Talk:Controversies surrounding Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2

Shouldn't this page be with the main article

I know that it would be a long page but having this on its own makes no sense. World at War and the first modern warfare are equally contreversial and yet they have their controversies on the same page. Seems a bit like someone was overexcited by the hype surrounding the launch last year. (Die Snack 2.0 (talk) 06:28, 20 June 2010 (UTC))

This game drew a lot of unnecessary fire and at some point someone forked it to try to get the main article NPOV again. I disagree with almost everything mentioned in this article and don't consider most of it noteworthy. It could probably be cut to two, maybe three, paragraphs and merged. All that really is needed is a (very) brief mention about how IW was criticized for leaving out dedicated servers and party chat, and a 2nd paragraph about their PR woes over No Russian and potential homophobic video/easter egg. The rest about glitches and on and on is unnecessary. ferret (talk) 11:39, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

If no other editors disagree.... I think the following should occur.. First, take the criticism section for the XBOX and PC and merge them into the Reception section of the main article. This section is currently flagged as requiring expansion. The sections need to be cut down a little, and focus on the defunct "boycott" reduced. The controversy section in the main article should gain a dedicated paragraph (5-7 sentences) about the don't ask don't tell easter egg, the viral video. It should also gain 2 paragraph-ish about No Russian. Listing reactions from every editor in the world who decided to jump on the wagon is more detail than necessary. Then, delete this article. ferret (talk) 14:45, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Propose name change

I know this isn't a huge deal, but can we change the title of the page to Controversy over the No Russian mission in Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2? In the game and all the references it is referred to as a mission not a stage. Any oppose? --Austin de Rossi (talk) 20:50, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 20:52, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

 Done Austin de Rossi (talk) 21:05, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

should this page really exist

It is making a big deal out of nothing . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.159.120.193 (talk) 02:29, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I think it's great. If you're talking about the "No Russian" parts then I agree with you, it isn't a big deal. But it's worth having the literature out there, if only so that anyone who visits the page can read up on the critical reactions to it and learn of the rampant idiocy plaguing our governments and ratings boards. And it is idiocy. These people don't care one way or another, they aren't "outraged". They're simply trying to feign a sense of morality that they blatantly lack in an attempt to gain popularity, and they're screwing it up. The more people aware of that the better in my opinion.--62.30.162.142 (talk) 04:56, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Russia

Again, no big deal, but I don't think this qualifies for the WikiProject Russia. Just because it mentions Russia within it does not mean it is part of that project. It also mentions Japan, Germany, UK, Australia, and New Zealand but I doubt that qualifies it to be part of their "WikiProjects". And referencing another article's talk page is not justification to make it stand unless it is a policy article. Consensus? --Austin de Rossi (talk) 21:09, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm in the middle ground on this one. It does have a pretty large connection with Russia given the content of the mission, but it also isn't directly related to them. I'd wait for other views on this one. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 21:14, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

The controversy has a great deal to do with Russia virtually, but not really physically. In fact the raction from Russia is probably the least notable response of all, and is really only included because the mission setting happens to be Russia. CoD: World at War has a large virtual connection with Germany and Russia, but that is not considered part of their WikiProject. It really isn't a big deal, but I just don't see how this article fits within the scope of the WikiProject for Russia which states: "This project covers the creation and editing of articles related to the nation of Russia, its cities, counties, geography, transport, culture, history and so on." I don't see how this article fits into any of that. --Austin de Rossi (talk) 22:15, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and remove the tag again. If anyone has a valid reason why it should remain then please discuss it here. This article does not fit in the scope of the WikiProject for Russia quoted above, and referencing another article doesn't give it any validity (especially considering the same user added the tag on both articles). --Austin de Rossi (talk) 18:26, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Hence the "directly" part of my comment. It's got a lot to do with Russia, but isn't directly connected to it. Hmm... I'd say that the removal of the tag was fine, at least until another editor can appear and add their views to the discussion. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 18:48, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

If anything it's social commentary about American society and its fears of foreigners/Russia. Russian culture itself is 100% unrelated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.95.25.120 (talk) 14:37, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry

Sorry JadeFalcon, I erased some of your edits as I was in the process of doing a major edit. I tried to go back at re-edit whatever you were doing, but the changes were too significant for me to determine what you were doing. --Austin de Rossi (talk) 21:03, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Redone it. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 21:07, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Excessive Violence section into Russian Mission

Perhaps, (...no, I am) I'm an ignorant American and need some clarification. Is it appropriate to merge the "Excessive violence" section discussing Britain's House of Commons with the UK Reactions.... wouldn't that be part of the reaction that occurred there? I don't really understand why it was separated out in the first place. --Austin de Rossi (talk) 21:12, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you are ignorant. Very ignorant. :P However, you're also right. It should be merged with the No Russian section. :) I believe it was once part of it, but must have been left behind somehow when things got moved. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 21:17, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

New glitches

Two new glitches caused by the 1.06 update. Something about "private matches" not staying private, and the infinite ammo/no reload glitch.

Here are some sources:

<Removed as a result of spam> - I don't know what this is about, but I'll find more sources later.

http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3177323

This was posted on the main CoD:MW2 article, but it needs to be added here. I propose moving the "Javelin glitch" from the "Other Controversies" section and creating a "Online Glitches" section or something. I don't have time to add them now, but if nobody has done it by tomorrow then I'll probably get around to doing it. Thanks. --Austin de Rossi (talk) 06:12, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Surely a note about the Care Package exploit too? If not for the glitch/exploit itself but the debates surrounding it? --82.22.158.8 (talk) 23:55, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I think we still need to create a new section discussing the different glitches that have occurred in the multiplayer. Since most have been corrected I don't think we need to spend a lot of time talking about them, but I still think they should be mentioned. I have plenty of time to do this at work but cannot access references (blocked internet), but have no time to do it while at home, so if somebody would take the helm on this and get the info into the article, I'd be happy to help with final editing. Here is a list of the glitches that I think should be listed in the article, there could be more, such as the care package exploit mentioned above that I haven't heard of:

1. Javelin glitch (already mentioned and sourced)
2. Private matches not staying private
3. Infinite ammo/no reloading "virus"
4. Players able to "hack" their way to level 10 prestige

I was able to find articles about each of these with a quick google search. I'll try and include the actual sources if I can access them to determine if they are relevant. If you have any glitches to add to this list please include references. Thanks! --Austin de Rossi (talk) 16:14, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Modern Warfare 2 xbox 360 not reading disc

Could we also add that some modern warfare 2 games do not read the discs after a week or so on the xbox 360? (C_falco (talk))

http://www.product-reviews.net/productproblems/20091117/modern-warfare-2-and-xbox360/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.157.112.204 (talk) 00:42, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Pricing Controversy

As I understand it the unusually high price of this game was a significant point of controversy, as were statements from the CEO of Infinity Ward defending the decision to charge more than is usually required for high budget, overly hyped games. Is this particular controversy worth mentioning? PCLM (talk) 14:36, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmm... here in the states the game was priced at $60USD, which is the standard price for an XBox 360 game. Please provide some more details and some references that could be used to support the controversy and we can see about including this in the article. Thanks. --Austin de Rossi (talk) 16:01, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

The controversy surrounds the PC version, which is also $60. The standard price for new AAA titles on PC is still $50. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.48.89.125 (talk) 00:30, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Are there any references to back this up as a "controversy"? The mere fact does not make it a controvery. --Austin de Rossi (talk) 00:51, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

This is normal as most new and popular video games would cost this much. --98.140.186.190 (talk) 15:17, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes some people noted that it was more than usual, and some people whined about it, but for it to be considered a controversy someone would have to do more than whine. There were not boycotts, there were no retailers that refused to carry it for that reason, no riots, Nancy Pelosi didn't call for government hearings on videogame pricing, there were not letterwriting campaigns. people just complained and then forked over the extra 10 bucks, and then complained some more. With inflation sellers are pressured to raise prices and many prices are raised. If there's inflation and the prices don't rise then they're actually falling. but that's another page.Grabba (talk) 06:29, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Why was the Care Package Glitch removed?

Care Package Glitch Somehow, there is also another glitch particularly prominent in Capture the Flag game modes. The glitch occurs when a player recieves a care package, usually via a 4 kill streak. Once the player has recieved this killstreak reward, instead of holding the right trigger to throw the care package, they hold the trigger down and are able to run so much faster - faster than other players in the game who may be using lightweight pro and marathon pro at the same time. This glitch allows a player to run at incredible speeds, being fast enough to outrun bullets being fired at them. Upon death, the player still has their carepackage and can continue to exploit this glitch for the entire game. As of now, this glitch has been confirmed by IW and is being looked into. http://www.totalgamingnetwork.com/main/showthread.php?234325-Care-Package-Exploit-Fixed-in-New-Modern-Warfare-2-Patch

i f****ING hate how these mods delete everything even IF u put references... Its okay - ill keep doing it everyday under diff ip's ;) :) why cant i post this glitch info? its more relevant now that the javelin glitch is fixed. was my post deleted because you are also a care package glitcher??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.39.207.65 (talk) 01:21, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

And if you do, this article will be locked down and every IP blocked before you can blink. From the bottom of the edit window: "If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here." From the edit summary which removed "your" section, "Every game has glitches; this article seeks to document the most media-covered and notable." Find sources detailing that this is as big an issue as the others, and it can go back on. Otherwise, try it, and all you will do is stop other IP editors from editing and waste other people's time (as well as your own) --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 01:10, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Chillout jadefalcon no-one likes a mega hype-man.

...and her 15 year old son had to cover his eyes

Just to point out, but the BBFC rated the game 18, not 15, so the kid really shouldn't have been playing it to begin with... Maybe worth including? -mattbuck (Talk) 01:24, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I fully agree with you, it should be included not only to defend Activision, but also to shame the mother that supplied it to the son, and any other mothers out there doing the same. It's 18 for a reason, and I don't see why the Airport scene received so much criticism; it's a game not to be supplied to anyone under the marked age. Personally, I found the level a little "different", it was a bold idea and I praise Activision for their venture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.138.22 (talk) 12:39, 24 February 2010 (UTC) ya the whole contreversy section made me laugh at some of the reactions —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.159.120.193 (talk) 02:41, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

If a 15-year old boy has to cover his eyes for a video game, he obviously doesn't read the news much. This stuff is minor compared to movies and what happens in real life every day. ---Logan--- I completely agree with you after buying the game when the level appeared i played it after the warnigs told me it might be upseting and it had no effect i am thirteen years old. how many video games revolve around killing civilians like prototype and infamous it is amazing that one level in a popular video game can cause international controversy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.239.214.16 (talk) 05:48, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of the fact that real live news is much more horrid, this does sound like something DCS should investigate. Let's mention the rating for good measure. 82.95.25.120 (talk) 14:33, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Blow-Up Doll ?

I haven't played through the campaign thoroughly enough to verify this, but the tone of the section sounds very POV. Can anyone verify and/or rewrite this? -Caligari_87 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.126.163.20 (talk) 19:08, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't ask, don't tell

Uh... that is not making fun of gays in the military, the elderly soldier that says it to you (he's grey haired under his helmet) says it in an identical tone and mannerism to a character from Airplane, a very popular 80s comedy movie: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Airplane!#Dialogue

The captain was supposed to be a bit odd and kept asking kids who visited his cockpit questions like "have you ever seen a grown man naked?" and "have you ever been in a turkish prison?"

someone should fix that section up. - 121.44.134.22 (talk) 14:24, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

"No Russian"

"Various media reporters often make the mistake of saying 'the player plays a terrorist', when in actually, the play an undercover agent."

Firstly, is this information regarding the mission and the controversies surrounding them essential?

Also, am I the only one who finds this statement rather misleading? A terrorist is defined as one who uses a violent act, or a threat of a violent act with the intent of inducing terror. In this mission, the player and the character, whether or not actual shooting is being performed, or any violence at all, is taking part in this act. The mere act of holding a firearm and the people he's associated with make the character a terrorist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sephyboy (talk • contribs) 03:48, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Since no body's responded yet, I'm just going to remove the statement. It doesn't seem essential information which warrants its own little Wiki sentence. The information is also argumentative and rather opinion-based, since an agent is an actual profession with a salary and probably dental, whereas a terrorist is a title acquired by using violence, or a threat of violence (as the character did) to induce fear or panic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sephyboy (talk • contribs) 15:25, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Should note that the player is an undercover CIA agent infiltrated in a terrorist element, yes. People are obviously calling the player a straightforward terrorist to play into the current terrorism hype for shock value. Wikipedia shouldn't play along. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.95.25.120 (talk) 14:35, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

"No Russian" Merge?

An editor recently posted a new article exclusively focused on the "No Russian" level. I was pleased to see the article and did some fairly extensive touching up, categorizing, etc., until I noticed the existence of this article. I think the No Russian article should probably be merged into this one, in order to avoid pointless article creep. The No Russian article adds an explicit summary of the level's events but the Controversies section of the article is mostly identical (in content, not the actual writing) to several portions of this article.

Any thoughts? I'm going to post this to the No Russian talk page too. If nobody's opposed, I'm happy to do the merge. I'll probably leave this up for a day or two before doing anything. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 15:08, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

• The page is not necessary. There is enough information in this page but I don't believe it warrants for its own wiki page. The Phantomnaut (talk) 20:13, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

two more controversies

In one of the levels there is a cutscene where the US Special Forces soldiers get ready to torture a terrorist, which is against the Geneva Convention. Another such criticism is how the PC version gives players Xbox Live error messages and has it's files named Xbox Live.--ILoveSky (T | C) 05:04, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

They are not US Special Forces they are a International group of soldiers from the US, UK, Australia and Canada. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.189.3.237 (talk) 22:16, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

It is never said they touture him, nor shown. You're just assuming that they are getting ready to tourture him. They probaldly were just doing it to scare him. We never see what happens, so we don't know what did happen.24.45.214.174 (talk) 14:06, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Piracy section

This article had a brief section stating that Modern Warfare 2 was the most pirated game of 2009; I have removed it. Unless I'm missing something, I don't see anything particularly controversial there; it's just a fact, and not surprising given the game's high profile and popularity. If there is some controversy related to the large amount of piracy, then the article needs to explain exactly what it is. Robofish (talk) 21:51, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

UK section edit

I have edited the following sentence to remove the last bit as there is no evidence to support it. The citation only contains opinions and no evidence that this statement is fact

London Jewish Forum Alex Goldberg stated that you are FORCED to participate in the terrorist action within the game this is not true their are multiple warnings before playing the level that it might be emotionally scarring it also states you will not be penalised for skipping the level and it gives you the option to skip the level at ANY time alex goldberg should be fired for passing judgement on something outside of his field and for making a statement without proper information if any at all —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.239.214.16 (talk) 05:39, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

It should be noted, however, that Modern Warfare 2's BBFC rating intended the game to be for players 18 and older, and that many players of the game are below this age limit anyway —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.213.67 (talk) 08:11, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Nothing big, but just think it needs mentioning?

In one mission, there's a soldier of arabic descent sitting behind a car eating a chocolate bar during a firefight doing nothing, just thought it needed to be mentioned, it hasn't stirred up major controversies, but it's something.82.197.252.151 (talk) 04:48, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I beleive it was overlooked by many, due to the fire fight. Pluss I've seen this (Afghan, not arabic) soilder grab his sidearm and help, though he dies anyway24.45.214.174 (talk) 14:13, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I fail to see how it's controversial. Is there some sort of "arabs eat chocolate" stereotype I'm unaware of? Sounds like an innocent enough "easter egg". I can think of dozens of movies/books/games etc where there's a character that hides and eats something, etc, during a fight, usually some sort of coward. ferret (talk) 12:10, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Besides i've seen him pick up a gun and join in. This afghan dies anyway though. Let the man eat his chocolate in peace!24.45.214.174 (talk) 13:22, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I dont think that arab guy died. I played through the mission 5 times already. It's Pvt. Ahmed i think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.136.38.219 (talk) 08:20, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

He is Afghan! It is Afghanistan and no it's not Ahmed. I did see his name start with a m though. And he does die, at least when i play in my haphazard fashion. Do you try to keep him alive?24.45.127.216 (talk) 19:49, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Australian section

The section dealing with reaction in Australia is factually incorrect - the game's rating can't be changed from MA15+ to R18+, because no R18+ rating exists. When a game is banned in Australia, it isn't classified R18+, it's marked RC (Refused Classification) - which bans it because games must be classified to be sold. I point this out here instead of editing the article because my specialty lies in finding the faults of others, not fixing them. --DK (talk) 02:00, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Hacks 2010/2011

Should there be mention that people are experiencing a complete failure of the game online? There are hacks going on and players can't play this game anymore. It is completely unplayable —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.7.230.87 (talk) 18:12, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

"Dr Boris Yaroslav held Ultra Nationalist sentiments."

None of the 5 supplied references mention this "Dr Yaroslav". Plus, the last name looks pretty fake - like Russian names in the 90s action movies. So, source? 195.96.94.75 (talk) 14:30, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Sources about Russia banning Modern Warfare 2

First of all, Russia didn't ban Modern Warfare 2.It was never recalled or blocked from sale (read here:Modern Warfare 2 not banned in Russia, says Activision). All reports about the ban are based on blogers speculations and an article on a Russian website gotps3.ru. All restriction were made by Activision.

• CNET[1]

Chris Matyszczyk opinion is based on early reports that the government banned MW2. He also says "Bias No. 1: I do not play many video games, and Call of Duty does not impact in any way upon my emotional or personal life"( he is not an expert in this area and not a gamer).

 He stated that while Infinity Ward likely knew controversy would result, that the Russian 
government was overreacting, adding that if Salman Rushdie had written such a scenario in a 
book, the government would probably not ban it.

Russian government was't overreacting, because it didn't do anything. His opinion is based on false information.

• The Escapist[2]

Again, opinion is based on early reports that the government banned MW2. The next day he posted this[3].

I think both sources should be removed. DVoit 15:53, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure the Bias No 1 has any bearing. Being a video gamer is not required to accurately report on industry retail events. Searching Google for sources on this, I can find many reliable sources that have the story about the ban, and two others that have the story you have from Telegraph. The Telegraph story makes the claim that the console version was not banned, Activision simply never planned to sell it. I think with the prevalence of sources for both, it would be best not to remove the source, but instead add a new blurb using the Telegraph source that says that the ban was later denied by Activision. Removal of the content without adding the new information will result in other editors or readers adding it back or potentially removing the Telegraph information because they see articles saying it was banned, etc. Best to present both in a chronological order, which provides the maximum information on the controversy as it occurred at the time. Even if the ban didn't occur, the fact that reliable sources at the time thought it had been banned was a part of the controversy, which is what this article covers. ferret (talk) 17:19, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Additional thought is that Activision's statement could be simply PR. If Russia threatened to ban it, Activision could avoid the negative PR by pulling the title preemptively and claiming they weren't going to sell it anyways. That's just personal thought, I'm not suggest we should state that in the article, but providing a view point on why the ban rumors may not have been truly inaccurate. ferret (talk) 17:22, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

'The player also cannot kill the terrorists themselves which would result in failure of the mission'

I'm pretty sure this is not the case. I seem to remember that you can kill the other terrorists, but doing so means that they will try to kill you. (Under the 'No Russian' Mission Section)Petaarr (talk) 14:48, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Being killed pretty much means "results in failure of the mission." It would be OR to state so, but I recall that after shooting them, they almost instantly kill you. I believe it's a scripted death rather than an actual "you lost all your health" death. Regardless, once firing on them you can't finish the mission. ferret (talk) 16:36, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Norway attacks and Modern Warfare 2

Anders Behring Breivik the shooter and bomber of 2011 Norway attacks has said he uses Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 to train combat skills for an upcoming war with Islam, according to a 1,500 page manifesto that he wrote prior to the attacks. I suggest we make new section about it. We could also have it as part of the controversy section. 10:35, 25 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burgundy111 (talk • contribs)

Where is the sources? Egon Eagle (talk) 00:22, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

NPOV

South Australian attorney general Michael Atkinson called for changes in Modern Warfare 2's rating from its current MA15+ rating to R18+, which would essentially ban it, due to the presence of the "No Russian" mission, saying the game "allows players to be virtual terrorists and gain points by massacring civilians."However, this statement is incorrect; no "points" are earned for killing civilians, and outside of the airport massacre sequence, shooting civilians or friendly NPCs result in the player being reprimanded and forced to restart from a previous checkpoint. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.11.71.124 (talk) 02:04, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

It's not an opinion. It's a fact, and Atkinson lied. 72.200.151.15 (talk) 15:00, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2: PC vs Xbox 360, which is better?

Yup i don't have Xbox 360 or PS3 but i have PC and i never played cod3, bf1943. because they are released only for consoles and versions for PC were cancelled, as well PC Version of COD MW2 lacks the "No Russian" mission, dedicated servers, latency issues of the listen server-only IWNET, lack of console commands, lack of support for matches larger than 18 players, and inability to vote towards kicking or banning cheating players immediately. so perhaps the Xbox 360 and PS3 versions of COD MW2 are better than PC version? 109.174.115.255 (talk) 15:08, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Incorrect information

In the No Russian section of the article, it says "Although the player is technically allied with the terrorists, they are not forced to kill any of the civilians themselves to fulfill the mission's objectives."

This is not true. If the player decides to go ahead with the mission, not killing civilians will blow your cover and prompt a "Mission failed" message on the screen and you must restart from the beginning. Since I'm not a member nor am I familiar with how things work here, can somebody edit this? 24.202.117.238 (talk) 21:57, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't believe that is correct, based on my own time playing and the sources in the article. -- ferret (talk) 22:04, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Possible No Russian article

So this was obviously brought up already on the talk page, as to whether or not a No Russian article should exist. The reasoning why it shouldn't was because it was already well documented in this article. However, I propose No Russian does deserve it's own article, based on the following reasons:

1) It was notable as hell. One of the bigger concerns over non-video game related articles for this project is whether or not they should warrant their own article, such as character articles. This is usually determined by whether or not reliable sources have gone in depth about these specific subjects, not just mentioned them in passing. That being said, simply looking up No Russian on Google brings up pages upon pages of articles from reliable sources specifically about No Russian. For a level itself, that's pretty rare. If just about every video game reliable source out there (including several BIG sources like The Guardian and CNN) have dedicated entire articles about the controversy surrounding the level, editorials about the importance of the level for the industry, and linking the level to real life terrorist attacks, then I think it warrants an article. GA level articles like Green Hill Zone and Robbing the Cradle are solid, but have very few refs talking solely about the level, as most of their refs come from either reviews or interviews about the entire game. When compared to those articles, then No Russian definitely deserves one as well in terms of coverage.

2) A proper No Russian article wouldn't just simply talk about the controversy it created (although that would be a big portion of the article), but also it's development and legacy to not only the video game industry, but also it's effects on the world (as I mentioned before, some attacks have been either inspired by or formed around No Russian). A proper article would treat an impact and legacy section the same way Green Hill Zone and Robbing the Cradle do. And there is A LOT of information for both the development and the impact sections to fill.

Now I never saw what the No Russian article looked like before it was merged, so there may have been better justification for the merge than keeping it. And yes, it may seem excessive to have a Controversies surrounding MW2 article and have a No Russian level at the same time, but personally, I think it's justified. I'd love to hear other people's opinions on the matter. Famous Hobo (talk) 19:11, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Merge

As said above on this talk page, I'm not seeing what makes the "controversies" around MW2 (which we should generally avoid as dedicated sections/articles) are independently notable from the main article. They should be covered there and only split out summary style as necessary (such as No Russian). Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive_124#Question on the difference between a video game controversy vs criticism  czar 23:33, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Controversies surrounding Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 17:27, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

These were the good ol' days ;-D JAGUAR  17:27, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

• "Released on November 10, 2009" - might be worth mentioning that it was released worldwide on that day: Released worldwide on November 10, 2009
• "In response, Infity Ward removed the video" - typo
• "The player then accompanies the gunmen as they walk through the airport killing any remaining civilians" - comma needed in between "airport" and "killing"
• "posted a video titled "Fight Against Grenade Spam" to YouTube" - on YouTube
• "and says "what the fuck" when he is blown up with grenades" - does that have to be wiki-linked?
• "Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 went on to gross more $310 million in the United States and United Kingdom in its first day of release" - you could mention that it also sold 4.7 million copies, according to the source

Short review for a nice and compact article. It is well written, comprehensive for the subject and I've checked all of the sources. On hold until all are clarified! JAGUAR  17:34, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, though I should mention that recently a merge was proposed for this article. I feel that should be discussed before this review goes any farther. However, I'll still fix the issues. Famous Hobo (talk) 21:54, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Uh, I had glanced that but didn't delve into that discussion properly. I'll leave this on hold until a consensus is reached, let's hope that this article is kept. JAGUAR  22:01, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

@Famous Hobo: just checking up. Do you think this article is going to be kept? If so, I'll pass this if you've addressed all of the issues. The merge discussion is looking dormant. JAGUAR  16:14, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

JAGUAR  11:17, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Controversies surrounding Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160609144750/http://www.1up.com/news/gamers-hate-modern-warfare-2 to http://www.1up.com/news/gamers-hate-modern-warfare-2

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:01, 10 January 2018 (UTC)