Talk:Research on the effects of violence in mass media

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Media violence research)
Jump to: navigation, search

Organization[edit]

This article isn't very well organized. The header and body articles seem jumbled together. I would suggest expanding this article some more, and breaking it down into sub-sections. Also include a quick-finder box, or whatever it's called! —Preceding unsigned comment added by GSharpShot (talkcontribs) 15:57, November 5, 2006

Neutrality of Article[edit]

I believe that this article is leaning far more on the criticism of the research, and fails to point out any of the conclusions of stated research.—Preceding unsigned comment added by GSharpShot (talkcontribs) 16:14, November 5, 2006

That is true, but it seems any findings are rather vauge, even the most recent article I've read on the subject fails to say anything more than it has an effect on the brain. No where does it say if it's signifigant, premanent, or merely a change in brain activity, which happens anytime your doing anything stimulating. Writing up anything about conclusions would have to keep this in mind so as not to shift from one side to the other. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.32.2.1 (talk) 14:42, November 29, 2006
Word usage in the artice clearly shows emphasis on the critisism side, with no (or nearly no) information supporting the opposing view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.241.106.157 (talk) 21:04, February 21, 2007
Adding ad-hominem attacks against media violence critics certainly wasn't going to help the article's neutrality was it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.123.94.108 (talk) 16:42, March 15, 2007

Counterpoint: I think the definition of neutrality is to emphasize that there are criticisms of the current research. A causal link between media violence and actual violent behavior is unlikely. In the interest of getting politicians elected the idea has been shoved down our throats, but humans have been violent throughout our history without any media portrayal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.236.191.80 (talk) 13:22, March 15, 2007


Further counterpoint:

Many of the concerns raised in the wikipedia article are the same that have been raised by various appeals courts in striking down media violence ordinances (most recently on video games) time and time again. The scientific arguments have consistently failed to meet Daubert standards of admissibility for scientific evidence. The courts have cited many of the same problems raised in the article...as such these concerns hardly seem "out of the blue" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.123.94.108 (talk) 19:35, March 15, 2007


Ok, I've tried to fix the article both for content and readability. It had become something of an "appologist" page for media violence researchers. I think some of the additions were good (particularly the external links, so that readers can link to various pages on both sides of the debate to help make up their minds). Others, such as the "ad hominem" attacks on Freedman (since media violence researchers themselves associate with "advocacy" groups at very least the objectivity of both sides should be discussed) were removed. The most recent version had also removed some of the critical arguments about media violence research, which I've tried to put back as best I could. The most recent version appeared to have been a "censored" version that minimized many of the criticisms of media violence research in favor of supporting the causal claim (there were also many POV references such as use of words like "determined" that don't reflect the debate on this issue). I'll probably continue trying to edit the page over the next few days, improve it's readability.

I've kept the POV tag for now so we can discuss this. Why don't we talk out here what changes may best represent a neutral POV (including representative information from both "sides" of the debate rather than making this a page that argues back and forth?).

Ok, still working on this. I think that the way to go to make this more neutral is to include a "media researcher response to criticisms" section to the article. I've returned the "criticisms" section more or less back to how it was to attempt to fairly portray the criticism and added a "response" section. I'm attempting in this section to get the "gist" of the previous editors inclusions without the POV.

Let me know if I appear to be "on the right track"

It would be appropriate if you signed which allows users to keep track of chronology within this talk page and not to be confused with other users (insert four tildes). I understand that you restored texts that were deleted by other users, but you also deleted their edits as well which their information is referenced and therefore verifiable, except for a few NPOV statements which I agree to remove. Nevertheless, you must also find journal articles and references to support arguments from both sides in order to, at least, integrate both information into the article, that way both sides can have a say. Since media violence research is a thorny and complicated issue, leaving the POV notice should remind readers of that--Janarius 13:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Janarius, just made some minor edits/corrections. Just as a note...researchers selectively interpreting some of the results from their studies but not others is different from the "file drawer" effect which applies to whole manuscripts. I think between the two of us (as well as other contribs) we can keep this page at a reasonable "medium"...as such I'm taking the liberty of removing the NPOV, as I haven't seen major issues lately. 70.123.94.108 21:37, 21 April 2007 (UTC) MV Guy

MV Guy, I see your point in selective interpretation and 'file drawer' effect. --Janarius 16:05, 22 April 2007 (UTC) Bold text

It is leaning towards the criticism part a bit. It should be neutral instead of leaning towards one side. As I was reading this, it clearly took a side, which a Wikipedia article should not. It should address both views. Even if you think one side is right, you have to consider the other side as well. This is not an argumentative essay, or a persuasive essay. Look at it like this, writing a Wikipedia article is like writing a informative essay. What is the point of an informative essay? To inform the reader, which is what Wikipedia articles should do. Asuuske (talk) 02:35, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Huesmann & Taylor reference[edit]

There are several references to (Huesmann & Taylor, 2002). The year appears to be incorrect, I will change it to 2006. The correct citation appears to be: Huesmann, L.R, and Laramie D Taylor. 2006. "The Role of Media Violence in Violent Behavior". Annual Review of Public Health. 27: 393. --George100 (talk) 01:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Differing Dates for each perspective[edit]

The criticism and counter criticism section is falsely protrayed. Most of the research claiming a correlation between media and violence are older than the counter research. Virtually all of the sources criticizing media violence research come from 2000 or later. This cannot be said for the opposing view. YVNP (talk) 09:02, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what your point is. If one group of researchers is questioning another group's, the criticism would tend to come later. If there are more recent studies that should be added, certainly add them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.123.93.133 (talk) 02:30, December 7, 2008

Please use sound scholarly sources to further expand the article[edit]

Such as Dave Grossman's Stop Teaching Our Kids to Kill : A Call to Action Against TV, Movie and Video Game Violence and three authors' Media Violence and Aggression: Science and Ideology, they are quite well-known by media studies scholars. And post-modern media scholar Henry Jenkins's view of media violence research (see [1]) should be included on the article as well. Hope Wikipedians can use them to expand the article (how media educators use these media violence studies in their media literacy classes or publications should be mentioned, if Wikipedians can describe it and meet the three core content policies).--RekishiEJ (talk) 05:14, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

And The Lancet. (2008). Is exposure to media violence a public health risk? The Lancet, 371, 1137. & Trend, D. (2007). The myth of media violence: A critical introduction. Malden, MA: Blackwell. are good scholarly sources to be added to the article.--RekishiEJ (talk) 07:52, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Merger[edit]

I agree with the merger request and will undertake shortly pending any discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.91.78.229 (talk) 06:19, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Merger completed. Most material redundant, moved youth violence statistics over. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.91.78.229 (talk) 02:27, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Transfer Content[edit]

I would like to propose transferring this whole section: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_influence#Media_Influenced_Violence

...to this Media Violence article because it fits more with the context. Gauntlett's section (originally called Criticism) makes the "Media Influence" article bias and relatively off topic. I will mention media violence briefly and will link to media violence, but would rather not see "violence" or "criticism" as the largest section under media influence. --Austenten (talk) 20:41, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I've read the section in question. It's conceivable it could be blended in here, although it may make more sense just to have a link. I don't see what discussing Gauntlett makes the other article biased though. Gauntlett is well-respected for his important critiques of "media effects" theory. I think that material is quite relevant to discuss. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.91.78.232 (talk) 07:35, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Long Added Section on Television[edit]

I rolled back a long added section on television recently added to the article as it tended to ramble, be redundant with other sections, wandered off topic and frankly wasn't well written in general.

Some parts of what was added probably would fit better under pages devoted to the history of television, for instance, or social effects of television. Similarly comments from media officials probably belong better elsewhere, as this page focuses on research (comments from media officials aren't really taken seriously as "research"). One study was discussed in great detail, although why such focus on this study, particularly from nearly 25 years ago is important is unclear, given how many studies have been done in this field (many of them more recently...and many of which contradict the results of that particular study). It might be wiser just to add one or two sentences about that study to some of the previous studies rather than a complete section devoted to it, given its not of singular importance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.91.78.232 (talk) 07:30, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Youth Violence and Aggression[edit]

A recent post included some statements, some outdated, on "aggression", most done with college students, in the section on youth violence. This is an inappropriate generalizations. Also much of the material posted was somewhat POV. Comments regard old testimony from the Surgeon General from the early 1970s was included, without noting that the more recent Surgeon General's report in 2002 overturned much of that. Nor was the more recent SCOTUS decision, which repudiated much of the research mentioned. Some of the material might be incorporated in earlier sections, but it does not belong in "youth violence" and needs to be less POV (only citing research or comments that support the poster's view). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.91.76.222 (talk) 03:28, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Intro and General Structure suggestions[edit]

This article is obviously in need of some serious work. It is barely neutral, and does not appear reflect the current climate of this debate. I've made some changes to the intro structure and wording as well as changing the referencing for readability. I feel that the example stated in the intro should be removed also, but I would like some feedback first. I plan on working through this article to structure it with headings and links for the theories mentioned. I found the whole article completely unreadable.
Perhaps under media effects theories titles for:

  • Social Learning Theory
  • Priming
  • excitation
  • desensitization
  • physiological activation
  • General agression model (should possibly be added ? ideas? is it not a middle of the road explanation for the effects of media violence?)
  • and Contrary Theories of no effect
    • Ferguson's Catalyst Model
    • and of course Moral Panic

also many of these theories have their own criticisms/counter criticisms which relate to them and them only, as well as general criticisms of violence research which should be covered next (for example the section Media violence and youth violence could be incorporated as a criticism of moral panic.

anyway that's my 2 cents worth perhaps it has some legs? JamesGrimshaw (talk) 13:02, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

hi James. I actually wasn't sure about some of your edits, no offense intended, as I found them a little less rather than more balanced, although I do note and appreciate your efforts to maintain both views. I did revert for now, but let's discuss them. Probably with two of us working on it we can come up with something reasonably neutral and perhaps better worded. I think this also is a field in flux...more and more it appears there is less certainty about causal effects...but some scholars are "hanging on" to old beliefs. It might be worth including a section on paradigm change in the theories section. I think too, the theories section includes some areas (desensitization, priming, excitation, etc., that are really just components of social cognitive theory, of which the GAM is part). I think the general criticisms are worth maintaining though as there has been a lot of discussion of these lately and they are probably a big part of the paradigm change in this field. Probably worth noting Brown v EMA, and recent reviews by Australia and Sweden, all of which questioned the causal view. This is just a difficult issue...there is a lot of ideology and hyperbole in this field. But happy to work on it with you. ~~ MV Guy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.91.76.238 (talk) 00:52, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

not a worry, thank-you very much for your input, it's certainly made it clearer to me, while I still agree it needs more work. I do feel that the article accurately represents the paradigm change, to a degree - perhaps it lacks the up to date references. Certainly there has been significant back and forth over the years. When I get a chance, I'll happily add something about current political/social/gov (australian AG review and the like) reactions and considerations. In any case thank-you kindly for your reasoned input. JamesGrimshaw (talk) 11:17, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
I think some stuff from the Australian government (and the recent 2010 Australian Attorney General's review of video game research) would be of great value. A section on government responses (R18+, Brown v EMA, some of the stuff from Germany and the like) would be a good addition I think. 69.91.76.238 (talk)MVGuy —Preceding undated comment added 13:38, 14 February 2012 (UTC).

Recent Edits[edit]

This is mainly for Gcrc, since we've been going back and forth, but others are certainly free to chime in. I just want to be sure, with editing, that we don't stray into POV "talking points" that the data can't support. For instance I'm not sure the APA would even support your claims about "most media experts" and the amicus briefs from Brown v EMA don't support your claim (they were about evenly divided). There are probably some other issues as well, that we just have to be sure to represent carefully, although I think you probably also have some useful info to bring to the table. Perhaps we could hash out here a bit how to implement some balanced changes and work together on them? Avalongod (talk) 15:39, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

homicide statistic/"part 8"[edit]

Hi, I looked at the "number 8" part in the criticisms section and saw this quote, "The homicide rate in the United States has never been higher than during the 1930s. Similarly, this theory fails to explain why violent crime rates (including among juveniles) dramatically fell in the mid 1990s and have stayed low, during a time when media violence has continued to increase, and saw the addition of violent video games." What I noticed is that this part only mentions homicide and not general violence. According to the wiki page on Crime in the United States, violent crime overall has quadrupled since the 1960's (with a chart showing this). This seems like whoever wrote this is choosing the homicide statistic as a basis for the justification of the effects caused by video games (e.g. "cherry picking"). --South19 (talk) 11:13, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

"Lastly media violence researchers can not explain why many countries with media violence rates similar to or equal to the U.S. (such as Norway, Canada, Japan, etc.) have much lower violent crime rates." Ironically the U.S. has 6 times as many homicides than Germany and 3 times as many compared to Canada. See Crime in the United States#Homicide and Crime in the United States#Violent crime --South19 (talk) 11:20, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm going to be removing some of the section 8 area because it is has some misinformation (as I explained above). --South19 (talk) 19:59, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
I don't think so. Even without video games, the falling homicide rate (it has since returned to 1960s levels) would be a problem for media violence rates in general, since media violence overall remains high. I think the point is also relating to a general mismatch between patterns in homicide and in violent media. I agree it needed some editing for clarity though...so I've restored some of this but tried to make it clearer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.100.165.246 (talk) 21:42, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
I think it might help the section to add some references, the section is a lot clearer now which is good. --South19 (talk) 05:58, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Latest edits[edit]

I have reverted 119.225.5.126 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) because this editor, who IP hops, has a history of changing content about the media's effects on whatever given topic by trying to give equal weight to opposing views. The WP:Neutral policy is clear that we go by WP:Due weight; we do not go by equal validity. The editor commonly adds POV wording that violates WP:Editorializing, WP:LABEL and similar; for examples, see this and this revert I made. The editor also commonly adds sources that fall under WP:Primary; sometimes the editor will add sources that are not WP:MEDRS-compliant when it comes to medical/psychological aspects. I'm not stating that all of the editor's edits are bad; some are not. But enough of them are questionable because of the editor's POV that the media doesn't have a significant effect on people. Because of this, I think that the editor's significant edits need review. I will contact WP:WikiProject Media, WP:Sociology, WP:Psychology, WP:Med, WP:Video games and WP:Women to weigh in on this topic. (The latter WikiProject is chosen because some of the content pertains to sexism against women; see Sexism in video gaming.) In addition to this article, this topic concerns the Video game addiction and Video game controversies articles. I have centralized the discussion here per WP:TALKCENT. If no one is interested in challenging this IP's edits, I will let this matter go; I don't have the time to thoroughly delve into this IP's edits or to monitor this IP, especially since this person IP hops. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:04, 4 January 2017 (UTC) ‎

Note: By "WP:Psychology," I meant "Wikipedia:WikiProject Psychology." I've been meaning to challenge the WP:Psychology link since it should no doubt redirect to Wikipedia:WikiProject Psychology. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:26, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

I support your revert here. I agree that the IP editor's edits were unhelpful here. Bondegezou (talk) 15:28, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
I agree that these edits are shoddy (I think that "controversial" and "valid" are sometimes a false dichotomy). That is, what is the "most prominent viewpoint" (i.e the most WP:DUE one) on the topic? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:54, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
I support the revert and have added this to my watchlist. Jytdog (talk) 18:19, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
support revert also--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:22, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi folks. I appreciate the opportunity to discuss this here. First, let me say, I certainly make no claim that my edits are prefect, beyond criticism, even necessarily without POV (I doubt most of us lack POV). So I am very open to edits. However, what has been added is definitely new, well-referenced material. It would seem to make more sense to me, if there are problems with this material, to simply add or edit in new material that would help balance it. I've already tried to respond to a few comments by Flyer. I think, honestly, simply reverting actually does more damage by removing new and important information that readers may value from. So, again, definitely open to edits and suggestions, but simply reverting feels a lot more like simply censoring unwanted or inconvenient information than protecting validity. Thank you!
Added to that, my hope would be to go back to my edits then let people improve what's there. Thanx! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.225.5.126 (talk) 20:56, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Having a POV is one thing; letting that POV get in the way of how you are supposed to edit a Wikipedia article is another thing. And, no, use of blogs as sources and similar for these topics is not well-referenced material. Note: The editor has reverted me at the Video game addiction article. If others are open to examining those changes, please do. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:36, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
The revert is the one editors support me on. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:41, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
I guess my concern is that looking through your own edit history, I'd suggest you might as well be defensive of the "media effects" position and, as such, have similar POV issues. Again, not saying that's "bad"...I think we're all human and my perception is that this is what Wikipedia is about...community effort. I see this perhaps as a more general issue for wikipedia wherein established editors are often "defensive" of outsider input (see: http://time.com/4180414/wikipedia-15th-anniversary/?iid=sr-link1). Again, hardly anything unique to any set group. And no disrespect at all intended toward you or the other editors. Just it is better to work forward rather than simply eliminating information you don't like.
Related to sourcing, you've both complained about primary sources and scientific blogs (which I'd have conceived of as secondary sources). I'll admit I'm not an established editor like yourself...so what kind of sources would you like to see? I can assure you I can find them, so I don't think that's really the main issue here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.225.5.126 (talk) 23:54, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Do point me to what edit history you are referring to. I follow the WP:NPOV policy as it's meant to be followed; many editors know that I do. I am always aware of any POV I might have and I do what I can to make sure that it does not affect my editing when it comes to the actual Wikipedia articles. As for working together, working together does mean reverting to your preferred version when several editors object to it. Read WP:BRD and WP:Consensus. As for sourcing, read WP:Reliable sources, WP:Primary and WP:MEDRS. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:08, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
I did a source review of the sources that the IP editor added and found no problems. The two that are "blogs" are official blogs (akin to full articles on their respective websites) written by reputable sources, so I would consider them reliable. As for the scientific papers, I think the IP's wordage was an accurate read on their findings and did not engage in OR with respect to those findings, as detailed at WP:Primary. The use of the word "controversial" (which is controversial and well-litigated on Wikipedia) notwithstanding, I don't think the IP's additions were without merit or representing undue weight. Please do not WP:BITE the newbie. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:24, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanx Axem. I'll look back and this and see if I can reword the wording to take out wording like "controversial" which I definitely see the point about. I definitely am open to improvements and feedback, but it helps to get some specific feedback. Also, I've developed this username for this purpose...I travel alot (in fact I'm already at a different IP) so this username should bring some continuity to my edits (although I'm not on wikipedia much overall). KemalBey1919 (talk) 09:11, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
This whole series of articles could use a copyedit and source check, which I'll try to get around to once I'm back from holiday and able to access the relevant journals. I encourage you to re-add those sources which were removed with more neutral prose because I believe they were valuable additions to the article. Axem Titanium (talk) 13:27, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Axem Titanium, I'm really trying to see why you think the IP's edits have mostly been fine. Above, I noted issues with the IP's edits. With this post, Grayfell explained issues with the IPs edits. Jytdog, one of the best editors when it comes to recognizing what type of sources we should be using for topics like this, also supported reverting the IP.
As for urging the IP to sign up for a Wikipedia account, the IP appears to be Avalongod (talk · contribs), who is familiar with me. The IP's familiarity with me is why the IP calls me "Flyer." So I don't think this person needed the KemalBey1919 (talk · contribs) account. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:26, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
There's a lot going on here. I'll just say that at a glance the current sources look like they need a bit of attention. Regardless, Huffington Post's "The Blog" (for example) is not reliable and not an improvement. Anything from that article should be treated as a WP:SPS attributed as the personal opinion of Christopher Ferguson, which seems underwhelming in terms of due weight. The other paper added which I looked at is hosted on a boilerplate Weebley site by one of its authors, Patrick M. Markey, who coauthored a soon-to-be released book with Ferguson. That's... cozy, and suggests some independent sources would be helpful for neutrality, and to make sure this isn't a walled-garden. If we're really talking about hundreds or thousands of research papers, we shouldn't need to rely on the same small group academics, right? Grayfell (talk) 22:46, 9 January 2017 (UTC)