Talk:Trauma trigger

The statement below cited an article that didn't seem to contain any related information. I moved it from the article to here. Feel free to re-add with a better citation.

Because trigger scenes can be difficult to anticipate they can be difficult for a trauma survivor to avoid; by the time the viewer is aware of the content of the scene, a traumatic memory may already be triggered.^[1]

• Phillips, Michael (2007-07-05). "If a film made you flee, here's your ticket to deride". Chicago Tribune. Retrieved 2007-12-20.

-- Creidieki 05:36, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

There is an article about PTSD and traumatic memories, both of which include details of the symptoms of PTSD. The cited articles mention that negative affect can be triggered by events but there is no mention of a standard definition for any phenomenon specifically known as a "trauma trigger". This article is may contain pseudo medical conjecture and may be redundant. I have flagged this article as peacocking and lending undue weight to the concept of a "trauma trigger". Whether one should be used or the other, I'm not exactly sure, so please remove the least relevant of the two. I believe this article simply describe the fact that negative psychological affects can occur in reaction to offensive stimuli often found in media. I believe it is attempting to promote the advent of the "trigger warning", a colloquialism associated with American feminism, as being a documented psychological phenomenon. 76.184.229.76 (talk) 15:53, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps a better choice would be suggesting a different subject classification for the article or some specific change? The fact that you don't agree with the use of the term doesn't change it's notability, which is to say the terms use is widespread and well recognized within the American feminist community. Dub (talk) 21:50, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, this article should be reworked as a discussion of "triggers" as a pop-cultural phenomenon. Presenting this as medical science rather than political rhetoric and folklore is extremely misleading. 67.188.230.128 (talk) 08:57, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

This page is doing more than simply discussing the negative psychological effects of offensive stimuli in media. It discusses all of the triggers that can affect individuals with (or without) diagnosed PTSD such as other people, smells, sounds, tones of voice, weather, etc. (many things not traditionally "offensive"). While I understand your call to remove this page in favor of the article on PTSD and traumatic memories, not everyone who may experience an emotional reaction to stimuli in their immediate environment has been diagnosed with PTSD. Further, triggers are documented psychological phenomenon in individuals with PTSD. Your issue seems to stem from the very short section on the page titled "trigger warning" as promoting a colloquialism that grew out of the feminist movement as the documented psychological phenomenon. No place in that section tries to do so: "In some publications a "trigger warning" may appear at the beginning of certain articles. These are to warn that the articles contain disturbing themes that may trigger traumatic memories for sufferers. An example of a trigger warning is: "TRIGGER WARNING: This content deals with an account of sexual assault and may be triggering to some people."[9]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.94.135.45 (talk) 16:40, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. Trigger warnings have been topics noted by The BBC, The Guardian and The New Statesman: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-ouch-26295437 , http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/05/trigger-warnings-can-be-counterproductive , http://www.newstatesman.com/sci-tech/2013/01/why-i-dont-agree-trigger-warnings which I believe gives them enough real world usage to keep this section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.218.11.205 (talk) 10:39, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

––––––––––

I've added the split template because I think the page should be split into the medical PTSD side and the pseudoscience side. DrStrauss (talk) 23:08, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree. There is a component of triggers that is based in research on how they affect those with PTSD, but there is also a component in how these trigger warnings have affected society.RebekahJazdzewski (talk) 17:55, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

This page currently has a massive problem in the "trigger warning" section by treating the op-eds of bloggers and journalists such as Rhiannon Lucy Cosslett, Jill Filipovic, Fionola Meredith, and Jay Caspian Kang as authorities on the subject. In fact, the articles from which their opinions are derived do not have any sort of empirical basis, or even evidence to back up their fears about the malign effects of TWs. None of them have any special prominence when it comes to a discussion of psychology or trauma, as none appear to have any experience in either a clinical or therapeutic context. At worst, the four authors appear to have been cherry-picked from the wide range of opinions regarding trigger warnings because they all condemn them, and certain editors have been intent on preserving them on the page solely because all four dislike TWs.

Putting them on this page without comment on their credentials is like letting the page on Evolution say, "some have doubts, for instance, Ray Comfort, published author, says..." without once mentioning an actual scientist's opinion on the matter. The section should be noted as non-NPOV and edited accordingly - users without accounts have been frequently reverting constructive edits to this section in a way that appears intent on framing the issue to suit a particular agenda. If there are going to be 4 random non-expert authors cited in this section, it appears the least we can do is find 2 pro-TW and 2 anti-TW writers rather than the current arrangement. Emoprog (talk) 14:54, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I have reverted your strident agenda-pushing, not least because you have offered no evidence for what you say they are not. As it is, we rarely go out of our way to suggest that a published viewpoint is invalid, unless there is evidence directly or indirectly refuting it. I don't have time right now to go through all the citation, but I would say that your dismissal of Rhiannon Lucy Cosslett as someone "who does not have a medical degree" seems pretty brutal considering the sub-heading for her article clearly states "When I was suffering from PTSD, I didn't want to be wrapped in cotton wool" and she further discusses her condition in the article itself. She is clearly speaking from experience, even if it is not the kind you seem to prefer. Nick Cooper (talk) 15:06, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Section rephrased according to good standards of maintaining a neutral, objective POV. One author counter to this article's predominant anti-TW bias - being the three other authors who remain, inexplicably, when they have no special knowledge of the topic but a great deal of ideology - has been added. Emoprog (talk) 23:25, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Having looked into it, there's no academic study on the efficacy of trigger warnings. The closest I could find was this article in PSMAG http://www.psmag.com/navigation/health-and-behavior/hazards-ahead-problem-trigger-warnings-according-research-81946/ which extrapolates on the findings of several academic studies on trauma itself to build a conclusion on the benefit (or lack thereof) of trigger warnings. Until such a time as randomised, double blind trial is conducted, studies of direct trauma and opinion pieces, especially by those who are sufferers are the only sources we have. Having said that, the term "Trauma Trigger" and "Trigger Warning" are not used in psychology or any of the sciences. The closest scientific literature is probably this piece: http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11955&page=96 by Board on Population Health and Public Health Practice which actually suggests that exposure therapy is better than avoidance therapy while trigger warnings would certainly fall within Avoidance Therapy.

Taking that further, discussing the effects of trigger warnings for trauma sufferers is useful but the authors listed such as Caspian saying "Reducing literature to its ugliest plot points" is an observation of how trigger warnings can have an effect on the majority of the population, something which is equally relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.4.7.37 (talk) 12:15, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

"trigger warnings would certainly fall within Avoidance Therapy" is false. Trigger warnings prevent unintended exposure, but they do not make the subject choose avoidance. What trigger warnings do is facilitate the ability to choose, while the lack of them forces exposure (if, of course, the media is consumed). TreeRol (talk) 17:17, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

To the previous comment, this is not the place to debate what is or isn't true about trigger warnings. We use reliable sources, not our own judgement, to determine content. Find opposing reliable sources, and make a specific recommendation for a change to the article. If you want to discuss the topic in general, please make use of the many other outlets on the internet for discussion. Toward the original post, I think we do have some cleaning up still to do. As much as I tend towards the camp who do not support trigger warnings, I'm not sure the due weight is being represented here. The last bit by the sports writer is also eyebrow raising. Why is this opinion notable? The others certainly are being in the general fields of study, but why this one? And is it really suchg a fringe thing that there are no scholarly proponents? I really don't know, but I have an inkling it wouldn't be hard to represent the other side of the argument with reputable sources either. Like I said, I tend to agree with the viewpoint being represented, but I think this section needs a bit of re-weighting and a consideration of whether to include the sports writer. being notable for other things does not make one notable for this topic.12.11.127.253 (talk) 16:49, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Failure to act on the above has led me to determine that the "dubious" tag is needed on a number of the assertions of the authors, which are generally just opinion pieces by non-experts with no clinical background or even a particular special knowledge of the subject material. Accordingly, I have removed one author who was also bandying about such terms as "liberal fascism" which, aside from being undefinable, shows a clear agenda in what was otherwise presented as a neutral expert's opinion. If someone objects (someone "real" I suppose - this page is frequently reverted by agenda-motivated anonymous IP addresses who fail to use the talk page) to the edits on this admittedly poorly-composed section, I invite them to seek arbitration or find a way to better balance the pro/anti-TW voices, given that there is undue weight given to non-experts who are shooting off their opinions who belong to the latter camp. Emoprog (talk) 03:33, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

In what way is the citation dubious? They are direct quotes from journalists and authors. As Nick cooper suggested to your previous post "As it is, we rarely go out of our way to suggest that a published viewpoint is invalid, unless there is evidence directly or indirectly refuting it". I have removed the "Dubious" tag until such time because the citation itself is can be shown as invalid or refuted. Marking a citation as "dubious" does exactly what Nick Cooper said, it suggests the published viewpoint is invalid, which clearly is not a neutral POV for wikipedia. I'm not sure how a Professor Of Sociology is a "non-expert", to reinforce the section I have also added a reference from a Harvard Professor Of Psychology and a leading trauma researcher. Rather than marking these as "Dubious" a better neutral pov would be to expand the section that accurately describes the benefit of trigger warnings with equally relevant citations.

I've added a bit to the "Trigger warning" section on its use in virtual communities. However, I feel like this can be expanded outside of the one mentioned?--DrWho42 (talk) 06:57, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

More than 2/3 of the Trigger Warning section are selections opposed to trigger warnings, despite there not being any rigorous evidence of their effectiveness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johndelaware (talk • contribs) 06:14, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

And what citations prove that? So farther only citation supposedly "unbiased" is one by a professional blogger. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.52.199.201 (talk) 21:26, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

That's correct then... if there isn't any rigorous evidence for their effectiveness it makes sense that most of the citations (which seem quite comprehensive to me: Trauma researchers, professors of psychology etc) would be against them. The burden of proof is on the people making claims that they're beneficial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.71.205.199 (talk) 10:20, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm also concerned the section is not neutral. It quotes only people who disagree with the concept. I may try to find sources arguing in favour. —ajf (talk) 01:13, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

I have included one reference, but it only seems to re-affirm the lack of empirical evidence supporting trigger warnings. For now I am leaning towards removing the tag, until some more actionable items can be taken on this (or to promote more discussion on this). Shaded0 (talk) 14:57, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Trauma trigger. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071015184748/http://nimh.nih.gov:80/health/publications/post-traumatic-stress-disorder-a-real-illness/complete-publication.shtml to http://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/publications/post-traumatic-stress-disorder-a-real-illness/complete-publication.shtml#pub4

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:41, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

There is a "suggested split" tag currently on this article; I don't see that this small article needs a split. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:15, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

This template was added last December by User:DrStrauss, who is no longer active on Wikipedia. Jarble (talk) 04:14, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Okay. It seems free to remove it then. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:31, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

That editor is temporarily blocked, and it is self-requested; the block will lift in July. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:34, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

@DrStrauss: Can you explain why you added the {{split}} tag to this article? Jarble (talk) 11:41, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

New development: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7212781/London-playhouse-gives-heads-disturbing-scenes-snowflakes.html#article-7212781 Zezen (talk) 06:23, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

I think there is some good material to add from this source, but I don't have the time right now: https://slate.com/technology/2019/07/trigger-warnings-research-shows-they-dont-work-might-hurt.html -Pengortm (talk) 17:56, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

I've removed a claim from the lead of the article for now, and I'll explain why in a second. Here's the content:

Scientists with knowledge in this area and research on the topic suggest that trigger warnings may be counterproductive and actually increase anxiety and PTSD symptoms.^[1][2][3][4]

Now alarm bells rang immediately for me with the phrase "scientists with knowledge in this area" as clear puffery and non-neutral language; just "research on this topic" clearly puts across the message that studies have been conducted by reputable scientists. So I checked the body of the article to see if this claim was expanded upon. Nothing of the sort is there. The body says "The mental health effects of trigger warnings have not been well studied." If this is true then it's misleading to quote research of limited significance, particularly in the lead. Of course research of limited detail is useful to the scientific community but Wikipedia shouldn't be conveying something as the summary of medical consensus without a good body of research—usually we would be citing meta-analyses. This brings me onto my next point: the four sources given are all well and good, but the sentence is a specific medical claim. It's not saying that "trigger warnings have been criticised by X, Y and Z", and this is an article on a medical topic. We abide by WP:MEDRS and the three newspapers are simply not reliable sources in such a context. As for the fourth, it verifies none of the claims it is cited for. The paper studied only non-traumatized people's reactions and notes under "Limitations" that the observed effects may differ for a traumatized population. It does say that trigger warnings were found to increase anxiety among non-traumatized people but it does not say anything about them being "counterproductive"—indeed such an evaluative claim requires an explanation of what purpose the warnings are aiming to achieve. It seems pretty obvious to me that trigger warnings are designed for the benefit of traumatized people and hence it's simply not part of the research paper's scope.

I considered replacing the phrase with what is said in the body, per WP:LEAD, which would be: "The mental health effects of trigger warnings have not been well studied." However, I saw that only two sources were given for this and neither were WP:MEDRS-appropriate. So instead we need to leave out any such description in the lead. The section on "Trigger warnings" could do with a lot more work, particularly with the undue weight given to each "In higher education" source (which is only a small facet of the wide subject of trigger warnings). When it is brought into a good shape, then we could look at having a better summary of the topic in the lead. But for now, the quoted passage above violates WP:MEDRS, WP:LEAD, WP:NPOV and MOS:WTW and so it must remain removed. — Bilorv (talk) 00:23, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

On further thought, I agree with you that the statement could lead readers to think that more research has been done in this area than the body of the article suggests. I think this should be made clear --that we should make clear that research is limited in this area. The lead is supposed to summarize the article body. If the article body is missing sources or incorrect, than of course change this. In the meantime, the lead should summarize the article body. Pengortm (talk) 05:24, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm afraid none of this reasoning is policy-based, except the comment that the lead should be representative of the body (and the summary you re-added was not). I've addressed above why we can't say that research is limited in this area in the lead—it's simply not sourced appropriately. You need to engage with my comments about WP:MEDRS, which you are continuing to ignore. You also ignored my analysis of the issues with the prose of the content was removed, in that it neither represented the body of the article nor used verifiable sourcing, and also failed WP:NPOV. I've removed the content you added to the lead for the reasons above; please do not continue edit warring without actually engaging with the comments I have made. — Bilorv (talk) 09:20, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

In what way was the sentence I added not a valid summary of the body of the article? I've re-read your message above and so far as I can tell you disagree with the body of the article, but are not making any substantive attempt to improve or correct it. As written currently you are making the lead omit a major area of the article, which I think is making the article worse. If you suggest a more accurate summary of the body of the article or improve the article that would help us to be able to constructively work together on this. Pengortm (talk) 18:38, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Just added a review in a peer review journal supporting "The mental health effects of trigger warnings have not been well studied". Hopefully this clears away this concern for you?-Pengortm (talk) 19:11, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

I've explained above why your edits are not sufficient per WP:MEDRS, which you are yet to address. They contain a medical claim which is not substantiated by the only one of the four sources which is MEDRS-reliable. I presented above detailed reasoning about the issue with the word "counterproductive" (we would need to specify either the purpose of a trigger warning or its intended effect; currently we only say it is to warn [the observer] that it contains potentially distressing content, and it clearly does achieve this purpose). I appreciate the new source you have added and the new version of the text avoids the overtly WP:POV nonsense clearly present in the original text. On the strength of this new source, I would be happy for the lead to include the sentence: Research on the effects of trigger warnings is limited. I only objected to this above per WP:MEDRS.

As for the suggestion that I improve the body of the article, I'm a volunteer with limited spare time and I can only do so many things, but policy violations in one part of the article are not an argument for policy violations in another part. — Bilorv (talk) 20:45, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

We seem to now be disagreeing about the clause, "several scientists with knowledge in this area have suggested that trigger warnings may be counterproductive and actually increase anxiety and PTSD symptoms.^[1][2][3]". This is within the context of a sentence which clearly says research on the topic is limited. We have several scientists in the article with knowledge of this expressing this. We are not making a "strong" WP:MEDRS claim here, We are not saying something like "trigger warnings have been shown to be bad", which would require stronger sources. But instead summarizing what relevant experts have to say within the context of noting that research is limited. Please explain why you think this is a "strong claim" and why you think the sourcing is wrong? Pengortm (talk) 17:14, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

1. [1]
2. [2]
3. [3]

It's simply not how science works. If you're doing a 5% significance test and you get a result from the 6th percentile, you don't say "there's no correlation but if there was one it would be positive". You say "there is insufficient evidence to reject the null hypothesis". Similarly, if research is limited, you don't say "research is limited but here's a conclusion anyway". If research is limited then drawing an overall conclusion is not appropriate. Otherwise, research isn't limited. But we agree that it is.

This is a MEDRS issue because the majority of the public don't understand significance levels, meta-analyses etc. They'll read the sentence and see "scientists said trigger warnings are counterproductive", but that's not accurate: scientists found results which are significant, but in isolation are not enough to draw a conclusion. We're not a tabloid or popular press that parrots the results of a study with no understanding of the context in which it was conducted. And I'll repeat again another point you've failed to engage in: no source says that trigger warnings "may be counterproductive". Go back and read what I've said twice on the matter for why. — Bilorv (talk) 01:43, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your continued collegial discussion here. As I see it, the experts are weighing in based on considerable knowledge in the area. To take a more extreme example, if some people had said windex was a good disinfectant (causing people to use this) and there had not been any studies of this topic, but many experts on disinfectants had said that there is good reason to think windex is not a good disinfectant, than this would be important to post. I think we are not making a medical claim here--but accurately summarizing the state of knowledge and expert opinion on the topic. Yes, the word counterproductive is not said by any of the scientists, but I think it is a fair summary of what they are saying--and the lead is supposed to summarize the body. I think you're taking WP:MEDRS to an unwarranted extreme here. -Pengortm (talk) 00:15, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

We lack reliable sources that actually use the terms you propose (e.g. "counterproductive" or a synonym), and "trigger warnings may be counterproductive [to people with PTSD]" is absolutely a medical claim—it's even advice on treatment of a disorder. I do not agree with the rest of the text, and so we have no consensus on this matter, though I have compromised in supporting inclusion of the text: Research on the effects of trigger warnings is limited. — Bilorv (talk) 17:12, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

This article used to say "The effects on people with PTSD may be different from the effects on other people.", and I think that context is necessary for understanding this point. It is possible for the same trigger warning to be very helpful to someone in treatment for PTSD and also slightly harmful to a healthy, non-traumatized person.

As for sources, this book:

Knox, Emily J. M. (2017-05-23). Trigger Warnings: History, Theory, Context. Rowman & Littlefield. ISBN 978-1-4422-7372-6.

looks like it would be an excellent starting point. The scientific research on efficacy may be limited, but that doesn't mean that there's nothing to be said. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:04, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for weighing in WhatamIdoing. I would be happy to see content from the source you suggest included in the article. I would be comfortable with an addition like "While research on the effects of trigger warnings is limited, several scientists with knowledge in this area have suggested that trigger warnings may be counterproductive for general use [or perhaps for the general population]." How about that? Again, I think it is important to cite expert opinion here. If little research had been done on homeopathy, I think we would want to say something like "While homeopathy is not well studied, scientists broadly dismiss homeopathy as not likely to work" [assuming the majority of knowledgeable scientists had dismissed it]. -Pengortm (talk) 23:02, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

You've chosen a very leading example. If little research had been done on homeopathy then it would be inappropriate to say anything. Because you could replace "homeopathy" with "chemotherapy" or "paracetamol" in the sentence and then your conclusion would be logically the same, but in that case we'd be being dismissive of something important that works. In your analogy, you're failing to account for the fact that if homeopathy had been little studied then we really wouldn't have any idea whether it works or not. All it tells us is that you believe trigger warnings are as ineffective as homeopathy, but our personal opinions should not inform Wikipedia articles.

And you are yet again ignoring my objection that in order for something to be "counterproductive", it has to have an aim. I've seen many trigger warnings and know many proponents of them, but I've never come across anybody ever saying that they're there for "the general population". They are designed and promoted as positive for people with PTSD, trauma etc. (Whether this is effective or not is yet to be seen.) It's like writing "While research on the effects of chemotherapy is limited, several scientists with knowledge in this area have suggested that chemotherapy is counterproductive to people with lung failure, and can actually cause illness in the general population." You also need to re-read my comments above about the POV and unencyclopedic phrase "several scientists with knowledge in this area" and similar language (we would never call a person a scientist in this context if they weren't a scientist in this area. It's just peacocking language). — Bilorv (talk) 13:08, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, if the example were one where there was good evidence for beneficial effects than the situation would be very different. The situation we have here is of little evidence, and all of the scientists with knowledge in the area that we have gathered together on this page saying this is not a good idea. My opinion is not relevant here. What is relevant is the sources we have gathered together on wikipedia say and accurately summarizing them. If there were a split opinion among scientists, or scientists saying that we don't have evidence yet but there is strong reason to believe this is a good idea, I would similarly think this should be included. I think is really irresponsible to not include that in the summary under some overzealous interpretation of WP:MEDS. -Pengortm (talk) 22:18, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Bilorv, I think your parenthetical addition – the "[to people with PTSD]" that you inserted into "trigger warnings may be counterproductive" – is the source of the disagreement. Both of these statements appear to be true:

1. Trigger warnings produce small harms to some people. (These harms include a slight increase in their risk factors for developing PTSD.)
2. Relevant trigger warnings benefit some people with PTSD.

If you look at this from a public health perspective, it's a pretty basic calculation from there: How much harm is done to how many people by the trigger warning, versus how much benefit is gained by how many people other people? This is the same calculation that's used in all sorts of situations, such as screening mammograms (which kill a tiny fraction of women because of the extra radiation exposure, which result in overdiagnosis and overtreatment of many more women, and which also save some women's lives). You just run the calculation, and in this case, you conclude that screening mammograms are harmful to some people (e.g., 20-year-old women) and helpful to specific other people (60-year-old women).

We don't have as much data for trigger warnings as we do for cancer screening, but we do seem to have enough now to say that delivering trigger warnings to people without PTSD is either pointless or counterproductive, and also that it is helpful to people with PTSD (assuming the trigger is relevant). WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:53, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

I am open to the idea of having a nuanced summary which states something about positive effects in some subgroups and negative in others. However, looking over the article as is (and the sources I am familiar with), I am not seeing any evidence for trigger warnings being helpful in any group. Perhaps I am missing this. Can you point me to the evidence in the article or other reliable sources for the efficacy of trigger warnings for those with PTSD? - Pengortm (talk) 03:27, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Since the discussion seems to be stalling without reaching consensus, I have tried to broaden the circle of discussion by opening this: -Pengortm (talk) 06:02, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Read chapter 2 of this book, especially the section called "Support, Management, and Recovery" that begins on page 29. Look for lines like "by offering trigger warnings, safety and healing are promoted by allowing opportunities to engage with triggering content in an environment that is safe and controlled" and "Trigger warnings are especially helpful for trauma survivors who need to practice grounding strategies in order to avoid being overwhelmed by trauma symptoms, including anxiety, flashbacks, or panic attacks" and ""Trigger warnings may therefore be applied as one element of exposure therapy".

The fact that we even need to have this conversation makes me wonder whether all common sense has fled this conversation. If you are struggling with the utility of trigger warnings, then I want you to imagine that it's 1968, and you have a severely traumatized Vietnam combat veteran in front of you. Do you think it's safer for all concerned if you (a) throw your whole box of bang snaps on the pavement with no warning, or (b) say, "Hey, mister, do you want to hear how LOUD my firecrackers are?" first? If you pick (b), then your sense of self-preservation is developed well enough to understand that trigger warnings are helpful in the context of PTSD. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:13, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for contributing this. I would be fine about including some information from this chapter, although I think the context of it being written by a "feminist activist and scholar" without terminal degrees or apparent expertise in psychology would be important to include. From what I can tell, scientists with relevant expertise are broadly critical of trigger warnings (and the body of the wikipedia page reflects this). If the body of the article has well sourced information about activists thinking this is beneficial, than including a summary of activist thinking in the lead would probably also be a good idea. I think your common sense example is reasonable, but wikipedia is based on having well sourced content, not just editors coming up with reasonable seeming ideas. In any case, the main issue at hand that seems to be under contention is the appropriateness of summarizing the opinions of multiple scientists opinions on trigger warnings in the lead. -Pengortm (talk) 18:41, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't think you've understood the scope of the sources you've been reading. There are exactly zero "scientists with relevant expertise" who think that trigger warnings are not a valid part of PTSD management. The opposition is to the indiscriminate use of trigger warnings, not to using them appropriately. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:56, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

You may well be right that I am misunderstanding either the sources I am reading or not aware of other sources. I think the article already incorporates the point that PTSD treatment can involve systematic exposure to triggers--however, I have not encountered sources saying that "trigger warnings" are a part of of PTSD management. Can you please add sources from scientists to sourcing what you suggest or point me to where in the current article this point is already made? Otherwise it is just editor opinion--and while you may well be right, wikipedia is based on having sourced content.-Pengortm (talk) 19:10, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Where are you getting "feminist activist and scholar" from? The primary descriptions I'm seeing of Knox are as an expert in information sciences (PhD department, ASIS&T board member, associate professorship etc.), which Wikipedia says is related to psychology, though I know little of the area. Attributing her as an information scientist sounds fine though. — Bilorv (talk) 20:54, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Chapter two was what was referenced. The author of this chapter is Holly Taylor. The bit about "feminist activist and scholar" is from Taylor's bio listed in the book. While Knox is the editor of the book, she is not the author of the chapter in question. While I am of course open to adding other content from Taylor, Knox or others, I think it would be most effective to focus here on settling the main argument we are having here about how WP:MEDRS does or doesn't apply. Thank you for your continued productive engagement. -Pengortm (talk) 00:39, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

We don't use WP:INTEXT attribution for the normal practices in psychology. All kinds of sources say things like "As silly as trigger warnings and safe spaces may seem, they are rooted in genuine, widely accepted science" and "The idea of trigger warnings originates in the psychiatric literature on post-traumatic reactions". WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:34, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree with you, if something is normal practice in psychology, an in-line citation is not necessary. Still, a citation is necessary. Something being "rooted" or "originating" in good science does not mean it is good science itself. I do not have time at the moment to read the whole articles, so if I have missed other pertinent passages in the article, please do let me know. And of course, feel free to edit boldy and add in new content to the article. Indeed, if the body of the article is incorrect or missing content, we should correct that first and then worry about the lead. I see two issues here 1) summarizing the article properly (and in accordance with WP:MEDRS) in the lead and 2) updating/correcting the body. I feel that we can address issue 1 first, until the body changes such that the summary is no longer correct. The main point of debate I have is in the first issue. I am open to the idea that the body needs to be updated, but then this has to be done. I ask editors who feel that the body is incorrect to correct it. -Pengortm (talk) 03:59, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Since there has been no further discussion since 3/16, I have re-listed this on the disputed resolution notice board []-Pengortm (talk) 16:04, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Should the article include a summary of the opinions of scientists about trigger warnings that are in the body of the article in the lead (see for extensive previous discussion)? One editor thinks several relevant scientists being critical of trigger warnings should be included in the lead. Another editor thinks WP:MEDRS means criticism should only be included after more peer reviewed research is conducted and the non peer-reviewed opinions of these scientists should not be summarized in the lead. UPDATE: Two editors have the opinion that the current body is missing content and that the body of the article needs to be focused on first before attempting to summarize in the lead. -Pengortm (talk) 21:00, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

• Close RfC: Pengortm is forum shopping because consensus does not exist to support their opinion. I'll quote what I said at the DRV: WhatamIdoing has provided routes for the article's body to be expanded in a sensible manner, which is the real solution here. If Pengortm wishes to improve the article then they should begin by adding this source to the body and finding similar sources to use (but not cherry-picking sources to support their own opinion) (source here). Unfortunately, Pengortm's behaviour seems to be motivated by a personal opposition to trigger warnings and thus the only thing it is in their interest to do is to ignore the lack of medical evidence about the effectiveness of trigger warnings as a psychological tool (e.g. for people with PTSD), and ignore any limited evidence that trigger warnings can be productive, and instead forum shop until they get their proposed NPOV-violations, Scientists with knowledge in this area and research on the topic suggest that trigger warnings may be counterproductive and actually increase anxiety and PTSD symptoms, included in the article.
  The RfC is malformed because it phrases the question about whether to include the obvious peacocking above as if it is an argument over whether to include "a summary of the opinions of scientists", but the best summary of scientific knowledge that we have at the moment is what the article currently says: Research on the effects of trigger warnings is limited. It's quite blatant how they open with "one editor thinks..." and then describe their own opinion, and then saying "another editor thinks..." and summarises a small proportion of my opinion, also ignoring the contributions of WhatamIdoing altogether. If Pengortm wished to improve the article then they would improve the body of the article with further research rather than have so much fixation on the lead. — Bilorv (talk) 10:01, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
• Close RfC per User:Bilorv. Pincrete (talk) 08:28, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

I've made some changes to the article body that better reflect the nitty gritty of the studies cited ([]) and have manually reverted the sentence in the lead discussed ad nauseum in the Trigger warning - medical consensus section above. This ultimately reverts edit [977081773] by @Pengortm. TripleShortOfACycle (talk - contribs) - (she/her/hers) 04:35, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Look I'm really glad someone got to spend five paragraphs talking about how 4chan incels were so mad women pointed out they were raped that they petitioned academic institutions to ban free speech and in the interest of fairness there's also a mention of the poor little oppressed Israelis who get sad when motorcycles go off because it reminds them of their own genocidal colonizing of Palestine but this page offers no actual information on what triggers a trauma response, why trauma responses occur, who suffers from them aside from token suggestions that "it's not JUUUST brave USAmerican soldiermen," or anything noteworthy here except as a one-sided cultural analysis of the "trigger warning" ""joke.""

I nominate this either for either major rewriting or total deletion as it stands. It's awful. From a psychological, informational, cultural, and, honestly, moral standpoint. Heart Shaped L0x (talk) 15:45, 5 January 2026 (UTC)