Tolkien Censorship at Wikipedia

[Louis Epstein]

[adding intended crosspost]

At Wikipedia,a user known as "Chiswick Chap" has taken it upon
itself to enforce that site's ludicrous rules on articles affecting
Tolkien,claiming to have "scoured and renewed",with a link to their
article on the chapter "The Scouring of the Shire",much of the
Tolkien coverage.
In the furtherance of their pathetic "Must Not be Invented Here Syndrome"
(obsessed with publishing only things regurgitated from elsewhere rather
than anything of independent value),he refuses to allow simple observations
of obvious differences between the Bakshi film and the books,such as
Legolas being the Elf the hobbits meet en route to Rivendell rather
than Glorfindel,or Saruman being intermittently called "Aruman" and
robed in red,in a section ostensibly listing differences between the
book and film...immediately deleting an edit as "unsourced" (the film
and book themselves are the best sources possible) and deleting a
remonstration on his talk page as "abuse of his talk page".
Scouring of the Shire,indeed.
"If I hear 'Not Allowed' much oftener..."
Well,I'm now on a TEN YEAR ban from there,given my defiance of
other biases and policies...and Tolkien-specific wikis have been
intermittent on accepting my contributions...but I am considering
creating a proper fork for sane editing.
-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.

[Julian Bradfield]

In the furtherance of their pathetic "Must Not be Invented Here Syndrome"
(obsessed with publishing only things regurgitated from elsewhere rather
than anything of independent value),he refuses to allow simple observations

If you don't understand why Wikipedia works as it does, perhaps you
should just not care about it.

The prohibition of primary research is of course irritating - I'm an
expert on quite a lot of (genuine technical) things, but I still can't
write on them other than by citing published work.
However, it does have an obvious purpose: if something is stated on
Wikipedia, you should be able to trace it to a reputable published
source, not some random loony on the Internet.
Those of who use Wikipidia professionally (I tell all my students that
it's a very valuable resource) appreciate that it doesn't allow
"primary research" - otherwise the articles on, say, NP-completeness
or Goedel incompleteness would be full of stuff by crackpots claiming
to have solved/refuted them.

[Louis Epstein]

Post by Julian Bradfield

In the furtherance of their pathetic "Must Not be Invented Here Syndrome"
(obsessed with publishing only things regurgitated from elsewhere rather
than anything of independent value),he refuses to allow simple observations

If you don't understand why Wikipedia works as it does, perhaps you
should just not care about it.

It is better to stay angry and create a superior alternative.
(What justifications they offer are insufficient...it's not a
matter of not understanding,but of not forgiving).

Post by Julian Bradfield
The prohibition of primary research is of course irritating - I'm an
expert on quite a lot of (genuine technical) things, but I still can't
write on them other than by citing published work.

And this is completely unjustifiable...
The Tolkien book and the film adaptation are both "published works"
and that they differ in a particular way is a matter of evident fact
that should not be treated as needing any further verification.

Post by Julian Bradfield
However, it does have an obvious purpose: if something is stated on
Wikipedia, you should be able to trace it to a reputable published
source, not some random loony on the Internet.

Sometimes one can know better than a "reputable published source"
(I trust the CEO of a company with an article as to where its name
came from over the story his grandfather the founder told a prominent
newspaper they quote in the article).

Sometimes information is so widely distributed that the supposed
citation of a "source" is entirely an act of arbitrary bias.

If all you have is what other people have already said,
nobody needs what you have to say,just your bibliography.

Post by Julian Bradfield
Those of who use Wikipidia professionally (I tell all my students that
it's a very valuable resource) appreciate that it doesn't allow
"primary research" - otherwise the articles on, say, NP-completeness
or Goedel incompleteness would be full of stuff by crackpots claiming
to have solved/refuted them.

As I said,I would like to create a fork that only I can edit
(though others can PROPOSE edits for my review).I would be
putting back a lot of unjustly deleted articles and overturning
a lot of biased policies.

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.

[Paul S Person]

On Sun, 6 Feb 2022 18:52:59 +0000 (UTC), Julian Bradfield

Post by Julian Bradfield

In the furtherance of their pathetic "Must Not be Invented Here Syndrome"
(obsessed with publishing only things regurgitated from elsewhere rather
than anything of independent value),he refuses to allow simple observations

If you don't understand why Wikipedia works as it does, perhaps you
should just not care about it.
The prohibition of primary research is of course irritating - I'm an
expert on quite a lot of (genuine technical) things, but I still can't
write on them other than by citing published work.
However, it does have an obvious purpose: if something is stated on
Wikipedia, you should be able to trace it to a reputable published
source, not some random loony on the Internet.
Those of who use Wikipidia professionally (I tell all my students that
it's a very valuable resource) appreciate that it doesn't allow
"primary research" - otherwise the articles on, say, NP-completeness
or Goedel incompleteness would be full of stuff by crackpots claiming
to have solved/refuted them.

That is all very well but, as Louis Epstein points out in his reply,
both the book and the film are public works, and comparing two public
works which millions of people have experienced is not a form of
crackpottery.

Not to mention the possibility that such comparisons have been
published. Or that anyone who has experienced both can point them out.

Which gets us to another of his points: take the prohibition to
extremes and stating "grass is green" would be prohibited because it
is "original research". Common knowledge is, well, /common/.

Note that I am interpreting his points through my own filters. He is
free to disavow my examples.

[Julian Bradfield]

Post by Paul S Person
That is all very well but, as Louis Epstein points out in his reply,
both the book and the film are public works, and comparing two public
works which millions of people have experienced is not a form of
crackpottery.

But it is the word of a random on the internet, which can only be
checked by re-doing the research oneself.
Rightly or wrongly, Wikipedia thinks that material published by real
publishers is more likely to be accurate than randoms on the net.

Post by Paul S Person
Not to mention the possibility that such comparisons have been
published. Or that anyone who has experienced both can point them out.

If they have been published, there's a source.

Post by Paul S Person
Which gets us to another of his points: take the prohibition to
extremes and stating "grass is green" would be prohibited because it
is "original research". Common knowledge is, well, /common/.

It is not hard to find a published reference for the greenness of
grass.

There's nothing specific to Wikipedia about this policy - all
reputable encyclopaedias do the same. Any article considered by
Britannica must have a full list of sources so that the research
editor can check the accuracy of the article.

Is Britannica a "pile of vomit" too, because it doesn't commission
original research?

[Michael F. Stemper]

Post by Julian Bradfield

Post by Paul S Person
That is all very well but, as Louis Epstein points out in his reply,
both the book and the film are public works, and comparing two public
works which millions of people have experienced is not a form of
crackpottery.

But it is the word of a random on the internet, which can only be
checked by re-doing the research oneself.
Rightly or wrongly, Wikipedia thinks that material published by real
publishers is more likely to be accurate than randoms on the net.

Post by Paul S Person
Not to mention the possibility that such comparisons have been
published. Or that anyone who has experienced both can point them out.

If they have been published, there's a source.

One of the regulars on rec.arts.sf.written corrected his date of birth
in the wikipedia article about him. The correction was rejected because
it was original research. Completely within the policy of "cited information
only".

So rejecting information about LotR because it has no citation is hardly
"Tolkien Censorship". What it is is consistent with their published policies.

[Louis Epstein]

Post by Michael F. Stemper

Post by Julian Bradfield

Post by Paul S Person
That is all very well but, as Louis Epstein points out in his reply,
both the book and the film are public works, and comparing two public
works which millions of people have experienced is not a form of
crackpottery.

But it is the word of a random on the internet, which can only be
checked by re-doing the research oneself.
Rightly or wrongly, Wikipedia thinks that material published by real
publishers is more likely to be accurate than randoms on the net.

Post by Paul S Person
Not to mention the possibility that such comparisons have been
published. Or that anyone who has experienced both can point them out.

If they have been published, there's a source.

One of the regulars on rec.arts.sf.written corrected his date of birth
in the wikipedia article about him. The correction was rejected because
it was original research. Completely within the policy of "cited information
only".
So rejecting information about LotR because it has no citation is hardly
"Tolkien Censorship". What it is is consistent with their published policies.

Which policies constitute indefensible censorship
best described as such.

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.

[Matěj Cepl]

Post by Michael F. Stemper

Post by Julian Bradfield
If they have been published, there's a source.

One of the regulars on rec.arts.sf.written corrected his date of birth
in the wikipedia article about him. The correction was rejected because
it was original research. Completely within the policy of "cited information
only".

I have similar problem. Although I fully support this policy (it
just makes sense) I can see its problematic part as well. I am a
grand-son of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ji%C5%99%C3%AD_Trnka
and I haven’t managed to fix his page because the only
source I could find to support my claim was “I have asked
my Mum, his daughter.” (The censorhship of his film
“Ruka” (The Hand) after 1970 was not only because of its
obvious content, but also because he was a signator of
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Two_Thousand_Words)). I would
have to write a scholarly paper on this topic just to make a
one-line change to the page.

Best,

Matěj

[Louis Epstein]

Post by Matěj Cepl

Post by Michael F. Stemper

Post by Julian Bradfield
If they have been published, there's a source.

One of the regulars on rec.arts.sf.written corrected his date of birth
in the wikipedia article about him. The correction was rejected because
it was original research. Completely within the policy of "cited information
only".

I have similar problem. Although I fully support this policy (it
just makes sense) I can see its problematic part as well. I am a
grand-son of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ji%C5%99%C3%AD_Trnka
and I haven?t managed to fix his page because the only
source I could find to support my claim was ?I have asked
my Mum, his daughter.? (The censorhship of his film
?Ruka? (The Hand) after 1970 was not only because of its
obvious content, but also because he was a signator of
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Two_Thousand_Words)). I would
have to write a scholarly paper on this topic just to make a
one-line change to the page.
Best,
Mat?j

...and they would much rather have someone else read your paper
and cite it,than have you say so yourself.

There's a company with an article about it that cites a newspaper
story quoting the founder as to where its name came from.
The company's president/chairman/CEO (that founder's grandson)
told me the real story was something else,and I trust him...not
their "reliable sources".

If I wrote an article somewhere saying he told me that,a
reader of that article would be respected but neither the
CEO nor I would be.

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.

[kyonshi]

Post by Matěj Cepl

Post by Michael F. Stemper

Post by Julian Bradfield
If they have been published, there's a source.

One of the regulars on rec.arts.sf.written corrected his date of birth
in the wikipedia article about him. The correction was rejected because
it was original research. Completely within the policy of "cited information
only".

I have similar problem. Although I fully support this policy (it
just makes sense) I can see its problematic part as well. I am a
grand-son of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ji%C5%99%C3%AD_Trnka
and I haven’t managed to fix his page because the only
source I could find to support my claim was “I have asked
my Mum, his daughter.” (The censorhship of his film
“Ruka” (The Hand) after 1970 was not only because of its
obvious content, but also because he was a signator of
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Two_Thousand_Words)). I would
have to write a scholarly paper on this topic just to make a
one-line change to the page.
Best,
Matěj

I don't think it needs to be a scholarly article. It might easily be
just a newspaper article, as long as it establishes the facts.
I think even one in Czech might be possible, I remember quoting some
German articles without issue. Maybe an obituary? (if the obituary has
the right date of course)

[Louis Epstein]

Post by kyonshi

Post by Matěj Cepl

Post by Michael F. Stemper

Post by Julian Bradfield
If they have been published, there's a source.

One of the regulars on rec.arts.sf.written corrected his date of birth
in the wikipedia article about him. The correction was rejected because
it was original research. Completely within the policy of "cited information
only".

I have similar problem. Although I fully support this policy (it
just makes sense) I can see its problematic part as well. I am a
grand-son of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ji%C5%99%C3%AD_Trnka
and I haven?t managed to fix his page because the only
source I could find to support my claim was ?I have asked
my Mum, his daughter.? (The censorhship of his film
?Ruka? (The Hand) after 1970 was not only because of its
obvious content, but also because he was a signator of
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Two_Thousand_Words)). I would
have to write a scholarly paper on this topic just to make a
one-line change to the page.
Best,
Mat?j

I don't think it needs to be a scholarly article. It might easily be
just a newspaper article, as long as it establishes the facts.
I think even one in Czech might be possible, I remember quoting some
German articles without issue. Maybe an obituary? (if the obituary has
the right date of course)

Exactly,their number one problem is the obsession with only
recycling what's been said somewhere,anywhere else.

ORIGINAL RESEARCH MUST BE RESPECTED!!!

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.

[Julian Bradfield]

Post by Louis Epstein
ORIGINAL RESEARCH MUST BE RESPECTED!!!

That's what Wikipedia thinks.

Wikipedia does not have the resources to validate alleged "original
research" itself, so it requires OR to be validated by some socially
accepted process such as peer review or at a minimum publication by a
publisher with a reputation to lose.

Otherwise, any old crap becomes "original research", rather than only
respectable research.

[Louis Epstein]

Post by Julian Bradfield

Post by Paul S Person
That is all very well but, as Louis Epstein points out in his reply,
both the book and the film are public works, and comparing two public
works which millions of people have experienced is not a form of
crackpottery.

But it is the word of a random on the internet, which can only be
checked by re-doing the research oneself.
Rightly or wrongly, Wikipedia thinks that material published by real
publishers is more likely to be accurate than randoms on the net.

And when it is wrong,it needs to be regularly denounced.

Post by Julian Bradfield

Post by Paul S Person
Not to mention the possibility that such comparisons have been
published. Or that anyone who has experienced both can point them out.

If they have been published, there's a source.

Post by Paul S Person
Which gets us to another of his points: take the prohibition to
extremes and stating "grass is green" would be prohibited because it
is "original research". Common knowledge is, well, /common/.

It is not hard to find a published reference for the greenness of
grass.

However,it is profoundly foolish to treat a particular
published reference as conferring validity on a ubiquituously
known fact.

Post by Julian Bradfield
There's nothing specific to Wikipedia about this policy - all
reputable encyclopaedias do the same. Any article considered by
Britannica must have a full list of sources so that the research
editor can check the accuracy of the article.
Is Britannica a "pile of vomit" too, because it doesn't commission
original research?

Britannica has signed articles on a variety of topics
that represent the writer's scholarship.

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.

[Paul S Person]

On Mon, 7 Feb 2022 18:31:00 +0000 (UTC), Julian Bradfield

Post by Julian Bradfield

Post by Paul S Person
That is all very well but, as Louis Epstein points out in his reply,
both the book and the film are public works, and comparing two public
works which millions of people have experienced is not a form of
crackpottery.

But it is the word of a random on the internet, which can only be
checked by re-doing the research oneself.
Rightly or wrongly, Wikipedia thinks that material published by real
publishers is more likely to be accurate than randoms on the net.

Post by Paul S Person
Not to mention the possibility that such comparisons have been
published. Or that anyone who has experienced both can point them out.

If they have been published, there's a source.

Post by Paul S Person
Which gets us to another of his points: take the prohibition to
extremes and stating "grass is green" would be prohibited because it
is "original research". Common knowledge is, well, /common/.

It is not hard to find a published reference for the greenness of
grass.

You are (deliberately?) missing the point.

Post by Julian Bradfield
There's nothing specific to Wikipedia about this policy - all
reputable encyclopaedias do the same. Any article considered by
Britannica must have a full list of sources so that the research
editor can check the accuracy of the article.

If you say so.

Post by Julian Bradfield
Is Britannica a "pile of vomit" too, because it doesn't commission
original research?

I never used that phrase. Please try to pay strict attention to what
you are responding to.

Consider the article
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hunger_Games_(film)>

It starts with an overview and a plot summary -- neither of which have
/any notations at all/.

Thus, by the criterion given, they are both /original research/ and
/not allowed on Wikipedia/.

And yet, there they are.

The principle of requiring references is not, in and of itself, evil;
but when it is used to squelch unwelcome information, it becomes evil.

When the criterion is /really/ "do I like it?" with "original
research" as an excuse for rejecting it, it becomes, indeed,
censorship.

[Julian Bradfield]

Post by Paul S Person

Post by Julian Bradfield
There's nothing specific to Wikipedia about this policy - all
reputable encyclopaedias do the same. Any article considered by
Britannica must have a full list of sources so that the research
editor can check the accuracy of the article.

If you say so.

You can read Britannica's article submission policy as well as I
can. This isn't Wikiepedia.

Post by Paul S Person

Post by Julian Bradfield
Is Britannica a "pile of vomit" too, because it doesn't commission
original research?

I never used that phrase. Please try to pay strict attention to what
you are responding to.

Please try to pay strict attention to what is written. I didn't
attribute the quotation to you, I just quoted some words from the OP,
whose position you are (partly) supporting.

Post by Paul S Person
Consider the article
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hunger_Games_(film)>
It starts with an overview and a plot summary -- neither of which have
/any notations at all/.
Thus, by the criterion given, they are both /original research/ and
/not allowed on Wikipedia/.

Correct. If anybody had any interest in the article, they could flag
it accordingly. I have no interest, so I'm not going to. You are free
to.

[Paul S Person]

On Wed, 9 Feb 2022 10:44:23 +0000 (UTC), Julian Bradfield

Post by Julian Bradfield

Post by Paul S Person

Post by Julian Bradfield
There's nothing specific to Wikipedia about this policy - all
reputable encyclopaedias do the same. Any article considered by
Britannica must have a full list of sources so that the research
editor can check the accuracy of the article.

If you say so.

You can read Britannica's article submission policy as well as I
can. This isn't Wikiepedia.

Post by Paul S Person

Post by Julian Bradfield
Is Britannica a "pile of vomit" too, because it doesn't commission
original research?

I never used that phrase. Please try to pay strict attention to what
you are responding to.

Please try to pay strict attention to what is written. I didn't
attribute the quotation to you, I just quoted some words from the OP,
whose position you are (partly) supporting.

Precisely -- I am PARTIALLY Supporting it.

Quoting him as if I agreed with him any point I haven't mentioned is
clearly a form of bad behavior.

Believing it can be excused is a sign of dementia.

Post by Julian Bradfield

Post by Paul S Person
Consider the article
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hunger_Games_(film)>
It starts with an overview and a plot summary -- neither of which have
/any notations at all/.
Thus, by the criterion given, they are both /original research/ and
/not allowed on Wikipedia/.

Correct. If anybody had any interest in the article, they could flag
it accordingly. I have no interest, so I'm not going to. You are free
to.

Thank you for confirming the OPs point, to the extent that his
submissions were as reasonable as the items cited.

BTW, such citation-free sections are quite common. The idea that
Wikipedia merely repeats what others have said is nonsense; and, even
it they did, simply gathering it together in one place constitutes
original research -- unless the compilation has a citation.

[Julian Bradfield]

[stuff]

You were replying to an article which was cancelled minutes after it
was posted (and several hours before you replied). If your usenet
provider doesn't honour authenticated cancellations, that's
unfortunate.

[Louis Epstein]

Post by Julian Bradfield

[stuff]

You were replying to an article which was cancelled minutes after it
was posted (and several hours before you replied). If your usenet
provider doesn't honour authenticated cancellations, that's
unfortunate.

Are cancellations not a form of censorship?

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.

[Stan Brown]

Post by Julian Bradfield
You were replying to an article which was cancelled minutes after it
was posted (and several hours before you replied). If your usenet
provider doesn't honour authenticated cancellations, that's
unfortunate.

And extremely common. Cancels are easily forged. Most Usenet
providers started ignoring them quite a few years ago, back when
Usenet was much more popular and forged cancels were a weapon in
flamewars.

The only way I know to make a cancel work is to cancel your article
before your provider sends it anywhere else. This does work with
news.individual.net, or at least it did last time I checked, but the
window is only a few minutes.

[Paul S Person]

On Thu, 10 Feb 2022 08:24:23 -0800, Stan Brown

Post by Stan Brown

Post by Julian Bradfield
You were replying to an article which was cancelled minutes after it
was posted (and several hours before you replied). If your usenet
provider doesn't honour authenticated cancellations, that's
unfortunate.

And extremely common. Cancels are easily forged. Most Usenet
providers started ignoring them quite a few years ago, back when
Usenet was much more popular and forged cancels were a weapon in
flamewars.
The only way I know to make a cancel work is to cancel your article
before your provider sends it anywhere else. This does work with
news.individual.net, or at least it did last time I checked, but the
window is only a few minutes.

Intriguingly, the posts I am getting from EternalSeptember have this
header:

Cancel-Lock: sha1:fQrZGV/sd8wZx6i7JHqgRzdJ4e4=

but whether that has anything to do with cancelling a post I have no
idea.

[Paul S Person]

On Wed, 9 Feb 2022 20:56:47 +0000 (UTC), Julian Bradfield

Post by Julian Bradfield

[stuff]

You were replying to an article which was cancelled minutes after it
was posted (and several hours before you replied). If your usenet
provider doesn't honour authenticated cancellations, that's
unfortunate.

Ah, making excuses.

And I'm not sure it is the ISP that is to be blamed, as I am using
Eternal September since my prior ISP dropped Usenet and I haven't
bothered to see if my new ISP provides it.

But just keep blaming everyone else. It's working /so/ well for you.

[O. Sharp]

Post by Paul S Person

Post by Julian Bradfield
You were replying to an article which was cancelled minutes after it
was posted (and several hours before you replied). If your usenet
provider doesn't honour authenticated cancellations, that's
unfortunate.

Ah, making excuses.

[snippp]

Post by Paul S Person
But just keep blaming everyone else. It's working /so/ well for you.

Since this... discussion?... has clearly moved well away from its
original Tolkien source, I suggest further discussion be moved to a more
appropriate venue, perhaps alt.my.facts.are.better.than.your.facts or
somesuch.

------------------------------------------------------------------
***@panix.com "An argument is a connected series of statements
intended to establish a definite proposition."
-either the OED, or Michael Palin

[Paul S Person]

Post by O. Sharp

Post by Paul S Person

Post by Julian Bradfield
You were replying to an article which was cancelled minutes after it
was posted (and several hours before you replied). If your usenet
provider doesn't honour authenticated cancellations, that's
unfortunate.

Ah, making excuses.

[snippp]

Post by Paul S Person
But just keep blaming everyone else. It's working /so/ well for you.

Since this... discussion?... has clearly moved well away from its
original Tolkien source, I suggest further discussion be moved to a more
appropriate venue, perhaps alt.my.facts.are.better.than.your.facts or
somesuch.

Yes, that would be more appropriate.

OTOH, considering that this is the first actual discussion on either
of alt.fan.tolkien or rec.arts.books.tolkien, and that "alt" groups
tend to be be rather ... unrestricted ... in what can be discussed, it
might be better to keep it here and see if it recovers.

Nice try at diverting it to alt.timewasters, though. How did you
expect the participants to find it there?

[Julian Bradfield]

Post by Paul S Person
OTOH, considering that this is the first actual discussion on either
of alt.fan.tolkien or rec.arts.books.tolkien, and that "alt" groups
tend to be be rather ... unrestricted ... in what can be discussed, it
might be better to keep it here and see if it recovers.

The reason I (tried to) cancel my reply to you was because it was
wrong (as well as being snarky).

Having spent/wasted more time reading Wikipedia policies in detail, I
don't understand why the OP's edit was reverted, as it doesn't appear
to me to contradict either the citation or original research policies,
so I've asked about it on the talk page of the article. (The right
place - not the talk page of the user who reverted the change.)

[Paul S Person]

On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 17:51:11 +0000 (UTC), Julian Bradfield

Post by Julian Bradfield

Post by Paul S Person
OTOH, considering that this is the first actual discussion on either
of alt.fan.tolkien or rec.arts.books.tolkien, and that "alt" groups
tend to be be rather ... unrestricted ... in what can be discussed, it
might be better to keep it here and see if it recovers.

I omitted the phrase "for some time" after noting the lack of
discussion in these discussion groups. I apologize for any confusion
this may have caused.

Post by Julian Bradfield
The reason I (tried to) cancel my reply to you was because it was
wrong (as well as being snarky).

Myself, I find that replying to myself and apologizing is much more
satisfying. And is pretty much guaranteed to work, at least in the
sense that the new post goes wherever the old one went.

Post by Julian Bradfield
Having spent/wasted more time reading Wikipedia policies in detail, I
don't understand why the OP's edit was reverted, as it doesn't appear
to me to contradict either the citation or original research policies,
so I've asked about it on the talk page of the article. (The right
place - not the talk page of the user who reverted the change.)

Indeed. Perhaps you will favor us with the reason, should one ever be
given.

[Julian Bradfield]

Post by Julian Bradfield
Having spent/wasted more time reading Wikipedia policies in detail, I
don't understand why the OP's edit was reverted, as it doesn't appear
to me to contradict either the citation or original research policies,
so I've asked about it on the talk page of the article. (The right
place - not the talk page of the user who reverted the change.)

Those interested can read a reply from an independent experienced
editor at

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Lord_of_the_Rings_(1978_film)#c-Alyo-2022-02-13T17%3A52%3A00.000Z-JCBradfield-2022-02-11T17%3A22%3A00.000Z

(Also, of course, the OP had been banned from Wikipedia for persistent
refusal to play by the rules of the club he wanted to be in.)

[Louis Epstein]

Post by Julian Bradfield

Post by Julian Bradfield
Having spent/wasted more time reading Wikipedia policies in detail, I
don't understand why the OP's edit was reverted, as it doesn't appear
to me to contradict either the citation or original research policies,
so I've asked about it on the talk page of the article. (The right
place - not the talk page of the user who reverted the change.)

Those interested can read a reply from an independent experienced
editor at
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Lord_of_the_Rings_(1978_film)#c-Alyo-2022-02-13T17%3A52%3A00.000Z-JCBradfield-2022-02-11T17%3A22%3A00.000Z

Alyo's definition of "higher quality",as you can imagine,
is quite different from mine.

Post by Julian Bradfield
(Also, of course, the OP had been banned from Wikipedia for persistent
refusal to play by the rules of the club he wanted to be in.)

Nor should those rules be treated with undeserved respect at any time.

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.

[Jeff Urs]

At Wikipedia,a user known as "Chiswick Chap" has taken it upon
itself to enforce that site's ludicrous rules on articles affecting
Tolkien,claiming to have "scoured and renewed",with a link to their
article on the chapter "The Scouring of the Shire",much of the
Tolkien coverage.
In the furtherance of their pathetic "Must Not be Invented Here Syndrome"
(obsessed with publishing only things regurgitated from elsewhere rather
than anything of independent value),he refuses to allow simple observations
of obvious differences between the Bakshi film and the books,such as
Legolas being the Elf the hobbits meet en route to Rivendell rather
than Glorfindel,or Saruman being intermittently called "Aruman" and
robed in red,in a section ostensibly listing differences between the
book and film...immediately deleting an edit as "unsourced" (the film
and book themselves are the best sources possible) and deleting a
remonstration on his talk page as "abuse of his talk page".

Well, then, find a source. Here's one a 30-second search turned up:

https://www.tor.com/2020/01/31/ralph-bakshis-the-lord-of-the-rings-brought-tolkien-from-counterculture-to-the-mainstream/