Talk:The Ink Black Heart
Latest comment: 2 years ago by Dtobias in topic Character list
 | This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
.jpg){kind=small}
Self insert
editWith regard to this content, I have removed it as per other editors, as it does not appear to carry due weight for inclusion. Obviously, this article requires a reception section, to summarise reviews, and mention of this could be included here. Given that all the sources appear to draw from one source (a Rolling Stone opinion piece), describing it as 'widely criticised' seems unwarranted. Plus, Rowling herself is disputing the idea that is based on her own experiences. Daff22 (talk) 12:37, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
- Just to add, looking more closely at edit history I appear to have misread the protection, so my edit summary on the page is incorrect. However, I stand by the need to reach consensus on the content, which does not carry due weight to warrant a section, and does not have sufficient sourcing for its wording. Daff22 (talk) 12:57, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
- When searching up the book online, most sources discuss how the character is somewhat similar to Rowling's public image (specifically transphobia). Although most of the sources do have a hyperlink to the Rolling Stone article, i wouldn't really say that they draw entirely from that source. Some more sources that have reported the controversy include Daily Dot and The AV Club. Also, as per WP:PUBLICFIGURE, Rowling disputing the fact that it might be about her doesn't mean that it can't be added, along as Rowlings comment is added. π¨π₯ππππ§-π¬ππ£π-ππ€π©π©π‘π(π·) - (β) 13:53, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
- Second this. Despite the supposed violation of WP:NPOV -- which as I mentioned in the edit summary, is not genuinely a violation -- there is absolutely widespread criticism of the
apparent self-insertion
, emphasis added. The fact that such criticism exists does not imply it is necessarily correct or even warranted. - Slightly unrelated, but I take umbrage to the claim that the
Self-insertion controversy
section is "the vandalism in question." First, I have practically written the entire page, and the supposed self-insertion was present from the very first iteration; second, I am the user who requested the page protection. Unregistered users have been blanking the section without comment or outright vandalizing it. There is no edit warring when reverting such edits. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!(talk or whatever) 15:50, 2 September 2022 (UTC)- First off, I have already acknowledged my error re page protection, and apologise for the confusion. However, my comments about the undue nature of this section stand. There is not nearly enough actual coverage to dedicate a section as 'controversy'. The two additional articles above are summarising Twitter responses, and the general discussion surrounding Rowling. This article is about the novel The Ink Black Heart. Not about Rowling. It does need a review section, and that is where comments regarding comparisons to Rowling belong. But a separate section, as presented, is mostly certainly undue. Daff22 (talk) 16:32, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
- There are more sources criticizing Rowling or reporting on the criticism than there are neutral references. A review section, or reception section, will be synonymous with a "Self-insertion controversy" section. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!(talk or whatever) 02:45, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
- The sources that i wrote aren't exclusively "summarising Twitter responses", though, and both of them mention the novel in their title. π¨π₯ππππ§-π¬ππ£π-ππ€π©π©π‘π(π·) - (β) 07:59, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
- My point regarding the additional articles added by π¨π₯ππππ§-π¬ππ£π-ππ€π©π©π‘π(π·) was that neither are providing any new content regarding this novel, simply rehashing comments from elsewhere, and delivering personal opinion on the author. It is very clear that neither have read the novel, nor are they presenting themselves as reviews. The novel has been out less than a week, reviews are trickling in (for example, the WSJ review came out today). As per WP:CSECTION, sections entitled 'controversy' are discouraged on Wikipedia. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO! I would strongly disagree that the needed Reception section would be synonymous with the controversy you suggest. The WSJ review, as an example, makes no mention of it at all. As more reviews are published, this section will come together in an appropriate manner. Daff22 (talk) 15:13, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
- But if the articles criticizing the book/covering the controversy about the self-insertion aren't reviews, then why shouldn't they be in a separate section? I think there should at the very least be a subheading under "Reception" titled "Alleged self-insertion" or similar. Also, WP:CSECTION is an essay, but even then that essay does support sections "For a specific controversy that is broadly covered in reliable sources". I don't know if you are simply against naming the section "Controversy", but seeing as you entirely removed the section before i'm guessing not. Sources that discuss the controversy: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 12 With the exception of Vice that is "no consensus", all the articles listed are categorized as "generally reliable" under WP:RS/P π¨π₯ππππ§-π¬ππ£π-ππ€π©π©π‘π(π·) - (β) 17:32, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
- Not mentioning this controversy/criticism is a major NPOV problem, given the volume and reliability of the coverage. I don't believe the prior version of this content was perfect, but I support restoring it, and it was definitely not vandalistic. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:19, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
- Considering even the reviews of the book mention the idea that the character was at least partially based on the author's life, it should definitely be present in the article. Whether it should be under its own section or as a subsection of "Reception", I do not know for sure. Isabelle π³βπ 19:22, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
- Going ahead and restoring the content as there does seem to be strong consensus for it and very little legitimate opposition. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!(talk or whatever) 09:47, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
- Considering even the reviews of the book mention the idea that the character was at least partially based on the author's life, it should definitely be present in the article. Whether it should be under its own section or as a subsection of "Reception", I do not know for sure. Isabelle π³βπ 19:22, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
- Not mentioning this controversy/criticism is a major NPOV problem, given the volume and reliability of the coverage. I don't believe the prior version of this content was perfect, but I support restoring it, and it was definitely not vandalistic. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:19, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
- But if the articles criticizing the book/covering the controversy about the self-insertion aren't reviews, then why shouldn't they be in a separate section? I think there should at the very least be a subheading under "Reception" titled "Alleged self-insertion" or similar. Also, WP:CSECTION is an essay, but even then that essay does support sections "For a specific controversy that is broadly covered in reliable sources". I don't know if you are simply against naming the section "Controversy", but seeing as you entirely removed the section before i'm guessing not. Sources that discuss the controversy: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 12 With the exception of Vice that is "no consensus", all the articles listed are categorized as "generally reliable" under WP:RS/P π¨π₯ππππ§-π¬ππ£π-ππ€π©π©π‘π(π·) - (β) 17:32, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
- My point regarding the additional articles added by π¨π₯ππππ§-π¬ππ£π-ππ€π©π©π‘π(π·) was that neither are providing any new content regarding this novel, simply rehashing comments from elsewhere, and delivering personal opinion on the author. It is very clear that neither have read the novel, nor are they presenting themselves as reviews. The novel has been out less than a week, reviews are trickling in (for example, the WSJ review came out today). As per WP:CSECTION, sections entitled 'controversy' are discouraged on Wikipedia. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO! I would strongly disagree that the needed Reception section would be synonymous with the controversy you suggest. The WSJ review, as an example, makes no mention of it at all. As more reviews are published, this section will come together in an appropriate manner. Daff22 (talk) 15:13, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
- First off, I have already acknowledged my error re page protection, and apologise for the confusion. However, my comments about the undue nature of this section stand. There is not nearly enough actual coverage to dedicate a section as 'controversy'. The two additional articles above are summarising Twitter responses, and the general discussion surrounding Rowling. This article is about the novel The Ink Black Heart. Not about Rowling. It does need a review section, and that is where comments regarding comparisons to Rowling belong. But a separate section, as presented, is mostly certainly undue. Daff22 (talk) 16:32, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
- Second this. Despite the supposed violation of WP:NPOV -- which as I mentioned in the edit summary, is not genuinely a violation -- there is absolutely widespread criticism of the
- I've removed the sub-section title for this as the section doesn't need to be sub-divided. Per WP:CSECTION: "Sections within an article dedicated to negative criticisms are normally also discouraged." and "If a book was heavily criticized, create a section in the book's article called "Reception", and include positive and negative material in that section." I have left the information untouched, so it's just the title that has done. (This was also partly in response to the reversions by an IP and Stephanie yesterday). - 2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:11F2:723B:CAC4:ABD9 (talk) 07:48, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
EngVar
editFor some reason this article is tagged as American English. Per WP:ENGVAR it shouldnβt be. A novel written by a British author and first published in the UK should be in British English. It doesnβt matter what the first use of English was, or any attempts to claim a local consensus: the site policy is clear on this. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:7467:E594:DCF0:BEFA (talk) 20:12, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
- Now the protection has been lifted, I have followed WP policy on the language and corrected this, along with a few other minor MOS-compliant edits. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:11F2:723B:CAC4:ABD9 (talk) 14:20, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 4 September 2022
editThis edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Iβve read the book, and despite what The Rolling Stone (and some subsequent articles) say, the main character Edie Ledwell is criticized for being racist and ableist, not transphobic. 216.99.32.204 (talk) 23:58, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
- Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:02, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
- Hereβs at least one reliable reference, though reading the book is a primary source
- https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/story/2022-09-10/column-the-new-j-k-rowling-book-is-not-great-but-it-has-nothing-to-do-with-transphobia 216.99.32.204 (talk) 20:05, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
PinkNews
editI put a query against the PinkNews reference earlier, but this was removed. Rather than the too brief mention at WP:RS/P, the RfC on which it that summary is based is found at [1]. The closure of the RfC reads "There is rough consensus that PinkNews is generally reliable for factual reporting, but additional considerations may apply and caution should be used. Several editors mentioned clickbait and opinion content, and suggested that editorial discretion has to be used when citing this source
". Given there are five other sources provided to support a fifteen-word sentence, is this piece of opinion content actually needed? In addition to the questionable reliability, six citations seems to breach WP:OVERCITE ("it is better to cite a couple of great sources than a stack of decent or sub-par ones
". - 2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:11F2:723B:CAC4:ABD9 (talk) 16:52, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
- I've put the citations into one reference to avoid the citation overkill you mentioned; As to the PinkNews reference, it probably wouldn't matter whether it was there or not, it just kind of felt needed when the sentence had included the word "widely criticized" (which it doesn't anymore) π¨π₯ππππ§-π¬ππ£π-ππ€π©π©π‘π(π·) - (β) 17:09, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
- I think it should probably be taken out, given the RfC referred to "opinion content" being dubious, and the number of other citations on what it a simple point. - 2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:11F2:723B:CAC4:ABD9 (talk) 17:16, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
- I've done this now - there doesn't seem to be any need for quite so many refs. - 2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:11F2:723B:CAC4:ABD9 (talk) 07:48, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
- I think it should probably be taken out, given the RfC referred to "opinion content" being dubious, and the number of other citations on what it a simple point. - 2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:11F2:723B:CAC4:ABD9 (talk) 17:16, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
Character list
editI haven't read the book, so I don't know which character are truly relevant to the plot, but do we really need a list of 40 characters (besides the main two)? Surely we could cut several of those and list only the important ones. Right now, I'm thinking we can remove most of those who do not appear in the article's plot section. Isabelle π³βπ 13:12, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
- We probably can lose some, but it maybe best if you read the book first? 2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:4EF:7B09:F18A:A11B (talk) 06:48, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
- I'd rather not, thanks. Which characters do you think we can remove? I was thinking along the lines of those who are not mentioned elsewhere in this article, as this shows a lack of relevance. Isabelle π³βπ 19:52, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
- I just finished reading the book. I think any characters who were seriously considered as suspects for committing murders and/or being the "Anomie" online character ought to be included, and several aren't at present. *Dan T.* (talk) 03:02, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
- I'd rather not, thanks. Which characters do you think we can remove? I was thinking along the lines of those who are not mentioned elsewhere in this article, as this shows a lack of relevance. Isabelle π³βπ 19:52, 21 September 2022 (UTC)