Talk:Tolkien and race/Archive 1

Bias

Saying that Tolkein is definitively not racist is deeply biased. While some of the evidence given in the article does somewhat suggest that he wasn't openly racist against some groups of people, that doesn't necessarily mean him or his work is completely free of racial bias, and there is not enough evidence to claim that it is. Being against the Nazis is a pretty low bar, and you can't really claim that he wasn't racist because he opposed the Nazis. Saying that he definitely isn't racist is an opinion, not a fact, and should not be on Wikipedia. FantasiesOfTomorrow (talk) 07:28, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I've now changed it a little so the article isn't so openly biased, but a lot of work still needs to be done to rid the article of bias completely. FantasiesOfTomorrow (talk) 07:45, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Thankyou for sharing your point of view. Race is obviously a very sensitive matter. However, the article reports scholars and critics on both sides, who in turn cite Tolkien's own writings on the subject. On the "alleged" and the height of the bar, I note that Tolkien did not simply oppose the Nazis, which as you say would have been easy enough; rather, in his letters, he specifically opposed racist views during the Second World War (and at other times) including British racism against Germans - not at all a common or popular viewpoint with a war on. Further, he opposed Apartheid, and again, far from its being the common view, he wrote to his son stationed in South Africa during the war that although most visitors were initially horrified by the racism there, very few carried on in that opinion, i.e. Tolkien felt that while common decency gave people a brief glimpse of anti-racism, they generally subsided into accepting it. I think the article gives a clear overview of the case on both sides, so that readers can fairly decide for themselves. On your changes to the lead, I partially agree (so I have not restored the previous text), but I felt there was a danger that the first paragraph had gone too far the other way, and have toned it down for neutrality. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:47, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your edits, you wrote it a lot better than i could have. FantasiesOfTomorrow (talk) 23:12, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

That's very good of you to say so. Glad the matter is resolved. Chiswick Chap (talk) 00:35, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Stormtroopers...?

That is a false equivalence if there was ever one... how would soldiers goosestepping the same as inherent physical qualities...? unsigned comment added 06:43, 11 September 2021‎ by IP editor 92.0.5.48

The comment is not in Wikipedia's voice. It is directly attributed to a named journalist on a named newspaper and fully cited. Readers are free to think of his claim what they like. I don't recall the Star Wars stormtroopers doing a goose-step, though no doubt Lucas chose the name for its evil resonances. But that's off the subject here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:40, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Point is that this site bringing it in as if trying some sort of equivalence is still doing it. I think it, being mostly an irrelevance, should be excluded... otherwise we might as well dedicate space to climate change deniers (and some space is, but not to the extent it feels like a false equivalence) etc... also, it's even more irrelevant if they don't goosestep, but the point is that Star Wars is far less than what LOTR could possibly be (in the paragraphs indicating it). In other words, if editors agree that it is a false equivalence it shouldn't be added at all... comment added 09:14, 18 September 2021‎ by IP editor 92.0.5.48

The article text is about Star Wars Stormtroopers - that's what Lucas called them in his film series - and that is now both stated in the article and wikilinked for the avoidance of doubt. There is absolutely no goosestepping about it, and it is reliably sourced, so it's hard to see how there could be any difficulty with this, it's strictly according to Wikipedia policy. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:04, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about them, but the comparison between them and this article...

It is reliably cited. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:03, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Legacy

There is a section "Legacy" about the 2020s TV series The_Lord_of_the_Rings:_The_Rings_of_Power. I don't understand how it's relevant to this article which is about J.R.R. Tolkien's views on race, he died 50 years before this TV series. I propose the section on "The Rings of Power" TV series to be deleted. Or it could be moved to the The_Lord_of_the_Rings:_The_Rings_of_Power article. Neowulf (talk) 15:52, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your view. However, it is common to have a 'Legacy' section in articles, and by definition such a section deals with what came after an author or book. In this case, the legacy debate clearly reflects the Tolkien debate, and the cited source both discusses the legacy debate and relates it to Tolkien's views. That seems quite clearly relevant to the current article. Further, the discussion of Peter Jackson's orcs fits better in the legacy section than where it was, so I've integrated it down there: it certainly makes for a more balanced section, too. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:26, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

This section is also biased, insisting that the views of fans who wanted the series to reflect Tolkien's vision are racist. – Dyolf87 (talk) 20:52, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

With respect, it does nothing of the sort. It neutrally presents the opinions of different authors and journalists, and indeed fans, who have widely-varying views on race in legacy depictions of Tolkien's Middle-earth. It does not endorse any of these views in Wikipedia's voice. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:22, 26 March 2022 (UTC)