Talk:Troubled Blood

“cross-dressing serial killer”
I don’t want to get involved in the reverting about this phrase, but I agree that it should be removed. Although the press have focused on this one character, that’s because of Rowling and the recent high media focus on one of her tweets. In the book, the character isn’t as high-profile as the reviewers are making it, and so it seems a bit of a push to focus on it in such a short plot summary. Once it’s a complete summary, then there may be room for it, but it’s giving too much weight to the point in such a short section. - 81.158.242.243 (talk) 11:10, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree very much. The initial review in the Guardian does not even mention this character, and subsequent commentators who have read the novel confirm that they are not a central character. Even the original Telegraph review referred to this aspect as a "sub-plot". It is very much WP:UNDUE to have the character referenced in such a short plot summary. The controversy is rightly addressed in the 'Reception' section. We need to wait for someone who has read the full novel to leave a more complete plot summary, which includes all important aspects of the plot, and will very likely reference this character, but in a proportionate fashion. AutumnKing (talk) 11:18, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The plot summary doesn’t focus on it, only mentions the characters existence. That is crucial information, how are readers supposed to make sense of the “reception” section without it? Its temporary prominence will be diluted as soon as others start to write more about the plot. No reason to censor it. -  (talk)  12:17, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes there is. It's too much WP:WEIGHT. It's not about censorship - the plot section is wildly misleading as it stands, given the prominence of the mention. To ease the reference in the reception section a couple of extra words about "a sub-plot contains xxx" (which is what one source clearly states), will explain all that people really need to know. - 2A00:23C7:2B89:BE00:E8A5:E8CB:81B3:3311 (talk) 12:37, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The original plot summary implies that the novel is about the serial killer. Indications from reviewers who have read the novel is that this is not the case. The reception section makes clear that this character features in the novel, and how and what the controversy surrounding this was. It is not necessary to add as a plot detail without further context of the rest of the plot/characters. AutumnKing (talk) 13:42, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Reception
It is important to include the controversy that surrounded the novel on its first day of publishing, with regard to the character that features within it, who it states has worn women's clothing as a device to lure their victims. However, it is equally important that this is placed within its appropriate context. As the sources cited show, the controversy was not garnered from multiple reviewers reading the book and expressing concerns, but from the review in The Telegraph. Of the five sources used, only one is a review, the others are regurgitating the Kerridge piece. It is also important to include the views of those who have actually read the book, positive and negative, such as the Lawler piece in USA Today and Flood in The Guardian, as this section is for the reception of the novel. AutumnKing (talk) 13:31, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * In my haste, I did not fully read the original diff, so have reinstated Daveout's wording on Flood and Cohen, which was better summarised and less reliant on quotations. However, as noted in my edit summary, it is not necessary to note that the Spectator is a conservative magazine for this article. The Telegraph is a conservative paper, the Guardian a left-wing one, Nick Cohen is a journalist for the Observer, sister paper to The Guardian. None of this is relevant to this article. AutumnKing (talk) 14:00, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Would it be worth having a sub-section of the reception that deals with the controversy? I think separating out the judgement on the novel from the point about the controversy would be beneficial. - 2A00:23C7:2B89:BE00:CDE2:7C8A:2C78:6F07 (talk) 14:22, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I actually think that is the best idea, as it is a significant item to note, but not directly related to judgement of the novel. Will separate into a sub-section. AutumnKing (talk) 08:27, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

The controversy should be addressed as such: "The novel attracted some minor criticism for alleged transphobia",include a source. That's it. The end

The reception section is about how good or bad the book is not about controversy. It's mostly got generally positive reviews for the book and mixed reviews for length.

Robbie Coltrane was right, SJW wait to be offended and rubbish people like that Kirkpatrick person writes sensational articles for clicks and readership. - Hpdh4 18:36, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

The section looks ok to me as it stands now. --- It's probably enough to separate the specialized\technical criticism from the news media coverage (this section should cover them both) through paragraphs. But I do not object to the "Controversy" heading. I'm not the biggest fan of WP:LABEL -   (talk)  08:18, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

The Spectator
“The Spectator isn’t a WP:RS”. Do you have anything to back up that claim? It’s a respectable and well known publication. Yes, it’s right of centre for UK politics, but that doesn’t affect its validity as a source. No-one is helped by ridiculous claims like this. - 2A00:23C7:2B89:BE00:F1B0:8102:17:53A9 (talk) 16:58, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Yep, we actually have a list of reliable sources (which were carefully scrutinized by the community). Please take a look at the latest discussion about The Spectator and also WP:BLP. -   (talk)  17:22, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I was aware of the discussion, but there isn’t a conclusion or decision not to allow it as an RS. The Spectator (largely) publishes opinion pieces: reviews are, by their very nature, opinion pieces and the article is so low on any possible impact on BLP policies as to be negligible. - 2A00:23C7:2B89:BE00:A806:3828:4161:AD6E (talk) 17:41, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * there isn’t a conclusion or decision not to allow it as an RS. Exactly. And there's no consensus to allow its use as a RS either. Therefore it isn't a RS and should be avoided in BLP's. Not every review should be included in articles, only the most relevant ones, like those that are published by well respected outlets. Definitely not the ones that are published by magazines that engage in conspiracy theories, such as climate change denial.  -   (talk)  19:49, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I’m afraid you have this bass-ackwards. The Spectator has not been banned (a la Daily Mail). As it hasn’t been banned, it is a de facto RS. Given what it says in relation to discounting The Telegraph, it is entirely and utterly relevant. The magazine is not a denier of climate change, but publishes opinions from both sides of the debate. The Daily Telegraph also publishes opinion pieces from both sides of the debate, so would you like to remove the review from that too? Just so we are clear, this article isn’t a BLP: it’s an article on a book. Although we have to be careful about any BLP aspects in the article, what appears in The Spectator (at least the aspect we include in the article) relates not to Rowling, but to the book and it’s contents. - 2A00:23C7:2B89:BE00:F1B0:8102:17:53A9 (talk) 19:57, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I've been treating this as a BLP matter (even though this isn't a biographical article) bc it is very closely related to claims allegedly made by or about JK Rowling. (This isn't simply about characters in a book, it's also about the author). \\ A source isn't generally reliable until it is deemed as such by the community. By your logic, if some random dude creates a news org. today that would be reliable because it hasn't been deprecated yet. that doesn't make sense. -   (talk)  20:13, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * No, that’s not right at all. A new source has to be weighed and judged and if challenged then it’s examined further and banned (see the history of the discussions relating to WP:DAILYMAIL).
 * Trying to remove the comments from The Spectator on the grounds of BLP makes no sense. The Spectator reference we connect to refer to comments about the book, not about Rowling or anyone else. – 2A00:23C7:2B89:BE00:F1B0:8102:17:53A9 (talk) 20:21, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Anyway, I'm not advocating for (nor objecting to) its removal, I just wanted to point out that that isn't the best source ever. Previously, Cohen's review was being disproportionately emphasized (that has since been attenuated\fixed). The arguments of both parties are now being clearly a fairly presented. That's what matters most. -  (talk)  08:18, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Transphobia
Troubled Blood is the latest culmination of Rowling's transphobia; the novel depicts a serial killer who steals women’s underwear and masturbates in them. https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2020/09/16/jk-rowling-troubled-blood-serial-killer-cross-dresser-womens-underwear-plot-character/

What can we expect from Rowling who has rejected the female gender of t women. She has her core anti-transsexual readership that she appeals to.--2601:C4:C300:1BD0:708E:2510:279C:4124 (talk) 14:43, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The Talk page is not a forum. Unless you are asking to discuss inclusion of particular content, these comments are not relevant or appropriate to this page. AutumnKing (talk) 14:46, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm asking for the inclusion of the above contents which have been removed.--2601:C4:C300:1BD0:708E:2510:279C:4124 (talk) 15:20, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The matter is already discussed in the article. -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 16:36, 23 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Your edit was reverted because it's already addressed in the article, with attribution, in more neutral terms from more neutral sources, and in terms that do not give away key detailed plot points of a mystery novel. Softlavender (talk) 16:57, 23 September 2020 (UTC)


 * The article isn't clear. The outrageous claim of this notorious sexist J.K. Rowling that t women are serial murders like Russell Williams (criminal) is as disgusting as claiming that lesbian women are serial murderers like Aileen Wuornos!--2601:C4:C300:1BD0:708E:2510:279C:4124 (talk) 17:04, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

NPOV Transphobia
PR agency writing?

It is "seen as", "by some" is redundant. Otherwise, it would be "universally accepted to".

Media Outlets don't find poor reception is bound to happen by those wacky trans-activists. Enough have described it correctly as stereotypically transphobic.

Last paragraph: Two articles about its transphobia are mentioned in passing, then two others are elaborated upon to smear those denouncing its transphobic hate-speech as "slanderous". Gaslighting. The book is quite unversally criticised as terf by everyone (almost) with competences in the area. The two who see this as "libel" may be quoted if the reasons for all others to see transphobia are presented equally. --82.113.99.11 (talk) 18:43, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I tried to atenuate this discrepancy before based on the number of sources and what they say (diff), but i got reverted. I think the part that explains the transphobic tropes in the book should be expanded a little. -   (talk)  23:40, 23 February 2021 (UTC)