This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle-earth, which aims to build an encyclopedic guide to
J. R. R. Tolkien, his
legendarium, and related topics. Please visit the
project talk page for suggestions and ideas on how you can improve this and other articles.Middle-earthWikipedia:WikiProject Middle-earthTemplate:WikiProject Middle-earthTolkien articles
Note: Though it states in the
Guide to writing better articles that generally fictional articles should be written in present tense, all Tolkien legendarium-related articles that cover in-universe material before the current action must be written in past tense. Please see
Wikipedia:WikiProject Middle-earth/Standards for more information about this and other article standards.
An editor has now twice seen fit to remove a reliably-cited paragraph from the article without obtaining consensus, and the second time of course knowing that at least one editor did not agree. That is by definition edit-warring.
Editors are invited to discuss a) whether this is relevant to this article, and b) if so, where it should be placed in the article; or c) whether other claims from the Kaspersky source are worth mentioning here; or d) whether the cybersecurity aspect on Tolkien should be in another article, such as
Influences on J. R. R. Tolkien.
Chiswick Chap (
talk)
18:19, 15 April 2024 (UTC)reply
While the sources show that Tolkien was interested in cyptography, the primary source for linking this interest with the rings of power specifcally in the discussed passage is a blog opinion post, not an scholarly article. The text in question has no connection to the section "power and morality" and is not even in the "read further" article. The text also does not talk about the Rings of Power at all, hence WP:IRI.
Would also appreciate a more civil tone going forward with good faith, instead of assuming malice/edit warring. Posting on my talk page that I'm disruptive and can be banned after making a single revert is also against the spirit of
Wikipedia:Civility. Thank you.
Beestax (
talk)
17:46, 15 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Initial edit was incorrectly tagged as revert. One edit, and one revert as my initial edit on relevance was not addressed.
Initial deletion is a revert, policy is clear on the matter, and BRD means BOLDLY (ONCE ONLY), REVERT (ONCE ONLY), DISCUSS, it has no other meaning.
Chiswick Chap (
talk)
18:20, 15 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I don’t think that Karpersky Lab blog meets the bar for inclusion in a Wikipedia article. Some blog posts are allowed, of course: If the blog were purely about a topic that Kapersky is expert on, then
WP:BLOG would permit it. However, without having high credibility on matters Tolkien or literary critique, it’s hard for me to accept as notable or reliable enough.
Strebe (
talk)
19:26, 15 April 2024 (UTC)reply
It's all a bit over-egged. Tolkien attended a course at Bletchley. His passing 'with flying colours' is assumed (per Telegraph - was it even assessed?) and his 'enthusiasm' is scarcely shown by his declining to take the job. There is no carry-over from Tolkien's GCHQ connection to Sauron's strategies, especially not in terms of modern cyber warfare. After that, any parallels that may arise need a more notable reliable source than the rather tongue-in-cheek blog that is offered (krimpatul = crimping tool?!). -- Verbarson talkedits10:57, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle-earth, which aims to build an encyclopedic guide to
J. R. R. Tolkien, his
legendarium, and related topics. Please visit the
project talk page for suggestions and ideas on how you can improve this and other articles.Middle-earthWikipedia:WikiProject Middle-earthTemplate:WikiProject Middle-earthTolkien articles
Note: Though it states in the
Guide to writing better articles that generally fictional articles should be written in present tense, all Tolkien legendarium-related articles that cover in-universe material before the current action must be written in past tense. Please see
Wikipedia:WikiProject Middle-earth/Standards for more information about this and other article standards.
An editor has now twice seen fit to remove a reliably-cited paragraph from the article without obtaining consensus, and the second time of course knowing that at least one editor did not agree. That is by definition edit-warring.
Editors are invited to discuss a) whether this is relevant to this article, and b) if so, where it should be placed in the article; or c) whether other claims from the Kaspersky source are worth mentioning here; or d) whether the cybersecurity aspect on Tolkien should be in another article, such as
Influences on J. R. R. Tolkien.
Chiswick Chap (
talk)
18:19, 15 April 2024 (UTC)reply
While the sources show that Tolkien was interested in cyptography, the primary source for linking this interest with the rings of power specifcally in the discussed passage is a blog opinion post, not an scholarly article. The text in question has no connection to the section "power and morality" and is not even in the "read further" article. The text also does not talk about the Rings of Power at all, hence WP:IRI.
Would also appreciate a more civil tone going forward with good faith, instead of assuming malice/edit warring. Posting on my talk page that I'm disruptive and can be banned after making a single revert is also against the spirit of
Wikipedia:Civility. Thank you.
Beestax (
talk)
17:46, 15 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Initial edit was incorrectly tagged as revert. One edit, and one revert as my initial edit on relevance was not addressed.
Initial deletion is a revert, policy is clear on the matter, and BRD means BOLDLY (ONCE ONLY), REVERT (ONCE ONLY), DISCUSS, it has no other meaning.
Chiswick Chap (
talk)
18:20, 15 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I don’t think that Karpersky Lab blog meets the bar for inclusion in a Wikipedia article. Some blog posts are allowed, of course: If the blog were purely about a topic that Kapersky is expert on, then
WP:BLOG would permit it. However, without having high credibility on matters Tolkien or literary critique, it’s hard for me to accept as notable or reliable enough.
Strebe (
talk)
19:26, 15 April 2024 (UTC)reply
It's all a bit over-egged. Tolkien attended a course at Bletchley. His passing 'with flying colours' is assumed (per Telegraph - was it even assessed?) and his 'enthusiasm' is scarcely shown by his declining to take the job. There is no carry-over from Tolkien's GCHQ connection to Sauron's strategies, especially not in terms of modern cyber warfare. After that, any parallels that may arise need a more notable reliable source than the rather tongue-in-cheek blog that is offered (krimpatul = crimping tool?!). -- Verbarson talkedits10:57, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply