Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trauma in film


 * 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. However well-intentioned the author, there is a consensus that the list is inherently original research, POV, and arbitrary. Furthermore, the article attempts to be a type of resource that is not really suited for Wikipedia. --MCB (talk) 07:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Trauma in film

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Either this is a small topic which could be covered in Psychological trauma or Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, or it is a never ending list of films. For this list to be encyclopedic, each entry would need to have scholarly sources to back up the film being traumatic, leading to Post Traumatic Stress Disorder in someone. As it is, the list is just original research. John Vandenberg (talk) 06:51, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

After this helpful discussion, I have chosen to reorganize the content of this article as follows: (Trauma studies are still an emerging field with increasing levels of awareness, research, and understanding. Perhaps in the future the topic may warrant its own page.) I welcome feedback on this new organization, and I am grateful for the discussion of this important data. -Filmtrauma 11:03pm 23 January 2008
 * Subsume the text into the subheading of Visual Media in the Trauma trigger page
 * Transfer the lists of violent content into separate pages listing films with such content (e.g., List of mainstream films with violent trauma) without necessarily being trauma triggers, but simply as a way of listing films in the same manner as the existing lists of films with graphic content (cited below)
 * Cite these lists in the trauma trigger article, with no claim that they will cause a trigger per se. However, there is evidence (cited in the original article) that violent content in visual media can trigger ptsd, flashbacks, etc, in survivors of trauma, which makes the link to these lists appropriate.


 * Delete: clearly original research. Mh29255 (talk) 08:17, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete: listcruft MiracleMat (talk) 08:59, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Just about every drama has some trauma of some sort - why isn't Bambi mentioned, for instance? His mother is murdered! There may be a place for the analysis of popular media in terms of the psychological trauma represented, but this isn't it. Delete. DS (talk) 15:21, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as WP:OR. Don't you love MOAR DRAMA?  Malinaccier (talk) 19:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * While this seems like a well-researched and useful resource, perhaps it's not exactly an encyclopedia article. I sincerely hope if it is deleted it finds a home somewhere, hopefully where it can maintain collaborative editing. -kslays (talk) 00:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * There are places in Wikipedia where this kind of cataloging seems to work. For example, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Mainstream_films_with_explicit_sex and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mainstream_films_with_unsimulated_sex.  If this article is deemed original research (unlike those, for some reason?) perhaps the content other than the introduction would work in that kind of format? Links to the sites of each film confirm the content in many cases, which would not be considered original research.  -Filmtrauma 21 January 2008
 * Don't Delete: I'm not sure this is really a problem, but if it is, then I think perhaps the issue is the information architecture. I think I understand the reason that this has been suggested for deletion. The page does contains research, and the combination of that research (which is not original) with the subsequent list, can be confusing to some readers. It may seem to them that the research (which couldn't possibly ever address every film on the list) plus the list itself add up to an implied statement that the films on the list necessarily have caused trauma in some viewers. Clearly, the page makes no such overt claim, however even the slightest suggestion of "original research" sends up red flags and sounds the warning bells over here at Wiki. I applaud the efforts to maintain order on Wikipedia, but I think the solution to this problem, if it is truly a problem at all, is not to delete the page but to restructure the information so that it meets the appropriate guidelines! The research about trauma in film is not being called into question whatsoever, so the very strongest action that should be taken is to move the lists themselves off that page, to avoid any misunderstanding or confusion. Even that, however, seems extreme to me. I understand that it could be considered "original research" to say that for example "Thelma and Louise" can cause trauma or flashbacks in some viewers--but, first of all, I don't think this page makes that explicit claim, not by a long shot, and second of all, it is neither opinion nor original research, but verifiable fact, that "Thelma and Louise" contains a scene where an attempted rape takes place. If you're noting that a movie contains a certain type of content, then the movie itself IS the reference. No research is necessary--anyone can check the reference to see that it is the case. (Of course, If someone adds a movie that doesn't, in fact, contain what it is claimed to contain, that will be treated, I'd presume, the same way any other false info is treated on Wikipedia, because I know false info is posted all the time.) It shouldn't be the intent of the page to claim that all the films listed cause trauma, but merely to claim that the films listed contain the specified types of content. Clearly, that sort of content list is acceptable on Wikipedia, and clearly, that sort of research is acceptable as well. In other words, the stuff about trauma in films is valid, and the stuff about the content of the listed films is valid, but perhaps it is the way they are juxtaposed on this particular page that is being called into question. Saying that "Thelma and Louise" contains an attempted rape scene is both neutral and verifiable. Saying that films can cause trauma is both neutral and verifiable. I think rather than push for deletion, we need to rethink how this information, which is indeed useful and I think fitting for Wikipedia, can be organized differently. Actually, I personally have no problem with how it's organized now--I think it's clear, and I'm surprised anyone misconstrued it as original research. It's a good point that there are so many applicable films that these lists will get rather long. The obvious solution is that whenever a particular category exceeds a certain number of entries, create a separate page for that particular category.  Tamarleigh (talk) 11:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC) — Tamarleigh (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * I would recommend reading Wikipedia's policy on synthesis. Like you've indicated, "the page makes no such overt claim".  The topic is based on the combination of trauma-related references that have little or nothing to do with films and editors' personal examples of films that match some instance of trauma in film. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 13:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * To claim that a type of film scene causes trauma needs a scholarly basis. To list film scenes that cause trauma, each needs to be discussed by scholarly sources.  Otherwise, it is an inference that is being made by Wikipedia, which is original research.  I have no problem with this page taking a new course rather than be deleted; I suggest removing the "list" and focus on a few studies.  To avoid deletion find some quality sources now while the Afd is still running. John Vandenberg (talk) 11:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep to claim that a film scene depicts trauma does not require a scholarly basis, and can be sourced perfectly well from the plot of the film as a primary source. The introduction needs to be rewritten slightly to make it clear what the list is presenting. DGG (talk) 17:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The term "trauma" is interpretative. If someone's parent dies, is that person experiencing trauma?  If someone's car breaks down, is that person experiencing trauma?  If someone's girlfriend broke up with him, is that person experiencing trauma?  Trauma can equate conflict, and conflict is the source of nearly every film with a plot.  Trauma can range from the smallest of incidents (a paper cut) to the largest of incidents (one's family gunned down).  Are you really advocating that editors should advocate what examples of trauma in films are?  I encourage you to re-evaluate how this topic could be anything but objective. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 13:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

After this helpful discussion, I have chosen to reorganize the content of this article as follows: (Trauma studies are still an emerging field with increasing levels of awareness, research, and understanding. Perhaps in the future the topic may warrant its own page.) I welcome feedback on this new organization, and I am grateful for the discussion of this important data. -Filmtrauma 11:03pm 23 January 2008
 * Subsume the text into the subheading of Visual Media in the Trauma trigger page
 * Transfer the lists of violent content into separate pages listing films with such content (e.g., List of mainstream films with violent trauma) without necessarily being trauma triggers, but simply as a way of listing films in the same manner as the existing lists of films with graphic content (cited below)
 * Cite these lists in the trauma trigger article, with no claim that they will cause a trigger per se. However, there is evidence (cited in the original article) that violent content in visual media can trigger ptsd, flashbacks, etc, in survivors of trauma, which makes the link to these lists appropriate.
 * Delete the original research -- the list of films is purely subjective, and anyone can add an entry, depending on what their definition of trauma in film is. In addition, the references are not focused on the topic of "trauma in film" -- it is the synthesis of non-film-related trauma studies and coverage.  What does this USA Today article even have to do with anything?  And the Chicago Tribune article does not cover trauma in film, just examples of walkouts, like if a film was bad, not filled with trauma.  If this article were to succeed at all, it would avoid listcruft and use academic studies of solely trauma in film, which I can't imagine -- there'd likely be subtopics, and this is too general of a definition. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 12:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.   — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 13:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * actually, perhaps just 'combat trauma in film* might satisfy your criteria. Combat trauma is unique in our culture in that it is the only socially acceptable form of trauma - everything else gets swept under the rug, underexamined, and under-researched as well.  However, there are published examples of combat trauma survivors experiencing film as a trauma - i believe some are cited. research on other kinds of trauma relies heavily on the funded research about combat trauma. that is where the analogies are drawn. perhaps in future when other kinds of trauma become more socially legitimate, these issues will be less contentious.  Filmtrauma (talk) 17:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I see what you're saying, but if the problem is that non-combat trauma, especially when tied to films, is under-examined and under-researched, then there can't be a genuine topic at this point. Wikipedia doesn't profess to be the forerunner of these topics; it only consolidates what has been researched. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 17:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I understand your point about the trauma; however, the utility of lists of films with specific content still seems valuable to me, whether or not their is a claim about what the content might cause or not. Filmtrauma (talk) 22:49, 25 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.