Unfortunate Implications Citation Discussion

Yes, that seems like one of the rare examples where there are citations for it being a real complaint (beyond just one or two people). It should probably be copied over to the Unfortunate Implications page and deleted from YMMV

Edited by Jetbent on Sep 17th 2022 at 8:04:51 AM

~Rainbow Pumpqueen

I wanted to ask about this with regards to Tumblr, actually, which is better-structured than Twitter for long-form commentary and conversations. A single rant is obviously a poor gauge of audience perception, but a longer analysis with a substantial number of supportive reblogs (which are relatively easy to skim) seems like at least a decent indication, especially a thread of multiple people all contributing thoughts in agreement with the same thesis.

Here's the previous discussion on the topic if you want to get an idea of why other people favor a more restrictive citation policy.

Okay. By my understanding: The two major positions were "the projects thread's current source guidelines do not accurately represent audience opinion" versus "the projects thread can't handle curating every UI wick and it's okay if the wiki doesn't collect every example", synthesised as "take the page to TRS to discuss making it Flame Bait". TRS made it Flame Bait, but didn't reach a consensus on anything else. (I only skimmed the morgue thread so I'm unclear how much it discussed the consequences of that for the original concerns.)

Is that an accurate summary?

Pretty much, yes. Basically it's a "quantity over quality" thing and which value better represents a credible audience reaction in the Internet age.

It was actually proposed to remove citations or let in stuff like twitter but it got downvoted in that TRS thread. Which basically went with a stay with the original approach.

Which is a problem since the original approach is vague as shit, lol. So we're back to square one.

Yeah, I'm chiming in about how this debate is tediously slow. In the TRS, I upvoted marking Unfortunate Implications as Flame Bait and downvoted everything else because I was torn over all the arguments. I'm currently with crazysamaritan and Fighteer about preferring reputable news sources over fan engagement because I prefer concrete, academic restrictions over overcomplicated vetting standards, but maybe that's just because I'm far more practiced as a Wikipedian than as a troper.

Edited by Idiosyncratic on Sep 24th 2022 at 6:08:37 AM

Thing is, we're not allowed to decide the policy here. That's part of why we even went to TRS in the first place. As it stands, we have to do business as usual, and whatever that entails, well... is unfortunately subjective, but there's nothing we can do about it on this thread.

I want to do a UI entry for Free Birds. There are many people who say that this movie is racist for equating the struggles of Native Americans to turkeys being on the Thanksgiving menu. The "Indian" turkeys also speak broken English. Are these okay citations?

https://variety.com/2013/film/reviews/film-review-free-birds-1200775691/

https://www.avclub.com/free-birds-1798178509

https://indiancountrytoday.com/archive/free-birds-tells-wrong-story-inaccurately

https://www.chesapeakefamily.com/family-movie-review-free-birds-pg/2/ (two page review)

https://www.eater.com/2013/11/18/6328313/review-free-birds-makes-turkeys-of-us-all

https://www.metrofamilymagazine.com/movie-review-free-birds/

https://www.pajiba.com/film_reviews/free-birds-review-more-grating-than-a-906-classic-rock-song.php

https://www.mandatory.com/fun/595989-review-free-birds

https://entertainment.time.com/2013/10/31/free-birds-a-thanksgiving-turkey-neither-rare-nor-well-done/

Seems ok.

About a month ago, this example was removed from UnfortunateImplications.Live Action TV for supposedly not having a citation.

• In the ST:TNG episode "The Outcast" Ryker falls in love with a person from a planet whose hat is being gender-neutral. The hosts of recap podcast The Greatest Generation pointed the negative implications when the episode used the "psychotectic therapy" as a quick way to wrap up the loose ends of the episode. It's essentially analogous to what "conversion therapy" is supposed to do on Earth, which is to "cure" people of being LGBT. While the episode treats it as a barbaric practice, it is presented as a rather bloodless brainwashing, which is possibly how it was perceived in the 1990s. In modern times, it's more widely recognized as involving brutal tactics and resulting in high rates of mental illness and suicide afterwards.

However, it does have a citation, The Greatest Generation podcast. I'm bringing this here because I'm not sure if that podcast is a good citation.

Shouldn't there at least be a link?

From Divergent:

• Discussed here about a change in Divergent from the book to the film- in the book, Tris's fear of intimacy is her third fear, which gets changed to a hallucination of Four attempting to rape her in the film. The post points out that the change (and by extension having Tris conquer the fear with a Groin Attack) opens up a can of worms:
  "...Aren't we just putting the impetus on preventing sexual assault back on the women? So if someone not as strong as Tris is unable to fight off her attacker, is she not responding "appropriately"? Then, aren't we just saying she didn't do everything she could, and thus, it's partly her fault?"

This seems to misrepresent the article, which mainly focused on the logistics of using rape as a plot device at all (which it notes the book was equally guilty of). The above quote also wasn't accusing the film itself of taking that stance, but was criticizing online users who made those comments.

Edited by Javertshark13 on Dec 5th 2022 at 7:34:14 AM

I added an In-Universe example for Unfortunate Implications on Rowley Jefferson's Awesome Friendly Adventure (it was about someone worrying about an in-universe book being unintentionally sexist), but it got removed and moved to an aversion of Straw Misogynist, and I don't really know if that fits at all. Can UI still work as an in-universe item even now that it's Flame Bait? I marked it as invoked and all.

It should be able to, IMO.

Yes, entries for flame bait tropes can be on the main wiki if they are being used in-universe.

Edited by MacronNotes on Dec 6th 2022 at 10:09:06 AM

I will re-add with a link back to this thread. I added the original entry, but since I got feedback, it's not an Edit War to now re-add, right?

Nope, you're good.

Here's something I don't quite get, do entries have to be approved by thread before adding (like with The Woobie or Complete Monster), or do I just pop in here only if I have doubts about the legitimacy of an entry?

I re-added here an example that was cut during the TRS wick cleaning. It listed a valid concern and had a valid citation, it was only removed because, since the trope is now Flame Bait, it doesn't go on YMMV/ pages anymore. However, since the example was cut without moving it to its correct place (the main Unfortunate Implications page), I added it. That's fine, right?

Edited by FernandoLemon on Dec 15th 2022 at 5:42:59 PM

Well, The Woobie actually doesn't require vetting. And so far, neither does UI.

The only tropes that require vetting are CM and MB. If you see a tag telling you that The Woobie does, delete it; it's a holdover from when the cleanup thread did use to vet examples, which the mods decided wasn't allowed.

This example was removed from YMMV.Precure Meet The Dream Traveler due to Unfortunate Implications becoming Flame Bait.

• Unfortunate Implications: The entire fic series, but Doki Doki Precure Meet the Dark Wanderer takes the cake with Shadow's behavior toward Mana resembling child grooming. He lives in the same household as Mana, usually gets her alone with him, has made physical contact with her many times, and gives her special attention. This is four of the ways predators work to groom children.

Would it be okay to put the example under the appropriate folder on the Unfortunate Implications page?

I believe citations for entries need to be about how the work itself has those implications. The citation that's listed is just a list of grooming behaviours, with no connection to the fic at all.

So, cut.