Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of mainstream films with violent trauma


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result was delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 05:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

List of mainstream films with violent trauma

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This list is unmantainable. A film qualifies if it has any form of violence in it, which includes just about every movie ever made. This article may have been created as a way to get around the deletion of Trauma in film (see Articles for deletion/Trauma in film). The contents of the two articles are nearly identical. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 05:53, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe listing films based on content (as precedented in Wiki) is an important contribution Wiki can make. I am considering breaking the lists into more specific lists; e.g., a list for each subcategory.  That would be maintainable.  Yes, the article was created as a way to try to make the content of the previous article more appropriately organized and categorized. Thoughts?  -Filmtrauma, 1:00, 2008-01-24
 * Please note that is the creator and primary contributor to the article.  Also, he/she could be considered a single-purpose editor. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 06:53, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - The list is practically the same as the trauma afd. This article clearly has OR and forking issues. Defining violent trauma and establishing criteria would invite all kinds of original research. UnfriendlyFire (talk) 06:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.   —UnfriendlyFire (talk) 06:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The list is a subset of the list on the original page, and it has an entirely different introductory paragraph and set of references. It is attempting a new approach at the original encyclopedic data.  I fail to see why lists of films with explicit sex are somehow considered valuable encyclopedic contributions to a body of knowledge, and lists of films categorized by violent content are not.  Can someone help me understand the contribution those other lists are making, and why it is more or less valid than addressing the issue of escalating graphic violent content in film?  --Filmtrauma 1:20 am January 24, 2008  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Filmtrauma (talk • contribs) 06:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * By the way, the list was meant to be followed by additional lists of other trauma content, not as a way to sidestep the deletion process of trauma in film. Does anyone read the AfD for trauma in film? Sheesh. Filmtrauma (talk) 06:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. As I understand it, User:Filmtrauma above is trying to compare this article to List of mainstream films with unsimulated sex. The difference is that in mainstream films, it's very unusual for the actors to actually perform unsimulated sex acts as part of the film. However, the List of mainstream films with violent trauma includes films which just depict simulated violent trauma -- which is extremely common in mainstream films. If you had a list of mainstream films in which the actors actually got shot or stabbed as an intended part of the filming, that would be a much more manageable list and potentially worth keeping. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC) That sounds distasteful; let the record show that I don't know of any such films nor was I hoping to find any. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 11:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - directory of loosely associated items. No objective standard for inclusion. Similar to the deleted List of films by gory death scene. Otto4711 (talk) 08:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Indeed unmaintainable. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 11:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as the term "violent trauma" is not definable for the purposes of such a list -- domestic abuse, rape, serial killing? There's no specific criteria that would help keep this list objective. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 12:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: The "References" section has some good sources, it seems, but they would better apply to a prose article such as Violence in film. These academic secondary sources can't be synthesized with one's personal viewing experiences of films, i.e.: "This academic source mentions slave trafficking, and I saw some of that in Amistad, so I'll put that in."  Wikipedia doesn't work like that. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 12:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: The "References" section has some good sources, it seems, but they would better apply to a prose article such as Violence in film. These academic secondary sources can't be synthesized with one's personal viewing experiences of films, i.e.: "This academic source mentions slave trafficking, and I saw some of that in Amistad, so I'll put that in."  Wikipedia doesn't work like that. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 12:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep I can't believe people are actually saying there is no way to define violent trauma. Ok, first, the dictionary defines things very nicely. Second, I expect there's loads of research about violent trauma. Third, when it comes to films and what they contain, there's this whole movie ratings system all about that. So if it's a question of thinking this sort of thing needs to be added to the page to satisfy those who can't be bothered to look it up for themselves (and indeed that would be a nice enhancement to the content, but I don't think it should be necessary to avoid deletion!), that's one thing--but if it's a question of people genuinely believing there's no way to define violent trauma or "prove" that a particular film contains violence--that, I don't understand. I think it's completely over the top to ignore dictionaries, volumes of research, and the entire movie rating system in an effort to claim this content is not appropriate. Is this content somehow threatening to some folks? I see a lot of complaining about how much work it would be to maintain this. Is someone asking you to do that work? The whole way Wikipedia functions is that everybody pitches in and things grow organically. As for the ridiculous notion that this content would only be valuable if someone were REALLY getting raped or killed, I have no words for that. Isn't part of the point of this page to show that it doesn't have to be real, it doesn't even have to be "real" in the context of the film itself (for example, the "Kill Bill" scene mentioned on the page) to be a trauma trigger. The research supports that--the POINT to the page is that watching films that...oh, never mind, the page goes into the details. If this were a list of films that contained ACTUAL rape or murder (etc.) it would be (1) probably illegal somehow; (2) in unbelievably poor taste; (3) empty, because there ARE no mainstream films that contain actual rape, murder, etc.--ARE there???; and (4) of use only to help those who WANT to see that sort of thing--those who don't want to see it because it's a trauma trigger, won't want to see it whether it's "fake" or "real"--and who can tell the difference in a film, anyway? Tamarleigh (talk) 13:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC) — Tamarleigh (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment First of all, from your edit history, you look brand-spanking new, so I'd reccomend you take a look here and here. As for your argument, take a look below at some of the movies I listed that are included in the list. I believe two are rated G or PG, so the rating system didn't really catch the violent trauma in those. But, for argument's sake, say these are eliminated and it becomes a more realistic list. I personally believe a movie like Cannibal Holocaust to have "violent trauma" but a film like Die Hard to be a popcorn action flick with nothing close to trauma. This could be argued either way. Another example: Resevoir Dogs, I'd say tons of violent trauma, Shoot Em' Up, none at all. All four films have death and violence and blood... but the little things (i.e. the things that are very hard to argue) seperate them.Gwynand (talk) 13:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Gwynand, I appreciate that you are trying to keep things civil. It is very frustrating to see a page that makes a valuable, unique contribution maligned here, because the attack on the page seems to be based on misunderstanding and other reasons having nothing to do with any genuine problem with the page. I have never felt strongly enough about a page to bother creating an account. I created the account specifically to protest the deletion of this content. I have been using Wiki for years, but this is the first thing that I found worth contributing--an argument against the wrongful deletion of content because it is misunderstood or perhaps not structured ideally.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tamarleigh (talk • contribs) 13:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply: Tamarleigh, you are utterly missing the point of those of us who are noting that the list is unmaintainable. We are not saying that we don't wish to maintain the page; we are saying that the page a page of such or similar title will involve endless battles over that is-or-isn't mainstream, and will end-up as an uselessly enormous yet always far-from-complete catalogue of films in which some character is badly physically hurt. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 22:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - per nom - mainly, that based on what we have so far, there would be thousands upon thousands of movies listed here... almost as general as say a list of movies that are "about two hours long". Examples of what have been included as a "mainstream film with violent trauma"
 * Babe: Pig in the City
 * Fly Away Home
 * The Royal Tenenbaums
 * The Cider House Rules - Gwynand (talk) 13:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * And another thing. I don't think people are understanding the point of this content, why it's important. Take rape as an example. If you are a rape survivor and you don't want to see rape scenes because they leave you traumatized anew, the only section of interest is the Rape section. The whole list is not relevant to any one person. Indeed, if you never want to see traumatic content, best to avoid mass media entirely. The point is for avoiding specific types of traumatic content. No one person should be maintaining this list. Again, take rape as an example. If you are a rape survivor and have had experiences of watching films with rape content, you'll probably have some contributions to the list. I just wanted to explain (as I understand it--I am not a trauma survivor and have not edited the page) the purpose of the info and how it will grow. Tamarleigh (talk) 13:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * But we don't know if that editor who adds films to the list is a rape survivor or not. Also, it's a blanket statement to say that all rape survivors would react to all films the same way.  Would one person holding down the other evoke the same reaction as the actual act simulated on the screen?  It's purely subjective.  That's why Wikipedia uses secondary sources, so the claim is independent of the editors themselves.  If a person has experienced trauma before and needs to avoid specific films, there are websites that exist that review the level of content in a film -- language, violence, sexuality, etc.  Wikipedia isn't a guide for that. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 13:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply: That's a noble goal, but Wikipedia isn't the repository for any and every noble website, or even for any and every noble list and article. The way to attempt this sort of list is elsewhere, with a committee whose membership is screened, who can vet submissions (distinguishing unexamined from examined nominated films, and listing them accordingly).  The only rôle for Wikiepdia here is to have an article on such a website if it works well enough to become notable.  I, and surely others who are arguing for deletion of the list, would wish you (or whomever attempts such a project) the very best of luck. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 22:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Try defining "violent trauma" in this context without violating WP:NPOV or WP:NOR. Some of the individual categories may well qualify for lists -- or, more likely, categories -- but this list article as it stands is just too broad. 23skidoo (talk) 18:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep if better defined, as a replacement for the other article. There is no reason why it cannot be specified, and no reason why a long list is inappropriate. DGG (talk) 20:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)!
 * The list is not questioned because of solely its length; it's the length of films that editors have originally interpreted to contain violent trauma. Violent trauma is a topic that could be written in prose and possibly have the subtopic of film, where examples can be cited via secondary sources.  Here, connections cannot be assumed -- there are films listed because of abortion, which I question as a neutral category.  The other categories are too general and interpretative to fit in with the so-called theme of "violent trauma". — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 20:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment. I would like to apologize for any misimpression that might have been created from my reference above to "a list of mainstream films in which the actors actually got shot or stabbed". The point I was trying to make is that, based on my reading of the articles Trauma, Blunt trauma, and Penetrating trauma, any movie in which a character was (for example) shot, stabbed, or seriously beaten could be considered a film with "violent trauma". And the number of films in which the characters suffer from trauma of those natures is very, very high. Thus the article as it is currently defined would be an extremely unmanageable list. Some other standard would need to be used to make this article worthy of being kept in the encyclopedia. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Impossible to keep as everyone has a different perception of on-screen trauma. Somebody considers a death of any kind to be traumatic, while another person might sit through hours of gore without even flinching. The page was a good concept, but if it stays it will be subjected to POV. Maybe changing it from a list to an actual article defining aspects of violent trauma would work.--The Dominator (talk) 16:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: I have just discovered that Tamarleigh has been blocked indefinitely as a suspected sockpuppet of Filmtrauma. See sock/Filmtrauma for the case, and the block log for Tamarleigh.  Opinions expressed by these two accounts should probably be weighted as if from one account. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 18:06, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - too subjective and unmaintainable without original research. -- Beloved Freak  19:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.