# Talk:The Last Ringbearer

piotrus (talk · contribs) reverted my removal of "Eskov's retelling of the Middle-earth story has been compared to how in our real historiography, for many centuries, the Middle East has been seen as backwards, despite the fact that for several centuries it was more advanced than the Europe of the Middle Ages" ([1]) and asked me to explain in more depth why. My original edit summary was "What sort of nonsense is this? The "dark ages" are regularly portrayed as backwards and, well, "dark". This is clearly someone's opinion, and it is stated as fact; restate as opinion if returned." I'm not sure what isn't clear about this, but my second removal reads "This is clearly someone's personal opinion and is not worded as such; WP:NPOV.".
Not only this, but the text doesn't even match up with the reference's claim. The Salon article used as a reference reads:

But the juxtaposition of the willfully feudal and backward "West," happy with "picking lice in its log 'castles'" while Mordor cultivates learning and embraces change, also recalls the clash between Europe in the early Middle Ages and the more sophisticated and learned Muslim empires to the east and south. Sauron passes a "universal literacy law," while the shield maiden Eowyn has been raised illiterate, "like most of Rohan's elite" -- good guys Tolkien based on his beloved Anglo-Saxons.

This is clearly a very general and poorly-informed (for example, at no point in their history were the Anglo-Saxons "illiterate", unlike what the writer implies, for example) opinion, and has no place being stated as fact. If the content is restored, it needs to reflect that it is the opinion of the writer. Further, it has long since been common for the muslim world during this period to get lip service, but for Europe during the (particularly early) medieval period to get put down as "backward" or "uneducated", despite the reality of the matter. There's a reason we don't use the term "dark ages" anymore; Greece and Rome were neither the beginning nor end of "civilization" in Europe. Personally, I lean away form a rewrite and towards it not being included, as the writer is not exactly a reliable source on the matter (as demonstrated by the Anglo-Saxons quip). :bloodofox: (talk) 07:05, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

It would be nice if there was more info about different translations. It says it has been translated into different languages, but I can't find WHICH  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.179.150.218 (talk) 06:51, 16 February 2012 (UTC) 

The "plot" section doesn't say anything about the plot at all, other than a short gloss over each of the 4 parts. It should really be relabeled as "Setting" and then someone else can expand the plot properly.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.148.149.77 (talk) 14:27, 5 August 2012 (UTC) 

I'm not going to start an edit war. However, the supposition that the only source for the book in English is unauthorized, would seem to require more than specuation to justify its removal. Fatidiot1234 (talk) 17:36, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

It's not "speculation", the article itself asserts that it's a copyright violation, according to the general secretary of the Society of Authors. --Jakob (talk)  aka Jakec 14:35, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
He is of course entitled to his opinion, but his standing as a legal authority is unclear. Nowhere is it even alleged that the Tolkien Estate, the real party in interest, has expressed an objecttion.
Furthermore, why are you upset about TLR, but nobody seems to mind Bored of the Rings, which has been making money since 1969? Fatidiot1234 (talk) 18:51, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Nowhere is it even alleged that the Tolkien Estate, the real party in interest, has expressed an objecttion. Uhh, that's completely false. Here's more info in support of the position, coming from the estates publisher David Brawn: "When you get something as popular as Tolkien, fans want to create new stories. Most are pretty amateurish. Tolkien himself isn't around so it's the estate's view that it's best to say no to everything. If you let one in, you'd open the floodgates." [2]
One, I checked out the BOTR article to see if there were any links to the actual text that needed to be removed, and there were none, as far as I could tell. Two, as a parody of LOTR, it may even qualify for fair use (though it's probably morally wrong, even if legally right, considering the Estate's stance on fanfics). --Jakob (talk)  aka Jakec 19:10, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
The Self- Appointed Wikipedia Morality Committee & Parody Classification Board strikes again! 68.173.8.191 (talk) 19:32, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Article misses the biggest reason of this book existence - portrayal of russian imperialism and its consequences as part of western propaganda. Book absolutely transparently implies that Russia is the Mordor and the West are elves.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.155.11.2 (talk) 20:33, 23 February 2023 (UTC) 

If this goes to FA, do ping me - I'll add some form Polish press. Review in Gazeta Wyborcza (2002). This article in pl:Esensja also reviews some other similar works. There was a review in this niche magazine (zine?): [3]. Need to go trough Nowa Fantastyka too - likely relevant reviews/commentary in [4], [5]. [6], [7]. Two other reviws in pl:SFinks as listed here. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 15:55, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Piotrus: I think the article would need substantial further work to get to that point, but it would be fascinating to see what the Polish press had to say. Do go for it! Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:05, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
And in all honesty, I'd feel bad trying to get this to FA without an input from a Russian speaker. Maybe @Strecosaurus can help? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 16:09, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
As GA reviewer, I agree that it's a fair bit off from FA standards at the moment. A reasonable degree of confidence that the list of translations is complete (or else that a complete list would be too lengthy) would be necessary, for instance. TompaDompa (talk) 23:15, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
We may be getting a bit off topic here, but IMHO for FA-level article on non-English topic, it should be required to do a source review in a relevant non-English language. And yes, it may mean some topics may require a co-nom or cannot be finished at present. For example, if anyone were to write a FA about some Polish language work, I'd expect them to either be fluent in Polish and use both English and Polish sources, or seek a Polish-fluent co-author. I'd oppose Featuring of any such article that did not go through such a source analysis by default as obviously not comprehensive. I am curious what's the FA best practices - friendly ping for @SandyGeorgia thoughts? PS. To be clear, this is not something I'd expect from a GA, which I belive can be written reasonably well without relying on source language queries. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:05, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
I broadly agree.  Per WP:NONENG, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones when they are available and of equal quality and relevance, and the rub is in the "when they are available and of equal quality and relevance".  The level of detail provided in English-language sources isn't always of equal quality or nuance relative to what can be found in native-language sources.  I would expect, at the FA level, that not all content found in native-language sources would necessarily be DUE, but at least an indication at FAC that a comprehensive source review had been undertaken and discussed should be demonstrated, and it is hard to imagine how that can be done without a native speaker (although this is not impossible and should not be strictly required).  I base my response here less on my experience as former FAC delegate, and more on my editing experience as a  Spanish speaker who lived many years in two Latin American countries and worked in all of Latin America and the Caribbean ... the English-language sources tend to gloss issues to the level of understanding of their readership.  On the other hand, it's important that others participating know how to strictly evaluate the non-English sources from the high-quality source expectation at FAC (ala avoid cherrypicking). SandyGeorgia (Talk)  13:26, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

I changed the wording of the lead and removed "fan fiction". The Salon source explains why it is not fan fiction but a retelling, because it's not a shoddy work. The other linked novel is not described as fan fiction in the lead. Hekerui (talk) 07:22, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

@Chiswick Chap I noticed just now that in the lead you wrote " The book contains sections of Russian history". Errr. I don't think this makes sense... is this some sort of an error? This book does not discuss Russian  history directly; it may make indirect references to it, but I am not sure even this is supported by article's body? Mind you, it  has been long time since I read it...  Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:39, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

I certainly didn't invent it, but I've long since forgotten where it was printed. If it's not in the body then it obvs shouldn't be in the lead; I'll tweak it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:47, 16 December 2024 (UTC)