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
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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Animation, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to animation on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, help out with the open tasks, or contribute to the discussion.AnimationWikipedia:WikiProject AnimationTemplate:WikiProject AnimationAnimation
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
An IP editor has seen fit to remove 2 statements from the lead. I've restored them both per status quo ante, and because they are both necessary to summarize the article. Both are reliably cited, and they are among the few things said about the film by 3rd parties, i.e. they are vital facts here. Further, they concisely present the 2 sides of opinion on this film, for and against. As such they are absolutely necessary. The IP's assertions that these are "awkward" in the lead, or undue weight, are simply incorrect and unjustified. Perhaps a pro-film partisan might prefer critical comment not to exist: but it would be that opinion which is out of order on Wikipedia. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:52, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not so much that there are "pro-film partisans" for the 1977 Hobbit television special (lol), just that an offhand total dismissal of the work (well after the fact, by a LOTR specialist primed to not like this sort of thing) doesn't really summarize the the general critical reception or even the views of those who don't like it. I think more negative contemporary takes treat it as a sort of oddity: one of the many bits of pop-culture cruft that would have otherwise been completely forgotten if not for the fact that it's an adaption of the Hobbit. "Peabody winner or total trash" makes it sound like it's a far more divisive work than it is. I'd recommend something a little more muted. 2600:1700:37A8:250:1404:4008:9F2F:CD70 (talk) 07:37, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The job of the lead is only to summarize the body of the article. It has been difficult to find Reliable Sources that discuss this film in any detail (and in fact there are 6 uncited claims in the text, which could be removed by anybody, according to Wikipedia policy); those that could be found have been faithfully described and cited in the article, and the lead then simply summarizes the resulting text. Douglas A. Anderson, by the way, is a well-read and professional scholar very familiar with everything to do with The Hobbit. If you have reliable contemporary sources then feel free to cite them using Template:Cite book or Template:Cite journal (like the existing citations) in the article body, and we can update the lead from the extended article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:15, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
