Follow TV Tropes

Ask The Tropers

Go To

Have a question about how the TVTropes wiki works? No one knows this community better than the people in it, so ask away! Ask the Tropers is the page you come to when you have a question burning in your brain and the support pages didn't help. It's not for everything, though. For a list of all the resources for your questions, click here.

Ask the Tropers:

Trope Related Question:

Make Private (For security bugs or stuff only for moderators)

28th Jan, 2018 02:47:02 AM

There Is No Such Thing as Notability does still apply, even if the film were a misogynist rag. Skid Troper has already been in the soup for questionable edits on the Acceptable Religious Targets page, though.

28th Jan, 2018 05:14:23 AM

Works Pages Are A Free Launch. He didn't need to get persmission to make a page that wasn't on the Permanent Red Link Club. That would create a weird and contradictory precedent to policy.

After reading the description on the page, I don't see what the issue is. Yes, I am familiar with the film, and yes, I am aware of some of the issues people have brought up about it. But the page he created is tame.

The examples you quoted are also pretty tame, and if those tropes are discussed in the work — and since this is a documentary we're talking about — then they should be on the page, imo. Moreoever, some of those YMMV articles ought to be moved to the main work page, at least if they were discussed in the work itself or if Word of God is in play.

28th Jan, 2018 07:03:44 AM

The thing that makes this concerning from where I'm standing (besides the guy being a previous problem) is that it's a documentary. Yes, they can technically be tropable, but it reminds me a lot of all those pages people make for controversial internet personalities - the page would never exist were it not for someone wanting to argue, because it's not really a work in our usual sense.

28th Jan, 2018 07:29:52 AM

This isn't the same or similar to Internet personalities, though. Also, the argument of "the page would never exist were it not for someone wanting to argue" is speculative at best, and going after the person rather than the content at worst.

Other controversial documentaries that we have pages for include Super Size Me and An Inconvenient Truth, so there's precedent for us having a page for a "controversial documentary."

28th Jan, 2018 09:00:37 AM

The problem I have with the examples above is that each of them are making value judgments ABOUT the content of the documentary itself. For example, Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics states that "misreading of statistics to support the wage gap is also explored".

That sentence needs an "alleged", at the very least.

There's also Strawman Has a Point, which doesn't really seem to apply here. A strawman is a person deliberately set up to be wrong, and the trope is about when the audience feels that the character set up this way is right. Paul Elam and other MR As aren't strawmen; the statements and opinions they've held (such as Elam's infamous "women are begging for it" quote) are their own. Naturally, like ANY political opinion, people will agree and disagree.

Also, if we look at how other documentaries like Super Size Me have been handled, the trope page of the aforementioned movie is extremely critical. And even when it is neutral about what the documentary states, the language is distances its views from Spurlock's. For example:

  • Fast-Food Nation: Morgan Spurlock's documentary paints America as obsessed with Mc Donald's and the titular super-size option, to the point of health risk without care by the corporation.

Compare how that's written to the Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics example shown above.

Taken alone, his edits don't seem like much, but taken together (along with the one made on the Feminism page) and it reads like a narrative.

Edited by NubianSatyress
28th Jan, 2018 09:11:44 AM

Oh wow. Creating an MRA page was also something he apparently tried in the past:

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/discussion.php?id=icvc721cmmjonf2ao32ee319

28th Jan, 2018 10:34:43 AM

I'm not sure I responded to your concerns, then. I thought you were talking about having the page in the first place.

For the examples, yes, they do need revision. There were a few tropes I found on the Trivia/ and YMMV/ pages that I removed (since they were objective tropes). However, for the Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics, I'm not seeing what the revision should be. There are statistics supporting the wage gap and there are people who misread those statistics to support it also. Stating that the film explores the misreading is not problematic.

Moreover, the Strawman Has a Point entry could possibly go on the main work page or in Trivia/ under Word of God. It's about the creator's take on strawmen arguments she's heard in the past. Though I wonder if there's a more accurate trope (preferably an objective trope) to describe that sort of shift in opinion. Moreover, it isn't just about her agreeing with MRA's but with her going through some sort of realization. My understanding is that it was a paradigm shift for her, as opposed to just agreeing with people.

The comparison doesn't seem to help you in the case you're making. The main difference is the use of passive voice, but it's clear whose opinion it is since it starts in the active voice. The entry on the page is...

Cassie discusses how domestic abuse statistics are often applied in ways that lead to the persecution of men, mainly in men being singled out for persecution in domestic abuse cases. In addition, the omission of homosexual couples domestic violence statistics from the legal system's enforcement of laws is also lampshaded. The misreading of statistics to support the Wage Gap is also explored.

I would also like to point out that you are going after the person rather than the content. There's little reason to persecute somebody because of speculation. And "reads like" is speculation.

Also the MRA useful note page shows that he is making suggestions and contributions the way people are supposed to. We can't try to shame people for doing what they're supposed to, even if the suggestions made were bad or poorly executed.

28th Jan, 2018 03:23:33 PM

I disagree with the vast majority of your points. Personally, I think the page (as written) needs one heck of a neutral tone revision, and as I said, Skid's prior attempts at agenda-editing here, his attempt to make an MRA page (which failed specifically because he failed to keep his points neutral, as lakingsif put it):

"OK, this isn't really something we need a Useful Note for (it's not specifically media-based nor does the movement as a whole get outright presentations in media) — we have tropes like Double Standard Rape Female On Male, Henpecked Husband and what not for the uses for/against and discussions in shows — and it's got 17 bombs and is clearly divisive in here, let alone free on the wiki. I'm going to discard it, and if someone else wants to later recreate it with a better description then they can. ^ Skid Troper, we've reiterated for you that the draft as it stands is not good quality and, as Stillalive explained, it is not written to neutrally convey facts of the subject at hand. Additionally, your last comment "just keep in mind any attempts at page blanking or vandalism will be undone" comes across as petulant and rude. There are many other ways to phrase 'please don't blank the page' that aren't so self-righteous."

Whatever the admins decide, I'll abide by. But, I can't agree with your position on this one, Water Blap.

EDIT: Since it's apparently okay, I went and made a few minor edits already.

Edited by NubianSatyress
28th Jan, 2018 04:31:11 PM

  • The administration already responded.
Water Blap's points are...
  • The Red Pill fits our criteria for page creation. It is part of our mission to catalog the tropes used in that work.
  • The examples need revision to provide a more neutral tone (and ~Water Blap removed several tropes that were misused).
  • Strawman Has a Point example is misuse, and should go in the description or in Word of God. There might be a different trope that demonstrates a character/creator changing their opinions.
  • Your issues seem based on the content of the message rather than the tropes the message uses.
  • Efforts to contribute positively to the wiki should be praised, even if some attempts are bad or poorly executed.

The points, as I understand him, are all perfectly valid. You use an "I disagree with you" tone when describing what Water Blap already stated. This leads me to think you're conflating the message with the tropes. For example, saying "bananas are yellow, therefore 2 and 3 equals 5" is Insane Troll Logic (analogy to Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics). Even if it ends up at the right answer (5 or Wage Gap), the logic behind it was still faulty.

Edited by crazysamaritan
28th Jan, 2018 04:46:24 PM

I havent read the page but it is a work, it can exist. Maybe it is not neutral: edit it.

Edited by lakingsif
28th Jan, 2018 05:07:47 PM

The reason I took a "I disagree with you" stance with Water Blap is because Blap and I have had disagreements in the past which have become pretty bitter and I'm attempting to avoid that.

That said, your Insane Troll Logic point doesn't really seem analogous here. This isn't a case of "the message is correct, but the logic is wrong". The message is at question, too.

EDIT: And now, an Edit War seems to have started: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/article_history.php?article=YMMV.TheRedPill along with something about "triggering".

Edited by NubianSatyress
28th Jan, 2018 05:33:02 PM

Yeah, the subject of this page makes it look like one to lock, and use the locked page changes forum for any alterations.

28th Jan, 2018 06:48:18 PM

The potential of a certain troper having views not sponsored by the wiki is a different problem. Only when it significantly shows in their edits as a whole is it cause for concern. Including this page and the old TLP draft, are there also any other edits that would suggest a pro-chauvinist slant? Are they trying to spread active misogyny on the wiki?

Edit: Septimus's mention of the Acceptable Religious Targets page does make it 3. Perhaps we could refer this to a mod, there is a precedent for considering tropers' unsavory tastes and if the community should welcome them.

Edited by lakingsif
28th Jan, 2018 07:10:27 PM

[awesome] to crazysamaritan. Those are my points, yes (at least the edited version of Samaritan's comment). For the record, I appreciate Satyress's stance-given-past-experience.

I'm not sure where the Insane Troll Logic is coming from, possibly Samaritan's unedited comment? I know I'm not saying "the message is correct but the logic is wrong," I'm saying your logic is wrong, principally because you're going after the troper rather than what they're saying (in the vein of "attacking the person and not the argument" though not exactly the same thing).

On YMMV.The Red Pill, you shouldn't have deleted the whole entry. As someone who participates in the ROCEJ-breaking clean-up thread, I can admit that I've also made that mistake in the past, but the point is that it is not appropriate to throw the baby out with the bath water. (Also, I think the "triggering" comment is regarding the emotional tone of your edit reason, but I wouldn't say that's an apt description of your edit reason.) Regardless, it does look like an edit war and I for one would appreciate what others have to say about it (especially because I don't mean to act as a champion of these pages).

I think a lock on the page and sub-pages could be beneficial. However, I don't think the locked pages thread would be the appropriate place to discuss edit suggestions, so does anyone have an idea of what thread to use?

Edited by WaterBlap
28th Jan, 2018 07:12:40 PM

[double post]

Edited by WaterBlap
28th Jan, 2018 08:16:09 PM

My goal isn't specifically to attack the troper, only point out that their edit history doesn't exist in a vacuum. No one's does.

Also, the main reason I removed the entry in question is because it's pretty blatantly attacking critics of the work. AFAIK, It misuses Critical Research Failure, Epic Fail, and a number of tropes that deliberately paint the critics in question in an excessively negative light. Even if we assume that what he's saying is true about them (he HAS been wrong before, as I noted on the Discussion page).

The segment looked to me like its sole purpose was to insult the parties involved, so I cut it. If that was wrong, I apologize.

I'll stay out of the discussion from here on.

Edited by NubianSatyress
28th Jan, 2018 08:36:06 PM

(I was typing a response, but instead I think I'll respect your decision to leave the conversation.)


Discussion pages for locked pages are still unlocked. I'd rather discussion on each example be done there, but I'd imagine the next best place is the Live Action Film forum.

29th Jan, 2018 07:36:30 AM

Did a bit of cleanup. The YMMV page is hilariously one-sided, tending to be "people dislike it, but they're wrong for doing so. Or feminists (which is weirdly taken as shorthand for "misogynist" based on the context)." Which also bleeds into the main page.

... I feel like we're missing the forest for the trees here since his edits on UsefulNotes.Feminism are blatantly spreading a blatant "The Red Pill is correct!" message.

Edited by Larkmarn
29th Jan, 2018 09:37:45 AM

It's one thing if he's a fan of The Red Pill overzealously defending it against its critics, but this is starting to sound like agenda-based editing.

29th Jan, 2018 10:23:05 AM

OK, yes, that makes it five notable edits in an attempt to spread misogyny. Will make an ATT about the troper.

Fighteer MOD
29th Jan, 2018 11:30:16 AM

Yeah, I reviewed his editing and it's clearly agenda-based. He's a goner, since he was warned before and refuses to stop.

29th Jan, 2018 06:49:48 PM

Since there is ongoing discussion on the page itself, and the troper has been dealt with, closing this one.

Top

Example of:

/

Feedback