Talk:Tauriel

Appearance

Does Tauriel even appear in the final theatrical version of An Unexpected Journey, and if so, where exactly? I must've missed her but the only substantial scenes with Mirkwood elves I recall are the ones in the "preface" when Smaug's assault on Erebor is being watched by Thranduil's host. De728631 (talk) 21:35, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

As stated in the article she will appear in the third and final film, to be released in 2014.--Shandris^{the azylean} 19:16, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Notability

Is this character notable enough to have her own article? The movie hasn't even come out yet; for all we know her role could be nothing more than a glorified cameo. --207.233.31.37 (talk) 21:13, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Back in November I had proposed a merger to List of original characters in The Hobbit film series, but then this article was considerably expanded. But you're right that the overall notability is still questionable. De728631 (talk) 21:39, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I would certainly support a merge. The "controversy" is entirely manufactured by liberal/feminist PoV pushing here. See my PoV complaint below. In reality, this character is controversial for and only notable to the exact same extent as, all other Jackson-invented characters in these films, like Figwit and Lurtz. AReaderOutThataway (talk) 11:33, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Controversy

I couldn't find many major articles stressing the controversy over the character. Could someone site this please? ~NottNott (talk) 09:59, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Other than this being yet another invented-for-the-films character and that type of invention by the Jackson and the studio being generally controversial, the only thing even vaguely like a controversy (about this character in particular) is just one person's opinion, and it's factually suspect anyway, as well being a big WP:UNDUE problem, as I detail below. See merge idea being discussed above; we already have an entire article for these tacked-on characters and the (same) reason they're controversial. This one-character stub seems to exist only because someone is a fan of the actress cast for the role and because someone else wants to abuse Wikipedia to push a strident "fandom is misogynistic" meme, with only one (unreliable, fallacious, opinion-piece) source. AReaderOutThataway (talk) 11:39, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm calling out this biased line that claims "many fans expressed dissatisfaction" with the character. Define "many". The source article, from a little-heard of website Daily Life, starts with the sensationalist title "The woman who 'ruined the Hobbit'". The article seems to over-inflate an idea that there was mass objection to this character and a majority hatred from fans, citing only three unsourced comments, with only vague assertions like "much bile was posted", "rage" from the "fan community", "loathed by fans", etc, without stating which sites, what comments, how many?. This article smacks of exaggerated claims--from what I've read, most fans have embraced her character, with only a minority rejecting Tauriel or objecting to the whole Hobbit film series in general. Isn't bile posted on every comment and message board across the internet? There's no way to qualify terms like "many" and "fans" in this context. Unless someone objects and can provide an objective article with more substantial proof, I'm changing this to read "some fans".68.105.53.244 (talk) 19:44, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I think this opinion piece by Clem Bastow is in fact a bit doubtworthy due to its POV. But I've found a review by Le Figaro that states "while the fans of Evangeline Lilly are seemingly thrilled, those of The Lord of the Rings are simply outraged." The writer himself though is not very fond of the character and goes on to criticise that in the promotional shot of Tauriel (also in our article) Tauriel looked like a cosplayer rather than a character from a great Hollywood production [1]. And Hollywood.com has an analysis that states how "...the people who are extremely worried about Tauriel [Evangeline Lily's character who Jackson has created for the films] or talking purses or jumping out of their skins to see it or fussing over how many negative reviews it is getting — are way more vocal" than those who took to the forums to bash the negative critics. So to sum it up, it appears that in fact "many" fans have expressed their dissatisfaction. De728631 (talk) 02:07, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

The problem is with the hundreds of blogs and articles strewn across the net, there's no way to find a consensus on what the reaction was. The first article you cite is so obscure it's in French, with language so extreme it loses credibility. Fans of LOTR are "simply outraged"? The other article is pretty poorly worded and equally vague, but the next sentence reads "What keeps fans of The Lord of the Rings movies coming back for more, and why no matter the general reception is to The Hobbit as viewers take it in over the holiday season, is a deep, affectionate, is warm love for Tolkien's works that is rarely found in the "geek" world." "While fans have gripes with the details, most focus on [what] the movies have nailed over what they've missed." This and much of the article seems to say exactly my point, that the majority of fans were excited for the film version, with a minority of the most vocal hating it. "Many" implies a large percentage of the fans, but if you read the top comments on the first trailer for DOS they are largely positive. Fan ratings for DOS on theonering.net, considered an authority for Tolkien fans, for direction, writing, and acting rate between 4 and 5 rings, 5 being "mind-blowing". Any article that gives a generalized blanket statement of audience reaction like that is not really a good Wikipedia source, when you dig deeper. It's the same reason you can't say "fans hated" or "fans loved" a particular episode or film, you have to stick to reviews, because there's no objective way to measure fan reaction (which in Tauriel's case was mostly positive anyway). That whole sentence should be removed IMO but "some fans" is at least more accurate. More might even be added in the reception section on the positive feedback for the character, than just parodies. 68.105.53.244 (talk) 10:50, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

You've got a point there, but I found the Hollywood.com article quite balanced. I agree though that the reception section here needs to be fleshed out with more balanced content. I'm going to check what I can find in terms of reliable reviews. De728631 (talk) 14:06, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Great. The article was balanced but still problematic with generalized statements, but a sentence addressing the issue can stand. We could replace the original source with hollywood.com, if necessary. I feel a little weird going on a long rant to change one word, but there it is. I can look for Tauriel-related mainstream reviews as well, if you need more, when I get the time. More will surely get added after Five Armies. 68.105.53.244 (talk) 22:07, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Edit request on 1 July 2013

Hello. Your translation - and Peter Jackson's, it would seem - for Tauriel is wrong. "Daughter of the Wood/Forest" would be correct meaning because "Taur" means "Forest", not "Mirkwood" (elvish word for that one is "Taur-nu-fuin"). Easily verifiable on any serious site dedicated to Tolkien's linguistic work. Thanks. 89.201.155.245 (talk) 21:33, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Have to agree with the above comment Taur is a general reference in Sindarin to any large wooded or forested area and is not specific to Mirkwood Taur e-Ndaedelos = forest of great fear, Taur en Faroth = forest of the hunters, Taur im Duinath = forest between rivers Taur nu fuin = forest beneath the night. The iel ending to a word again in Sindarin is a flexible female ending for a name and can mean lady, maiden or maybe daughter. I would say that the best translation of the name and the one the elves would use as a translation into a non-elvish language would be forest lady. Glorantha (talk) 07:15, July 2, 2013

First, please make sure you sign your talk page posts, which makes it easier for everyone to know who they're addressing. You can do this by typing four tildes (~~~~) at the end of them, which also automatically time stamps them.

As for the phrase "your translation", the article does not exhibit its own translation, nor did I harbor one when writing it. The translation in question is the one supported by the cited sources, per WP:V/WP:CS. etc. All material in Wikipedia needs to be supported by citations of reliable, secondary sources. If you have secondary sources for what you're saying per WP:PSTS and WP:FILMPLOT, by all means, feel free to supply them. If you prefer not to sign in for a username account, I'll fix the material myself. Thanks. :-) Nightscream (talk) 17:41, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Anon 89.201.155.245 is completely correct, and Nightscream is missing the forest for the proverbial trees (pun intended): All of the numerous offline and online works, including Tolkien's own original books, which have been providing the definition of taur/taure/taur- since long before Wikipedia existed, are the actual reliable sources. They are more numerous than and more reliable than any entertainment industry sources parroting a press release and each other claiming that it means 'Mirkwood' rather than 'a wood or forest'. All that can be said about 'Daughter of Mirkwood' as a translation of Tauriel is that it's what some of these sources have incorrectly reported it means. If you're just venting, Nightscream, that 89.201.155.245 didn't hand you the sources in the course of requesting the correction, it would have taken less time to just Google it than to provide your snide response to that reader, probably a newbie; you should know better. I'll do your work for you: http://www.elfdict.com/#taur http://www.nevrast.net/f.html#forest http://www.angelfire.com/empire2/angora5/Translator.html

That took under two minutes. AReaderOutThataway (talk) 11:29, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

First of all, I didn't make any "snide" comments. I politely asked the editor in question to sign his/her messages, informed him of the related policies, and even said that if he/she could provide the sources I'd add the material if he/she didn't feel like signing up for a username account, which is hardly "snide". By contrast, this rather obnoxious edit summary of yours, along with your message, easily qualifies for that description.

Second, finding sources is not "my" work it's yours. More precisely, it's the work of the editor or editors who wish to add or include a given bit of information in the article. It is not my responsibility to go sourcing information that others wish to have in the article, when I already have a considerable edit work load (check my edit history), as well as things going on the real world, than to act as an academic nursemaid to you or to all the other editors who seem to think that people like me who uphold sourcing policies are the ones who are supposed to do this. Your little material took two minutes. Add up all the information that people want to add to articles but not source themselves, and it's a lot more than two minutes, and it is not my obligation to accept that workload, nor fair for people like you to presume that we do.

Lastly, the references sources you mention, assuming they're reliable, are primary sources. If the information you wish to add to the article is that the character's name or etymology is wrong, then that would represent critical, analytical or evaluative information, and that requires a secondary source, not a primary one, as indicated by WP:PSTS and WP:FILMPLOT. After all, how would you compose or present such information in the article? Should we modify a passage to instead say, "her name means 'Daughter of Mirkwood', though this is not an accurate translation of Tolkien's Elvish alphabet"? If we did, who is the one making the observation that the translation is wrong? It would be us making that observation, and that would be synthesis, which is not permitted. I assume you know this, since it's part of the WP:NOR policy, which, as you say, is not a guideline, and probably takes less than two minutes to read. :) Nightscream (talk) 20:29, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Gentlemen, please slow down. You're both right to a certain extent. The translation delivered by various mass media (and possibly by Jackson's crew in the first place) is plain wrong from a linguistic point of view if one considers the corpus of Tolkien's language. But it's not our task to point this out in the article unless someone else has done it before. I have now slightly modified the sentence in the article so it reads "...has been translated as 'Daugther of Mirkwood'". That way we don't make any claims about it being correct or wrong and leave the judgment to the reader. De728631 (talk) 21:32, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, De728631. That was a good idea. Nightscream (talk) 04:28, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

PoV pushing (and worse)

This bit constitutes blatant PoV-pushing and undue weight, per WP:NPOV: "though writer Clem Bastow opined that the criticism in question was sexist and misogynistic, as it focused on Tauriel's gender." It is very problematic for at least seven reasons, five grounded in WP:NPOV, one in WP:NOT and one in WP:V, all of which are policies not guidelines:

1. A writer, notable or not, just happening to make a claim that he believes that a bunch of statements by a large number of other people form a sexist pattern, is not encyclopedic or noteworthy in any way, and certainly does not constitute any sort of reliable study of such commentary, its rationales, etc. It's simply random editorializing, of no encyclopedic consequence at all.
2. Even if Bastow were the worlds' foremost authority on sexism in public responses to popular culture news items in social media, which he's not, the appearance of this passage in the Wikipedia article would still lend his editorializing far more weight than it is due, and it definitely skews the article in a clearly left-leaning, feminist-activistic manner.
3. No countervailing opinion about the fanbase's reaction to Tauriel is presented, only Bastow's, which has been inserted as a weird non sequitur just hanging there.
4. There is no citation to anything external to Bastow's own material showing that reliable sources consider Bastow's published opinion to be noteworthy, influential, or controversial (much less correct; see below). He simply stated an view, and no one really cares, pro or con, or ran with it in any direction.
5. Just because something can be sourced doesn't make it relevant or encyclopedic, and citing an editorial as a source for itself does nothing at all but prove that it exists, not that it should be mentioned, cited, or quoted here.
6. It is not Wikipedia's job to specially annotate every article with "something 'progressive' has been said about this somewhere on the Internet" links like this one to Bastow's material.
7. It is factually suspect anyway, as even a cursory, momentary review of the sorts of anti-Tauriel comments to be found on fan sites, media sites and elsewhere, shows that most of them fit the same pattern as earlier criticisms about 'The Lord of the Rings' films, namely objections to adding material not found in the books. While there are of course inevitably some sexist comments, most of them seem to be written by juveniles, not by serious commenters. Again, there are no citations to independent reliable sources suggesting that Bastow's views are considered correct by others (themselves notable enough that we would have reason to quote them, or in sufficient numbers to indicate a noteworthy controversy), and not simply a fallacious mistaking-correlation-for-causation, and guilt-by-association trip, whereby the entire fanbase is being labeled sexist and unreasonable when in fact there's no evidence for this at all, only evidence that misogynistic twits will happily post on LotR/Hobbit threads as readily as on any other, amid more thoughtful posts by others.

AReaderOutThataway (talk) 11:30, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

The main issue I see with the statement is the part "as it focused on Tauriel's gender". Well, there are many other reasons to dislike her, that have been raised by fans much more often. (Such as that, if Jackson had wanted to show a female character in Mirkwood with power, he could perhaps have just shown Thranduil's wife.) As it stands, I think it's better removed (you explain perfectly why). Double sharp (talk) 11:51, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Lower social status?

There's no clear indication that the Þindar/Silvan distinction means much of anything in Mirkwood: after all, Legolas has a Silvan name! And Oropher adopts Silvan culture.

(Also, has an explanation for her hair colour ever been officially released? This particular Fëanorian wants to believe she's Amrod's illegitimate granddaughter or something. Seriously, I hope it's not just an "OOH LOOK I'M SPECIAL" gimmick...) Double sharp (talk) 11:43, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

(Or is this yet another utterly uncanonical film invention? Wouldn't put it past them.) Double sharp (talk) 14:22, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

As I'm reading it, the "lower status" refers to the direct comparison with characters like Arwen, Elrond, etc. who are clearly some sort of elvish elite and nobility as opposed to a normal warleader. The alleged Sindar vs Silvans contrast might stem from the view that the Silvans were not as "enriched by the westward journey" [2] as perhaps the Sindar or certainly the Noldor. Not to mention the fact that the Silvans did no longer have any kings of their own in the Third Age but were ruled by Sindar lords and a Noldo lady. De728631 (talk) 18:08, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Are there any secondary sources that touch upon this? Nightscream (talk) 18:47, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

For a start, here's a book that picks up a line from The Hobbit where Tolkien states that the Wood-elves are "less wise" than High Elves: [3]. The author goes on and explains why this is the case by comparing the reception of Thorin & Co. by Elrond to their experience in Thranduil's hall. And then there is this text that explicitely calls them "lesser elves". But I haven't yet found anything that mentions Jackson's Tauriel in this context. De728631 (talk) 19:07, 29 November 2013 (UTC)