Talk:Fifty Shades of Grey/Archive 1

What
This is why we can't have nice things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.4.184.231 (talk) 20:29, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Au contraire. Regardless of whether you like it or hate it, you cannot deny the impact this book and its author has had upon recent society. BDSM has always been a known phenomenon, but this is one of the first books to go mainstream- for better or for worse. I haven't actually read it, so I can't voice an opinion on its authenticity or quality of writing, but I have to give it credit: it's become far more popular than anyone could've predicted.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 14:19, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Would this qualify under WP:PORN?
I know that for many, there's no difference between porn and erotica. However, I do know that many do not see erotica as porn because its main goal is not to "get your rocks off", so to speak. It's one of the things it does, but erotica generally also tries to tell a story along with the sexual content. The only reason I ask is because while I have no problem with this falling under the WP:PORN banner (since we don't have a wikiproject for erotica), I know that others might get a little upset about it.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 14:23, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Translations
Suggest to add a section mentioning languages to which the book(s) have been translated or are being translated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.227.41.100 (talk) 20:39, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 28 June
The second papragraph reads "The series has sold around ten million copies worldwide, with book rights having been sold in 37 countries,[3] and set the record in the U.K. as the fastest-selling paperback of all time surpassing the Harry Potter series.[4]" This is misleading as the fastest selling Harry Potter books are hardbacks and still hold the fastest selling record across all genres (see :http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-18618648). Please change "...set the record in the U.K. as the fastest-selling paperback of all time surpassing the Harry Potter series.[4]" to "set the record in the U.K. as the fastest-selling paperback of all time."


 * ❌ Sorry, but your source only mentions that Harry Potter holds the single week record, but not the fastest selling novel. I know this may be confusing, but they are not necessarily the same thing. Rotorcowboy $talk contribs$ 05:52, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Synopsis?
Any particular reason this wiki doesn't include a synopsis of the plot? Every other page I've seen for a novel or film has one. KingAdrock (talk) 09:55, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It was supposed to have one, but we'd had a few people coming through and randomly blanking entire sections. Someone blanked the criticism section as well, which I had to re-add. I must have missed that the synopsis section had been removed. I've re-added it. Thanks for catching that!Tokyogirl79 (talk) 23:03, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I think a full plot synopsis (as in full spoilers and everything) is something that needs to be added. Not only is it a normal feature of this encyclopedia, but I think many people come to read about it here of all places because they are wondering "what it's all about." I'm afraid I cannot do this myself, because I have not read the book.Legitimus (talk) 15:26, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I think some fans might have already attempted to do so, but they get about halfway done before they look over what they have typed so far and it dawns on them what utter shit this novel is when you take away the pornographic content, and that the plot is actually quite horrible and has all manner of unpleasant implications. Otherwise someone would have written it by now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.255.32.52 (talk) 06:43, 10 July 2012
 * I'll try to get around to it when I get a chance.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:27, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Whew... done. My grammar sort of stinks, so if someone can go grammar check what I've added I'd be incredibly grateful. I've got most of the basics in there, although I'm sure I left some stuff out. The synopsis is a little too detailed at points, so it could probably be condensed at some point in time. Right now I'm sort of burnt out from flipping through my copy of FSOG, so I won't turn someone down if they want to clean it up. If not, I'll try and get on that later.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 00:01, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit Request (25th August 2012)
The title for "adaptations" needs a capital letter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.16.43.173 (talk) 23:07, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Fifty Shades of Stupid
Could be worth to mention in the article. Author Warren Murphy has written a humorous book called "Fifty Shades of Stupid", which is described as a kind of review of Fifty Shades of Grey. 84.210.17.201 (talk) 01:16, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Good idea- we need a section on this book in popular culture. Mention of parodies would be a good as well as stuff like Gilbert Goddfried's reading on the book and such.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:50, 4 August 2012 (UTC)


 * If you can find reliable sources WP:RS and don't give it undue weight WP:DUE, then knock yourself out. It's a little new for us to know which parodies and references are important enough to bear mentioning. Tokyogirl79, I think now that sales of the series are blowing world records, it's time to un-redirect the sequels. Wellspring (talk) 18:22, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not quite sure that we should just yet. Most of the coverage for the series has been entirely based around the first book in the series. Being popular (aka selling well) does not in and of itself give notability. It just makes it more likely. There's only a smattering of articles that are actually about Darker and Freed separate from the first book. I do think that it might be worthwhile to start working on pages for the books in a userspace or for an article on the series as a whole, but right now I think that it'd be a little too early to add articles on books 2 and 3 to the mainspace. Maybe soon and if the movie ever gets made, odds are that they'll get their individual coverage, but at this point in time the other two books have no notability outside of the first book. If they're mentioned, they're always mentioned as a bit of a side note to the first one.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 19:37, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

What is BDSM?
Is there any reason the page doesn't say what BDSM is in parenthesis??? (bondage, discipline, dominance, submission, sadism, masochism) I'm sure it's a new term for 99% of readers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.50.57.147 (talk) 16:44, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Ooh- good point! I'll link that to the appropriate wiki page! Thanks for pointing that out! Tokyogirl79 (talk) 17:56, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Well... 99%? I wouldn't assume the general populace is so naive as that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.170.209.117 (talk) 07:51, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It's a valid point to bring up and it's a good idea to ensure that it links to the appropriate article for readers that aren't familiar with what the term means or only has a very, very basic knowledge of the term.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 12:50, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I would rather a link than the parenthesis, but if parenthesis is used can someone please include the dominance and submission that is currently omitted. That is the major aspect of BDSM embraced in the novel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.45.225.30 (talk) 05:28, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that what is described in these books isn't BDSM. It's abusive, controlling and in large parts stalking behaviour, all of which is complete anathema within real-life BDSM. Fifty Shades of Grey inherited this abusive behaviour from its fanfiction original which in turn got that from Twilight itself (one major and massive criticism of Twilight is that Edward is a controlling stalker). Calling what happens BDSM rather than for instance "abuse camouflaging as BDSM" gives the idea to the unsuspecting layperson that the book is describing actual BDSM when it is not. Add to that that James obviously has very negative, naive and faulty ideas about real-life BDSM and this entry ceases to be neutral and aids her BDSM-negative agenda! Beniceer (talk) 07:07, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment: I went to post about this under talk when I noticed they have "bondage, discipline, sadism and masochism" within parenthesis inside a quote in the first paragraph under Reception. How does a parenthesis wind up inside a quote? I was going to correct this because the parenthesis explanation there of BDSM is wrong as the correct expansion is listed above. BDSM is three two letter acronyms and not a single acronym alone but the fact that this was within a quote made me stop. The fact that I see parenthesis within the quote makes me wonder how parenthesis can appear inside a quote unless maybe it's a quote of a written statement in which case it would be wrong to correct what someone else actually said even if they are wrong. If it really is a quote though then someone should apply "[sic]" behind it so we know that it's part of the quote and people don't mistake it for being the actual answer of what BDSM really stands for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.189.180.3 (talk) 00:32, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The passage I think you refer to is indeed a verbatim quote from Jenny Colgan's article in The Guardian. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:43, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Two sequels deserve their own pages?
Since the series has become so popular, does anyone else think we need separate pages for the other two novels in the series? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fireflyfanboy (talk • contribs) 17:51, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * No, unfortunately there just aren't enough reliable sources that would show notability for the sequels. It's a little frustrating since the first book is definitely notable but the two sequels just haven't had anywhere near enough individual coverage to warrant individual articles. I've looked, but I can't even find reviews that would be considered reliable sources to help show notability. The articles that I find that mention the next two books only seem to do so in relation to FSOG. Unfortunately popularity alone doesn't really meet Wikipedia's uber-strict notability guidelines. However it would be a good idea for one of us to start articles for the next two books in the trilogy in our user space and work on them until there are sources. Hopefully eventually we'll get them, especially if the movie ever gets made. (BTW, Firefly rocks.) Tokyogirl79 (talk) 17:05, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps one-para summaries of the two later books and/or a summary of the complete story arc on this page, 'until and when' the two books achieve notability in their own right. 80.254.147.68 (talk) 12:43, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I like the above suggestion of one-para summaries of the later books. I'm not familiar enough with notability guidelines to have an opinion about separate entries, but the it seems that the record-setting "publishing phenomenon" of the series' sales puts the series into a class beyond mere popularity. I actually came to this site as a user to help me decide whether or not to expend time reading the next novel or two -- e.g. is the writing quality (such as it is) considered to be the same or better or worse? is the proportion of love-story to portrayal of BDSM (such as it is) the same, or is it more of a love story? Does it portray BDSM in more depth/detail? These questions could certainly be given a quick answer in one paragraph for each book, and there must be some reviews out there that could be cited to address them.Summertime4 (talk) 15:39, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed- I like the suggestion of the short summaries of the next two books. As far as reviews for the next two books go, surprisingly there aren't any from any sources that Wikipedia would consider reliable. There's tons of reviews on Amazon, various review sites along the lines of Goodreads, and multitudes of non-notable review blogs, but none by any sites that we could use. It's kind of weird when you figure that the first book has gotten so much attention. There's not even any in-depth talk about books 2 and 3, aside from a few off-hand remarks that would be considered trivial at best. I did find this review by Television New Zealand that reviews the next two books, but we'd need at least a good 3-4 more that go in-depth about the individual books to have individual articles. (3-4 per book, I mean) The thing here is that only the first book has gotten a wide spread of coverage and the notability doesn't extend to the other books in the series. I'm sure that if the movie gets made and they work on the sequels, there will be coverage for them. As far as the BDSM stuff goes... it's pretty much more of the same, although much of the sex (vanilla or otherwise) gets pushed aside in order to showcase more plot and character development. I haven't picked up the third book yet, mostly because I was so disappointed by the second novel's blahness in comparison to FSOG. But that's neither here nor there as far as article improvement goes, just something I'm mentioning more because you were curious about it. :) Tokyogirl79 (talk) 02:16, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I think that argument is pure rubbish. The three parts were originally written as a single book they were published at the same time. The reviews do not distinguish between the books in the trilogy just as reviews of Lord of the Rings consider it to be a single work these days. Either the plot synopsis should cover all three books or there should be separate pages for each but sniffily ignoring the other two books as not notable because the porn reviewer at the NYT did not review them separately is stupid. Any book that has sold in the numbers that the second and third have sold is notable for that fact alone. I find these Wikipedia arguments about 'notability' to be increasingly ludicrous and more about the ego of the person making the non-notability argument than any rational or objective standard. 108.7.229.221 (talk) 03:19, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * No, that's not how Wikipedia works. The next two articles didn't get coverage enough to show notability apart from the first book and I can guarantee that if articles are created for the individual books, they'll be deleted. I can't even fully guarantee that an article for the series as a whole would really be safe either, as almost all of the coverage in its entirety is about the first book. I do agree that it's frustrating, but those are the rules of Wikipedia. We can't and won't change them because you personally think they're stupid; you not only have to make a good argument but you also have to get a consensus on the changes. If you have a problem with the notability rules, bring them up here: Wikipedia talk:Notability. Arguing on a talk page is not going to change much because the only exception to the notability rule is if a book is so widely taught, circulated, and influential that it transcends the notability rules. The two sequels for FSOG do not count towards this, as very, very few books get to that level of influence. The loophole isn't really that much of a loophole because the implication of the loophole is that if the books are that notable, they'd have gotten individual coverage and the argument for their notability would be moot. Also as far as amount of copies sold, popularity does not equal notability. If that was the case then there'd be a lot more book articles on here. Trust me, I've had to see articles deleted even though they're popular, just because they lacked the RS to show their notability.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:56, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Notability might not be met for the other two books, but can they still have short summaries here? At the very least it would be positive for article style and encyclopedic purposes by providing a complete plot summary of the story.  The plot for the first book ends rather abruptly and clearly was not intended as a stand alone narrative, so a reader of this article would be left hanging.  I myself am such a reader, knowing too many compelling reasons why I should not waste my time reading the books, but still morbidly curious where this story goes.Legitimus (talk) 12:24, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 1 October 2012
Please make equal the male and female names in your 50 Shades of Grey summary. I believe that if you choose to refer to Anastasia as "Ana", then please improve your references to Christian Grey to "Christian", rather than "Grey", thoughout the article. (I'm sure instead, you may also refer to Ana by HER last name, tho I think it would be more confusing to the average new reader.) Thank you. You may contact me at or with Wikipedia at 2miriam2. I live near San Diego, California.

2Miriam2 (talk) 13:44, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template.. Also, please don't put your email address up, as anyone can see it. Mdann52 (talk) 10:09, 8 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually, if I'm reading OP right, she's correct, for consistancy's sake; you should either refer to all characters by their last name, or all characters by their first name. 143.92.1.33 (talk) 03:59, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * My first thought was to say "but everyone other than Ana calls him Grey" but it looks like enough people call him Christian to where it would be feasible to have his first name. It wasn't really a matter of equality, but that so many people seemed to call him by his last name akin to how most people in X-Files called Mulder by his last name. I'll change it.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 13:35, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

47 million copies
Even if the real number of books sold is more than50 million copies, articles confirm that the series so far has sold 47 million copies when combining numbers from United States, Britain and France (32 plus 10 plus 5):

lay/index.html"The trilogy has been translated in 45 languages and sold more than 32 million copies in the United States alone, the statement said."

ecastingnewsscreenwriterconfirmedbreteastonellistrashesdecisionauthore ljames.htm"The novel has sold more than 30 million copies in the U.S., and more than 10 million copies to British readers, making James' book the UK's fastest-selling book of all time."

 "The six-figure sale for Cinquante Nuances de Grey bests the first-week total for Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code, the biggest-selling book in France since accurate records began—it has sold over five million units in France, shifting 90,000 copies in its first week on sale in 2006."

 "On to firmer ground: the numbers. Worldwide sales of EL James’ mommy porn Fifty Shades of Grey stand at roughly 50 million copies thus far."

But what the exact numers are, is hard to tell84.210.10.52 (talk) 01:12, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Critical reception
I would say that the author did not only get inspired by meyer but she basically ripped of the book/movie: nine 1/2 weeks. Which is kind of annoying since nine 1/2 weeks is ten times better. I've never heard of this book before, but am surprised that the reception is described "mixed," considering the tenor of the reviewer quotations provided. The most favorable quote seems to be that it is "more than parasitic fan fiction"--hardly a ringing endorsement. If critical reception is "mixed," then where are the positive reviews? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.215.18.51 (talk) 12:52, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I said mixed because while almost all of the critical reviews mention that the book is well... sort of bad, many of them also mention things that they also liked about the book, so the "bad" reviews are in themselves mixed in their opinion of the novel. There's few completely positive reviews out there that aren't from non-notable fans of the series, but the professional reviews aren't negative to the point to where I'd say that the reviews were overwhelmingly negative enough to say that they were negative. They were mixed in their opinions. There were people who were predominantly negative about the book, but there were just as many that said both good and bad things in the same review. If if makes you feel better, I can change the phrasing to "mixed to negative", but we can't say that the reviews were "negative" because there weren't enough predominantly negative professional reviews to where it'd be absolutely truthful.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:31, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Well to me "mixed" implies that some reviewers liked it, while others disliked it. Maybe "ambivalent" is a better word. That would convey that reviewers were consistent in having mixed feelings about the book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.215.18.51 (talk) 13:22, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that ambivalent is what I'd use, though. It is a good term, but the term is more used when the person is vague or doesn't have an opinion one way or another, which isn't really the way the reviews were worded. Whether their opinions leaned one way, the other, or were mixed between the two, they all were pretty clear about what they felt.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 13:41, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * One definition for "ambivalent" is "indecisive," but the primary definition is "The coexistence of opposing attitudes or feelings, such as love and hate, toward a person, object, or idea." It literally means "bi" (two) "valence" (strong emotions). http://www.thefreedictionary.com/ambivalence — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.215.18.51 (talk) 15:06, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

How would it not be truthful that reviews were overwhelmingly negative? Just because a reviewer says it was readable, does not make that a mixed or ambivalent review... It means they would never treat this book seriously if it weren't for the popular reception--which should be completely separated from critical reception. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.187.81.23 (talk) 22:08, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request - 7 January 2013
Alongside the Film adaptation and Classical album, there is now an officially licensed range of Fifty Shades of Grey adult products. It is called the Fifty Shades of Grey Official Pleasure Collection and is manufactured by UK company Lovehoney: http://www.lovehoney.co.uk/fiftyshadesofgrey/ Lovehoney has the exclusive world rights outside the Americas to design, manufacture and sell adult pleasure products based on Fifty Shades of Grey. It is the only officially licensed range, and the only range approved by E L James. It was launched on 1 November 2012. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.85.207.151 (talk) 09:29, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll look into getting some news coverage of this and adding it somewhere in the page.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   12:29, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Fanfic or not?
This article is totally unclear on whether, and if so to what extent, this story has been divorced from its fanfic origins; does the paper-published version tie in, in any way, to the "Twilight" universe or not? — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib.  10:21, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It was originally a fanfiction based on the Twilight novels. Ana was Bella, Christian was Edward, and so on. But you're right- this should be elaborated on more in the article. I'll try to see what I can do.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   12:30, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Actors interested in the movie
Is there a source saying that any of the actors listed are interested in the movie? The footnote doesn't mention any of them (it just talks about Universal acquiring the rights to the movie). I did a couple quick Google searches for Fifty Shades of Grey and the men

I got a tweet today from Bruce Willis with just Christian Grey's name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ihsomiet (talk • contribs) 23:13, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Secretary
Shouldn't there be some mention of Secretary (film) on here? I don't know that it directly inspired  Fifty Shades of Grey  or anything of the like, but the similarities are overwhelming. I would think just adding it to the "see also" section would suffice. Just so people can link and maybe see a variation of the theme on screen before it's directly adapted to the big screen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.162.8.57 (talk) 16:10, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I've seen both and really, they're not that similar except that both deal with themes of BDSM. Secretary is about a self-harming young woman that gets a job with a controlling lawyer, only for them to fall in love. Ana never self-harmed, never really worked directly for Christian, and they fell in love long before he bought out the company she worked for. They're vaguely similar, but not so much so to the point where I'd say that they're so similar that they should be linked together.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   16:52, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

The artist Pitbull recently posted a music video on YouTube "Feel This Moment (Lyric Video)". In the first part of the song there are references to 50 Shades of Grey.

GioRosbury (talk) 03:50, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It might not be a bad idea to include a section about the book's portrayal in other media. The only thing is we'd have to make sure to keep an eye on it and there's a big chance that it'd end up needing its own separate page. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   03:20, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Release date
I added that the film is said to be released August 1, 2013, and I sourced it. --Matt723star (talk) 22:33, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * We should probably start toning down some of the name dropping in the section and culling it. There have been so many names thrown into the mix that the section has become a list of names. It's getting kind of ridiculous and I can guarantee that almost all of that can be summed up as "Many actors, directors, and writers have been mentioned in relation to the film. As of August 2013, the only people confirmed to be working with the project are Michael De Luca and Dana Brunetti as the film's producers, Kelly Marcel as the screenwriter, and Sam Taylor-Wood as the director. Actors such as Ryan Gosling and so-and-so have been named as having been named as this or that character, with such-and-such reporting that That Guy had filmed a test scene." That's really most of what we need. I'm going to remove some of the name dropping- this is just overkill. At this point it's more a matter of which white male actor or white female actress that's about or under the age of 30 that hasn't been named as having expressed interest or been associated with the film at some point. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   17:42, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Film adaptation section - draft daughter article submitted for review 12 August 2013
I've submitted a draft daughter article to admin for the film. If it gets approved I'll put a "main article" link to it.06:29, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Jamie DorNan, not Jamie Doran
In the film adaptation section, the wrong person is listed as taking over the lead. Thanks. 50.164.202.78 (talk) 20:26, 24 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Fixed.--Tenebrae (talk) 03:10, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Promotional
This is like stumbling into a fanzine! I've never seen "Edit requests" before, and both talk page (no offence) and article seem bloated. The style of the plot "summary" seems like that of a sleeve jacket, and unnecessarily long: "Ana and Christian once again meet up to further discuss the contract, and they go over Ana's hard and soft limits. Ana is spanked for the first time  by Christian; the experience leaves her both enticed and slightly confused" could be said more simply: "Ana and Christian meet to discuss the contract and Christian spanks Ana. She finds this confusing and exciting.". A plot summary should not imo attempt to be a precis. Adjectives should be used if necessary not to try and communicate a "flavour". "Enticed"?! Yet despite being so long it does nothing significant with this extra text, like showing how the plot development matches the structure of the book, or listing the characters, or etc etc etc. Instead it's packed out with "colourful" phrases. LookingGlass (talk) 14:52, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Edit request 1 Dec 2012
I want to repeat the edit request further down the page that wants to change "[...]set the record as the fastest-selling paperback of all time, surpassing the Harry Potter series" to "set the record as the fastest-selling paperback of all time" - if left in at all. The Daily Mail cites no timeframe - we are left to assume that it means in a single week, but without this information, the source is useless. However, if we use a meaningful source for single week sales, such as http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/booknews/9584404/JK-Rowling-Casual-Vacancy-tops-fiction-charts.html, 50 Shades has sold 664,000 copies in a single week. The Harry Potter series' fastest sales are in hardcover, where it has sold in excess of 2.6 million copies in a week. As such, our article's phrasing should emphasise that it is only the fastest selling paperback, and certainly should not reference Harry Potter as a comparison. 90.245.11.165 (talk) 02:53, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Done, at least partially. It's something that needs to be clarified, since as you said- the sales for HP paperbacks are different than the hardbacks. I clarified that the sales were in comparison to the paperback sales of HP rather than the hardbacks, although someone else added the paperback mention.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 07:09, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I've deleted the Harry Potter reference as it is misleading (definitely misled me), cherry picking statistics to create a promotional bias in the mind of the reader. It is evidence of the article's promotional intention/bias.  Even to add the words "paper back" to the Harry Potter reference would still leave the reference as fulfilling only a misleading objective. Here's an objective assessment which paints a wholly different picture http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/booknews/9459779/50-Shades-of-Grey-is-best-selling-book-of-all-time.html Harry Potter series 400m+, Shades etc 40m+ The necessary point of the book being successful is retained.  LookingGlass (talk) 15:21, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Why are there no wikipedia pages for the two following volumes? 108.1.234.94 (talk) 06:14, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit Request 1/20/2013 (spelling
"instalment" mis-spelled in first sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KBorders01 (talk • contribs) 10:59, 21 January 2013
 * No, it's not; see instalment. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:26, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * As the article is about an English novel shouldn't the article about it default to English English rather than American, IF that's the issue? Manual of Style But there's now an error in the intro code anyway, as the word is spelt the same in both the article and in the commented out sentence.  LookingGlass (talk) 16:16, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Christian Grey is not insprired from italian men at all
please delete this sentence in the PLOT: "inspired young Italian businessman" there is not any reference of this thing

LaVeve78 (talk) 20:01, 2 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes check.svg Done. Good catch -- it was a vandal edit. --Stfg (talk) 15:00, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Sequels
'Fifty Shades Darker' and 'Fifty Shades Freed' just redirect here. Do they not deserve their own pages?  Smokey TheCat  07:47, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * We need an editor who has actually read them for that to happen.Legitimus (talk) 13:08, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, well, that doesn't include me then. :-)  Smokey TheCat  13:18, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It's a difficult matter to solve. Dedicated Wikipedia editors are generally intelligent and well-read.  Genuine fans of this book series...are not.  At most, a smart reader might have slogged through the first book to see what all the fuss was about, but could not stomach two more books.  The real fans seem to be very good at putting in praise and movie gossip in this article (and suppressing criticism), but lack the creative writing ability to summarize the plot.Legitimus (talk) 13:43, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 June 2014
The current article states the following: "Originally self-published as an ebook and a print-on-demand,[1][2] publishing rights were acquired by Vintage Books in March 2012.[3][4]" Those notes that are siting this "fact" are blogs...which are hardly a reliable source of information unless those people are also stating their sources. This information, according to E.L. James's website, says the books were not self-published: http://www.eljamesauthor.com/faq/ (see last FAQ).

Arialburnz (talk) 17:53, 9 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: You mischaracterize those sources. Only one is any sort of blog, and it is not the self-published sort of blog which would offend our reliable source policy. On the other hand, the source you provide would not be useful as it is not independent of the subject of the article and the content is clearly self-serving. You are welcome to take these up questions with the reliable source noticeboard. I think the current lead may oversummarize the history, but the gist seems correct with respect to the sources. Regards, Older and ... well older (talk) 19:45, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Twilight fan fiction
Should the lead of the article explain that the book originated as Twilight fan fiction? 86.133.243.146 (talk) 01:08, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Response
Coming here via this. If the article, as it currently stands, had more than one small paragraph about its origin as a fanfiction, I would agree that it should be mentioned in the lead; my rationale for inclusion is WP:Lead, which states, in part: "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects. The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies." Flyer22 (talk) 01:36, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Interpretations
An interesting take on the matter: http://www.reddit.com/r/TwoXChromosomes/comments/2byz2l/many_women_do_not_agree_with_me_on_this_subject/cjaqvmi?context=5 89.139.4.89 (talk) 04:49, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately reddit is not considered a reliable source, and the content in question is nothing more than an anonymous opinion. It may be perfectly valid but it not appropriate for an encyclopedia.  It would need to be written by a named professional and published on a reputable site of some kind to even be considered.
 * On a side note (and yes I know WP:NOTAFORUM) a more compelling article I read by a social worker interpreted that Ana was supposed to be a young child of 11-12 and the author simply "artificially" ages the character in order to make it somewhat socially acceptable. The implications is not that E.L. James is a pedophile, but rather the story is an exercise in repetition compulsion in light of James's own childhood abuse, and given how common sexual abuse of female children is (especially in the age range reading this book) it explains the stubborn fan following.Legitimus (talk) 12:30, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Edit request on 12 June 2012
In the background section, third paragraph, it reads "led to the book's being dubbed". Please change "book's" to "books" in order to follow proper English grammar. JTornado (talk)


 * Good eye! Thanks for noticing that!!Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:33, 13 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually, you are both wrong. "the book's being dubbed" means quite literally "the book is being dubbed..." which is clearly nonsense, while "the books being dubbed" is a plural implying that more than one book was dubbed. The correct wording is, "led to the book being dubbed...".  Cottonshirt  τ   14:07, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Either wording is correct: "the book is being dubbed" is essentially the same as "led to the book being dubbed." Both are in the passive voice, and both create ambiguity in terms of who is dubbing the book "Mommy Porn." The sentence should contain the the active voice to lessen ambiguity and increase the formality of the writing (though much of the text on this page is quite informal, especially with the misplacement of prepositions). Perhaps the sentence should read, "The book's erotic nature and perceived demographic of its fanbase as being composed largely of married women over thirty led to some news agencies dubbing the book 'Mommy Porn.'" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mizlit (talk • contribs) 05:49, 19 July 2012 (UTC)


 * You seem to have overlooked the tense of the whole sentence. When we place the wording, "the book is being dubbed" into the whole sentence as originally written it reads, "The book's erotic nature and perceived demographic of its fanbase as being composed largely of married women over thirty led to the book is being dubbed "Mommy Porn" by some news agencies." I maintain the sentence is rendered gibberish by the inclusion of the gratuitous "is", and therefore the original, "the book's being dubbed" was clearly wrong. In addition, your suggested amendment introduces the weasel words, "some news agencies" contrary to WP policy and requiring explication and clarification.  Cottonshirt  τ   19:37, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

While we're on the subject, could someone change "...follows Anastasia "Ana" Steele, a 22 year old college senior THAT lives with her best friend Katherine Kavanagh" to "...follows Anastasia "Ana" Steele, a 22 year old college senior WHO lives with her best friend Katherine Kavanagh". Things -> that, people -> who. 76.227.78.161 (talk) 18:30, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Done! Thanks for catching that!!Tokyogirl79 (talk) 18:58, 21 July 2012 (UTC)


 * It was acceptable grammar. In "the book's being dubbed", "'s" is the ownership marker, like "John's being late was unacceptable to me" (the act of John being late). It is not the "'s" that is short for "is". 82.113.133.21 (talk) 08:47, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The possessive case use of the apostrophe applies when the noun in the sentence has ownership of something. "The girl's coat was red" indicates that the coat possessed by the girl was red and that it is the girl (noun) who possesses the coat (another noun). We could also have, "the book's cover" indicating that the book (noun) possessed the cover (another noun). In the expression, "the book's being dubbed" we don't have two nouns, we have a noun and a verb. The book cannot possess a verb, it can only possess another noun. The book cannot own "being" (present participle of the verb to be) anymore than you can own "playing". Further, your own example of "John's being late" is ungrammatical since it reads perfectly with no change in semantics when written without the apostrophe as in, "John being late is unacceptable to me." That's because the act of John being late is perfectly described by the phrase, "John being late", and no apostrophe is required (ironically this is precisely because "being" is the present participle of the verb). It is therefore a good example of the gratuitous apostrophe-s that started this conversation.  Cottonshirt  τ   05:55, 25 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Here, I believe that the word ‘being’ is acting as a gerund (‘the use of a verb as a noun’, to quote the Wikipedia article gerund). Thus it must be preceded by the possessive case, meaning that the sentence should read, ‘led to the book's being dubbed’. Please see the third ‘nominal characteristic’ under the section ‘Double nature of the gerund’ on the article gerund. 86.145.96.198 (talk) 15:37, 25 July 2012 (UTC)


 * We don't actually have the gerund in English, it is as previously mentioned called the present participle of the verb. That is because in English we only have two tenses, past and not-past. Some other languages have several and I seem to recall some Aboriginal languages have up to eight tenses. That article is referring to linguistics, not to English grammar - the clue is in the first line of the article where it says "In linguistics...". In the specific example you reference in that article the apostrophe is being used in its regular singular possessive sense in the present tense. The full text of that example reads, "I wonder at John's ability to keep calm.", where as before John is a noun and he possesses the ability (another noun) to keep calm. You could also choose, "John's habit of keeping calm", where habit is a noun or maybe, "John's power to keep calm", where again power is a noun; make your own choice it is always a noun. Changing the tense of the verb from keep to keeping merely prompts the apostrophe in cases of replacement of any elided text, "ability to", "habit of", "power to" or whatever fits the noun you selected. In English, this is not a special sense of the use of an apostrophe.  Cottonshirt  τ   19:33, 25 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I think I follow what you are saying, although I cannot understand why 'being' is acting as the present participle instead of a gerund. Rather than trying to explain again, simply typing 'gerund possessive' into Google gives this website:
 * http://grammartips.homestead.com/possessivewithgerund.html ,
 * which states that the sentence 'He resents you being more popular than he is.' is incorrect, and it should actually be 'He resents your being more popular than he is.' Whilst I understand that a better reference is probably required, I thought I would show it to you since it is typical of what I have been taught.
 * Incidentally, I must say that, from my personal experience, I more commonly see this structure without an apostrophe (possibly even to the extent that it would look unusual with an apostrophe!), even though I have found the possessive used in many grammar guides and older texts. I cannot say that I would have usually questioned it: the above discussion just made me want to write something! 86.145.96.198 (talk) 20:17, 25 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Gerund is not a type of word like adjective, or conjunction. Gerund is a verb tense peculiar to some Latin-derived languages and it is still used in say, German but not in English. Most English speakers encounter it when learning a second language. As I said, we have just two tenses, past and not-past. So although "playing" looks like a gerund in that it is the -ing form of the verb it does not function as a gerund in English because we don't have one.
 * Another way to think about "being" not being a gerund, is that (if we had gerund in English) gerund is a verb tense whereas in the sentence we started with, "led to the book's being dubbed" being is not the main verb. The actual verb here is dubbed, the past participle of the verb to dub, and being is merely an auxiliary verb, and hence cannot be read as a noun simply by plonking an apostrophe in somewhere, it has to act as a verb that adds functional content to the main lexical verb to dub.  Cottonshirt  τ   21:36, 25 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your prompt replies. I think what I am struggling to understand is why this sentence would be different to 'He resents your being more popular than he is.', for example (unless you consider that to be incorrect, too). Could the sentences 'I wonder at John's keeping calm.' and 'Is there any objection to my seeing her?' (from gerund) not be changed to 'I wonder at John's being calm.' and 'Is there any objection to my being her?'? I am rather confident that I am missing something obvious here, but I just cannot seem to be able to find it. 86.145.96.198 (talk) 23:07, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I have noticed that the two examples I gave are not in the passive; perhaps the difference is that ‘being’ here is related to the passive. 86.145.96.198 (talk) 23:11, 25 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The difference in the examples you have chosen is the timing of when the verb happens. In the sentence, "I wonder at John's keeping calm" the keeping suggests that John has been calm in the past and is remaining that way in the present, then when you change that to "I wonder at John's being calm" the being is precisely in the present with no suggestion of past or future calmness. In the sentence, "Is there any objection to my seeing her?" seeing implies that you may see her at some point in the future but again, when you change this to being, "Is there any objection to my being her?" this refers to you presently being her with no suggestion of past or future being. This auxiliary verb to be functions in the same way in our original sentence, it determines when the dubbing of the book is taking place, we can have "been dubbed" in the past or, "to be dubbed" in the future or as this editor chose "being dubbed" right now in the present, when you'll notice it is the auxiliary verb that is inflected whilst in all three cases the main verb is in the past tense dubbed.
 * I do not personally see anything wrong with the sentence, "He resents you being more popular than he is." There is a distinction sometimes made between, "you being more popular" and, "your being more popular", but the reason folks do this is that they are referring to genitive noun cases which, again, we do not have in English. These things (there are also nominative and dative cases) are found in grammar books as a hang on from the days when everyone was taught Latin. To learn Latin you need to be able to decline your nouns and conjugate your verbs correctly in all the relevant cases and tenses. In English, we pretty much do not decline our nouns (we have subjunctive, accusative and infinitve) and we have just two verb tenses, past and not-past.  Cottonshirt  τ   05:31, 26 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you; that seems to make more sense now. 86.145.96.198 (talk) 12:10, 26 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually, yes, English does have gerunds. They're grouped along with participles and infinitives as different types of verbals.  The difference between a gerund and a present participle is that a gerund serves as a noun, while a present participle serves as a modifier.  For example, in the sentence "Running a marathon has always been a personal goal of mine," "running a marathon" is a gerund phrase that acts as the subject of the sentence.  Another example is "The baby's crying kept me up all night."  Here, "crying" is a gerund that acts again as the subject of the sentence.  I refer you to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerund.  Bones O&#39;Malley (talk) 18:52, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Y'all realize that this discussion just has to make a mainline blog to news story somewhere, for shear disconnection with reality? Totally surreal (given the article). But thanks for correcting the grammar mistake, that was impotent. lol. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.239.87.100 (talk) 02:31, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

"Depiction of BDSM" Section Poorly Balanced
The "Depicition of BDSM" section seems to be talking entirely about the controversy surrounding the mere fact that the novels portray an ostensibly-consensual power exchange relationship and the acts thereof, while ignoring the controversy surrounding the nature of the depiction. As it stands, that section reads as a defense of the novels, and is one-sided to the point of nearly being promotional. If we're going to discuss a controversy, we need to involve at least something resembling a dissenting opinion from other authorities on the subject of sex or power exchange. PillowCaseLaw (talk) 16:39, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I found the article promotional.  The Talk page is bloated out with unsigned "edit requests", and even the criticism section is written as a listing of reviews more than as a summary of them with references. LookingGlass (talk) 15:00, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed I have seen an overwhelming number of sources in the BDSM community itself cite 50 shades as a book about an abusive relationship, and an absolutely dangerous depiction of BDSM, involving things such as ignoring safewords. The fact that something in the controversies section in no way reads as a controversy and only mentions positive aspects is incredibly suspect and gives a very strong appearance of editing to remove views of the book that would portray the relationship within it as abusive or unsafe as opposed to a totally normal BDSM relationship.  Criticisms of the book are SORELY needed for this section.2601:6:3D00:8E2:C1C0:B04D:6A34:AE5 (talk) 18:46, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 August 2014
The University location is wrong, She attends WSU Vancouver, a few miles from Portland, OR. WSU Pullman is 280 miles from Portland, a far commute to go to work.

PenguinJerry (talk) 10:31, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Tutelary (talk) 11:35, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 July 2014
The actual location of the Washington State University campus that Anastasia Steele and Katharine Kavanagh attend is located in Vancouver, WA which is in the Portland, OR Metro area, not Pullman. While Pullman, WA is the location of main campus, it is located in Eastern Washington near the border of Idaho which is several hundred miles from both Portland, OR and Seattle, WA.

2601:7:1200:6D9:5917:3C72:EF83:7770 (talk) 04:44, 30 July 2014 (UTC)


 * ✅  Mlpearc  ( open channel ) 18:56, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Study about behaviours of readers of 50 Shades
is a study of female readers 18-24 of the 50 Shades trilogy. This info should probably be integrated somewhere into this article (or a franchise article, should one be created.) -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 05:39, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure this can be integrated, as it is both scholarly and directly related to the novel. I will try to suppress my excitement at having my hypothesis confirmed.  I have obtained the original journal article text for those that wish to read it as well, and will include a full journal cite along with this one.Legitimus (talk) 12:14, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Get rid of the Fifty Shades Freed redirect?
Considering the fact the first book is being made into a film (thus raising the odds that all three may well be) I think it might be time that the third book got it's own, brief, page. Considering the second book had enough in it to fill it's own Wikipedia page I think Freed will be okay. I'm willing to make the page myself but I thought I would post here just in case there was some special reason that it didn't have a page. DSQ (talk) 14:18, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Seems fine to me. Based on previous discussions it seems to me that nobody made the other books into pages because none of us have read the books.  Keep in mind when a book has it's own page, it generally needs a full plot summary, rather than a just the teaser from the back/dust cover.Legitimus (talk) 15:30, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm sure once the page is made some of the more dedicated fans will step up and add a better summery than I can provide. Though I have skimmed-read the book so I can give a bare bones summary. Starting the page is the hard part. DSQ (talk) 22:09, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Page protection
Anybody else feel a page protection for this page? Vandalism continues from users whom aren't fan of the series which in turn is hate speech. I am also thinking about adding a page protection to the book's film adaption. Callmemirela ( talk ) 00:21, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Redirect: Fifty Shades of Grey: The Classical Album‎
FYI, I redirected Fifty Shades of Grey: The Classical Album‎ here until someone decides to expand the article. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 19:47, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Reviews.
There's a negative review of in The New York Review of Books by Tim Parks that may be worth quoting: Parks states the book fails as erotic literature because its sex scenes are unconvincing: "none of this is remotely erotic for the simple reason that nothing tactile or visually exciting is ever convincingly evoked." (Why So Popular NYRB, February 2013. ) 176.61.97.121 (talk) 13:41, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Controversies section – undue weight tag
This change added an undue weight tag, but there is no discussion on the talk page as to the nature of the undue weight. Obankston (talk) 02:18, 3 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Five sub-sections devoted almost entirely to criticism is the definition of undue weight. Where are the five sub-sections of praise / defending the book? –Chase (talk / contribs) 03:18, 3 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I moved the section "Universal Pictures lawsuit" to Fifty Shades of Grey (film) because it is about the film, not about the book. This substantially reduces the volume of the Controversies section, which is about social controversies, not about business controversies (i.e., the lawsuit). I also added a statement suggesting that the volume of the Controversies section could be large, because the statement implies that there is an approximately equal number of positive reactions and negative reactions. Obankston (talk) 20:40, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with Obankston. Demanding praise and criticism be equal is more or less tantamount to false balance.  It does raise questions about how we laid the article out though.  There are many articles about works or things that are notable due to media hype but are generally disliked.  Maybe calling some of the critical material "controversies" is not quite the right thing to call it.  Many of these seem to belong under "Reception."Legitimus (talk) 14:36, 5 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't think we should create false balance, but a controversy/criticism section is unnecessary (and as noted, many of those aren't true "controversies"). Section should be condensed and moved to reception. –Chase (talk / contribs) 19:11, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Another agreement with Obankston; the whole concept of a "Controversies" section involves, well, controversies, and is the place to discuss the various (well) controversies surrounding the book, all of which are very well sourced but may not warrant a separate article. It's a distinguishable subject from the book's critical and public reception.   Ravenswing   16:33, 17 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Agree with Legitimus. If there is equal praise from well sourced material then it should be added. But the absence of such praise does not necessitate a reduction in the amount of criticism.  Doing so would be false balance.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jerdwyer (talk • contribs) 05:47, 21 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I removed the Undue Weight tag from the ‎Controversies section per the consensus. The praise from well sourced material suggested by Jerdwyer already appears in the Reception section. Obankston (talk) 22:12, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 March 2015
Statements about the critical reception of the book and movie are unsourced and as a result appear to be more opinion than factual. Statement that the movie also received unfavourable reviews contradicts the movie wikipedia page, which cites both positive and negative reviews of the movie from a range of sources.

124.182.2.155 (talk) 14:11, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Please be more specific. There are many sources in the Reception section. --Neil N  talk to me 14:21, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 March 2015
115.248.43.133 (talk) 19:58, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. —  20:13, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Name
It should be mentioned what the 50 shades are. Since it's impossible for the human eye to distinguish between 50 shades of the color grey, it must be something else. --2.245.215.41 (talk) 18:02, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

"Originally self-published" should be removed from opening
James originally posted chapters non commercially in a semi-private forum before the forum site's owners decided to found a small press and published James' trilogy through that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Willentrekin (talk • contribs) 15:03, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * First off, the trilogy was originally a fan fiction, hence being originally self-published before being turned to what it is now. This content will remain. Callmemirela  ( Go Habs Go! ) 22:10, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Edit request
There is a space before a comma in the lede paragraph about the new book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.180.251.198 (talk) 00:14, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Done, thank you. plange (talk) 01:04, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Please create an edit notice
Please create an edit notice for the article, placing in it the template. The topic of the article is a novel by a British author, and I feel that such a notice will help remind editors of this article to use British English. Thanks sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 14:15, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Done -- Diannaa (talk) 14:21, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

In "Controversies"; source and quote debate.
Whether Cracked.com, or more specifically the professional BDSM practitioner they interviewed specifically about the depiction of Bondage, Domination & Sado/Masochism in Fifty Shades, is a "reliable" or otherwise appropriate source. Hell, they did just send a journalist and photographer to interview Syrian Civil War refugees (http://www.cracked.com/personal-experiences-1916-we-met-syrias-war-refugees-7-awful-things-they-told-us.html). So it's not like I'm using The Onion here. The quote I used (which has been removed) is just such an appropriate and spot-on summation of many of the problems in the book (and film) that I believe it's a disservice to simply discount it. I'd just like a simple, straightforward explanation as to why why this is an inappropriate source and why the opinions of practitioners of BDSM seem to be dismissed so readily. Thanks Peace, villain, peace! 18:20, 21 September 2015 (UTC) Peace, villain, peace! 18:20, 21 September 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Savcam500 (talk • contribs)


 * I am not sure if this is a significant viewpoint, and we should not give these views so much of a prominent description per WP:WEIGHT. If it is really a significant viewpoint, this would have been picked up by more significant and less biased sources than Cracked. Even if Cracked is reliable, adding this to the article would expand the already too large Controversies section (compared to the rest of the article). We must remember that the author of this novel is an WP:ALIVE person. While the novel may have received negative reviews, we should always present articles in a WP:NPOV. sstflyer 10:09, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

It may be anecdotal, but this is a view expressed by the vast majority of BDSM practitioners; I feel that to ignore their opinions is to marginalize them. It also points out the dangers of the relationship as presented in the book. If anything should go, I feel that it is the "Christian" section, who object to the fact that BDSM is even a part of the book. It isn't a book about Bondage, it's a book about abuse. And the controversies section may be quite large, but it is a controversial book! Peace, villain, peace! 11:55, 27 September 2015 (UTC) Peace, villain, peace! 11:55, 27 September 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Savcam500 (talk • contribs)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/16/fifty-shades-of-grey-isnt-bdsm_n_6684808.html http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2015/02/consent-isnt-enough-in-fifty-shades-of-grey/385267/ http://www.divinecaroline.com/love-sex/6-myths-about-bdsm-inspired-50-shades-greyhttp://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/02/14/a-dominatrix-reviews-50-shades-of-grey.html

You mightn't have heard about the complaints simply as you're not keyed into that community, but I think the Daily Beast, HuffPo and (especially) The Atlantic are vocal and familiar enough that they count Peace, villain, peace! 12:06, 27 September 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Savcam500 (talk • contribs)

Missing name?
I found the following under 'plot', "Kate is unable to interview 27-year-old a successful and wealthy Seattle entrepreneur" Sure there isn't something missing there? Gadgetphile (talk) 20:51, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Missing Section
I definitely support splitting off the controversies, with one caveat. Shouldn't there be a brief synopsis of the criticism? As the article is, it doesn't look like anyone had any issues with the book, which has been very well documented. Not asking to recreate the whole thing, just a link to the other article and a mention how much of an issue this book has stirred up? I would be WP:BOLD and do it myslef, and maybe I will later when I am not on break at work, but as is the split is a little misleading. Odrinn (talk) 16:35, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

FYI
I WP:BOLDly split the Controversies section into a new article. Dedicated controversies or criticism sections in articles should generally be avoided, per WP:NPOV and WP:CRIT. Although "Criticism of …" articles may be considered WP:POVFORK, in this situation I think this meets WP:SUBPOV. sstflyer 11:13, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * This has been reverted, with content merged back into different article sections. sst✈discuss 15:56, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Noteworthy abbreviation


Should 50 Shades redirect to this article about the film instead of the book? If popular TV series protagonists are referring to it this way perhaps it is a notable abbreviation and should be listed in parenthesis as a common way to refer to the film? Or maybe it should be a dismabiguation? The film has become popular enough that it might be what is meant instead of the book. This is probably largely established by context, like "did you watch" vs "did you read". Do we have any neutral basis for this like "did you buy" being assumed to refer to the book even after the film is out and being sold? 184.145.18.50 (talk) 15:50, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Reception seems ill-balanced
I have updated the final sentence of section 4.0, which otherwise misquoted the Christian Science Monitor and gave a somewhat misleading indication of the amount of criticism to which it referred (the fault here lies at least in part with the CSM for its click-bait headline stating ).

As a broader comment, from someone who is yet to read any of the alleged books, this section seems to be quite unbalanced. Are there any positive reviews? Any at all? Please? Even the positive reviews that are mentioned identify major negative elements, while negative reviews do not appear (at least according to this entry) to identify any positives. Can someone who cares please try to balance this a little? Ambiguosity (talk) 09:11, 4 March 2017 (UTC)