Talk:Grand Theft Auto IV controversies

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Grand Theft Auto IV controversies article.
Article policies
Famicom style controller This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.
Low This article is on a subject of Low priority within gaming for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0.
This article is supported by the Grand Theft Auto task force.
VG To-do:
This is not a forum for general discussion of plots, platform releases, characters, locations or anything that cannot be verified.
Any such messages will be deleted. Please limit discussion to improvement of the article.
This article uses British English dialect and spelling. Some terms that are used in it differ from, or are not used in, American English. For more information, see American and British English differences. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
Image:Splitsection.svg This subarticle is kept separate from the main article, Grand Theft Auto IV, due to size or style considerations.


Contents

[edit] Article name

Good idea with moving to a subarticle. However, wouldn't "Controversies about Grand Theft Auto IV" be more correct? "Grand Theft Auto IV controversy" sounds like there is a.) only one and b.) about the game itself rather then about things people thing the game causes. --SoWhy Talk 11:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Good point. I've moved it (using the same naming format as South Park controversies). Neıl ☎ 11:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the article looks good. But I suggest we somehow note that this is a sub-article of Grand Theft Auto IV, perhaps with a template like {{subarticle}} or {{summary in}} on this talk page. --Pixelface (talk) 19:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

You could have just been bold and done this - I've done it now, though. Neıl ☎ 15:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Glenn Beck

As someone who isn't American, I've no idea who he is or why his views are important. Could someone add a clarifying line to the start of his section please? Just something simple like the at the start of the Jack Thompson section eg "a Florida lawyer who had previously campaigned against other Grand Theft Auto games". Thanks - X201 (talk) 11:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I added "conservative US talk-radio host" to the text, you think that is enough? --SoWhy Talk 16:36, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, thanks. I did follow the link to his WP article but thought it would be best if this article was altered by someone from the US or with knowledge of him. - X201 (talk) 13:29, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Calls for Banning in New Zealand

http://www.gamedaily.com/articles/news/new-zealand-mp-calls-for-gta-iv-ban/?biz=1 <- Article explains --Vylen (talk) 16:49, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Is it possible for the article to comment on the factual accuracy of Glenn Beck's assertions about first-time trigger rates?

The statistics quoted by Glenn Beck about the number of soldiers willing to fire on a human being for the first time across 20th century wars involving America sound really fishy to me. I don't want the article to start getting into non-WP:NPOV or WP:OR or anything, but if those statements have no grounding in actual fact, it seems to me that the article ought to at least illuminate that. Repeating a bald-faced lie, without indicating it as such, is not at all npov, since the project may be serving to propagate the lie.

And if the numbers he quotes are at least somewhat based in reality, it would be worth mentioning very briefly where Beck got the numbers from, e.g. "Beck's data was taken from the US Army Measuring-How-Often-People-Shoot Project, which was declassified in 1993." (Obviously I just made that up, but you know what I mean)

As the article stands, I worry that it is engaging in "factoid" propagation, just repeating a sound bite from another blowhard without context and without regard to accuracy. That is not WP:NPOV. --Jaysweet (talk) 13:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, and while I don't have a good enough source to alter the article yet, I believe my concerns are justified:
What Beck cites about wars and firing rates comes from "research" conducted by the highly controversial Lieutenant Colonel Dave Grossman, author of the 1996 book On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society, and someone who claims to be a specialist in "killology," a self-coined neologism purported to be "the study of the psychology of killing." [1]
Unfortunately, that's a blog, so obviously I'm not suggesting using that a source for the article. But this at least suggests to me that the statistics he quotes are probably bogus, and I am concerned if Wikipedia propagates them without any context.
Even though the article says, "Glenn Beck said...", repeating them without any commentary is in some ways a tacit endorsement. It is one thing if a pundit states an opinion; in that case, Wikipedia should just repeat the opinion and let the reader decide. But if a pundit asserts a fact, and that fact is suspect, then if Wikipedia repeats in without caveat, we run the risk of readers mistaking the assertion for an established fact. --Jaysweet (talk) 13:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Jaysweet, referring to him as "another blowhard" and providing no reliable sources to refute his claims is POV. If you personally think they sound "fishy", that's fine, but we don't put editor's opinions in articles. If you have a reliable source about firing rates that differs from what Glenn Beck said, cite it. --Pixelface (talk) 04:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed move

I propose moving the page to a more encyclopedic name: "Controversy of Grand Theft Auto IV". The current name makes it sound like a few seperate incidents grouped together in one article. The name I suggested sounds more like an article covering and detailing the overall controversy of game. .:Alex:. 15:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

The article creator chose the title because South Park controversies uses a similar title. The correct title would be "Controversies over Grand Theft Auto IV" actually imho, but I do think the current title is acceptable. --SoWhy Talk 15:52, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Agree. The current title succinctly sums up what the article is about. - X201 (talk) 17:02, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
In a similar light - why was this page moved to "Criticism of Grand Theft Auto IV" ??? this User:Australiaaz guy just randomly did it... so i moved it back --Vylen (talk) 09:40, 17 May 2008 (UTC)