Talk:Controversies surrounding Grand Theft Auto IV

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)

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)

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)

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)

Did Jaysweet refer to the creep as "another blowhard" in the article itself? Anyhow,I added a link to the Killology article. Insterested (talk) 01:34, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

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)

The Sun

Today's Sun complains about the game trivializing paedophilia. http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/fun/gizmo/article1295469.ece —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.132.203 (talk) 13:51, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

"No missions in the game allow players to act out the role of a paedophile, and neither Rockstar Games nor Take-Two Interactive have issued a statement regarding the inclusion of this content in the title".

What is "the role of a paedophile"? I think it just read as "Neither Rockstar Games nor Take-Two Interactive have issued a statement regarding the inclusion of this content in the title" as the first part of the statement is fairly ambiguous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.184.118.136 (talk) 09:20, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Section: Thailand Taxi Driver Murder

I removed the section (removing the wikimarkup) below from the article and am requesting input.

==Thailand Taxi Driver Murder== On [[4 August]] [[2008]], [[Newsbeat|BBC Newsbeat]] reported that an 18 year-old student had been arrested in [[Bangkok]], [[Thailand]] after he killed a [[taxi]] driver while attempting to steal it. Bangkok police captain Veerarit Pipatanasak stated "He wanted to find out if it was as easy in real life to rob a taxi as it was in the game." The game was subsequently banned in Thailand.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/hi/technology/newsid_7540000/7540623.stm |title=Thailand bans Grand Theft Auto IV |accessdate=2008-08-04 |author=Reed, Jim |date=2008-08-04 |publisher=BBC Newsbeat

</ref>}}

I think, after reading the source, that the banning of the game is to be included in Grand Theft Auto IV but the rest has to be removed. According to the source, the teenager was not in fact playing the game at all but committed the crime TO BUY the game. So it is only another sad example of aggression caused by hype and not specific to this game or a controversy about the game itself. Comments? So#Why ^{review me!} 17:16, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

This is similar to the Manhunt_(video_game)#The_murder_of_Stefan_Pakeerah section in so much as the game was linked even though the perpetrator didn't own it. Give it a week to see if any decent sources appear and if so try to build a section like the Manhunt one. - X201 (talk) 17:31, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

According to the news reports I've been seeing and hearing in Bangkok, the kid was playing the game at a console arcade (for lack of a better English term). You basically rent out consoles to play for half or full hour sessions, similar to internet cafes. However, English news sites are reporting various motives. Some report that he did it so he can get more money to play the game, while others report that he wanted to see if it was that simple to rob someone. Local reports seem to confirm the later in more detail which I haven't seen in English reports, such as the culprit riding several taxis looking for a weak target to strike. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mad-B-Man (talk • contribs) 18:17, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I can confirm this with the local newspaper as well. The kid confess that he want to see if it's easy to rob someone as in Grand Theft Auto. Nine other games are also banned in result of this. —29th ((☎)) 02:57, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

IMO, it'd be a good idea to place it in there. Ominae (talk) 09:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. With this new information, which contradicts the source before, it is now sourced that he did in fact play the game but did not own it. So I suggest to re-add the section but change sources and maybe rewrite it a bit. But to do so, we need an English-written source or someone who speaks the language of the local newspaper source above. I re-added the section for now, placing {{cn}}-tags to it until someone can confirm those sources or finds a reliable English-written one. So#Why ^{review me!} 10:10, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

According to GamePolitics its unclear as to whether he was actually playing GTA IV. Its not actually been released in Thailand. So we may end up having to move this to GTA:SA. - X201 (talk) 11:59, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I can't confirm with the local newspaper what he was playing, GTA4 or SA, most even calling it "Grand Theft Auto, the online game." But there's a lot of piracy in Thailand, it wouldn't be surprising if he somehow get it. Either way, GTA4 is banned as a result. —29th ((☎)) 19:50, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

lol

lol sucks for thialand —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.102.187.40 (talk) 14:19, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Please remember that Wikipedia is not a forum - we do not comment on the content of articles. So#Why ^{review me!} 14:25, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

sorry i just had to say it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.102.187.40 (talk) 23:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Why, impulse control issues? Insterested (talk) 01:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Glenn Beck additions

I reverted the addition to the the Glenn Beck because it was un-cited WP:CITE and looked like an opinion piece, therefore it was not in-line with Wikipedia's Neutral Point of Veiw policy WP:NOPOV. Yes, we know its the truth that what he said was a load of cobblers and strewn with factual errors but Wikipedia is not based on "the truth", it is based on verifiability so that others can check the information that has been added to WP. I could add information that I know to be the truth to any article, but without citations and the ability to verify it how will other readers be able to trust that information?. If you find a reliable source (WP:SOURCES) just drop a note here or on my talk page and we'll be happy to help you add a rebutal of Glenn Beck's claims to the article. - X201 (talk) 08:04, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

In actual fact, after re-reading that section again it is in desperate need of the other side of the argument. The "facts" that beck and Thompson state have been disproved. But I need to find reliable sources in order to add them to article. Will tag section as NPOV in the mean time. - X201 (talk) 08:17, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

New Hyde Park crime spree

The citation links arent working (45 & 46). Nor is a search on newsday.com yielding anything...84.228.232.246 (talk) 19:55, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

No points, but...

You are required to kill/injure police officers to advance in the game's storyline. In fact, no points are ever awarded for anything, so responding to the comment by Bloomberg's office in that way seems misleading to me. 96.228.177.37 (talk) 11:41, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually you are not. I've played through the story of the game and at no point are you instructed to kill a police officer. It makes the game much, much, MUCH more difficult but it is possible to complete the game without killing any cops.^F₄^M !!

I suggest you play the mission "Three Leaf Clover". As shown on the linked page, the game says "There are too many cops. Clear the path." The mission will not proceed until a number of the cops have been killed. Even the "crimeless" gamefaqs walkthrough agrees that you have to shoot the cops to finish the mission. 98.20.182.229 (talk) 16:18, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Another one

• "'Porn' man jailed for sex attacks". BBC News. 2008-11-06. Retrieved 2008-11-06.

I've seen this in the news a few times today. GTA IV has been used in a case against a man who sexually assaulted women. I'm not sure if it's worth adding to the article because it looks like GTA IV has no real significance on the case and has just been used by the prosecution as part of showing the guy's character. Thoughts? Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:15, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

قراند اون لاين — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.124.27.144 (talk) 22:03, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Reassessment request

Bumping this up to B-class; it's a very solid article. I'd consider swapping the gameplay and political response sections, but that's up to you. Do note that you are allowed to reassess articles that you work on yourself, you don't have to ask for someone else to do so (unless you want to, of course- it's no big deal!) --PresN 20:37, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the reassessment! I'm now considering nominating this article for GA. I've just swapped the "Political response" and "Gameplay features" sections; I thought that the original order was better because the political responses occurred prior the release of the game, but I suppose the new order makes more sense. Also, I realise that I can reassess my own articles, but I didn't feel very comfortable doing it for this article. I'm not good at complimenting my own work. Thanks again! -- Rhain1999 ^{(talk to me)} 00:43, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Controversies surrounding Grand Theft Auto IV/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 16:23, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I should have this to you within a day or two JAGUAR  16:23, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Initial comments

• The lead needs to be expanded slightly in order to summarise and comply per WP:LEAD. In comparison to Controversies surrounding Grand Theft Auto V, not enough is mentioned about the controversies in the game themselves. The only mention in the lead is the driving under the influence part?
• "the student wished to rob the taxi driver to obtain money to continue playing the game in an arcade" - which game? GTA IV?
• "In 2007, then Florida lawyer Jack Thompson" - according to his article, he is still a Florida-based lawyer?
• "his attempts to declare Rockstar's games as a public nuisance. Games declared to be a public nuisance are effectively banned for sale" - public nuisance is linked to an English law, is this relevant to the First Amendment?
• The Legal action section is looking short, is there more content to this? Half of the article was attributed to Jack Thompson's legal action!

References

• No dead links

On hold

This is a very well written article with few problems, in fact the only problems I could with were minor prose/organisational issues. If all of the above can be clarified, then this should have no trouble passing the GAR JAGUAR  15:15, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, Jaguar! I've gone through and fixed most of your concerns, though I'd like to address a couple:

• Even though he might still be based in Florida, Thompson is no longer a lawyer; he was disbarred in 2008. This is what the sentence is trying to say.
• I agree that the "Legal action" section is short, but I can't really find any more content to add to this. Perhaps it could be merged with the "Political response" section somehow?

If you have any further concerns, please don't hesitate to let me know. Thanks! -- Rhain1999 ^{(talk to me)} 01:04, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Close - promoted

Thanks for addressing them! I think that's everything. The "Legal action" section should be fine, it could be merged into "Political response" if you want to send this to FAC, but for now it should be fine. Anyway, well done JAGUAR  09:39, 6 June 2015 (UTC)