Talk:Sensitivity reader

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook

Journalism Low‑importance

	Journalism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Dahl controversy

@Euor, with respect to this revert, can you clarify the text of the article so that it makes clear what if anything sensitivity readers have to do with this controversy? Otherwise it is not clear why this controversy needs coverage in this article at all (see also WP:COATRACK). Sandstein 14:38, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. My first encounter with the concept of sensitivity readers was precisely from the Dahl story, and now Bond, so they definitely have something to do with it. Many of the articles mention how their use relates to the changes. I will make their role in this clearer.--Euor (talk) 16:18, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Euor, thank you. Until you do, I have removed the text, because as it stands it has nothing to do with sensitivity readers. Instead, it talks about changes to books that some people complain about. That, as such, has nothing to do with the topic of the article and therefore does not belong here. It should be covered in the articles about the books instead. Sandstein 23:41, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandstein Here's a source: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/8243434c-b470-11ed-abc9-a9456bea4494?shareToken=199d5626dd18ed8ea26b029d24c4e6dc

I have undone your deletion. Harry Sibelius (talk) 00:05, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For the purposes of tracking, the references in the controversy section of the article which mention sensitivity readers directly are (at the time of writing):
"Inside the group of ‘inclusion ambassadors’ behind Roald Dahl edits" from The Times,
"‘The Dahl Estate Should Be Ashamed’: Salman Rushdie Blasts ‘Absurd’ Censorship of Roald Dahl from The National Review,
Dahl Publisher Bends to Controversy, Will Release “Classic” Version of Controversial Kids’ Books from The Hollywood Reporter,
Bond Books Edited To Avoid Offense To Modern Audiences – Report from Deadline.com,
and Bond books edited to remove racist references from The Times.
Xiongu (talk) 04:22, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Harry Sibelius (talk) 08:18, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Controversies

I don't think Kate Clanchy's "controversy" was about sensitivity readers, rather that reviewers criticised her book. Maybe this belongs on a different page? LittleFranzl (talk) 14:30, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

should be filed under the Wikipedia censorship umbrella

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Censorship_sidebar this template should be attached 72.11.60.106 (talk) 11:45, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The "Purpose" section

The "Purpose" section does not seem to contain any direct statement from a proponent who intends to summarize the purpose. Naming an advantage provided by a bad plan is a useful tactic for unscrupulous promoters to misdirect attention away from the plan's flaws. That doesn't mean it's happening, but it does look bad.

It would therefore be to everyone's advantage to find some direct statements saying "The purpose is ...", especially if those statements are made by someone who pays sensitivity readers for their work rather than by a casual buyer of books. TooManyFingers (talk) 22:47, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Third-party offensiveness?

Do sensitivity readers report situations in which they are not offended but they can see that someone else is likely to be offended?

That kind of reporting would be patronizing to the supposedly potentially offended third party. Reporting on their behalf without their input is ... not sensitive.

If sensitivity readers don't do third-party reporting, then how many thousands of sensitivity readers are required for a large, complex book? TooManyFingers (talk) 06:21, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]