Talk:Sexism and video games

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by James xeno (talk | contribs) at 08:19, 29 April 2019 (→‎You people have been just mentioned in an article by Prof. Christopher J. Ferguson). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 August 2018 and 7 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kestrada3 (article contribs). This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 3 September 2018 and 3 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Shainarojas (article contribs).

Category:Video games featuring female protagonists

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! 11:42, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edits on May, 6th

Hello,

I've seen a few edits, and most don't seem to improve the article in any way:

  • the first edit ("refers to the collective sexual harassment present in video games" instead of saying it is common problem) seems to me better than what I wrote, but it's now canceled
  • The "who" tag at "Some[who?] female players are also stalked, whether online or offline." is ridiculous. The part deals with the form of harassment, not the profile of the female players that are stalked. This tag is for unsupported attribution ("some say that"), but it's not the case at all here: it could be replaced by "Harassment can involve stalking" without any problem...
  • The tag "not in citation given" for the sentence " In those days, women stopped being represented playing video games in advertisement and started being used as sexual objects.": It is in the "The '90s shift" of the article (no girls allowed) in citation.
  • The part of the introduction stating when this problem started to be largely reported is just a summary of the part revealing events. Introductions of wikipedia articles shouldn't have any reference, as every point should be found in some part of the article, as it's the case here. And you could check that you're breaking a reference before deleting some text... I canceled this edit.

Jelt (talk) 21:43, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First and foremost, I'd like to thank you for going to the talk page.
  • What are you talking about in terms of 'it's now canceled'? What do you mean? Are you saying you're going to remove it?
  • The 'who' tag is just a result of weasel words, it's nothing wrong with the sentence or the source, but the wording should affect something specific. It shouldn't say 'some females', it should say something specific that's applicable to it.
  • The 'not in citation' given tag is because of the source given for it; http://www.polygon.com/features/2013/12/2/5143856/no-girls-allowed does not mention anything about them being reduced to sex objects. Per WP:SYNTH, I should've removed it, but I tagged it instead. The sentence should be reformed or removed entirely.
  • Also, that's a common misconception. WP:LEADCITE and WP:MINREF, anything challenged in the lead must be sourced to an inline citation. That's merely what I requested. Tutelary (talk) 01:27, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome:
  • Sorry, I canceled an edit after posting the message, and forgot it would change this point.
  • I disagree: weasel words are for unsupported attributions: "Claims about what people say, think, feel, or believe, and what has been shown, demonstrated, or proved should be clearly attributed.". It has nothing to do with using "some females". Nothing can be added on the female players, the topic is the form of the harassment.
  • It does say that "Even leading up to the '90s, the marketing had started changing and iconic video game box covers started to emerge." and deals with use of scantily clad women for advertisement who have nothing to do with the game.
  • They are anyway in the revealing events part: in the New York Times: Sexism, racism, homophobia and general name-calling are longstanding facts of life in certain corners of online video games. But the Cross Assault episode was the first of a series this year that have exposed the severity of the harassment that many women experience in virtual gaming communities., or the Süddeutsche Zeitung "Auch das Medieninteresse war überwältigend. Feministische und Spiele-Blogs berichteten, außerdem der englische Guardian, die New York Times und Wired. Selbst in die deutsche FAZ schaffte es ihre Geschichte" and "Seit diesem Jahr nun ist die Debatte um strukturellen Sexismus und Rassismus so richtig entbrannt.", which is referenced in the introduction, or even the BBC news "Several high profile incidents this year have intensified the focus on how women are treated.". I could add a few citations in the introduction, but I thought it wasn't necessary. From the rules you posted, it seems that the rules on the French wikipedia are different on this point. Jelt (talk) 21:31, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, but I'm nearly on my Wikibreak. I'll respond on May 11th. Reserving this spot. Tutelary (talk) 21:33, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am back from my Wikibreak. What I was referring to with the 'not in citation given' tag is that according to the source given to that specific sentence, it does not carry the words of 'sex object'. We cannot commit original research by adding that in. If it said scantily clad women, then that's what we put. Especially if they both refer to different things and can be construed in a different way.
  • The other sources you mention imply it, but again, it is original research to attempt to construe that as something else such as a 'sex object'. If you wish to put exactly what they say, then I'd be fine with that. But the 'sex object' thing I haven't seen substantiated in any sources. That's where my problem lies with it. Tutelary (talk) 20:07, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the late answer. I replaced the sex object with scantily clad women, and added a source in the lead. There's still this weasel word problem, which I disagree with. Jelt (talk) 16:29, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Recent Zoe Quinn/GamerGate fiasco

Someone editing the GamerGate article suggesting merging some of the content from there into this one. Though if its about to be deleted it kind of defeats the purpose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NightwolfAA2k5 (talk • contribs) 14:14, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Poorly sourced and opinionated content

I edited part of the article today, specifically the part talking about women being paid unequally, I changed the wording to under-representation in the industry because the source compares total average wage for all women and total average wage for all men in a few different professions and itself notes that men are more likely to hold higher paying positions without mentioning any kind of systematic discrimination against women as the Wikipedia page implies.

I noted that since Jelt did his very large re-write of this page, it has become partially opinion and a number of the points made lack any valid source, such as claiming women are mistaken for booth babes.

I also noted that the page specifically talks about how console gaming companies target men as a criticism of that behavior but fails to point out that the demographic for consoles is largely male and that like any business, companies will target their main demographic.

Further, this line is very problematic "Harassment can involve sexist insults or comments ("invitation" to go back to the kitchen), death or rape threats, demanding sexual favors in exchange of virtual or real money or criticism of women presence.[2] In some cases female players are also stalked, whether online or offline" since it is also discussing non-sexual harassment for which there is already a Wikipedia page. Skomes (talk) 02:09, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your change is not based on any sources. There are complains about the unequal pay in the articles, but nothing about the under-reprensation. I know that they don't have the same jobs, it is an overall gender wage gap in the industry, not a discrimination for the same job. The Time call this "unequal pay" (and also "pay gap"), eurogamer "gender wage gap", which is probably a better term than "unequal pay".
But I'm still wondering why people are complaining about what I wrote. The previous version was terrible, completely biased and making false assumptions (In professional-level on-line gaming tournaments, sexual harassment is used in interactions and strategy and then using the quote from the Cross Assault scandal as if all players completely agreed with it), but nobody edited it for years. I found a few other instances like this, with completely biased opinions, and they stayed there for years. Everything that I wrote is sourced, without any exception. The part with the booth babes are in the sources 3, 5, 6 and 7, like the other 2 sentences of this paragraph. The sources are not indicated at the end of this specific sentence, because they are the same for the next one. Not a single sentence of the article lacks a source.
Concerning the advertisement, it's true but that's a summary of what the sources say. The problem is that, nowadays, most newspapers tell that almost half of the players are female, failing to see that games are mostly (but not exclusively as ads seem to imply) bought by men. At the time of the release of the NES, more players were boys than girls, and as the video game market crashed, Nintendo focused on a specific target (it's in the Polygon article), boys under 10. It could be more developped, but it would be a long part about advertisement, which is not the point of this part. It would be good if a source could say that this targeting is still partly justified because most games are bought by men, but I never found one.
The problematic line comes from what BBC and the Guardian describe as sexual harassment in video gaming, although I think it should be called "sex (based?) harassment". There was the same discussion on the French wikipedia, and that's why I renamed the article "Sexism in video gaming", which I would like to do here too, but it's already a redirection to "gender representation in video games". It would be so much easier if this article was named "Sexism in video gaming", because sexual harassment is only a small part of the overall topic.
Overall, I agree that talking about unequal pay is unclear, that the ad part should be completed, and I think the title should be changed. I disagree with the removals from Mol Man, as the examples make the point clearer and a sentence he changed doesn't make sense anymore.Jelt (talk) 16:47, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The page before was not in good shape and the page now is not in good shape. Recent complaints are probably due to heightened scrutiny due to several recent gaming related scandals which have drawn more people to this page, including myself.
I don't think the line regarding booth babes shows any connection to sexual harassment unless a source proves that sexual harassment occurred and not simply mistaken identity. Unfortunately I cannot read the sources as they are German and French only.
Inserting a source and citing "unequal pay" in a Wikipedia page on sexual harassment almost entirely against women indicates discrimination against women which is not at all proven in the study. If you're going to simply cite the statistic of difference in total average pay without controlling for factors like seniority, number of men/women in each field etc., the study cannot be said to show unequal pay. You could do the same thing and show a gap for many jobs, engineers, doctors, construction workers, nurses, child-care professionals etc. Regardless, the study isn't linked to sexual harassment and discrimination and shouldn't be in the article unless a link can be made. I've edited the line to say "Gender pay gap" as that is what the main Wikipedia page for this topic calls it.
You'll notice that when I talked about consoles, the Wikipedia page claims PS4/Xbox One advertising as part of sexual harassment/discrimination and console games are where men are the primary customers by far, not overall gaming which includes things like Facebook games, smartphone games etc. The last reliable study was performed by NPD in 2009 and found 32% of console gamers were women. http://www.gamespot.com/articles/28-of-all-console-gamers-now-female-study/1100-6212734. So the criticism of PS4/Xbox One being advertised to males should be removed as it has no basis as harassment or discrimination. It should also be removed because female gamers are more likely to play the Nintendo Wii than the Playstation or Xbox consoles, so it would make sense for Playstation and Xbox ads to be aimed at men. http://www.engadget.com/2009/11/27/nintendo-wii-has-lions-share-of-female-console-gamers. To that end, I have removed that specific line regarding PS4/Xbox One advertising aimed at men from the Wikipedia page.
Overall, I think this page discusses too many other things without focusing on sexual harassment clearly and that makes it hard to separate sexual harassment from normal harassment from discrimination from non-discrimination. If the page was called Sexism in Video Gaming, the content would make much more sense. Skomes (talk) 05:13, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll ask on the discussion of the other article if it's ok to use the name "Sexism in video gaming". I'll try to write another version during this weekend, maybe first on my sandbox (as I don't know how much time it takes to change the name, when the new name is already taken). Your other arguments are personal criticism on the complaints about sexism, which are not usable for the article. I realized that what I wrote can be confusing, so I'll improve it. For the salary gap, this source in the article offers some good explanations. Concerning the advertisement, it's true there are more male players, but there are some female players too. Here the ads ignore them completely and even assume that there's not way they're playing or know anything about video games. Some complained that this strengthened the idea that women don't play video games and cannot be taken seriously, which results in harassment in conventions. Many sources state that there is sexual harassment in VG conventions, and a few scandals were about female gamers being called booth-babes, although they were journalists or game developers.
If you have more sources about the sexism towards men, I would be glad to add some content, but they're very hard to find. Jelt (talk) 21:12, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But you can't claim that just because a company targets advertisements at the majority of their consumers and ignores a minority, that this is sexism/sexual harassment. By that logic, fashion magazines are sexist, children's toys are sexist, female-only clothing companies are sexist etc., because there will always be a few boys that play with dolls, some men that read fashion magazines and some men will cross-dress and wear women's clothing. Businesses are run to make profit, they do market research and they target their customers.
If you could prove that companies were purposely ignoring a large female customer base, then there would be sexism but you didn't make that connection. Since you're making the claim, you need to provide proof. Since you're claiming PS4/Xbox One advertising is sexist, you need to prove that there are many purposely ignored PS4/Xbox One female consumers.
You can't claim sexism by default just because something isn't aimed at women specifically. The existing 2 sources, from Polygon and humanite.fr that criticize advertisements for targeting men, provide NO proof that there is sexism. The humanite.fr article says 50% of gamers are women without talking about whether those women play PS4/Xbox One, or Wii or PC or Facebook games or Android/iPhone games etc. This is not a valid source for proving sexism or sexual harassment.
"Concerning the advertisement, it's true there are more male players, but there are some female players too. Here the ads ignore them completely and even assume that there's not way they're playing or know anything about video games". This is a personal feeling of yours, not a valid and proven criticism.
This is why I stated this page is highly opinionated and lacking in sources/content. If it isn't going to be deleted, it should be merged somewhere else where it can be reviewed and edited by more people.
Skomes (talk) 14:19, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"If you could prove that companies were purposely ignoring a large female customer base, then there would be sexism but you didn't make that connection." That has nothing to do with sexism. Attributing traditional stereotypes according to your sex, such as implying that women can't play video games, are stupid and annoying is sexism. All articles state that these ads are sexist, they don't need to prove anything to you. If you have any source denying that they are sexist, please show them. Even if you find some (which I doubt), I would only add that some have another opinion, and not erasing everything as if there were no debate.
It is not a personal feeling of mine. Look here: "But this time should have been different. Earlier this year, a Sony executive said that the PS4 would aim to branch out beyond its traditional user base of young males and appeal to women, who tend to favor the Nintendo Wii or Microsoft’s Kinect technology over Sony’s consoles. And Microsoft, which recently bragged that 39% of its Xbox 360 users are female, marketed its Xbox One console as the ultimate home entertainment device for any living room, pitching it as more than just a gaming console to lure non-gamers.", or this one, there or there.
Everything is sourced in the article. All you write is just you opinion, based on no source whatsoever. You cannot erase parts that you don't like just because you think you have a counter argument Jelt (talk) 20:59, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move -> Harassment in video gaming

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: move to sexism in video gaming (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 02:39, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Sexual harassment in video gaming → Harassment in video gaming – In the recent AFD, I !voted keep, but noted that the focus of this article was not sexual harassment, but sexist harassment. Sexism in video games is currently a redirect to Gender representation in video games, and there is also a more generalist Women and video games article.

Currently, in the GamerGate article, there is a whole section on generalist harassment in video gaming, it cites examples from David Vonderhaar of Treyarch to Carolyn Petit of GameSpot and many others. These disparate examples weigh down that article, and there are plenty other examples of harassment I can think of, such as homophobia and swatting. The scope of this article has already expanded beyond its title, I'm proposing to expand it further. - hahnchen 16:24, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if harassment based on demographic groups is fundamentally similar to general harassment like swatting. And to be clear, I think intersectionality is dumb, so it's not that; I only wonder if they'd be covered by similar sources in a similar light. Tezero (talk) 16:40, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change to:move to sexism in video gaming per Satellizer -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:24, 21 September 2014 (UTC)oppose If you want to start a Harassment in video gaming parent level article that is fine, but as a subset of that topic, this is a subject with plenty of references and content available to stay as a stand alone. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:52, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I rather agree with the previous comment about adding a new parent article and, if I can find the time, I'd be happy to help work on it.jxm (talk) 18:13, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This article's short enough that sections on general harassment, harassment over homophobia, etc. can all be added. It obviously should start with the sexual harassment issue of course. --MASEM (t) 18:17, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral, in conclusion. I don't think all sexism in gaming is harassment or all harassment based on demographic groups is inherently the same (nor is it, as I posited earlier, the same as non-specific harassment), but for the sake of cleanliness perhaps it's best to keep it all in one page. I do wonder how many sources are available for any such demographic harassment other than against women, though. Tezero (talk) 18:40, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Harassment based on homophobia seems to have a few (including books). --MASEM (t) 14:17, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I don't see why not. There has to be other forms of harassment in the industry (race, age, social status). Why not make a page that have them all together? GamerPro64 21:57, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I worry that the topic of harassment in video gaming might be a bit overbroad. Readers might expect anything from sexism, sexual harassment, and homophobia to Griefing and Trolling to Cyberstalking to Spawn camping, etc. I'm not strongly against the suggestion, but I would sooner support renaming/moving this article to "Sexism in video games". And I'd support the creation of a parent article on "Harassment in video gaming" as a navigation aid. Failing that a "Harassment in video gaming" nav template or even a "Harassment in video gaming" category would be welcome. -Thibbs (talk) 22:05, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to sexism in video gaming (which currently redirects to gender representation in video games, but the content of this article is more fitting for the title than that one), as the current one is misleading. "Inviting" a woman to "go back to the kitchen" or "insulting" a man for "disliking violent games" is neither "sexual", nor is it "harassment" (unless it is done repeatedly to a single person, which the article does not imply). In both of those cases "sexist insults" is more appropriate term than than "sexual harassment", and the article already uses that in both cases as well, making an even stronger case for moving. "Sexual harassment" is "[the] bullying or coercion of a sexual nature, or the unwelcome or inappropriate promise of rewards in exchange for sexual favors", and in both of my examples above, no "sexual favors" were implied. Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 23:55, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd be OK with this move if we don't want to expand the scope of the current article. I didn't suggest it originally because it already redirected to Gender representation in video games (from which this article was split) and I thought we'd just be going round in circles. - hahnchen 12:12, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to sexism in video gaming per Satellizer. That seems like the best title for the subjects the article does/should actually cover.--Cúchullain t/c 02:13, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to sexism in video gaming per above, it can then also serve as a super-article to gender representation in video games.  Sandstein  08:08, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Gender related abuse in video gaming. The topic is not merely Sexism and is far more specific than that. Its also badly described as "Sexism in video gaming" as the abuse does not occur within the game but within player groups. It is not discrimination in regard to promotions or access to other opportunities. "Sexism in video gaming" better describes Gender representation in video games as per current redirect. Gregkaye ✍♪ 17:22, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to sexism in video gaming because I realized later that articles about sexual harassment actually deal more with sexism than harassment. The content here fits a lot better with "sexism in video gaming", as it can be seen on the French version. Regarding an article about harassment in video gaming, as far as I know there are not so many sources about harassment in general. There were newspaper articles on many instances of harassment, but I don't know if they're worth making a list of them. Most hardly had any influence. Jelt (talk) 21:56, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Merger proposal

Since all the content in this article refers to women, I propose a merger with Women and video games. The topic of gender in videogames is explored in a multitude of articles and I personally think that the whole wikipedia suffers from it. Heinerj (talk) 22:15, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It does not, but the small part about men was deleted some times ago, the frequency part also has some percentage about men victims of sexist comments, although it's not so clear anymore. I wanted to do more research on sexism against men, but I never took the time to read the books and studies on the topic. Overall, the article could be a lot longer than it is now (as I did on the French version, that I would like to translate when it is complete someday), so that it would be too long to be in the women and video games article. Jelt (talk) 20:31, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
On one hand, I don't think there is necessarily any suffering going on, especially if the related/see also links are kept up to date - you can always use a side nav table or similar if the subject branches out too much. On the other hand, there isn't exactly a wealth of content here at the moment, though the other article has a decent amount. Though, even ignoring POV implications, it just seems odd to me to have "Sexism in video gaming" redirect to "Women and video games". Ryan Norton 07:22, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What about making it into a broader page into the demographics of videogames in general? HalfHat 16:11, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think the page should be kept as a subarticle per WP:SS, it's a broad enough topic to support a separate article. Also there is some sexism against men and I suppose transgender people that wouldn't wit in the "Women and ..." article. Demographics are another issue altogether.  Sandstein  16:19, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]


I rephrase my proposal to be clearer: Since the current article (not its previous or future forms) refers only to women (yes it does Jelt, a percentage is not enough and is clearly there to highlight the much higher percentage of women) and we have already an article about women and video games, I made my proposal. I think The topic of gender and video games is explored in too many articles in Wikipedia and this is the first one we should merge since it's the smallest.

It's a complex and wide problem because clearly no one until now took the time to discuss the structure of the various Wikipedia articles about the subject, but sooner or later we'll have to. It's easier to apply WP:SS to - say - WWII because it's a clear subject with tons of sources. On the contrary this topic is explored in a way I consider inappropriate for Wikipedia. It's a series of patches of information and the very article about women and video games proves my point by being the bloated article I think it is. Anyway, I shouldn't discuss this here.

To continue the conversation: notability should be decided by sources who publish possible content for us to include and, as Ryan Norton said, there simply isn't much of it. The only only real reason why we shouldn't proceed with the merger is the presence of any additional sources (thus content) and please, if you have it, post it here. Perhaps it could be included in a different article, perhaps not. I saw the article from fr.wikipedia and I must say that given the sources (mostly articles from game sites) I still consider the merger to be the best course of action.

It may not be clear from my words and I'm sorry for it, but I want to say that I'm not trying to shut down the discussion. I'm just clarifying what I said before and trying to expand my analysis, of course feel free to criticize any point in my reasoning. Heinerj (talk) 15:41, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are clearly sufficient sources talking about sexism is video games to merit a stand alone article as distinct from Women and video games which also has sufficient sources to merit a stand alone article outside of the sexism. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:47, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And I say maybe they aren't enough, please expand with your reasoning. I think I'll write mine in a couple of days. Heinerj (talk) 15:56, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GNG if there are significant discussions of the subject in reliable sources , then it is presumed the subject merits a stand alone article, the 23 sources currently cited are merely a drip in the ocean of potential sources specifically discussing sexism in gaming and therefore a stand alone article is merited. Women in gaming reaches FAR beyond the mere issue of sexism. This is in essence a spin out child article of that parent article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:03, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Post a part of this oceanic content and, if you can, include them in the article. Why we are currently using only weak sources if there are so many? And please, let's not discuss what you called the parent article here (although it technically isn't and I think that's part of the problem, I should bring this discussion in the other talk page). In fact, the number of sources is not even relevant: what do they say? How reliable are they? How much content do they provide? Should we include every one of them? Heinerj (talk) 16:17, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
even the "weak sources" present - Guardian, NYT, BBC - are sufficient for a stand alone article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:31, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We've already been through this: you say they are, I say no. What are we gonna do? Since you don't have anything to add to the discussion, let's wait for the others to discuss. Heinerj (talk) 16:49, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Visit the WP:AFD stream and see what level of sourcing the community considers acceptable for having an article, and then you can keep saying that there are not sufficient sources that cover the subject of sexism in gaming, or you can stop saying that. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:55, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You made your point, now please leave the conversation about this point to the others. Heinerj (talk) 17:06, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Of course you're not supposed to answer my questions, just improve the article if you can. We have all the time in the world and if one reason not to merge is "the article can be improved", we can wait until improvements are done to continue the discussion. Heinerj (talk) 16:22, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merge. "Women and video games" is already a rather long article. There is plenty of material in this article to justify its place as a spinout article. I am particularly surprised by Heinerj's claim that the current sources are inadequate. Axl ¤ [Talk] 00:26, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Studies are adequate in this context, some random articles ("news", not in-depth if you ask me) from IGN, arstechnica, eurogamer aren't. Other places like The Guardian and the BBC have no authority on the matter, I would gladly accept a good wide coverange from them, but they clearly are only interested in one shock news at a time. This Polygon article is really good and interesting, everything else is mostly just superficial and anecdotal. Except the stats, but even them would need some professional endorsement. Look at the reference in this article, can't you see the difference? You shouldn't be surprised.
You are referencing my conversation with TRPoD. As you can see that wasn't really helpful since the other part didn't really wanted to cooperate. Anyway, the great problem here is this one: the topic of sexism, women and video games is badly explored in Wikipedia, information is difficult to access (because we've got tons of different article, with no visible rationale behind their chosen separation) and usually it's poorly sourced, as I stated above. Heinerj (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:06, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also look at this and this. Heinerj (talk) 20:14, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about sexism, last I noticed that included women. Not sure why there are two articles, although the wealth of material about women in video games is obviously particularly significant and will likely overwhelm any attempt to have this article be "balanced".
Core issue, for me, is that we have Video Game Culture as an article, Sexism in Video Games, Women in Video Games, Gender Representation in Video Games etc, and they all pretty much cover many similar themes and topics. Koncorde (talk) 21:18, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merge. This article is (mostly) about prejudices against women. Obviously not the same as describing the role of women in video gaming. It has more than enough relevant and well-referenced content to merit a separate article. I see no benefits for readers in such a merger. Peter Isotalo 21:14, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merge. I agree with TheRedPenOfDoom and Peter that this subject is notable enough to have a stand-alone article and the sources are reliable and well-established. Liz Read! Talk! 18:25, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sexism in Video Gaming Rollback

Hi there,

Just wanted to say that I was not even halfway done my edit before you rolled it back. There were several other publications and developers I wished to write on. However, this is my first edit, and I respect and appreciate your feedback. I'll try to find another way to host it elsewhere.

I am curious what you meant by "broadly unsourced", since I felt I was citing the relevant articles to what I was talking about. Is it necessary to cite each and every line, even when they are reusing the same source?

Cheers, Fabarooni

Hi, I'll respond at Talk:Sexism in video gaming later today.  Sandstein  16:01, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Fabarooni: OK, let me address your edit:
The first two sections ("Diversity in Video Game Culture", "Publications") were unsourced, that is, they did not cite references. That is normally necessary, see WP:V. I think that the content is broadly true, but very general assertions of this kind do absolutely need reliable sources to avoid WP:OR. Also, I'm not sure that content at this level of generality is in the right place here - what you wrote is not about sexism specifically, but about diversity in video game culture more broadly, so a more general article such as video game culture might be a better place for it.
The third section, "Rock, Paper, Shotgun", in contrast, is far too narrowly scoped to fit into this article. We do have an article about Rock, Paper, Shotgun, and any in-depth examination of this publication's stance should go there. It is conceivable that it could be mentioned here, but it would be better to do so in a sourced overview of where various notable publications stand on this issue. And by sourced, I mean third-party sources - not RPS talking about itself, but other reliable sources talking about RPS.
Feel free to ask if you have any questions.  Sandstein  22:36, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Added a paragraph on effects

Hello,

I am a student taking Comp. 2. My assignment has been to write papers on Women and video games and identify things to change on Wikipedia. I already made a edit, but it was quickly deleted. I made an edit tonight about a study that was conducted on gender and video gaming abilities. At the end of this semester, I need to write a paper about my changes. If the changes are still there or if they are erased, how they were viewed by others, etc. Any feedback given on these changes will make for a far better paper. Please contact me here if you have input.

Thank you.Wanderlust1138 (talk) 00:07, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We generally summarise the content, rather than re-present the content. Also it would be better to use the original published source (the journal), rather than duplicated media from a tabloid, and to cite the actual study. Currently you have verged on a situation of self published content, being reviewed by its own self published source, printed in a national media by the same people. This doesn't necessarily call into question the study, but it does (from a wikipedia stance) mean we have to be careful to summarise such content appropriately. the Source, and the primary article. Also the way quotations are currently used is also a little clunky.
I have tidied, added the Journal citation, and re-factored to segregate the study from the opinions of the researcher. Koncorde (talk) 00:51, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Added another paragraph to effects

Hello, Just a reminder that I am a student and I have been tasked with making edits to this page. My latest edit was on France and their proposals on combating sexism in video games. Any feedback would be great!Wanderlust1138 (talk) 16:59, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

HuffPo article with pointers to research

This may be useful here. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/58d05d84e4b07112b64730f8 Rhoark (talk) 18:50, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

agreed

Update to 2014 Italian study

I notice that the coverage of the 2014 Italian study of 154 youth hasn't been updated. A reanalysis of this study (see https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10964-017-0700-x) has found problems with the data and the study's conclusions. The reanalysis did not conclude that sexist games caused decreased empathy toward women. Here is some coverage too by one of the study authors (http://www.houstonchronicle.com/local/gray-matters/article/Do-sexist-video-games-create-sexists-in-real-life-11302330.php). I think this section needs to be updated to reflect this new information. It is misleading as it currently stands. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.153.236.134 (talk) 12:03, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

removing gabbiadini's discredited study

I've removed the 2016 Gabbiadini study since it has since been discredited in the literature. See:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28639206

Wallingfordtoday (talk) 22:47, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is inaccurate to call it discredited. Rather, the results have not been corroborated by a reanalysis. Rather than remove both, adding both would make more sense. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:05, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You people have been just mentioned in an article by Prof. Christopher J. Ferguson

https://quillette.com/2019/04/27/sexualization-in-gaming-advocacy-and-over-correction/

Fragment:

"Another study, also conducted at Ohio State, exposed Italian boys to Grand Theft Auto, a non-sexualized violent game or a control violent game. No connection was found between game conditions and empathy toward female victims of violence. Nevertheless, the authors employed a dubious, complicated analysis to suggest that a reduced empathy effect was hidden in the results. Some outlets, like the ever-credulous Time Magazine ate this story up. Unfortunately, it has been since discredited. A reanalysis I conducted with my colleague Brent Donnellan found that the study was not randomized, despite its authors claims to the contrary. All of the youngest boys ended up in the Grand Theft Auto cohort, with older boys more likely to end up in the non-sexist cohort. If random assignment had occurred, boys of different ages should be evenly spread throughout game conditions.  But this is the opposite of what actually happened. In other words, age was conflated with game condition, a big problem since empathy tends to develop with age. Further, we found that even with that problem ignored, the analyses could not support even indirect links between Grand Theft Auto and sexism.

This study is a good example of what some call the Bullshit Asymmetry Factor. The study’s claim to be randomized when in fact it was not should have been grounds for retraction. However, its findings are still cited as if they provide evidence for effects. The Wikipedia page for sexism in video games, for instance, mentions only the original study, but fails to disclose that it was subsequently found to have fatal flaws." SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 07:03, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh boy.. Still though, attention is probably for the best here as this page is in serious need of both it and work. (especially if that comment in the article is correct) As it is now, it's little more than basically a small collection of essays promoting a narrowly specific POV and understanding. Quite clearly one-sided and likely cherry picking in general. James xeno (talk) 08:18, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sexism_and_video_games&oldid=894668641"