Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Women in The Lord of the Rings/2

Women in The Lord of the Rings

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Kept There is general consensus here that the article meets the GA criteria. Some points for improvement have been noted, but many go beyond what the GA criteria require. Aircorn (talk) 22:01, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

If this reassessment is vandalized again I will have no choice but to seek admin intervention. Anyone is welcome to participate in the discussion, but until it's clear that a consensus has been reached in the discussion on this page - or that no consensus has been reached after several weeks of open discussion - the Good Article Reassessment notice should remain in place. Please abide by Wikipedia policy and don't do any more sneaky edits. There is a record of every change and the admins can see who did what.Michael Martinez (talk) 13:38, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

The following are comments from the original reassessment discussion. I can only copy them here and don't have time to re-edit. The decision cannot be made within a couple of days of the proposal.Michael Martinez (talk) 13:46, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

No, it's clear admin intervention is required to deal with your disruptive edits, your incivility, and your refusal to listen to feedback from the community about your attitude. Within the first 2 days, four editors who have spoken out on the Women in The Lord of the Rings GAR talk page indicate that you do not appear to understand Wikipedia guidelines and policies afterall. ​If you disagree with the early close, you should have made an appeal, not unilaterally decide that you now have the right to reassess this article's GA status on your own after you realized that you have zero support from the community so far. Your time on Wikipedia will not end well for you if you insist on carrying on the way you are now.

@Hog Farm: @Carcharoth: Haleth (talk) 13:57, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Please confine your comments to the topic of discussion. This article proposal cannot be settled in the space of two days, especially without a chance for rebuttal discussion and clarification.Michael Martinez (talk) 14:00, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Begin copied comments

Copied comments

This article does not represent a neutral point of view. Furthermore, it appears to constitute original research, in that most of it was written by one person. Wikipedia is not an appropriate platform for idolizing authors and the article appears to be strongly biased toward a defense of J.R.R. Tolkien's fiction against criticisms. I have elected to use the community reassessment path as the purpose of reassessment is to help improve articles. If the failure to create and maintain a neutral point of view can be resolved, then that will meet community standards (in my opinion). Michael Martinez (talk) 18:16, 30 May 2021 (UTC) I created the article; it has been contributed to, quite substantially, by Haleth, and was reviewed, thoroughly and systematically, by Amitchell125. To reply to Michael Martinez's points briefly but I hope clearly: Neutrality, including "idolizing authors" and bias towards a defense of J.R.R. Tolkien's fiction against criticisms: I'd be curious to know what in the article constituted "idolization", as the text presents and attributes by name many scholars' and other people's points of view, some of them definitely hostile to Tolkien. Further, the text makes clear that Tolkien did have "conservative views about women", as seen both in his own cited statements and in the opinions of both femininist and non-feminist scholars. By the same token, the article is strenuously anti-bias; it presents and attributes views for, against, and in-between, and none of them are editorial. The article groups different opinions into subsections, but does not favour any of them. Far from defending Tolkien, it presents him warts and all as scholars and others have seen him. Some of that is certainly unflattering. "Original research" because "most of it was written by one person": this is not the definition of Original Research (OR) in Wikipedia policy. It doesn't matter how many editors are involved; the key is that OR is characterised by an editor's invention rather than the accurate use of cited sources. Colleagues will note that a) the article is fully cited, i.e. every statement is cited to a Reliable Source; b) there are 59 citations from a wide variety of sources; authors include journalists and scholars of different disciplines, while primary (Tolkien-dependent) material is carefully separated; c) the statements made in the article are all attributed to named scholars, so there is no editorial opinion in the article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:02, 30 May 2021 (UTC) This article is essentially a personal essay expressing unsubstantiated opinions. That violates the Original Research principle (Cf. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research ). It's true you've added a few citations, but Wikipedia is not a community for shared research and essays. The Tolkien and Middle-earth articles have been egregious victims of misguided editing in the past. They were once part of a featured series of articles that the broader editor community eventually deleted because it was inappropriate fan material. Your contributions constitute a pattern of Disruptive Editing (Cf. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing ) because you're using these articles to advocate your own point of view (thus also violating the Neutral Point of View principle - Cf. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view ). This isn't something where one argues and wins in the Talk pages. It's something where the editorial community has come together and agreed on a set of policies that are used to decide which articles remain, how they are to be maintained, and what they should and should not cover. Please review the guidelines and amend your contributions as required. And don't propose your own contributions for Good Article status. Let others make that determination without any input or incentivization from you.Michael Martinez (talk) 19:13, 30 May 2021 (UTC) No, an essay has a goal, and an essayist selects materials and speaks in his or her own voice to persuade readers of that one thing. I have not just added "a few citations"; I've read, paraphrased, and cited about 50 books and journal articles for the Wikipedia article, not counting Tolkien's books and letters. It presents many points of view neutrally, whether they favour Tolkien or not. It is wholly inappropriate of you to suggest that creating and citing one or more articles on a topic is disruptive; indeed, it's the opposite, it's the purpose of Wikipedia. It is entirely in line with the Good Article instructions to nominate articles one has worked on, indeed it's the usual approach. Finally, it is inappropriate and uncivil to accuse me of "incentivization" of any other editor - I've never offered anybody any sort of inducement, and you should not be casting aspersions of that or any other kind. I've no idea why you are speaking in that way, but it is not collegiate. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:26, 30 May 2021 (UTC) "I've read, paraphrased, and cited about 50 books and journal articles for the Wikipedia article, not counting Tolkien's books and letters." Yes. You used this Wikipedia page to write an essay. Wikipedia is not a platform for personal essays and POV. "The goal of a Wikipedia article is to present a neutrally written summary of existing mainstream knowledge in a fair and accurate manner with a straightforward, 'just-the-facts style'. Articles should have an encyclopedic style with a formal tone instead of essay-like, argumentative, promotional or opinionated writing." (Cf. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Purpose ) Now, that's not a policy page, but good Wikipedia articles follow that guidance. A good article doesn't document every detail that is important to 1 author. A good article provides a framework of information that is useful to the broader community.Michael Martinez (talk) 19:41, 30 May 2021 (UTC) Looking up sources and using them is the normal way to expand an article. The article does not present an editorial opinion (I didn't, and don't, have one on the matter), but presents and summarizes published opinion fairly, clearly, and accurately, with full attribution. The article does not promote anything, nor does it favour any particular scholar or opinion, but presents all of them plainly and concisely. Both of us seem to have stated our positions repeatedly now, so it may be best to wait see what others think. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:51, 30 May 2021 (UTC) The purpose of this discussion is to improve the article. The article as written does not meet Wikipedia guidelines for Good Article status. Nor should it remain in its current state as it doesn't serve the purpose of an encyclopedic article. It needs revision. At the very least, you have the option of scaling back some of your contributions to make the article more general and informative to the broader reading audience. Michael Martinez (talk) 19:55, 30 May 2021 (UTC) Obviously I don't agree with that, but since each sentence in the article expresses the opinion of some or other scholar or commentator, scaling some of them back would risk unbalancing the article and introducing accidental bias towards whatever is left, so any such move would have to be made very carefully; but anything is possible if there's consensus for it. The purpose of an encyclopedia article on a literary subject is to present the range of opinions that are held on it, as clearly and plainly as possible, which is what the article does. The "more general" articles are those further up the tree, starting with the article on Tolkien himself; by the time the reader has reached an article on XYZ in book ABC, the reader will be aware that the subject has become a bit more specialised; that is the nature of a large topic with subtopics. I'm completely willing to fix anything that's misleading, difficult to read, or whatever, if you'll tell me what exactly needs doing. As it stands, it presents the facts clearly and neutrally. Since most of what has been written on the subject is by scholars, we can't avoid expressing scholarly opinion; but I've been careful to be as simple and clear as possible, and am happy to adjust anything you find difficult. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:04, 30 May 2021 (UTC) I'd start with the article title. Instead of "Women in The Lord of the Rings", I suggest "Literary Criticism of Women in the Lord of the Rings". The original article title would be better used to list female characters in The Lord of the Rings (but I don't think such articles are permitted on Wikipedia). There is already a category page listing characters in the story (Cf. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:The_Lord_of_the_Rings_characters ). A secondary category for female characters might be accepted - especially as there is a large category of female characters in literature. For literary criticism of the characters, the "Tolkien's Background" section is inappropriate. This is the element that constitutes the strongest defense of Tolkien and original research. Keeping in mind that the article should appeal to the broader community, if the article is revised to address literary criticism then this section should include references to literary criticism that address his background (and how it may have influenced women in the story). Citing Tolkien's own works doesn't contribute toward such a discussion. On the other hand, if the article is revised to only describe the women in the story then this entire section should be removed. The section about "A Role for Women" is suitable for an article about literary criticism of women in the story. It's not suitable for an article describing the female characters (which as I stated above, I don't believe would be accepted by the Wikipedia community).Michael Martinez (talk) Happy to rename if people think that's best. However "Literary criticism of" implies this is purely literary, which isn't the case; for a start it's in newspapers and Tolkien journals too, and debated by feminists and by Christian authors as well as by literary scholars. So we'd need to be sure we had a better title; the current title has the merit of simplicity and neutrality. The background of Tolkien in an all-male environment is plainly relevant, not least because multiple commentators and scholars have mentioned it as a major factor. Since (per the paragraph above) I doubt that reframing the article to be purely literary would be a good idea, I similarly doubt that trying to exclude all non-literary matters would make sense. We could repeat citations in the background section, but frankly it's fine for a background/context to give the background of the rest of the discussion; this is actually part of what you were asking for, namely to make the context of the article clear so that more general readers could find their way in. Making the article context-free, more technical and more specialised would make the article much less readable for general readers. The article doesn't just describe the female characters (that would be a list article, and we already have List of Middle-earth characters). Since it's not a list article, discussing what roles women play in the book, as understood by commentators, is certainly relevant. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:30, 30 May 2021 (UTC) Sorry, but this GAR is nonsense. Just from skimming the article it appears especially neutral and uses a wide variety of opinions from different scholars. I'm not left feeling particularly inclined to agree with one side or the other and whatever "in that most of it was written by one person" means, is completely irrelevant. If anything, the proposals by the nominator would ruin the neutrality; the title "Literary Criticism of Women in the Lord of the Rings" suggests a bias and would also change the scope of the article. I guess the article could include Tolkien's all-male background (if commentators do actually use it in the context of this article's subject) but such an issue is by no means reason for a full out GAR. Aza24 (talk) 00:26, 31 May 2021 (UTC) Keep: The page adheres to all of the GA criteria. The re-assessment opener makes some serious allegations of disruptive editing that are left entirely unsupported. Furthermore, statements like "don't propose your own contributions for Good Article status" display a lack of knowledge regarding the Good article process. Quoting from the first instruction: "Anyone may nominate an article to be reviewed for GA, although it is preferable that nominators have contributed significantly to the article and are familiar with its subject and its cited sources" (my emphasis). This reassessment should be closed before Chiswick's time is wasted one minute longer. Tkbrett (✉) 02:00, 31 May 2021 (UTC) Reading through I had a few moments where I didn't feel the tone was that encyclopaedic (eg. A question as a header), and the split between "powerful" and "ordinary" does not feel like the right wording, but I'm not seeing any original research. A lot of outside commentators are explicitly referenced within the text. If there are a significant number of prominent yet absent opinions, or if any of the existing opinions are being misinterpreted here, that would be a cause for concern, but no evidence of such has been provided. If such evidence does emerge, I would suggest first initiating a discussion on the matter on the talkpage, so it can be added, rather than jumping to GAR. CMD (talk) 10:17, 31 May 2021 (UTC) Keep: This presents as a frivolous, possibly mischievous proposal (and that is the generous interpretation). If the OP is to be taken at face value, then they clearly do not grasp how an article can be assessed for balance or whether it is based on original research. The OP has not offered one concrete demonstration of where or how the article exhibits lack of balance or original research. They are wasting other editors time with wild, unsubstantiated accusations, and the thread should be closed. — Epipelagic (talk) 07:34, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Please reply below this line

It is difficult to find a comparable article to this one elsewhere on Wikipedia, although my time is limited. The problem with the current title is that it doesn't describe what the article is about. And given that the article is still in essay format it still needs revision. Wikipedia articles are not supposed to explain things from your (the article author) point of view. The Tolkien's background section is opinion and the fact you're citing things doesn't make it not-opinion. It's equivalent to saying "Tolkien was a man of his times". The author of the book provides very little insight into the roles of women in his fiction, and his personal letters were not intended to explain the story elements to a general audience.

A Wikipedia article should only provide a summary of what is relevant to its topic. Tolkien's comments could be mentioned in a shorter paragraph further down. However, the "A story about men for boys" section is also inappropriate (not least because the book was written as a response to the request from his publisher for "more about hobbits"). These opinion sections should be removed and their relevant points summarized in a shorter section.Michael Martinez (talk) 13:58, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm traveling today and can't contribute much to the discussion, but MM, there's already been a discussion at the GAR that concluded that the article is fine. Wikipedia is a consensus project, even if you disagree with the consensus. WP:DROPTHESTICK or you may find yourself topic banned. Hog Farm _Talk 16:13, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

I shouldn't have to remind you guys (especially you, Hog Farm, given that you're an admin - you should know better) that a Good Article reassessment can be initiated by any editor at any time who has a concern about the article's status. The points I raised were not discussed previously and they are legitimate. Your action on the reassessment was inappropriate, as is your threat to block me from the topic. Furthermore, you have failed to disclose your conflict of interest in this discussion in that you have a history of supporting Chiswick Chap (Cf. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_soliciting_of_cliques ).Michael Martinez (talk) 04:44, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Looking at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Women in The Lord of the Rings/1, you've got five editors stating that there's no original research, I don't see any, and it doesn't seem like Haleth is seeing any if I'm reading their comments correctly, either. There's a pretty clear consensus that this article (while maybe some prose work in places would help) doesn't contain serious sourcing issues. I see above you object to the "story about men for boys" section, which is cited inline to Wood and Croft/Donovan, both of which appear to be scholarly RS. In order to continue to state that that is problematic, you will need demonstrate through sources that Wood and Croft/Donovan are misused here, or provide high-quality RS to provide a balancing viewpoint here. I'm also not threatening to block you myself, and I have no COI with Chiswick Chap - passing their GA reviews in the past does not create a clique, it creates a collegial project to assess articles for quality. Nobody is trying to bury the GAR, it's just that there's gathering a fairly clear consensus against your arguments. You're going to need to provide direct quotes to high-quality RS (ideally from multiple authors) in order to back up your case here, or this GAR is not going anywhere. Hog Farm _Talk 05:11, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Honesty is always the best policy. You do have a history with the Chiswick Chap and you should know fully well that the Reassessment was bulldozed before I could see or respond to the other editors' comments. Haleth has made it clear he called you in to do a hit job, and that he thinks you should be blocking me and perhaps dropping other punishments on me. I suggest you and I stand down. Your behavior was inappropriate but not egregious. In less than 2 years you've made a lot of contributions to Wikipedia. Don't get drawn into Haleth's personal vendettas. I will not comment further on this page.Michael Martinez (talk)

Procedural note

Individual GA reassessments, per the instructions, are only allowed if the article hasn't been reassessed before AND it is not expected to be controversial. This article does not meet either condition. (t · c) buidhe 14:06, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, however, the rapid removal of the previous reassessment discussion necessitates a slight change in procedure in order to keep the discussion going - preferably without the hostile reactions. This article does not meet the criteria for Good Article status. The purpose of the reassessment discussion is to improve the article, not to delete it or remove the Good Article status. As noted above, 2 days' discussion isn't sufficient for ending the proposal. Please respect the process from this point forward and stop trying to bury the proposal. Michael Martinez (talk) 15:18, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that the open hostility you and others expressed on the Good Article Nominations talk page (without linking to my profile so that I would not be notified) constitute a very disturbing act of omission. Instead of plotting to send me to arbitration or some other kind of review, either contribute to the discussion or let it proceed uninterrupted.Michael Martinez (talk) 15:38, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Move to community reassessment

As it is indeed the case, per buidhe above, that once an article has been reassessed only community reassessments are allowed thereafter, I have moved this page to the proper name for a second community reassessment from its unallowed individual reassessment placement and adjusted the boilerplate at the top of the page to reflect this move. The reassessment, which has not been posted to for over a month, is free to continue. It will ultimately be closed by an independent closer at some point in the future. I suggest that several weeks at least elapse before the closure is done to allow plenty of time for additional commentary on the reassessment now that it is visible to the community. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:00, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Keep per my comments made during the first reassessment. Tkbrett (✉) 00:36, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Keep - I'm yet to see any specific sources brought up to back up claimed issues. Hog Farm _Talk 20:18, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Keep - well, I'm not sure of the procedure here as it seems to me this second reassessment is entirely out of order. However, I've replied in detail to the points above, and I don't think any of the small points below are of any substance. If whoever decides to close this case wants action on some of the points below, please just ping me and let me know what may be needed; my view is that the article is in fact robustly cited, clearly written, certainly covers "the main points" as in the GA criteria, and is completely neutral. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:07, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Suggested Edits

• The introductory sentence represents an opinion and offers no supporting evidence: "The roles of women in The Lord of the Rings have often been assessed as insignificant, or important only in relation to male characters in a story about men for boys." The subsequent citation of Weronika Łaszkiewicz's paper doesn't substantiate the claim in the first sentence. Her paper doesn't cite many others and spends a fair amount of time discussing the portrayal of women in the movies (with which Tolkien himself had nothing to do). The second paragraph continues into opinion after citing the paper. The 3rd paragraph opens with an ambiguous "other commentators". The summary should be shortened to one paragraph that explains what is in the Wikipedia article (see my next point). Any reference to Łaszkiewicz's work should be confined to the main article itself since the Wikipedia article is not specifically about her work.

• The "Tolkien's Background" section doesn't provide proper context. As I said previously, it provides a defense of Tolkien from an original POV. In fact, the article goes on to contrast the roles of women in the movies with the roles of women in the book, but this paragraph and the opening summary suggest that only Tolkien's fiction is being discussed. I suggest the section be expanded to include Peter Jackson's background and the paragraphs about Tolkien's influences be moved to their own section. Jackson's influences should also be addressed in a separate section.

• The opening sentence in "Roles for women" says the story "has repeatedly been discussed as being a story about men for boys" but the two citations provided only rebut inspecific accusers. I suggest the first sentence be omitted and a couple of other citations be added after the Catherine Stimpson quote. Patridge and O'Connor would provide examples and get the point across that more than 1 critic has accused Tolkien of chauvinism.

• I suggest the title of this section be changed to "Negative criticism of roles for women" or something similar. A follow up section titled "Positive criticism of roles for women" would be appropriate. Show the reader the two points of view fairly.

• The title "The Powerful Women" seems a bit over the top. I suggest the title be changed to reflect the importance of these women to the literary plot.

• The contrasting of the movie portrayals to the literary portrayals seems inadequate. It only begins with Rosie. Having been interviewed about Galadriel's role in the story by the media, I know there was popular interest and debate in her portrayal in the media. The controversy is completely overlooked (although my interview was only in connection with the 'Hobbit' movies).

I don't object to the article and don't feel it should be deleted. That was certainly never my proposal. But the arguments I've seen around the role of women in the book are poorly represented here. I think there should be a fair amount of more recent media (non-scholarly) discussion of the Tolkien and Jackson's portrayal of women. There was a huge controversy about the proposed rewriting and expansion of Arwen's role for the movies at the time. There seems no mention of that. Much more work should be done to improve the article. Michael Martinez (talk) 13:09, 12 July 2021 (UTC)