Talk:Effects of violence in mass media

message: 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 (talk • contribs) 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)
thread_title:  Neutrality of Article 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Huesmann & Taylor reference 

message: 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 ) 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Please use sound scholarly sources to further expand the article 

message: 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)
thread_title: Merger

message: 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)
thread_title:  Transfer Content 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Long Added Section on Television 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Youth Violence and Aggression 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Intro and General Structure suggestions 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Recent Edits 

message: 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)
replies: text: "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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  homicide statistic/"part 8" 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Research on the effects of violence in mass media. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130927103208/http://www.tamiu.edu/~cferguson/Paradigm%20Change.pdf to http://www.tamiu.edu/~cferguson/Paradigm%20Change.pdf
*Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/63PLhgBmk?url=http://www.tamiu.edu/~cferguson/CJBGames.pdf to http://www.tamiu.edu/~cferguson/CJBGames.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091007111403/http://www.tamiu.edu/~cferguson/LYOJPed.pdf to http://www.tamiu.edu/~cferguson/LYOJPed.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090930100303/http://culturalpolicy.uchicago.edu/conf2001/papers/freedman.html to http://culturalpolicy.uchicago.edu/conf2001/papers/freedman.html
*Added  tag to http://eis.bris.ac.uk/~plajb/hurley_papers/bypasssing_conscious_control.doc
*Added  tag to http://ap.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/28/2/144
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080309043945/http://www.theesa.com/archives/EF%20Courts%20and%20Rulings%20Final%20--%20_JAN%202007_.pdf to http://www.theesa.com/archives/EF%20Courts%20and%20Rulings%20Final%20--%20_JAN%202007_.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:19, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: I'm actually writing in reference to one of the sections of this article, Media Violence and Cultural Studies.  That seems to go into a ongoing description of a single book.  That would be interesting, but it ends with the line "According to Lewis, in fact, humans in the advanced world are the most violent beings of all times."  Lewis might argue this (I haven't read the book) but most actual data on violence across historical trends suggests the opposite (i.e. that we are living in the least violence historical epoch...see Pinker's Better Angels of Our Nature for a thorough overview.)  That led me to question the veracity of this source.
StoneProphet11 (talk) 18:20, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lewis Book 

message: Human rights and democracy  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.115.22.165 (talk) 18:51, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Life orientation 

message: For some reason the Social learning theory section goes from discussing Bandura's experiments to randomly discussing quote on quote teen gamers.  At the very least, this should be its own paragraph within the section, to differentiate it from Bandura's experiment, as the current writing implies somehow there's a progression to teen gamers from bandura's experiment. Metaleggman (talk) 04:54, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Teen Gamer" comments in 'Social Learning Theory' 

message: — Assignment last updated by Xinyue Hu (talk) 13:29, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: CMN2160B

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:21, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion 

message: — Assignment last updated by Iamclandestined (talk) 04:25, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Mass Media and Society

message: Is there a general agreement among scientists that mass media contributes to violence, contrary to the viewpoints described in this article? Jarble (talk) 00:26, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The article as currently structured cites a bunch of meta analyses, the APA, and the American Association of Pediatrics as claiming that studies link mass media to violence. That would imply a general agreement of scientists. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 02:09, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: POV dispute