Talk:Gender representation in video games

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Video games (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Feminism (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Feminism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Feminism 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
 
WikiProject Gender Studies  
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject Gender Studies. This WikiProject aims to improve the quality of articles dealing with gender studies and to remove systematic gender bias from Wikipedia. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

Comments[edit]

Thank you for your comments on my page, i found them very helpful. Your project seems to be coming along nicely. I think you could use a few more references, and some more "wikification". all of your chapters are good, and just need some expansion. I feel like you are headed in the right direction, and with some tweaking, you will have a very solid wiki entry. happyfriend77

Hey article looks good so far. I realized you only had three citation so I did a quick search and found an article about gender representation in online reviews of video games. I am not sure if this is something you would want to discuss on your page but here is the link if you are interested in giving it a look. http://filebox.vt.edu/users/jivory/JIvory2006MassCommunicationandSociety.pdf Keep up the good work (Abulak (talk) 13:35, 23 April 2012 (UTC))

Merging with the Portrayal of women in video games article[edit]

There's a proposal to merge this article with the article Portrayal of women in video games at Talk:Portrayal of women in video games#Merge proposal, you're invited to join the discussion. Diego (talk) 20:31, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Neutrality Disputed[edit]

My previous edits to the section "Objectification and sexualization", were undone per WP:CLAIM. Although the sources in that section may be cited, and regarding the article as a whole, what constitutes objectification and sexualization varies to an extent (especially by culture); this is even evident in the article on Sexual objectification. Is it possible to reword the article so that it's clear that it's representing the arbitrary views as to what and where sexualization or objectification is, etc. of those who are making the arguments and/or the sources cited, and not in a way that can be confused with presenting said views as those of Wikipedia? In other words, more or less like how it's done in the Sexual objectification article. Shrewmania (talk) 09:01, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

It may be achieved, but it should be done in a subtler way than merely stating "claimed" in front of each sentence. If there are several views, WP:NPOV requires us to identify them and present them in the article. So the way to change the article is to introduce new references that provide the alternate point of view, and summarize the parts that apply to the topic at hand (video game characters). Diego (talk) 14:57, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay in the reply, but I also must ask why we're using Kotaku as a source. They're notorious for being an unreliable source. Shrewmania (talk) 23:26, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

POV tag[edit]

I've undone an addition of a {{POV}} tag that was added because "There are 5 sub-sections about Portrayal of women, and only 1 section about Portrayal of men, and that section is smaller than any of the sub-sections". That, however, does not mean that the article promotes a particular point of view (which one?) It simply reflects that the portrayal of women in games has found more attention in research than that of men. Or perhaps that there is equivalent research about men, but it hasn't been added yet. Even in this case, the correct response would not be to add a POV tag, but to indicate what specifically should be done to improve the article.  Sandstein  08:25, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Re-added POV tag, Mainly due to article being start class for a high-importance and controversial subject. However, as more balanced material is added (mainly for male representation and perhaps a LGBT mention) the tag will be removed. Please keep in mind that this is about gender representation and not sexism (though that is a factor) BallroomBlitzkriegBebop (talk) 19:23, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
I've removed the tag again because what you say is not a matter of neutrality: I'm not sure what the conflicting points of view here would be. It's a matter of the article lacking content in some important areas. For this, the "POV" tag is not appropriate. I've also changed the "start" assessment, as it does not reflect the range of content there is already.  Sandstein  22:21, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
It implies that woman are generally portrayed very poorly in video games and that men are portrayed with little difference as to real life. Also, the effects of gender representation in games sub section features a lot of weasel wording, and even talking about violence in games which is out of place in the article. I should clarify, I think this article needs a cleanup, as not to become a dumping ground of questionable information. References 28-29 come from the viewpoint of one person for example, but is used in this article as an example of a viewpoint of many. Theres also the problem of this article being the only "Gender representation of X media" on the english wiki, but thats something to worry about in the future. BallroomBlitzkriegBebop (talk) 00:48, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Well, there's probably just more research and publications on women's portrayal, and the article reflects this, but I agree that we need more content about men's portrayal. Though what there is does indicate that men are portrayed in a somewhat distorted fashion, too. As to sources, most sources are written by one person, but what matters is whether they are reliable sources as described in WP:RS.  Sandstein  10:49, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Okay, I need some help. How do I add the "section expansion needed" template? We both agree that the portrayal of men requires an expansion (or at least an indication of expansion), so lets add it! BallroomBlitzkriegBebop (talk) 16:27, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
There is stuff at {{expand}}, but I personally don't like these ugly templates for purely editorial deficiencies. What I recommend is ascertaining first whether there are appropriate reliable sources on which to base an expansion of that section. If there are, I'll help you write it.  Sandstein  21:26, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
I put the tag there so as to attract more people (many hands make light work), though I fear this will only make the article feel even more like an editorial as we could get flooded with unreliable "studies". BallroomBlitzkriegBebop (talk) 21:59, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Category:Video games featuring female protagonists[edit]

Category:Video games featuring female protagonists, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 11:39, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Studies?[edit]

The studies sub-section under Depiction of violence against Woman really pales in comparison to the rest of the article. featuring things that go against the manual of style (hypothesizing, vague,) overall making this article sound like an editorial. It's not exactly the way it's written though but mainly because the source is inconclusive, vague and overall unreliable. The section doesn't really need it anyway as it already features more solid examples rather then frankly bizarre social experiments. I'm going to delete it tomorrow if nobody objects. BallroomBlitzkriegBebop (talk) 00:44, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

On the "Impact on adults" section[edit]

The links point to pages that yield an "Internal Server Error" message. How prevelant are the reported effects? Are there other studies that yielded different results? Shrewmania (talk) 19:32, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Inclusion of "Tropes Vs Women in Video Games"[edit]

Due to the large impact it had I was thinking of adding some of the things mentioned in Anita Sarkeesian's "Tropes Vs Women in Video Games" series. more specifically the "Miss Male Trope" characters who are just feminized versions of an existing male character.Shadeturret (talk) 22:05, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I think that the Miss Male could deserve to be included, if it has enough references. Just a reference from Sarkeesian seems very weak (that's just a short point in a video, isn't it?) and what you have written is not really detailed. Jelt (talk) 21:57, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Expanding "Portrayal of men" section and other issues[edit]

Since the section on women is too small to split into a separate article according to the rules of thumb noted here, we should focus primary efforts on finding ways of expanding the mentioned section. Obviously, this is a tall order: female stereotyping in games has been more focused upon than male, yet male characters are very frequently subjected to similar treatment. Can anyone help find references for such instances, or people commenting on such instances, whether they be books or online references? Also, the way the article is structured seems a little imbalanced. Any suggestions on that? I have my own ideas, but I would rather not act on them at once as this is an article dealing with an important and potentially-sensitive topic. --ProtoDrake (talk) 14:17, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

One issue I find is that analysis of male stereotyping is often based on the discussion of female stereotyping - stuff such as the "he-man" criticism feels less than authentic, as portraying a male as strong and independent in a game about strength is a different situation than portraying a woman as sexy and seductive in a game not about either.

As for balance... well, I don't view it as unbalanced. We don't see discussion of the "portrayal of men" in video games nearly as often for several reasons:

  1. The issue became an issue only really recently, and thus doesn't have nearly as many or as high of quality sources which cover it;
  2. The issue is overblown by a vocal minority.

Of course, this is partially a non-neutral POV, but that's how I read it - the sources don 't exist because the problem isn't really a problem. We see the issue with female characters because female characters are, more often than not, heavily-flawed and usually feature significant problems common in the industry, such as excessive sexualization (Ivy Valentine), weakening (Samus Aran), relative uselessness (Princess Peach), "token girl" (Chun-Li, at first), etc. We do not see this same level of sexualization in male characters, and the act of retroactively making a male character weak is not entirely common. While Tomb Raider was not as bad as people expected in that area, it still was an origin story about how Lara Croft suffered and toiled to become the hero that she was. This is a rare thing in established video game character canon - Nathan Drake, Mario, Cloud Strife, Sonic the Hedgehog, Gordon Freeman, Master Chief - we don't see these things happening for these characters. But I'm getting off-topic - the meat of the matter is that certain things are discussed more than other things. The section which covers the portrayal of men should not by default be the same size or even similar size to the portrayal of females section if the sources do not exist in the first place. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 16:25, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I also don't think that the sections need to be the same size. They should reflect the degree of discourse about the respective topics in reliable sources. My impression is that the portrayal of women in video games has been discussed much more in reliable sources because it is perceived as much more problematic, for the reasons discussed in the article, than the portrayal of men. It's natural for our article to reflect this. That said, if there is more material about the portrayal of men, it should of course be included.  Sandstein  18:30, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
The article's various sections should have depth according to the weight they are given in reliable sources. If men's representation is significantly less covered in real life, it should be significantly less covered here too. I don't mind seeing any of the sections expand however. I do think that LGBT representation should be renamed to cover the T part specifically. - hahnchen 20:22, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
I agree that the women part will always be a lot longer than the men part, because there are so many more sources. However, the men part lack any statistics on how many are the main characters (from EEDAR for example), or the villain. At the moment, it focuses only on the sexual object or idealized appearance of men in video games. I'm quite sure some people have complained about Kratos from God of War, because he was a parody of the "super manly" character, and maybe there were some for characters like Duke Nukem too. Jelt (talk) 22:19, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Did what I could to clean up the article. "Deep" articles like this tend to stagnate without someone watching them. New editors, anons, and fanboys come along and add all kinds of poorly sourced, POV junk, and I've done my best to remove it. I hope that helps if some significant expansion is planned. PraetorianFury (talk) 18:49, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I have the impression you removed some parts only because the links were dead or the studies weren't freely available. There's a template for dead links and not freely available references are perfectly valid (there's also a template "must be checked" or something like this if you had doubts about what the references were really saying). Jelt (talk) 16:46, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
The fanboyish style of the material combined with a pattern of unreliability and fallacious citations has lead me to be extremely skeptical, so yes, I deleted many things that could not be independently verified. Feel free to restore things you can verify. PraetorianFury (talk) 21:30, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Ars Technica posted an article this week about this very topic - see [1]. It should be used to expand the section. Diego (talk) 17:33, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

PS: Another related article from ars technica: [2]. Diego (talk) 21:58, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
  • The RFC is not stated with the traditional expectations of an RFC, what you are doing is soliciting third party commentary rather than requesting the resolution to an editor conflict. Damotclese (talk) 20:39, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Marketing Portrayal[edit]

I'm interested in mentioning how female player characters appear in marketing as opposed to their male counterparts.Shadeturret (talk) 03:54, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

A good way to do this would obviously be to cover booth babes and hired cosplayers. There's also this: [3] - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 08:13, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

"X characters in video games" categories[edit]

The article is labeled with the Male, Female and LGBT categories not because it describes a particular character, but because it describes the concept of those characters. It therefore is working as the main article "which describes the subject of that category" for these categories, which don't have stand-alone articles on their own for their specific concepts (all those articles were merged here). I've reinstated the categories for this reason. Diego (talk) 11:44, 7 June 2014 (UTC)