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:24, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Please provide reliable secondary souces to support your claim that it's a valid fansite. Also, wikipedia isn't required to include everything. 46.97.170.151 (talk) 12:40, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Hmm. There is no indication at all in this case that there has been the slightest amount of competitive fan-editing on this article in the past few years. Instead, the mentions of different aspects of "Tolkien fandom" have been cut down from what was a large and in many places uncited article to a smaller and fully-cited text, which I've attempted to make balanced across countries, societies, websites, and activities, of course an impossible task. Rather than try to cover everything, the article pays attention to "the main points", as is proper. If you'd bothered to read my edit comment response, you'd have seen that I have already provided a scholarly source, an unusual thing for a fansite; I've added it to the article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:25, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

I see. As I stated above, the site caught my attention because of social media activity relating to the recent Amazon series. TORc doesn't simply strike me as "a second fansite" but an outright fringe counterpart to TORn. Even if it was a big deal in the past, their Twitter and youtube channels seem to be focusing heavily on the internet culture wars stuff, and they explicitly promote Bounding into Comics, which is a major red flag. 46.97.170.151 (talk) 17:06, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Well, we don't even mention those channels, and if I had looked at those things, I would certainly have decided not to give them any airtime here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:57, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Those accounts are run by Jonathan Watson in his official capacity as the site founder and maintainer. You can't just separate them from TORc itself, they're part of the greater whole! 46.97.170.151 (talk) 09:29, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, but we don't need to mention them specifically, nor do we do so. Wikipedia covers many distasteful topics; the role of a global encyclopedia is to cover each topic impartially. Doubtful or even outright illegal activity is no reason not to mention something; we have articles on paedophiles, rapists, murderers and indeed dictators and torturers, so I'm afraid that merely being involved in social media nastiness, if that is the case here, is a non-starter as far as exclusion from coverage is concerned. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:36, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Distasteful topics and doubtful or even illegal activity, yes, but not misleading information. The article is about the Tolkien Fandom. Just because a guy with a website claims to represent the Tolkien Fandom, doesn't mean that wikipedia should take his word for it. Especially when the guy openly associates with people who have a widely known and established reputation of infiltrating various fandoms to spread hatred and to harass people on grounds of race or sexual identity. It's obvious that this website and the people running it do not represent the Tolkien Fandom, and wikipedia should not be treating them as if they did. 46.97.170.151 (talk) 10:09, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you are writing in a way that implies you have a personal axe to grind with TORc. You are entitled to your views, but they have no bearing on any Wikipedia article. The very brief and neutral coverage here does not support any of the nastiness whose existence you assert; even if your claims were all true, it wouldn't make any difference here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:34, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

It's no secret that I have a bit of an axe to grind with the Gamergate crowd, but that is immaterial to my point. The culture-war aspect is the most obvious and apparent aspect of TORc. Scraping together mentions of the site doesn't mean anything when there are no reliable sources covering what the site primarily is and what it's known for, and a "neutral" coverage that ommits that crucial information is not neutral at all. It takes less than 10 minutes to verify everything I have said. If there are no reliable secondary sources covering any of it, than that's because the site does not have any mainstream notability whatsoever, and consequently, shouldn't even be mentioned. The Tolkien fandom is large and diverse, and plenty of fansites exist. If those aren't notable, I don't see why this one would be. 46.97.170.151 (talk) 09:10, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

This article isn't about The One Ring Dot Com, ergo WP:NOTABILITY does not apply to this discussion. Chiswick is correct that the link is fine. Also be aware WP:BLP applies to talk pages, be very, very careful what you type about people in the talk page, without strong (and notable sourcing) you are at risk of falling foul of BLP. GimliDotNet (talk) 17:32, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Tolkien fan fiction into Tolkien fandom#Fan fiction

The Tolkien fandom article is currently pretty tiny, and it seems like this topic can easily be merged there with no loss of information, especially since the Context section is essentially duplicated.

Since the article talks about fan films and other media rather than just fan fiction, the section can be renamed "fan works" and have "fan fiction" as just one subsection. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:32, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose, this is a large subject, just begun; and the small selection of the many citations available that are already there prove that it is separately notable. Even at its length when you saw it, 1,700 words excluding the lead (over 4 pages of A4 printout), it would already have been a very uncomfortable WP:COATRACK fit for Tolkien fandom. Since then it has been developed to 3,400 words, more than in your proposed merge target (which is 2,400 words).

• Further, the proposed target article has quite a different subject, namely the history of fan activities, rather than the literary qualities of fan writing and the challenges that it faces. The article would in no way benefit from such a merge; instead, we have the simplicity and convenience of one article for one topic, another article for another. I placed the short summary of the fan fiction article into the fandom article, with "main" link, precisely not to unbalance that article.

• The film side is just a few lines; I've moved them to another article. The question has nothing to do with the merge. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:02, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

• This seems to have been not just misplaced, but a drive-by nomination. I suggest that this should simply be closed as not agreed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:07, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

  There's no such thing as a "driveby nomination" for merge or AfD. It's just a nomination. You are free to disagree and it certainly looks like it will fail, but you don't have to accuse others of WP:BADFAITH while doing it. Doing so gives heavy vibes of ownership.

  The article has been expanded a lot since the nomination but it is concerning that parts of it seem to be "padding" to make it seem massive. The "copyright" section can essentially apply to all fanfiction, and all the blockquotes in the article don't seem to be necessary, those particular passages are not the subject of analysis. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:05, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

  There is no "padding" of any sort. Part of the Copyright section obviously has wider applicability, but it is specifically applied to Ring of Darkness and The Last Ringbearer, with multiple citations that discuss those two particular Tolkien fan fiction cases. The quotations are there to give the general reader an idea of the materials that are discussed, selected to fit the cited scholarly analysis. For instance the 'Letters from Bree' snippet is specifically from the story that is analysed in the text beside it. As for talk of massiveness, that is simply pejorative, and no editor should be going there. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:04, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. Tolkien fan fiction is quite large on its own and this article is not small, either. I don’t understand the purpose of making a gigantic article out of the two. Strebe (talk) 07:23, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose I see no benefit to a merge. Per everything already said.★Trekker (talk) 13:07, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

OK, per WP:MERGECLOSE, closing this now, no merge. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:31, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Redlisted sources, edit-warring, off-topic additions, and pointless gossip

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

---

An editor has seen fit to begin an edit-war by restoring their own edits, which had been reverted because they consisted of off-topic additions and pointless gossip, supported by 5 sources of which one was doubtful (Vulture) as a [{WP:RS|Reliable Source]] and the other four were redlinked: the matter is moot because the material supported was about one talk show host whose relevance to Tolkien fandom is in any case doubtful: we don't repeat gossip or talk show chat on Wikipedia. Editors are invited to review the deleted material and consider its relevance for themselves: it is not to be reinserted in any form before consensus is reached here on this talk page. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:58, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

They are not redlisted, they are from the official page of the show, which is permitted. "Wikipedia:External links/Perennial websites" "If the source would normally be considered reliable (e.g., a segment from a well-known television news show, or an official video channel from a major publisher), then a copy of the source on YouTube is still considered reliable." and are examples of claims being made. Vulture/NYmagazine is a perfectly reliable source, it was not gossip, but reporting remarks from a Comic Con panel, and the same material was posted by the Tolkien Society.https://www.tolkiensociety.org/2014/08/stephen-colbert-reveals-his-tolkien-credentials/ (And the New York Times piece is not exactly officially an opinion piece, but a reported article) newsjunkie (talk) 18:04, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Many thanks for discussing. You can readily check for yourself that they are redlisted, so it's not worth our discussing here: I use a script which colours offending sources directly and they are red as red. But be that as it may, the supported item is purest gossip about a single person, and it's not easy to see how it could be here. And be that as it may, edit-warring will not get anything into this article: it is forbidden, and I see you are already half-blocked for similar behaviour over in the Harry Potter domain. The NYT piece simply remarks about women's individual reading habits, which barely (if at all) qualifies as fandom, which is a shared activity. But let's wait for what other editors have to say on these matters. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:09, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

You should read the comment on the redlisting of YouTube "Content uploaded from a verified official account, such as that of a news organization, may be treated as originating from the uploader and therefore inheriting their level of reliability." Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources (And I only reverted once with a comment here) And the Times article is primarily about the movies actually, not reading, maybe you should read it in full properly. How is it gossip if it is verified comments at a major fandom event? (and recognized by the Tolkien Society) newsjunkie (talk) 18:16, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Redlisting is redlisting (and there were 4 different sources affected) and relevance is relevance: the latter is the immediate problem. But let's see what other editors think: I know my opinion, and yours, already. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:17, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Not really "different" sources. All official clips from the same show, just FYI. And the comments/guidelines say that links from that source should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis on the substance, rather than a blanket block without considering the context. newsjunkie (talk) 18:19, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Newjunie, why do you feel including this Stephen Colbert is beneficial to this page?Halbared (talk) 18:57, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

I think he is one of the most high-profile Tolkien fans in popular culture today as I think the evidence would support. This was the removed text about Colbert: "Talk show host Stephen Colbert has become known as a high-profile fan of the original Tolkien books and the film and TV adaptations, including making a cameo in The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug, hosting related panel discussions, and regularly referring to the stories on his shows."

He has done multiple related panels related to the film adaptations, including one featured on a recent Blueray release, and the film "Tolkien" and refers to it regularly on the show, including having the relevant actors as guests, and has discussed in other articles/interviews as well. The Tolkien Society lists him in their "famous fans" category. newsjunkie (talk) 19:07, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

The New York Times article and comment seem fine. The Stephen Colbert edits don’t work. You can’t establish that Colbert is a “high-profile fan” or any of the other things just by citing multiple occurrences of his activities. That’s WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. The point of WP:RELIABLE is that a reliable source has to draw those conclusions, not a Wikipedia editor. If no reliable source has specifically made comments to that effect, then Wikipedia’s position is that the factoid is not notable. Strebe (talk) 19:16, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

The Tolkien Society calls him a "diehard fan" https://www.tolkiensociety.org/2014/08/stephen-colbert-reveals-his-tolkien-credentials/ The Vulture/New York Magazine piece that was also cited calls him a "A longtime J.R.R. Tolkien superfan."https://www.vulture.com/2014/07/stephen-colbert-hobbit-comic-con-speech.html As it is not disputed that he is a high-profile person with a show (with high ratings in its time slot) on a major U.S. TV network (at least for now), I don't really see how it's original research to make that statement then that he is a high-profile fan if he features it regularly on his show. The clips were simply being used as evidence of those mentioned activities of featuring the stories on the show. newsjunkie (talk) 19:33, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Also wrote a piece/interviewed Peter Jackson for Entertainment Weekly, and they describe his fandom in the introduction): http://microsites.ew.com/microsite/longform/hobbit/ newsjunkie (talk) 19:40, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Five citations is a massive WP:OVERCITE. Moreover, four of the citations are from the Late Show with Stephen Colbert. That is not an WP:RS about how notable something about Stephen Colbert is. The anecdotes about things he's done or said are WP:OR and WP:SYNTH; if he's notable for it, reliable secondary sources would cover it. Notability requires in-depth coverage. One fansite and one article that mentions him as a "superfan" incidentally don't qualify.

I will note that YouTube can be a reliable source, per WP:RSPYT. As the videos in question are closely associated with the subject (Stephen Colbert), they are not reliable for the purpose of this discussion anyway. I suggest that the passage be included only if a WP:SIRS source dealing in-depth with Colbert's relationship to the Tolkien fandom can be found. EducatedRedneck (talk) 22:46, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Echoing EducatedRedneck's note that if you need 5 citations for verifying a single statement, it's quite likely WP:UNDUE. There is no other part of these subsections (that I can see) that focus on a specific individual as a fan. The only individuals I see noted are authors who were influenced in specific works. So I fail to see how it really fits and improves the article. (and @Chiswick Chap has literally hundreds of GA articles under his belt, so his experience of what is an improvement to the article is worth listening to). ButlerBlog (talk) 23:58, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

@EducatedRedneck @ButlerblogThe video sources were mainly for verifying the basic statement that the Tolkien-related content was featured on the show, and not just once, but multiple times.(If it was really only featured one time, then it would not be significant or noteworthy either.) One of the clips also includes his cameo in one of the Hobbit films, which is also mentioned in the Vulture article.

The Vulture article was the one most intended to verify the "high-profile" statement. The Vulture/New York Magazine article does not just mention just by-the-way that he is a fan, but it's in the context of him moderating a panel at fan event at Comic Con and highlighting in full a detailed speech that he gave. It's the same remarks highlighted by the Tolkien Society page. Though not actually included in the original edit, I would argue that The Tolkien Society is a respected authority in the space, and not just a random fansite. The Entertainment Weekly feature I mentioned above (one of the many times he was also invited to interview director Peter Jackson) could also replace one of the clip sources, it also characterizes his fandom in the introduction: "Colbert has long been a fan of Tolkien’s universe.... He speaks Elvish, had a cameo in The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug, and this summer hosted the Comic-Con panel for the trilogy’s final film. So Entertainment Weekly invited him to write for us about what The Hobbit and Jackson’s films have meant to him, and what it has been like to go all the way there and back again."

That also clearly shows that they recognize him as a high-profile fan. There's tons of other articles like that about him hosting panels or embedding some of the clips I mentioned, but adding too many of those would also get into even more over-cite territory. Like here from Slate: "Stephen Colbert’s love of J.R.R. Tolkien is well-documented: When not schooling scientists on the difference between Sméagol and Gollum or utterly trouncing James Franco in Lord of the Rings trivia, he’s dressing up as characters from The Hobbit or receiving sword pledges from Viggo Mortensen. So great is his love of all things Tolkien that Colbert actually scored a small cameo in The Desolation of Smaug:" Or also from Entertainment Weekly :"The Late Show host has a well-documented obsession with all things J.R.R. Tolkien, whether he's demolishing his guests in a Silmarillion trivia battle or cameo-ing in Peter Jackson's Hobbit movies. He's the kind of guy who can recite "The Fall of Gil-galad" from memory or launch into a lengthy rant about Glorfindel with zero notice. In fact, he even appeared on the cover of this very publication, dressed up as Gandalf, Legolas, and Bilbo Baggins.So, it only makes sense that Amazon tapped Colbert to host the San Diego Comic-Con panel for The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power, teasing an in-depth look at the much-hyped fantasy series." Tolkien scholar John D. Rateliff has also referred to one of his insights as being worthy of being described as a Tolkien Scholar. (yes I know that is a blog post, but I believe he is also a recognized expert.)

The objection was somehow that it it was "gossip," or "off-topic" but I really don't see how either the original Vulture article or the other articles I've added here count as that, these aren't second hand rumors or something, but documented evidence of how he is respected as an active member of the fandom. If the current version can include the section on Terry Pratchett for the 60's part then I think Colbert is equally appropriate for the 2000's (which doesn't even have that much content) as someone who has been inspired by him in his comedic writing/performance/satire, and include at least one direct example from the show. Just because he is a late-night-host and not directly literary like Pratchett or Asimov mentioned later doesn't mean he can't be respected as someone who is notable/prominent for his engagement with (and satire of) Tolkien. newsjunkie (talk) 03:56, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

I couldn't make it through this wall of text, but one thing jumped out at me: documented evidence of how he is respected as an active member of the fandom No. If we need evidence to prove something, that's WP:OR. We need a source that discusses in-WP:DEPTH how their status as an XYZ is important, not as background to "here's why he gave this speech". EducatedRedneck (talk) 11:16, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Adding my thoughts on this. There is no problem with Vulture or NYT as reliable sources, but I do think there is a question of WP:UNDUE and whether this specific information should be added. One article about Jackson's films being a particular phenomenon for "millennial women" seems dubious as far as due weight is concerned. I don't doubt that there is plenty of evidence for Colbert being a widely known Tolkien fan, but if you are going to list him as one here I think it should be in a section about high-profile fans which lists other people. It shouldn't be suggested that he is the only high-profile Tolkien fan worth mentioning. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:08, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

I am perfectly fine with other people adding others. I was just trying to "start off" with one of the most prominent that I am familiar with who seemed missing (and I do think the other sections for other years already touch on some). But the 2000s section overall honestly seems kind of the opposite of undue weight at the moment given that that those are the years the movies came out and Comic Cons became a big thing etc and other things that are probably missing. So if other people add want to add more other things as well with more depth, then the NYT article could also be included with the appropriate weight in context. Not sure it all has to happen at once though. And including one could inspire anyone to add whoever else they think is missing. newsjunkie (talk) 10:43, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Oppose. It's hard to see why we should mention individuals in an article on a social behaviour. We have no way of making a representative list (it'd be pure WP:SYNTH), and this is not a list article anyway. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:00, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

There already *are* other individuals mentioned and I am sure there are others that could be added, I don't know if needs to be a separate section or just adding others to the various years sections as appropriate. newsjunkie (talk) 11:03, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a valid argument. We've named individuals where they contribute to the fandom narrative. Arguments against Colbert have been stated clearly above by multiple editors. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:20, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

@Chiswick Chap @EducatedRedneck The additional news articles I added above would be the evidence. They illustrate how he has been invited by a prominent magazine to write about his relationship with the stories and interview the director (and featured on the cover), been invited multiple times to moderate major ComicCon panels, the only major fan that I think that is known to have cameoed in one of the movies, and give examples of how he has incorporated his fandom into the shows. How is that not contributing to the fandom narrative? (I included the relevant quotes from the articles for the argument here, I do not think they need to be included in the article itself.)newsjunkie (talk) 11:25, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

I believe all these arguments have already been addressed. Recall WP:SATISFY. EducatedRedneck (talk) 11:30, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

I just wanted to clarify that there are more than one reliable secondary news sources citing these specific examples and making connections between them (in the quotes above) to characterize him as a fan. That is not original research. You made the comment about "evidence being needed." But to me the quotes in the articles are that evidence. newsjunkie (talk) 11:39, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

As previously discussed, it is WP:SYNTH to say, "X sources mention he's a fan, so it's notable that he's a fan." That's not how it works. Have you read WP:SIGCOV and WP:PEOPLELIST? EducatedRedneck (talk) 11:54, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Entertainment Weekly and Vulture/New York Magazine are notable reliable outlets though and not accurately described as "gossip." And, again I don't personally have strong feelings whether it has to be a standalone list and whatever that entails. Just that there is enough to include at least a sentence, if not more like for Terry Pratchett. And the due weight guidelines state that content should be included "in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject," which I think is more than satisfied with with a sentence at minimum. newsjunkie (talk) 12:07, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

I don't consider the Pratchett and Colbert matters to be equivalent. What prompted me to add it was a website that you linked, which I then went to, to read and ponder on the Colbert thing, that jogged my memory on Tolkien’s letter, a letter which I read when I visited the TP exhibition in 2017. It's a direct connexion between the father of modern fantasy and Terry, who at one point in time in the 90's and 00' was the biggest seller of any books in the British market (10+% of fantasy genre and 1+% of total UK market) and the most successful fantasy author of that time (...before somebody else sold some film rights...), a connexion that Terry himself would often refer back to alongside the other references to Tolkien. The lineage between Tolkien and Terry is a fairly well-known one, but perhaps this personal exchange isn't as well known.

Also, thank you for your edits to my late night cobbling. As to Colbert, I'm still pondering and also looking at what others have to chip in on his matter.Halbared (talk) 13:06, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

I think the arguments you make in favor of Pratchett speak to including Colbert in some form as well, even if just as a sentence under the 2000s. It does not need to be a long paragraph and absolutely does not need to be a separate list. Inspiration and fandom are not limited to people who are literary authors or people who had the opportunity to directly communicate with Tolkien. Though Colbert obviously has had multiple opportunities to interact with the filmmakers/actors and like Pratchett he often refers back to Tolkien in his own creative work and is therefore part of the modern lineage. newsjunkie (talk) 18:43, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Also in a separate post also in connection with the Entertainment Weekly feature with Colbert on the cover I linked to above, Ratecliffe highlights that Colbert "probably the best-known Tolkien fan in America, [is] given the cover story for a major mass-market magazine." newsjunkie (talk) 19:00, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

In 2012 in a now archived earlier Entertainment Weekly piece, Peter Jackson is quoted as saying "“I have never met a bigger Tolkien geek in my life,” Jackson says. “Philippa Boyens is our resident Tolkien expert, and when Stephen came down to visit the set, we put him head to head with Philippa on a Tolkien quiz—and Stephen triumphed. I have to say, his encyclopedic knowledge of Tolkien is spectacular, and points to a deprived childhood in some respects.” Philippa Boyens discussed this as well in Vulture "Pete comes up and says, “Oh, Stephen and I had this hilarious idea that you’re going to have a Tolkien-off with Stephen Colbert.” And I had heard how good he was. Somebody said, “Ah, you’ll take him,” and I said, “I don’t think so. I think this is going to be really bad.” And we were probably the only two people in the room who knew if we were getting it right or wrong! Afterward, there was one where I thought, “No, he got that wrong.” And he actually wrote me a very sweet letter afterward, and he said, “I think I got one wrong.”....He got me on all the great elvish questions. In my defense, I hadn’t been able to read The Silmarillion in like the last fourteen years, because we don’t own the rights, and so we’ve deliberately kept away from a lot of that stuff. I love Tolkien, but I’m certainly no Tolkien scholar, and Stephen Colbert probably is. He’s the real deal." newsjunkie (talk) 20:20, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Technically the I'm not sure Wikipedia:SIGCOV really applies since notability is primarily for articles and not content within articles (or lists, unless that is agreed upon list selection criteria), but nearly all the news articles I've included here directly address Colbert's engagement with the fandom community with varying degrees of detail either as a main topic or in the case of the Philippa Boyen interview as a more than trivial mention. (not required to be the main topic). Colbert clearly meets the notability requirement as a person and all the news articles are reliable sources. The other sources (Tolkien Society/John Rateliffe) can be included extra if they are recognized as subject matter experts (as they appear to be for Prachett so far), but I think just the news articles by themselves would establish notability and would follow the Due Weight guideline of presenting article content "in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject." Nowhere does it say there needs be just one long detailed source, in fact some multiple sourcing is encouraged. newsjunkie (talk) 04:49, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

And the Pratchett section added yesterday includes two of the same sources that could be applied to Colbert, the Tolkien Society and Scholar John Rateliffe. newsjunkie (talk) 11:51, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

I don't consider the Tolkien Society to be independent from subjects related to Tolkien, and the Rateliffe source is a blog. EducatedRedneck (talk) 11:56, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

I would consider both to be subject matter experts at least though. See John D. Rateliff and The Tolkien Society newsjunkie (talk) 11:57, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Okay. We'll see if other editors are convinced. I'm not, but consensus doesn't require unanimity. EducatedRedneck (talk) 12:00, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Oppose as well. Per WP:NLIST, we'd need sources that say why the list is important. I also believe that, if we did make such a list, we should have the selection criteria require the notability of each inclusion to be established, per WP:CSC #1. To do otherwise would be MOS:TRIVIA. EducatedRedneck (talk) 11:20, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Oppose per Chiswick Chap; specifically, this: It's hard to see why we should mention individuals in an article on a social behaviour. ButlerBlog (talk) 13:21, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

@Chiswick Chap@Butlerblog I have no preference about whether it's a formal separate list or if there's inclusion in another form, but I think anyone who identifies with a fandom community and does more than just read or consume the material is by the very definition engaging in social behavior. That is the whole point of Fandom and can take many forms, and there are going to be some people engaged in that activity who are more prominent/noteworthy than others, whether it is engaging with other fans online, moderating/participating in panels, producing related material or commentary that is broadly consumed by others whether on TV or in literary form or something else. That is all social behavior (and engaging in a community that is made up of individuals some of whom are likely more noteworthy than others) It feels like saying that because basketball or soccer are team sports there is no need to mention individual prominent players. newsjunkie (talk) 21:14, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Oppose. Per the WP:SYNTH concerns. NacreousPuma855 (talk) 17:41, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Here is a version with adjusted/and expanded references with some of the news articles I included here, intended to be analogous to the currently included Terry Pratchett section for the 2000s section. It includes one official clip from the show as an example of how it has been featured there, others are mentioned in the Slate reference. The final sentence assumes that the John Rateliffe source is acceptable as subject matter expert (as is currently included for Terry Pratchett), but is not absolutely essential, but at minimum at least the first two sentences I think could be included if there are undue weight concerns.

"Talk show host Stephen Colbert has become known as a high-profile fan of the original Tolkien books and the film and TV adaptations, including making a cameo in The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug, hosting related panel discussions, and regularly incorporating related content in the writing and sketches on his shows. Director Peter Jackson said that he had "never met a bigger Tolkien geek in my life" and described him as having "spectacular" encyclopedic Tolkien knowledge. Screenwriter Phillipa Boyens said he could be considered a "Tolkien scholar" after she competed against him in a Tolkien quiz when he visited the Hobbit set. In 2014, he was featured in Hobbit-related costumes on the cover of Entertainment Weekly, which had invited him to write about his experience of the films and to interview Peter Jackson. Tolkien scholar John D. Rateliff has called him "probably the best-known Tolkien fan in America" and also suggested that with one of his insights, Colbert had "moved from being just a fan (albeit a famous one) to ... being a Tolkien scholar as well.""

If the current Pratchett section is acceptable as is, how would the above be any different or are there other any other objections to the sources? newsjunkie (talk) 23:03, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

@Newsjunkie You're WP:BLUDGEONing this discussion. Badly. Please stop. EducatedRedneck (talk) 00:43, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, this is getting a little annoying. Newsjunkie, the reasons we opposed were literally explained to you lots of times, and we do not have time to reply to your lengthy messages. Consensus looks like it is against including the content involved. NacreousPuma855 (talk) 01:24, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

@EducatedRedneck@NacreousPuma855 What I proposed above is not exactly the same as the original, as I incorporated the additional news sources all in one place in a paragraph *without* any long quotes and removed all the clips except one to be a verified example. Since there clearly seems to be consensus against having a separate list, I was trying to refocus the conversation on how prominent individuals should be treated in its current format given the other recent addition of Terry Pratchett (which could include some of the same sourcing). The main initial concern was about sourcing and "ancedotes" as "original research" -- all the news sources (in the Colbert section above) are "reliable secondary sources" (not "gossip") that are covering the activities as notable. So what are the criteria for including individuals in the current format (not as a separate list)? newsjunkie (talk) 01:41, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

I really don't see how any of this could fall under "gossip".★Trekker (talk) 06:23, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

The key point is that fandom is a mass activity. Individual reading of books is basically off-topic, as is individual interest: unless it can be shown to be triggering mass fandom. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:55, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Ok, but in terms of Colbert, there are clearly activities being mentioned/recognized by reliable sources that go way beyond just individually reading quietly at home, including participating at well attended relevant communal fandom events/panels, broadcasting that interest to a wide TV and worldwide Internet audience through related transformative sketches/commentary (and a magazine audience), interviewing actors/filmmakers, working together with the actors/filmmakers on set in New Zealand to make a cameo appearance in one of the major films (the only prominent fan that was featured in that way as far as I know) and creating a parody version....

The other New York Times piece also mentions fan fiction in the particular context of the article. newsjunkie (talk) 09:43, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Newsjunkie, could you please stop this barrage of lengthy comments in repetitive reply to everything. This is WP:BLUDGEON and you have already been warned about it. It is now clearly WP:DISRUPTIVE and will not be tolerated on this WikiProject. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:37, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

References

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

Criteria

How does the Terry Pratchett paragraph fail criteria? Halbared 15:02, 29 August 2025

As stated above and in the title of the article, Tolkien fandom concerns the "community of fans" and their communal activities. When they collectively indulge in "Tolkienology", debating the nature of Elves, or practice Quenya linguistics, or attend a Tolkienmoot, or gather in a crowd by Tolkien's grave, they are practising fandom. When someone reads one of Tolkien's books, they are at best only doubtfully doing something that can be identified as the action of a fan: people read books for many reasons, and the act of private reading is not in itself particularly or even essentially fanatic. Pratchett said Tolkien was his favourite fantasy author, but it's not clear whether or how that had any influence on Pratchett's writing or the fan community. Contrast that with Asimov, whose short story was intentionally a tribute, and which explicitly mentions Tolkien (fan) societies. That makes the Asimov mention slightly but definitely relevant, even if he was at best a marginal figure in Tolkien fandom; the Pratchett mention is not even clearly relevant, and as far as can be ascertained, he played no role at all in Tolkien fandom. That makes him definitely off-topic; and if anybody wants to argue that Asimov played no significant role in Tolkien fandom and should be removed, I'd not oppose it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:33, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

I think there should be a broader conversation/an RFC discussing what the criteria for inclusion in this article should be discussing all the recent proposed additions in context. By the definition and examples of "communal activities" you mention, per the reliable sources particularly in my second proposal, Colbert arguably meets the criteria more than Pratchett does with several documented communal activities at ComicCon and other panels, engaging in Tolkienology with others, that go beyond "private reading" and public tributes in his creative work to Tolkien. And I personally also feel that fandom is how about one identifies oneself as being part of a fandom community, and so that if it can be ascertained per reliable sources that a prominent person is part of that and notable for that reason, that can also be included. newsjunkie (talk) 18:13, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Terry Pratchett became one of the most prominent parodists of Tolkien in the 80's, 90's and 00's. If Bored of the rings is here, it seems range that TP should not be, as BotR was a blip in The USA, and its cultural significant is negligible, whereas TP was the most prominent part of British fantasy/scifi literature for three decades, his works being known for being a parody and then satire to Tolkien, his first novel (The Carpet People) starting out as a homage to Tolkien; being recognised as having that special place in the fandom by the Tolkien Society by being the 1991 guest of honour in Cardiff, which was followed by contributing to After The King by writing, "Troll Bridge" for it, another homage which honoured those older ideas of heroes and how they acted.Halbared (talk) 19:05, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

I agree with this scope. If WP:RS describe how someone impacted the fandom (e.g., Peter Jackson who arethe article does NOT identify as a fan), then they should be mentioned. If they're just a person who happens to be a fan, they should be excluded. To try to include people who are fans but did not impact the fandom opens the door to pointless arguments, such as "Is person X or person Y more prominent? Which one should be mentioned?" If you want a list of people who are fans of Tolkien, start a list article. EducatedRedneck (talk) 22:23, 29 August 2025 (UTC)EducatedRedneck (talk) 00:19, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

I think you have a typo/missing word in the part of your comment/example about Peter Jackson, a little unclear at the moment what you mean there. newsjunkie (talk) 22:31, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Good catch, thank you! To clarify, I'm pointing out that we have, in the article now, a mention of Peter Jackson, even though none of the cited sources identify him as a Tolkien Fan. Therefore the criteria for inclusion in this article, I suggest, should be: "Does an RS discuss how the person impacted the Tolkien Fandom?" 00:19, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

There are several mentions of Peter Jackson in the article, but that is as the director of the major big budget film adaptation, which obviously did impact fandom, so not sure if he falls in the same category as the other people (and he's obviously also a fan otherwise he wouldn't have dedicated the effort to make the movies) . In terms of fan creations, you can have people like Pratchett, Asimov and Colbert who produce Tolkien inspired content on a professional level either in literary form or TV sketch form, but then the vast majority of fandom for Tolkien or any cultural text is probably more unofficial content like memes or fanfiction or fansites. In Pratchett's case there is also the documented interaction with Tolkien himself, which can also be part of fandom. And for more modern day people, to what extent should interaction with/recognition by people like Peter Jackson and other people involved with the movies/TV adaptations be a criteria (not to mention Tolkien scholars)? That would apply in Colbert's case for example. newsjunkie (talk) 00:38, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

Per WP:OR, if something is only covered in sources that aren't reliable such as memes or fansites, it shouldn't be on Wikipedia. As for the rest, what you've said seems to fail the litmus test of "Have WP:RS discussed the subject's impact on the fandom?" That someone interacted with Tolkien, or sat on panels, or played in a movie, are not equivalent to a source stating, "Person X had Y impact on the Tolkien Fandom." (And no, we have no guarantee that Jackson was a Tolkien fan. Money is a big motivator for folks to join a project, and without a RS to say, our opinions on which it is don't matter a whit.) So "to what extend should interactions with Tolkien/movies/etc be a factor?" The answer is "not at all". It doesn't matter what we think of someone's impact on the fandom. It only matters what RS say on the matter. Any other criteria is vague and prone to countless arguments over whether Person X has the right fame/interaction with Tolkien or Jackson/whatever. EducatedRedneck (talk) 01:15, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

But at least in Colbert's case all these activities *have* been covered by multiple reliable sources in the context of him being a fan, which also give them notability, including being invited to host high-profile related panels, Entertainment Weekly's choice to put him on the cover as a Tolkien fan, inviting him to write about his relationship to the material and to interview Peter Jackson. There's certainly plenty of reliable sources to be found that would establish Peter Jakson as a Tolkien fan and that would also establish him (and screenwriter Philippa Boyen) as Tolkien experts in their own right, so that their opinion of somebody like Colbert and their decision to give him a cameo in the film and participate in related sketches is also significant.

The fan websites are already mentioned in the article and I assume the sourcing for them is appropriate.My point is more that Jackson as the director of the adaptation that people are a fan of as written in the intro is not in the same category as the people who are fans of the books and those adaptations. As it states in the top "A Ringer is a fan of The Lord of the Rings in general, and of Peter Jackson's live-action film trilogy in particular." newsjunkie (talk) 02:41, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

Newsjunkie, you're bludgeoning again. If you don't see the distinction between, "Sources say Colbert is a fan. Colbert did XYZ things" and "Sources say Colbert impacted the fandom in XYZ ways", then you might want to reread WP:SYNTH for a reminder that we can only say what the sources say, not draw conclusions about what logically follows. EducatedRedneck (talk) 02:26, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

The initial sentence I have does not make that interpretation, it just describes him as a high-profile fan based on communal and notable activities as detailed in reliable sources, leaving it to readers to draw such a conclusion. Sources like Entertainment Weekly and Slate refer to his fandom as "well-documented" and go on to describe the same activities I listed as examples, so I don't see any Synth in the first sentence.

The questions are: do his activities count as a)communal activities and engaging in fandom as detailed above and b) are those activities more or less or equally relevant/impactful than Terry Pratchett/Isaac Asimov based on existing or other sources and c) is recognition by relevant figures like Peter Jackson/screenwriter Philippa Boyens(and possibly John Rateliffe) notable as quoted by reliable sources, like them saying "I've never met a bigger Tolkien geek in my life" or saying he could be considered a "Tolkien scholar." newsjunkie (talk) 03:15, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Newsjunkie, as EducatedRedneck says, you are once again massively WP:BLUDGEONing all and sundry on this a separate thread, which is not acceptable. You are also trying to use this thread to revisit the only-just-closed thread in which you failed to get support for your Colbert ideas. Please respect consensus, and the rules on talk pages. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:41, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Your definition above and examples of "communal activities" and "practicing fandom" seem to describe exactly the activities I was describing per the sources so I'm trying to respect consensus and seeking to understand what exactly the criteria are and that they are being applied consistently to everyone, Pratchett, Colbert, Asimov and anyone else. newsjunkie (talk) 07:51, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

You are always ready to reply to everyone, many times over, and your proposal has been rejected by the community. It would really help if you would stick with that decision, and stop trying repeatedly to restate your case. Please count your interventions, here and above, and you will see what I mean. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:10, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Yes. We must stay within what reliable sources say. If Pratchett was indeed doing all those fan things then he's certainly relevant; the earlier mention failed to make the appropriate connections. Chiswick Chap (talk) 02:42, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

Could you clarify your thoughts on how the various additional sources I have mentioned on Colbert's communal/tribute activities match the criteria? (Or not) They include various mainstream news articles. The comments from John Rateliff can be extra if the source is considered appropriate. newsjunkie (talk) 02:51, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

References