Unfortunate Implications Citation Discussion

Yeah, I guess I did that. I just realized how poorly I worded that second part, I accidentally worded it to say that non-wikis aren't valid sources, when that couldn't be further from the truth.

As for the argument... hm. I think we're in agreement that the BWW doesn't really count as a wiki, and I already explained on the other post why it's not a valid citation source. On my third post, we've covered how wikis are believed to be good sources, when in fact they aren't. Between those three points, I think we've crafted a complete picture.

Yep.

Maybe we should consider compilling a list of which sites are and aren't considered good sources.

Would take too long.

One quick and dirty option (to declare certain sources bad) would be to use Wikipedia's rsp list as a starting point (and, yes we're not Wikipedia but if sources are actively lying or just plain bad by their standards, should we really be using them for citing unfortunate implications here?). If it's listed in red or grey, it shouldn't be used here. If its not listed there at all, then further considerations could apply

Hey, look which site is in the red!

Interestingly, they consider Twitter credible if the account is verified or an expert on the subject. Similar stance on Medium. So maybe we can adopt that case-by-case standard?

Edited by mightymewtron on Oct 7th 2020 at 10:32:00 AM

I can't say I blame them

I agree that we shouldn't consider a source unreliable JUST because of the site it's hosted on. The important part should be whether it's trustworthy, and demonstrates that a non-negligible number of people feel a certain way.

If an influential expert on a certain subject says something on Twitter, or the issue is addressed by the author on their Tumblr blog, we should be allowed to cite those sites.

An inverse of the usual situation on Attack on Titan:

• Unfortunate Implications:
  • Dot Pixis, whom the author stated was modeled after General Akiyama Yoshifuru, sparkled a massive Flame War over Akiyama's war record, with some detractors even thinking he was a World War II war criminal (despite having died long before it even took place). That said, some speculate that he may have played some part in the Port Arthur massacre, yet another point of friction between Japan and the countries they fought with during the early 20th century.
  • There was an incident where Isayama's political views became a hot button. ^note Long story short, people discovered he had been favoring news articles supporting Japanese nationalism on his private Twitter account through 3rd party applications.
  • See this article, which is titled "The Fascist Subtext of Attack on Titan Can’t Go Overlooked", for more info.

The first two are OK if a little Nattery, but the last one is just a citation. It's a potentially valid sentiment IMO, especially given the above, but needs proper explanation.

The second point doesn't sound like it's about the work, just the author.

It feeds into the first and the third bullets insofar as the various pro-IJA readings of the political drama that the story eventually shifted to, aren't just What Do You Mean, It's Not Political? Epileptic Trees this time around.

Yeah, I've never seen the show but I remember my friend saying she couldn't watch it anymore because it ended up becoming uncomfortably fascist and going back she noticed red flags in the earlier episodes as well. It's a big issue people have with it.

So, I'm guessing we can combine the second and third bullet points into a single one that discusses AOT having potential pro-fascist undertones that are not helped by the author seemingly sympathizing with them IRL? And without invoking ZCE?

I'll try to find an additional citation too if I can, because Polygon is known for having questionable and poorly researched takes, and I've seen some responses even from people who would otherwise be sympathetic who believe the author of that article is grasping at strings. And I've also seen other arguments that the author is actually criticizing fascism^note He certainly appears to be right-wing and a Japanese chauvinist, but right wing doesn't always equate to fascism, which is a very specific ideology. Likewise the people who are the most similar to IRL Nazis and fascists are unambiguously villainous, while the people who most closely resemble the Jews, the victims of fascists, are often heroes, but doing a sloppy and hamfisted job of it.

Edited by AlleyOop on Oct 23rd 2020 at 12:42:57 PM

The problem is that if we start criticizing the content of the articles them we get to a place where the we are making rulings on whether or not the Unfortunate Implications are "real", which is not something we should be ruling on. It's an Audience Reaction, so as long as people perceive the implications, even if we think that perception is wrong, we should list them. The sourcing requirement is just there to prove that these implications are perceived by people other than the person writing the example, not the somehow prove that they exist objectively.

Honestly that's why I think this trope should've been cut the moment it was having problems.

So you're telling me that if some pansy asses decided that one little thing offended them, we should list it, even if most of the audience was alright with the scene?

By having this trope around, it's making these things sound much worse than they actually are.

"The sourcing requirement is just there to prove that these implications are perceived by people other than the person writing the example, not the somehow prove that they exist objectively."

Well, seeing as how it's used, it's more like it's being used for the latter purpose.

Edited by PlasmaPower on Oct 23rd 2020 at 1:44:16 PM

I too thought ymmv was for you know what most of the audience feels.

It's not that I want to deny the article, I just want more citations to get a wider picture of the issue people take with it, as Polygon has Kotaku-esque issues. Notoriously, they posted an extremely unpopular opinion praising lootboxes and accusing games customers of being ungrateful for opposing them, which turned off a lot of people who used to respect them as effective analysts.

Research on the matter as well as passing familiar with the fandom indicates that the question of whether the series has fascist implications or not, while it's certainly got Unfortunate Implications, is divisive and widespread enough due to the series' increasingly blatant political themes that it may also double as a Broken Base. Thus a single article from a website that nowadays is perceived as very tabloid-y is weaker without additional citations to support it, particularly when a lot of publications of equivalent or higher "weight" have come out to rebuke it.

The whole reason we scrutinize citations is because we're aware of avoiding the problem you described, and which would be true if we did keep accepting random Tumblr and Medium posts. Citations that come from large and well-respected publications come with the assumption that they have higher standards of expectations from their writers, which translates to a viewpoint that is probably held in good faith by a non-negligible portion of the audience. Polygon is a step above your typical Tumblr blog, sure, but is still in the mildly yellow zone, hence why I think it would help to look for additional citations.

Edited by AlleyOop on Oct 23rd 2020 at 1:28:21 PM

It's funny, though, that a New York Times editorial that describes only the author's opinion would be considered more credible than a Polygon piece that describes the entire fandom's reaction to something.

If somebody was alright with a scene that had Unfortunate Implications, then they can ignore the entry, just like somebody who's not into Shipping can ignore shipping tropes. Subjectivity is the point of the YMMV page.

I think we should just be able to note that multiple people support the position, and the only time it should be an issue is if it's very obviously only a single person or small friend circle's opinion (which includes a no-citation entry), the citation links to a deeply uncredible/biased website, or the entry flat-out misunderstands and misinterprets the show - and the citation requirement doesn't help with the latter because even big name publications can get shit wrong. Hell, mainstream publications are probably more likely to misunderstand fandom arguments than journalism like Polygon catered towards the fandoms themselves.

Edited by mightymewtron on Oct 23rd 2020 at 1:15:54 PM

Just to point something out: individual takes are what reviews and the Darth and Sugar wikis are for.

YMMV is for audience reactions, meaning at least a sizeable minority of everyone who consumes that product, not for whatever spare thought you happen to have.

In fact, we should probably rename YMMV because the "Your" implies that the latter is the cade when it very much isn't, but that's not for this thread.

YMMV is technically no longer the name anyway - it's Audience Reactions for the exact reason you mentioned. YMMV is just a namespace nowadays.

But that's my point. If our issue is with entries not making it clear there's multiple people agreeing with the point, the credibility standard isn't enough. A Tumblr post with thousands of notes agreeing with the point described in the article and a crappy fandom blog compiling a bunch of popular tweets better reflects mainstream opinion about a work than a single writer's personal opinion posted in a professional newspaper. And yes, fandom-based journalism can often be biased towards the writer's personal viewpoint, but so can professional works.

Isn't the source here a blog post? Doesn't seem to be from any actual official source. The later is correct but doesn't really refer to a work of his.

• Unfortunate Implications: In recent years, the book has sparked controversy due to the portrayal of the witches having anti-Semitic undertones. Their true forms share similarities to Jewish caricatures and are described as a race of monsters that maintain monetary power in secrecy. The climax of the book features the witches being turned into mice and exterminated which is a disturbing parallel to Nazi propaganda that described Jewish people as vermin. It also doesn't help that Roald Dahl himself was unapologetic and open about his anti-Semetic beliefs.

That's from a blog. If you can find an article collecting tweets/blogposts (such as the one linked on YMMV.Atypical) that would be better.

Checking this one from YMMV.The Curious Incident Of The Dog In The Night Time:

• The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-time has garnered a lot of backlash for the stereotypical portrayal of autism and the fact that all the abuse Christopher endures is normalized, especially the fact that he is blamed for all the events that happen in the book.

Can we holler to sticky the OP and edit it to say this?

The citation needs to clarify that multiple people agree. Credibility alone is not a factor, even an editorial from a professional newspaper such as The New York Times can be biased. Instead, look for an article citing multiple social media and blog posts, whether it be from a pop culture website, a blog, or a newspaper.

Edited by ccorb on Oct 26th 2020 at 4:16:08 AM

I don't see anything wrong with the source, and as someone with Asperger's syndrome, I hated the book for the same reasons listed (among others) when required to read it in high school.

I found more reputable sources for the Witches example.

Curious Incident gets a lot of flak from the autistic community, but somehow I can't find anything from a mainstream publication. But it's indeed criticized a lot for the stereotyping at least. The blogs don't seem Tumblr-ish though, and they might actually be community-run websites, I'm not sure.

This is what frustrates me about the citation requirement sometimes. The bulk of a marginalized community can agree upon and discuss a piece of media being offensive or at least problematic, and make several posts on their own websites detailing the issues, but because the story never breaks into the mainstream, those opinions are not deemed credible enough to discuss on the page.

Edited by mightymewtron on Oct 26th 2020 at 3:34:20 PM

That's yet another reason for keeping this audience reaction. A lot of progressive sites turned against us for following Google's orders.