Talk:Video game controversies/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Xbox Live Headset: Racism and Homophobia

i think there should be a section about the racism going on on Xbox Live through headset, and using homophobic language, where 90% of players are racist-SCB '92 (talk) 14:09, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Has this been discussed in reliable sources? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 15:04, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

No, there's nothing racist about that. It's called smack-talk, taunting, or whatever you want to call it.

It affects straight white people just as much as minorities, only most straight white people don't draw the Racist-card at any opportune moment.

Being a minority doesn't exempt one from the simple fact of life that anyone is open to being taunted, smack-talked or 'insulted'.

If you're gonna add something like this to the article, you might as well add 'hardships of life' to any Wikipedia article.

Just grow up and accept life as it is for everyone. GameLegend (talk) 11:56, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I noticed the section about Brazil and its several game bans do not longer exist, why it got removed? Other articles still reference this, but when I land here, poof, it is not here anymore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.48.131.214 (talk) 00:26, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Article Opening

Currently, the article opens with an in-depth report of Craig Anderson's 2001 study on the link between video gaming and aggression, yet nowhere does it explicitly mention that he is the lead researcher on the study, presumably because he's fairly discredited as is mentioned later in the article. This seems, if one were to give this the benefit of the doubt, a glaring oversight. The Anderson study needs to be either stricken from the opening of the article, thinned down considerably, or moved and the numerous detractors of the study (Cumberbatch is a prime example) should be cited. The BBC gives a cursory to and fro between the two men over the study here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/720707.stm

I have also noted that this same Anderson study is repeated, along with the fact that it was used in court, numerous times throughout this article. It need only be mentioned once.

It has now been some days without an objection, I am going ahead with the proposed changes. (BGH122 (talk) 04:58, 29 December 2010 (UTC))

Agreed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.91.78.232 (talk) 19:13, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I've removed a random quote of his which would be considered controversial in the field. If it is to remain, it would be imperative to have counter quotes from other notable researchers, otherwise this strays into POV.

MV Guy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.91.78.232 (talk) 19:32, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree BGH122, the Anderson study should not be so in-depth in the intro, merely summarized. Although I think it is well worded but it could be moved into another section ("Anderson studies"?) where all the Anderson related references could be moved to and merged into something understandable. The claim that other studies have produced specific counter evidence should be explained properly in the article. That's the challenge for us, to understand how all the studies relate to each other and whether they do contradict each other. If so how? As MP Guy and I were talking about, maybe we could set up a for and against type of structure. Freelion (talk) 05:58, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd definitely second a for and against structure, it's currently all over the place and rambling. (BGH122 (talk) 04:18, 18 January 2011 (UTC))

On a different note, I think this part of the opening is questionable: "Many potential positive effects have even been proposed.[4]" The reference is a blog whose points don't relate to violent video games, simply video games in general. The only point that addresses violence in the blog post does not have any kind of study linked to it. For this article, it seems tangential. 98.235.70.168 (talk) 04:15, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

section on biology and aggression

I've removed a section on "biology and aggression" that seemed both off-topic and nonsensical. Talking about Charles Manson in an article on video games makes no sense (since video games were not substantially around when he committed his crimes. Further a section on biology and aggression should be in an article on biology and aggression where it is more relevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.91.78.232 (talk) 19:15, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I reinserted it without the unnecessary reference to Charles Manson. This section is not off topic but it could be rewritten. Freelion (talk) 01:49, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

References relating to research done by Anderson

Anderson has mostly concluded in his research that video games do increase aggression. Anderson's methods may have been criticized by some but his conclusions have not been discredited. Instead of deleting these references, it would serve the article better to provide any counter arguments to his conclusions or research which contradicts his findings.Freelion (talk) 02:10, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

That's probably a fair enough point. Let me see what I can do. I think what others have concluded is that the page shouldn't be all about one author. Let me see what I can do to retain as much as you have without overemphasizing a single researcher. That way we're not fighting each other too!  :) 69.91.78.232 (talk) 06:20, 4 January 2011 (UTC)MV Guy

I'd argue his conclusions have been pretty well discredited by now, but I've just added in some counter arguments by other scholars. I think at this point, readers have plenty of references to both sets of sources and can make up their own minds. 69.91.78.232 (talk) 07:07, 4 January 2011 (UTC)MV Guy

Good work Tex. I just reduced the intro a bit, keeping it brief and easy to understand. What do you think about creating a "for and against" type format for the article? At the moment there are so many studies all mixed up. The positive effects section could also be expanded. Freelion (talk) 01:59, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I think things look good. The pro/con idea sounds intuitive too and would be less jumbled as you mentioned. If you want to give a shot at reorganizing, I'll take a look at what you come up with. Nice job though, overall. 69.91.78.232 (talk) 03:16, 5 January 2011 (UTC) MV Guy

Oh, I've got some references for a "positives" section as well, mostly work by C. Shawn Green and Ian Spence, although there are others (lots of surgery studies by various authors) in the cognitive realm. Give it a shot, and then I can add anything that seems missing. And of course it's only fair to point out any limitations to that body of literature too. 69.91.78.232 (talk) 03:19, 5 January 2011 (UTC)MV Guy (I might like "Tex" though, heh).

Sorry MV Guy! I don't understand how it signs your name with an IP number followed by MV Guy. Is that because you are not logged in? Freelion (talk) 03:27, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm lazy. I just use the four tildes to sign I tried to demonstrate, but no matter how I do it, it autosigns, so I give up. Tex is just fine too, I'm flexible.  :) 69.91.78.232 (talk) 05:22, 5 January 2011 (UTC)MV "Tex" Guy

I added some precisions and references related to Anderson's studies. As the subject is sensitive, I would be grateful if anybody could review them and check that neutrality is respected. I was concerned with the previous version because any mention of Anderson's views was systematically followed by a counter-study or a comment as if it was necessary to discredite his views. However, those counter-studies are sometimes discussed. For instance, the last meta-analysis from Anderson et al. (2010), which I think is not emphasized enough given its importance, triggered three responses that all appeared in the same issue of Psychological Bulletin but only the most critical from Fergurson et al. was discussed (with a strong emphasis on Ferguson's position, which is not done for Anderson even though he is also director of something). Therefore, in order to balance the view/accusation, I added a citation of Huesmann that claims that Ferguson has "a vested interested interest in video games" (which may poses an issue for Ferguson's integrity, but such considerations may have been absent regarding Anderson's integrity). Even though the subject is controversial given the multitude of interests (as the discovery of the smoking effect on lung cancer may have been), I think the current article is unbalanced (contrarily to Craig_A._Anderson page, which has a clear separation between proponents that are for and those that are against).

Anoter issue (but I have no solution as I lack expertise to contectualize and discuss every part) is that the references all seem to be comparable whereas it may not be the case. For example, a decision from Australian Government is implicitly assumed to provide the same kind of evidence as a scientific meta-analysis in the Social development section. Governement decisions cannot be expected to rely purely on scientific facts (and quality varies even between scientific studies). 78.249.45.44 (talk) 17:00, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Basically all my non-minor modifications were reverted, which was not exactly what I expected. In addition, the description of another study showing a relations between VVG and aggressive behavior was removed. I am doubtful whether it is more neutral this way. It is now stated that "Anderson himself was later criticized by both opposing witnesses and the judge [...]". I still cannot find the page on which the judge is critical specifically towards Anderson (the opposing witnesses critic is on page 14, but I cannot add it without the judge's critic page). Overall, I am dubitative: this article seems to discredit Anderson's work; however, in the scientific literature (to the best of my knowledge), he has responded to most, if not all, critics. 78.249.45.44 (talk) 20:39, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't have the time to look into this right now, but the massive reversion this morning did make me raise my eyebrows. It's certainly very one-sided. The only edits that were made were to remove claims that video games lead to violence. I do think that these edits should really be reviewed for neutrality. -Thibbs (talk) 02:36, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I looked at some recent articles from both Ferguron (Not Worth the Fuss After All?, 2012) and Anderson (Violent Video Games, Delinquency, and Youth Violence: New Evidence, 2012). They seem to both continue to conduct research that supports their respective opinion. Another article (A Plea for Caution) pleaded for caution regarding this debate given the political/legal situation. Not sure what I can do besides mentionning those last references, hoping this helps. 78.249.45.44 (talk) 21:04, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Age

I've rewritten this section. It didn't make sense to quote statistics without qualification while at the same time state that there are no reliable statistical sources. In fact, on that note, somebody with some background knowledge (and/or spare time) should probably look into the reliability of the ESA on an issue, when, from what I understand, one of the principal reasons for its existence is to lobby on behalf of games companies.Aquamonkey (talk) 04:48, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I've updated this section because the Entertainment Software Association (ESA) has updated their information to 2013 statistics on age and demographics. Hurdleman601 (talk) 01:42, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I removed the 2011 40% reference from the gender section. I also added a little more info from ESA's updated statistics. ESA seems to be quoted in a few sources I have looked at. The lines reguarding the 1998 study seem like they should go in the portrayal of gender section. Any thoughts?Decepticon117 (talk) 19:32, 18 October 2013 (UTC) I did a little digging on ESA's facts. According to their "Essential Facts:2013" PDF. ESA hired a company call "Ipsos MediaCT" to conduct the research. I checked out their website, and North American Website and could not find the studys or facts... I am now questioning ESA's reliablity as an unbiased source for this topic. I encourage looking for another source to corroborate ESA's info. Decepticon117 (talk) 22:02, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I found out Ipsos MediaCT is part of a global marketing research firm called Ipsos SA, based in France. MediaCT is a specialty focusing on Media, Content and Technology. Ipsos expanded globally in the mid 90s and seems to be going strong. As such I have concluded that ESA's "Essential Facts:2013" can be an unbiased source for wikipedia.Decepticon117 (talk) 20:30, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Dumb question

"On April 14, 2009, 9-year-old Damori Miles of Brooklyn, New York City died after jumping from his apartment roof using a makeshift parachute in an imitation of Jeff Hardy in WWE Smackdown vs. Raw 2009."

The source provided doesn't indicates that the kid may have jumped because of the video game. This indicates that that he may not have jumped imitating a video game. His friends indicated that he had done so. He didn't say this because he saw or talked to him before he did it. The source indicates that the kid that said he did it for this reason was the kid who's play date that Damori had missed. This is assumption on his friends part based solely on the fact that Damori played the video game.

The source indicates that Damori was a wrestling fan. Watching wrestling and Jeff Hardy in real life could have caused this. It could not have caused this. This is conjecture on my part. the video game was conjecture on his friends part but this paraphrased quotation indicates that it's definite that the video game caused this. You need a source to say that definitively if you are going to say it definitively. You do not have such a source.70.15.191.119 (talk) 01:52, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with this. There's nothing to say the incident was solely related to the video game and not to watching the actual Jeff Hardy on television. Smiliarly, the incidents in the same list concerning the young girl confusing a Wii remote with a pistol, and the woman who died of water intoxication on a radio contest are quite dubious additions - the handgun incident is much more of an gun control and parenting issue, it's only incidental that a Wii remote was involved; while the radio contest is much more of a publicity stunt debate, as the incident would likely have happened regardless of the prize. It's pretty tenuous to connect these two incidents, and the aforementioned one, to video games specifically. GRAPPLE X 20:20, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Suggested Link

So, I wrote an article on research into the benefits of parents and children playing video games together, which I think contributes to the scientific discussion. I'm not allowed to request a link to it myself, however, as I could make money of it. Here's why I feel justified writing this: (1) if I made money, it would almost certainly be just a few pennies (abt. 2/3 cent per pageview); (2) I have written several articles on the "paid" site, and this is the only one I feel contributes to Wikipedia's goals; (3) I have contributed to several Wikipedia articles over several years, demonstrating that I truly care about spreading knowledge. Search for "The latest research: Can multiplayer video games be a force for good?"
Feel free to put in a special request for a link if you agree that it is useful. I'd suggest using it as a source under "Potential positive effects of video games," third paragraph, first sentence. ("Several studies have explored the possible benefits of multiplayer video games in a family setting.") I apologize if I'm breaking any rule by posting this. I have exactly one ulterior motive: I want my writing to be useful. Statesman 88 (talk) 19:16, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

We appreciate your interest in the topic and in this page. However, wiki has rules about the use of original research. Was this paper published in a reputable peer-reviewed journal? How the paper was produced and who has vetted it will determine whether it's able to be used. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.65.34.182 (talk) 13:28, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

What controversy? It is already proven!

Let's say we open Google Scholar. We type "violent video game" and this is what we get in the very first two pages:

Aldo L (talk) 05:09, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, very useful indeed, I have deleted all the links that you have spammed this page with, did you actually go and see what they referred to? They are all links to books or studies about WHETHER video games cause agressive behaviour, and, if you actually stopped to click on the links that were readable, you would find that several studies present for and against arguments, with no definite conclusion at the end.

Wikipedia is about neutral point of view, the lead-in to this article summarizes the positions of different factions and is well-referenced. If you have found the definitive study that proves violent video games make people agressive then you are most welcome to quote from it here and/or give us the reference. Captain Screebo (talk) 13:27, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Agreed with Captain Screebo for what it is worth. Links between video games and negative (and positive outcomes) continue to be hotly debate. They are not proven one way or another. Avalongod (talk) 00:21, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Avalongod that this is still a controversy as there is not a consensus about whether the effects are small or large. However, I also agree with Aldo L that recent scientific studies do all seem to agree there is some kind of effect. The debate now is whether it is large or small. I do feel like this page is a bit biased in that it ignores this fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.157.248.163 (talk) 06:36, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I can not agree, in good conscience, that violence in games has been proven or dis-proven to cause violence in real life. The addition of a pro and con summery would be excellent. Otherwise, many arguments I see in sites use suggestive vocabulary and generalized studies without specifics stated to promote emotional responses rather than long term facts. Specific age ranges, individual and family history, and other specifics are rarely taken into account. Throw enough ingredients into a mix and you'll eventually come up with something dangerous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Talahzaram (talk • contribs) 03:55, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Question about GTA: Vice City controversy stated

Alright, this has been bugging me for a little while now. I understand Wikipedia has some form of language control, to be more polite, but in quotes I presume that it's acceptable to not censor much. In the paragraph describing Grand Theft Auto: Vice City's controversial statement about killing Haitians, I saw it said "Fuck the Haitian Dick heads." But later I checked (today) and it said "Kill the Haitian idiots." Any reason or just to censor the wording? (PS, if I wrote something wrong, correct it for clarification, I haven't really played the game in a very long period)

I can't say for certain, but I could believe that the quote would be censored because younger viewers look up pages on wikipedia for research projects, curiosity, or just dumb luck. Leaving a blank in the quote (using [obscenity] for example) might be a better idea. Stating the swear words themselves, even if it is a direct quote, would be frowned upon by many parents and school faculty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.99.251.31 (talk) 20:27, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

No, that's a common misconception. Wikipedia is not censored. It's not a children's encyclopedia so there's no need to protect the readership's sensibilities. That means that articles can definitely use rude words and if it's a direct sourced quote then it's actually obligatory. -Thibbs (talk) 20:33, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

NPOV

I know it's meant to be a list of items that fuel the flames, but the idea of it alone is obviously biased. I feel like this is completely anti-video games and contain no pro-video games events, such as the supreme court not hearing the case about video game sales? Imasleepviking ( talk ) 00:31, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

As this user has not contributed here since placing the tag on the publicized incidents section, and it has been seriously cleaned up, with all the tenacious stuff removed, and sources added to disprove the "omg those sick video games are turning our children into killers" every time there is some sort of violent slaying involving teenagers, I am boldly removing the tag.

As of 11 March 2013, there are currently 26 incidents which break down, IMHO, to

• Proved link 14
• Speculation 5
• No link 5
• Other 2

To clarify, "Other" concerns two gamers who died from exhaustion, sleep deprivation and so on, having played video games non-stop for extended periods, so, as far as I'm concerned, do not fit the video games = violence philosophy.

All in all this section seems fairly balanced to me, seeing all the shit that gets flung at video games every time something goes off. Seriously, how many teenagers own consoles, play video games on their computer or both? You might as well say that acne is responsible. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 22:54, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

possible merger

I suggest we might want to merge the category "video game behavioral effects" with this one. they are pretty redundant, and the other page is very poorly written with lots of POV issues and such. I think most of that other page can be removed with the positive bits added in here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.188.10.153 (talk) 02:10, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I just went to the "video game behavioral effects" page and was redirected back to this page. So it looks like the pages have been merged. I was curious to see if you were correct about needing to merge the two sites and do away with a lot of the POV. Muuadeeb (talk)MuuadeebMuuadeeb (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:10, 10 September 2011 (UTC).

I've checked it and nothing at all has actually been merged from video game behavioral effects article into this one, so I've reverted the other article's blanking. Diego (talk) 11:43, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I just checked out the other page. It does appear to have serious POV issues and is very redundant with this one. The only unique section I could see was on theoretical perspectives (although it only covered the GAM). I've moved that over here. Anything else I might have missed, I'd say just move over here, but I think it would be on the order of individual studies, not sections. All sections seem represented here already. I'm redoing the merge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.91.76.208 (talk) 06:59, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Melbournestar wasn't sure about the merger so letting him look things over and give feedback. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.91.76.208 (talk) 07:22, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok, so I merged in some stuff on both positive and negative effects that didn't appear to be redundant to me. I'll leave it at this point so people can look over both pages and give feedback. Anything else you don't think is redundant I'd say just go ahead and move in. I'll plan to do the merge itself soon. 69.91.76.208 (talk)MVGuy —Preceding undated comment added 14:34, 6 November 2011 (UTC).

Alright, as noted above, I moved over material on positive and negative effects that wasn't redundant as well as material related to theories. I think I got what wasn't redundant. 69.91.76.211 (talk) MVGuy —Preceding undated comment added 04:54, 9 November 2011 (UTC).

Quotations

Can some please fix the opening and closing quotation marks in the first paragraph of the Crime and Violence Section (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_game_controversy#Crime_and_violence)

I have copied the unclear portion below

One of the most common criticisms of video games is that they increase the violent tendencies among youth.[1][19][20] However, several major studies by groups such as The Harvard Medical School Center for Mental Health, The Journal of Adolescent Health, and The British Medical Journal have shown no conclusive link between video game usage and violent activity."[21][22][23] One study did find an increase in reports of bullying, noting, "Our research found that certain patterns of video game play were much more likely to be associated with these types of behavioral problems than with major violent crime such as school shootings.[21][22] One of the first widely accepted controversial video games was developer Exidy's 1976 title Death Race, in which players controlled cars that ran over pixelated representations of "gremlins". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.91.71.15 (talk) 00:11, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Merger of Effects of video games on academic performance

Another user proposed a merge (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Effects_of_video_games_on_academic_performance&diff=452654149&oldid=452559787) of Effects of video games on academic performance to this article. To give my view, I oppose it and moreover support deletion of it, as the article is nothing but POV-pushing and likely copyvios/plagiarism, as noted on Talk:Effects of video games on academic performance. I plan to WP:PROD that article on those grounds. –MuZemike 21:34, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I originally proposed merge, because the content has some references, that may be used. Some material is just facts without interpretation, so I thought there may be usable references. But don't get me wrong thoguh, the article itself appears to be an essay/thesis with clear bias. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 07:00, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Went to look at the page but its already been deleted. 69.91.76.208 (talk)MVGuy —Preceding undated comment added 07:27, 5 November 2011 (UTC).

Social Cognitive Theory

The section labled above had been added by another user. This long section was highly POV and used considerable advocacy language (as well as numerous cites from advocacy groups). The view of a few scholars (Anderson, Gentile) who it has been pointed out elsewhere in the article has been criticized was presented uncritically, without noting counter arguments. Although the section could conceivably be edited to be more balanced, I suspect the resultant section would merely mirror arguments elsewhere, so I'm not sure anything but redundancy would result. The views of Anderson and others have already been presented in this article, as have views of scholars rebutting their positions. No need to rehashI think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.91.76.208 (talk) 05:50, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

As a further note, to Rsiskar, who authored the section I removed. If there is new material you feel would add to the section on crime, which I think is where most of the redundancies occur, why not just add some stuff (not a whole new section) in there? I wouldn't add in a ton, and not the stuff from advocacy agencies. I'll check for whatever I feel should be balanced by other material and add that? The result would probably continue the balanced view this page has tried to take on this controversial topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.91.76.208 (talk) 06:39, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

MW3 November 2011 French truck robbery

Nothing has gone to suggest that this robbery had been inspired by any games whatsoever. It seems far more likely that the trucks were robbed simply because the 6000 games they were carrying would equal €360,000 worth of merchandise; moreover, the fact that the robbers were armed and went specifically for these particular trucks goes to suggest that they were professional thieves with a clear plan. Furthermore the statement is completely unsourced in addition to being seemingly unrelated to the article, so removed for now. --77.215.75.103 (talk) 17:02, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

NPOV

I find that there is a lack of Neutrality. It all looks on the one side but looks a little on the other(Pro-Game). Look at the abortion controversy page, it shows two of the sides,(more or less equally.) Perhaps we should re-write the page? 67.204.236.189 (talk) 22:36, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Saw that someone posted concerns about NPOV a little while back, with no response thus I posted the template. 67.204.236.189 (talk) 22:43, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I think it is better than it has been at times in the past. Nonetheless I'm willing to consider and help with a rewrite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.91.76.251 (talk) 04:05, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

You are both missing the point, as is the person who posted the original NPOV section, the article is called "Video Game controversies" and as such it is about accusations that video games engender violence, deviant behaviour etc. and is well-balanced, with many counterpoints to the traditional, knee-jerk reactions that "it's all the fault of video games". There are many instances in the text that refute the arguments that video games cause violence (or are solely responsible). As the article is about "controversies" it cannot be more pro-game otherwise it would be called "Video game benefits", so I am removing the tag. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 08:45, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

If you actually read the lede, it presents both sides and points to studies (both from 2001 and 2009) that refute the notion that video games cause violence. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 09:12, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

You are missing the point, hell even the definition of Controversy, I understand what you mean, however this is a summary of the various ARGUMENTS in the Controversy, if this was about ALL the controversies why not mention the EA controversies or GTA controversies? You are essentially stating that Controversy means "negative" affects, this isn't about negative effects, this about controversies, nor is it about beneficial effects(as you indirectly stated), thus the tag should go back on. Anyway the dispute isn't over, I don't see why ONE person has say over three people. Just an observation, I am not going in an immature edit war, nor do I think you would. So please I would ask that we place it back and than wait for other people to state their opinions.67.204.236.189 (talk) 14:40, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

First of all, no I'm not asserting that controversy means negative effects, you sound like you're shouting. Maybe you should get an ID, although it's not obligatory, because for the moment you are three IPs making the comment, you could be the same person, and also, this article gets regularly vandalized by anon IPs who add "Lara Croft's got big tits" or some such like. No, I am not ONE person, there are several identified editors that watch the article, Hellknowz springs to mind but there are others, the article is balanced, I, personally, have removed a lot of the spurious "linked to video games" rubbish, the others are well-documented and deserve to be here. To put hte tag back, you need to demonstarte some serious concerns with the neutrality of the article and not just "I don't like it". CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 16:12, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

"No, I am not ONE person", Hmm, I can tell you why and how that doesn't make sense, last time I checked one person can only be one person. Let other people comment opposed to making decisions for yourself. And what the hell makes your opinion right and mine wrong? You just said, nope and then condescended me. Quit back seat modding and actually let an admin handle this. 67.204.236.189 (talk) 16:40, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

There you go again, more garbled shouting and flailing arms, I don't even understand the last half of your comment, could you try to write more coherent English? What the hell is back seat modding? I'm from the Uk and this would probably involve sitting in the rear of an automobile, slicking one's hair back, dressed in a crisp, sharp suit, and listening to The Who. I hope you're happy that some other users have chipped in, I'll add a few diffs below, in the appropriate place, to show you what kind of junk I have pruned out of the article. Cheers! CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 21:03, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

So where in the article is the problem? I see a whole well-sourced section dedicated to benefits and it is briefly summarized in a separate lead paragraph. The section that deals with "Crime and violence" presents both viewpoints equally. Current concern is not substantiated by any actual examples. If you have additional reliable sources that we can include on the benefits, then please post them. But we won't remove existing material, just because there are allegedly more negative aspects sourced. I do agree, however, that "Publicized incidents" is a list of one-time events that carry no real encyclopedic value on their own and only garnered media attention due to a touchy subject. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 17:03, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

No no, I am not asking to remove anything. What's bothering me is that the majority of the information is the Anti-Game arguments, we should have at least a near 50-50, if possible but this page is like 80% Anti Game, and 20% Pro Game. That's troubling. But if the majority of people disagree, I really can't do anything now can I. Also just a little side note, I am not stating the page isn't well-sourced to the contrary, what I am stating is that we don't only need the BENEFITS but the... what is the word. Rebuttal? No, I hope you know what I mean. 67.204.236.189 (talk) 17:15, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

As far as I see all sections but the "Publicized incidents" convey both "sides", and there are many rebuttals. You are also assuming that there should be a 50-50 split everywhere, which is not exactly accurate due to how we choose our references. We depend on reliable sources, and media reports are usually "bad news". So, while we can present both sides well enough referencing published studies, we only see negative events in "Publicized incidents". The prose sections (that matter) look to me like both viewpoints are discussed neutrally. I don't agree that prose is 80-20, it might be more like 60-40, but that is also a truthful representation of the available references. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 17:36, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

As noted above, some diffs of my edits to the publicized incidents section: add cite to prove no link to video game, removing tendentious addition with highly tenacious link to subject, same again, removing sensationalist shock horror randomly linked to video games material and removing another addition where source/police categorically state "no link to video games". For the IP, sorry, not trying to bore you to death, just to show that I actually strive to keep the article as NPOV as possible, removing random additions, copyediting for more coherent, readable text, checking refs, removing absolute garbage about gamers and their sex lives and so on. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 21:45, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I understand what you are saying, however you said something about the Publicized incidents, where did you want to go with that? 67.204.236.189 (talk) 18:16, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

The IP asked me to comment. Any comments by me are without my Admin hat, just my experienced editor one. All I really have to say is that an article that meets our NPOV requirements is not normally going to be 50-50 in any way. It should show all significant views in propotion to their significance. I agree that it should include the GTA controversy as we have an article on that, I'm not sure about the EA one. That probably isn't a lot of help. Dougweller (talk) 18:26, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

The GTA series is mentioned 7 times in prose and 5 times in incidents. I don't know the specific controversy this refers to (I assume the Hot Coffee mod), but it is mentioned already. I don't know which EA controversy we are talking about, so I cannot comment on that. @67.204: "Publicized incidents" is a long indiscriminate list of one-time events, that don't usually appear in other articles, so I would argue about its value in list form, except to give a few examples in prose. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 18:37, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I am confused, as to what you mean about the publicized incidents. I think it's a waste of space. But whatever. The first GTA game controversy was actually started by DMA. I would think other companies would do the same to have politicians (unknowingly) advertise their games. 67.204.236.189 (talk) 00:58, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

To both of you, "Publicized incidents" is not perfect, but a good few "incidents" end up with a statement like "no link was found" or "his mother said this has nothing to do with video games". Some of them are very notable, for example the Chinese guy killing his mate because the friend sold the virtual sword for real cash, I actually used this as the subject of an English lesson (along with an article about stealing someone's wi-fi by sitting outside their house with a laptop) to set up a discussion about new technologies, the law, the virtuality/intangibility of some concepts and so on. Anywayz, I have tried to make this section at least conform to the sources and pruned out any dubious/spurious stories (see diffs above). I do agree though with Hellknowz, lists tend to generate "wow like I can stick any old info in here coz I think it's important" reactions. See the "References in works of art" section before and after at the Lorelei for what I mean. If you rewrote it in prose, how would you choose which incidents to mention? (Maybe tp consenus?) CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 22:05, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

school shootings: percentages don't make sense alone

"A US Secret Service study found that only 12% of those involved in school shootings were attracted to violent video games, while 24% read violent books and 27% were attracted to violent films" – those numbers don't make sense without citing the % for the population (e.g. if 1 % of people of the same age are attracted to violent video games, 12 % is a lot, if it's 10 %, it's not a lot). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.191.60.249 (talk) 08:44, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Many tests and studies against game violence do not say what age range or other demographics the numbers come from. What is a 'young child' or 'young adult'? Stating that 45%(randomly picked number) of children are violent, is this in legal terms meaning that 45% of the human race under 18 is violent? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Talahzaram (talk • contribs) 04:57, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Observation About Article POV

I am specifically not going to get involved in writing this article; I am merely looking at it because I figured it would be controversial and am hoping to introduce a spectator's opinion. There are several posters here saying that the article appears biased against gamers and games. With all due respect, I see exactly the opposite. The very opening paragraph seems very much slanted toward the POV that there is no connection between games and any sort of violence. Most of the authors who are cited here that advocate games causing violence are treated dismissively and quickly refuted. It seems to me that the folks writing this article are avid gamers (please forgive me if I am mistaken). Andacar 06:09, 4 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andacar (talk • contribs)

I agree. This article needs an NPOV review and rewrite something fierce. Maybe two separate sections complling for/against viewpoint and removing the bits about criticisms of the studies (which have been leveled towards both conclusions but are only mentioned for the side supporting games violence) and overall cutting the "positive effects" section, since this is supposed to be about controversies, not positive effects. 137.30.203.55 (talk) 21:53, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Publicized incidents#Sandy Hook

I am removing this altogether as it appears totally coatrackish, at the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting ther is *absolutely no mention* of video games whatsoever, but it does describe the killer's mother "Nancy Lanza as a gun enthusiast, who owned at least a dozen firearms". I would assume with all the attention on this article that if there were reliable sources stating that Lanza was a video games freak this would have somehow ended up in the said article.
Also, the sources used to justify this rubbish mostly take their story from The Sun, UK tabloid renowned, and regularly sued, for making things up - in this case, a plumber sold his story to the Sun claiming that Lanza lived in a windowless basement, surrounded by a ton of military posters, playing Call Of Duty non-stop. I say horse-shite, it sounds like made-up sensationalism to quickly pocket a cheque from the UK gutter press, and how come no other reliable sources mention these facts? (not that the Sun or the Mail or the Express for that matter can really be considered reliable sources).
Finally, the police involved in the case say that any link is pure speculation.

I've reverted this edit. No UK tabloids were cited. For reference, the citations were to two respected news agencies (CNN and Forbes) and two RS gaming publications (Nintendo Life and Polygon). Personally I agree with you that the connection to video games is ridiculous, but the point of this section of the article is to show how the press has connected video games to violence, not to only describe incidents where we editors in our wisdom have determined that there is truth to the media's claims. -Thibbs (talk) 13:18, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Per this new edit reverting the above mentioned revert:
There was a notable and RS-verified media connection between Sandy Hook and video games. Wikipedia isn't censored and this notable fact is closely relevant to the list. As yet the only justification for its removal sound like truthism. It doesn't matter that other sources conflict with the sources that were presented. This is a controversial topic so sources conflict for nearly every entry on the list. Indeed the list is defined as "Several incidents speculated to be related to video games in recent decades" (emphasis added). The point of the list is to show that there is a notable connection that has been drawn by the media between video games and violent incidents. It's undeniable that the media have drawn this exact connection in the Sandy Hook incident. It was widely covered in the press and this fact is verifiable. There has to be a better reason to remove this fact than "I just don't like it" or "but it's not The Truth". -Thibbs (talk) 14:56, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Just a first reply here, I think we both desire the same thing, reasonable, balanced, encyclopaedic text, I'd ask you to AGF, but you already have through your postings at our respective TPs, because above you start slinging WP:TRUTH and WP:IDHT about, whereas I am well aware of WP policies such as the above and know we need "verifiability not truth" and reliable sources. Anyway, now that's out of the way, see below. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 16:10, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I apologize if you felt that I was assuming bad faith. That wasn't my intent. I was trying to demonstrate that there is solid policy behind what I am saying and I believe your edit constituted a goodfaith effort to "correct the record" - a form of truthism. In other words, I think your edit is contrary to the policy, but I am certain you mean well. So please take my word for it that I'm assuming good faith here. For the record, I also didn't accuse you of IDHT (which might have been a de facto badfaith claim on my part). -Thibbs (talk) 16:52, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I meant I Don't Like It of course. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 16:58, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

FWIW I've read over the discussion and the deleted post by Thibbs. My impression, and it's only one impression, is kind of in the middle. I can certainly see the argument for mentioning Sandy Hook, if only given that it reawakened debates about video games. However, I do agree that, other than the usual drum-beaters desperate to make an argument about video games, the "link" has been pretty thin and a lot of knowledgeable folks have dismissed it (a lot of commentators have pointed out it's not remotely unusual for a 20-year old man to have video games, even violent ones). That having been said, I did think the original post by Thibbs used language that was perhaps a bit too credulous or leading. So it depends on whether this list of publicized incidents is for only cases in which video games played some notable role (such as Brievik himself making a claim he trained on them), or for all cases in which video games are mentioned even if such a mention is spurious (in which case Sandy Hook would belong). If we clear up that question, I think we have our answer about whether Sandy Hook deserves mention. If so, the spurious nature of the arguments linking Sandy Hook to video games are fair game I think. Avalongod (talk) 18:27, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

First of all I have no problem with changing the language of that entry. I think there are a few important points that should be touched on such as the planned video game burning and the action that this spurred from the vice president of the US who took it up as a cause celebre, but the actual wording can certainly be rewritten. I do have a problem with entirely omitting the incident, however. I think that for us to play the part of fact finder in determining which were the incidents where video games really played a notable role and which were the incidents where in our estimation the press got it wrong,.. I think that goes too far. It's dangerously close to Original Research. As I see it, the intent of this list is and always has always been to give examples of notable incidents where the press have drawn connections between video games and violence. We can see that the stated list selection criterion here is "incidents speculated to be related to video games ...[that] have helped fuel controversy." That this language is intentional is demonstrated by entries such as the "Seung-Hui Cho" entry which in its body states that this was a connection based on false initial reports. The point is that these are notable events that have, through the agency of the media, stirred the controversy anew. This is exactly what occurred with the Sandy Hook incident. The alleged connection between video games and violence was on every news channel for weeks. It provoked significant anti-video game reactions extending to the highest levels of government. It definitely belongs on the list as the list is currently described. If we want to start a new discussion about whether the list inclusion criteria need to be changed or whether we even need a list like this at all then I'd be open to that, but it makes no sense to remove this very clearly related incident from this list as written. -Thibbs (talk) 19:48, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Okay, so here we go, my initial reaction was to the very vague, unencyclopaedic and unsourced opening phrase "The December 14, 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting has been linked to video game playing by activists, although the specific nature of the linkage remained unclear for several weeks." Checking the actual article about the shooting I found no mention of video games whatsoever, and, over here in Europe, had heard nothing of the sort. I figured that with all the eyes (and debate) on the main article there would be at least a fleeting mention if there had been substantial mention of this supposition. (cf. Columbine_High_School_massacre#Video_games) So my BOLD delete. (I did spend quite a while a couple of years ago weeding all the shit out of this section, and just leaving the well-referenced, even if erroneous, claims that video games were to blame).

Thibbs, thanks again for your patience, and AvalonGod for your contrib. So upon reflection, I have knocked up the following text, adding some info about the immediate media frenzy that blamed Ryan, his brother, and trying to incorporate the info in a non-sensationalist way. I left out Biden, I think it would be more appropriate to place it in the article somewhere, near that anti-video games lawyer Jack thingy bits or some such.

• Proposed text, suggestions, modifications welcome (no, no I totally PWND the article ;-)

• After the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, there was the usual media frenzy surrounding the identity of the shooter, which was initially believed to be Ryan Lanza, the brother of the perpetrator. After discovering that Ryan had liked Mass Effect on Facebook, an Internet mob immediately attacked the game's Facebook page, labelling the developers "child killers".(1) Once it was discovered that it was his brother, Adam, who had carried out the massacre, initial news stories claimed a link to two video games, Starcraft and Dance Dance Revolution, neither of which are on the more violent end of the spectrum.(2) After a UK tabloid claimed that Lanza had a Call of Duty obsession, this was widely repeated across the Internet.(3) Subsequently, a small town near Sandy Hook organized the collection and burning of video games in exchange for a gift certificate.(4) A recent report by CBS claimed that anonymous law enforcement sources suggested a link to video games, which was later dismissed by the Connecticut police, saying that it was "all speculation".(5)

(1) http://now.msn.com/sandy-hook-shooting-blamed-on-mass-effect-video-game (2) http://edition.cnn.com/2012/12/19/tech/gaming-gadgets/violent-video-games-newtown (3) http://www.nintendolife.com/news/2012/12/uk_press_pins_blame_for_sandy_hook_massacre_on_video_games (4) http://www.polygon.com/2013/1/2/3828182/connecticut-town-holds-drive-to-collect-and-destroy-violent-video (5) http://edition.cnn.com/2013/02/20/opinion/ferguson-adam-lanza

Just bare urls for now, we can format them properly once there is agreement if the text is okay or needs modding. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 16:51, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I just wanted to quickly address the point made above (i.e. that the Sandy Hook article itself doesn't mention video games) because I think it's an important issue that is relevant to all entries on the list. And basically I think the point is that the topic of this article is almost completely orthogonal to the topics of the articles on the events that the media have linked to video games. The connection between violence and video games is a notable concept on its own, but it is not notable in all contexts. When we're writing an article on the topic of an event like the Sandy Hook shooting we naturally have to take the balance of sources into account. Purely speculative connections between video games and violence in articles like that are usually appropriately excluded given the balance of the facts. But the point of this article is to cover the speculated connection between video games and societal problems like violence. So the fact that contrary sources exist is interesting but it is not a valid reason to remove an example of a verifiably notable instance of the very speculation that is the topic of this article.
An rough analogy can here be drawn to the article on "27 Club" (the pseudo-mystical notion that the age of 27 is cursed for musicians since many of them have died at this young age). At the "27 Club" article we see links to a large number of musicians who have died at the age of 27. These musicians are closely related to the topic of the "27 Club" as they provide clear and notable examples of the phenomenon. So their inclusion is clearly warranted at that article. However the notable phenomenon is nothing more than speculative nonsense and it has little to do with the actual lives of most of the musicians. So in my view it is properly excluded from the articles on Janis Joplin and Jim Morrison, for example. -Thibbs (talk) 23:34, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

The above looks good on a brief skim. I say let's put this in for now and then I'll take a closer look at it this evening. I assume it is mostly fine, though. The most important thing for me is that some mention of this appear in the list since it seems closely related. Thanks for your help in drafting it, CaptainScreebo. -Thibbs (talk) 16:55, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Shall I add this text with the refs then, or will you take care of it? CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 17:00, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Either way. I'll do it tonight if you haven't done it before then. -Thibbs (talk) 17:12, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh good thanks, I need to get away from the computer, start a fire, get some food on the go and all that RL stuff. There's no point me stuffing the text back without formatting the refs correctly, so if you care to take over, that's great. Glad that there were no hysterical over-reactions on either side, I just needed some time with a clear head to sort through the refs and come up with something more encyclopaedic, IMHO. I'll check back later or tomorrow to see how it looks, and maybe try and find a place to put that Biden bit. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 17:37, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

OK, I've looked it over more carefully now and I've added it largely as-is to the article. The only tweaks I made were these:

• I added the date of the event to make it consistent with all of the other entries.
• I swapped the msn source for the initial Kotaku version which is an RS according to WP:VG/RS and which was the initial source of the msn article.
• I summarized the "usual media frenzy" portion further to be less colloquial.

I don't really have anything against changing it back to "media frenzy" if anyone prefers that, but if we restore that language then I think we should wikilink the term. I also do think it is relevant that VP Biden was provoked into action over this issue. For reference, the initial line that appeared in this article made the following claim:

• In response to the event, U.S. vice president Joe Biden held meetings regarding violence in video games with representatives from the video game industry.(1)
  (1)Tassi, Paul. "Joe Biden Sets Misguided Meeting with Video Game Industry About Gun Violence". Forbes. 10 January 2013.

If we can work this in later I think it would help. -Thibbs (talk) 23:32, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I've inserted this material again. I think it's appropriate given the coverage it has at Reaction to the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting#Violent video games. I mean the connection between this tragic incident and video games was really blanketing the news cycle for weeks. I really think it's important to show how seriously American society takes this issue even when the evidence is scant to nonexistent. -Thibbs (talk) 18:27, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

This is not related to Sandy Hook, but it is a publicized incident that is pretty recent within reason. I am updating the Publicized Incidents column with a recent cover story relating to video game violence. Hurdleman601 (talk) 01:08, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Video Games and Youth Violence

Many experts and researchers have done studies on how video games can influence youths to become violent. Many studies done, but these studies do not show solid facts. There is no current studies done that show whether there is a direct connection between real world violence and video game violence. This issue has been a very controversial topic, and it has even been associated with another controversial topic, gun control. The Federal Bureau of Investigations website shows that violent crime has been decreasing each year by 3% for the last 20 years. Despite the statistics, experts and researchers still argue that violent video games do cause real world violence. Even though violent crime has been decreasing since 1989. The National Rifles Association have been arguing that violent crime amongst youths are caused by violent video games and violent content in other forms of media. Many experts and researchers make this claim because all the people who committed these mass school shootings play violent video games. The problem with that is most kids do play violent video games. Some statistics show the almost 61% of kids both male and female play violent video games, but they don't have any signs of aggression in them. Most experts and researchers don't consider the social factors that are tied in with these violent acts. These factors include social isolation, depression, aggressive traits, emotional abuse, the individuals life experience, social surroundings, and learned behavior from peers. There needs to be more studies done on the cause of youth violence, before blaming the media. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timmytimmm (talk • contribs) 21:09, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Please see WP:NOTFORUM. If you're suggesting how we can change this article to improve it then you'll have to be more clear. Are you suggesting that we should remove all reference to the studies that have found video games to cause violence? Or that we should include big disclaimers that these studies have been definitively disproved? This is a soft science issue. Interpretation of the results is naturally going to generate controversy no matter what the researcher concludes. As you quite correctly pointed out, this issue has been a very controversial topic. Even if you personally find the evidence demonstrating a link between video game playing and violence to be bogus, don't you think it's useful to have information covering the arguments made by your opponents? Consider the article on Communism. Just because someone might think it's a fundamentally flawed system of government, do you think we should remove all references to Marx' underlying theories? Or that we should put a big disclaimer that "Marx was proved wrong."? Wikipedia isn't taking a stance on this issue. This article isn't intended to argue a position of any kind. This is an encyclopedia and this article is intended to dispassionately document the notable topic of video game controversies. -Thibbs (talk) 22:25, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Kirsh, Olczak & Mounts

I've just reverted an edit adding information on a study conducted by Kirsh, Olczak & Mounts. There was no proper reference to this study (journal of publications? date? etc.), and along with the addition were introduced a large number of grammar and usage errors (changing the single word "pixelation" into the slangy two-word phrase "pix elation", changing plurality of the expression "survey of 12-17 year olds" to "survey of 12-17 year old", etc.). This Kirsh, Olczak & Mounts source may be a good reference for the article if properly formatted, though. Although preferrably not in the "Demographics" subsection... -Thibbs (talk) 14:23, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the revert. Also agree that Kirsh may be a fine reference, but it would need to be balanced with scholars who disagree. Otherwise the addition is POV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.185.204.111 (talk) 19:54, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Censorship

I have added a new section Censorship to the controversies article. This edit was to begin expanding the article with more topics which are controversial, yet not violent.Decepticon117 (talk) 19:27, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

DRM

I have added a new topic to the controversies section. This type of DRM seems to be a growing trend and as such has become a topic of argument. Decepticon117 (talk) 19:29, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm updating and adding new information to this section about the Digital Rights Management (DRM) section because it will hopefully create a better topic of argument. Hurdleman601 (talk) 00:45, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for adding when I had started this topic, I intended to begin with broad DRM. Unfortunately Always-on DRM was brought to my attention first and I just took off with it. I moved your addition to the top because Always-on is just a subset of DRM. Right now A-DRM is a bit of a hot button and could have more happening with it as the next generation of consoles roll out. Decepticon117 (talk) 21:31, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I just reviewed this section and it's really not very neutral at all. I agree 100% with everything the section says. I think DRM is a truly rotten thing for the video game industry. But still we've got to present the other perspective and not take sides in the article. -Thibbs (talk) 00:27, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Good Point. I think my personal bias caused me to gloss over its lack of neutrality. I reworded it for NPOV and probably caused some redundancy in the A-DRM paragraph. Any further tips for making it NPOV? Decepticon117 (talk) 19:30, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

That looks a lot better. Thanks. -Thibbs (talk) 22:17, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Category:Video games featuring female protagonists

Category:Video games featuring female protagonists, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 11:47, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Portrayal of Gender

I removed the line "although there were other more technical, optical reasons why the character was remodeled" added to the end of Croft's remodeling segment. The citation given does not mention any more technical nor other optical reasons. Did I miss something? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Decepticon117 (talk • contribs) 19:35, 11 October 2013 (UTC) Decepticon117 (talk) 22:23, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I moved the segment about a 1998 study from gender to potrayal of gender. The statistics cited were about what role females played in video games. This has left the gender section woefully bare and makes me wonder if the Demographics section should even be included in this article. Is the background of demographics related and/or relevant to the article?Decepticon117 (talk) 19:21, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Added a study I found by Children Now reguarding gender roles in video games. This fits with and is a little more recent than the previous study. Also I tried to keep the info in rough chronological order. Decepticon117 (talk) 19:43, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Parental Controls

I would like to add this new section in the article because, parental controls seems to be a section of talk and always needy of new information. Where would Parental Controls best fit in this article? Hurdleman601 (talk) 00:15, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I think it would fit best under censorship probably. -Thibbs (talk) 02:21, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I lean towards Regulation opposed to Censorship. Honestly it all depends on where you planned to go with the topic because I could see it in either. It is good to see that there are still some non violent topics out there.Decepticon117 (talk) 21:37, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

That's a good point. I can see regulation as well. Perhaps it would make more sense under regulation since it's not really a controversial topic (as far as I know) but instead more of a response to controversy (much like the rating system in general). I'd thought censorship because it's a form of parental censorship or self-censorship if you look at it that way, but I think it could just as well be treated as an allied topic along with the rating system. If that's how we want to do it, though, I'd recommend it as either a separate subsection under Regulation or we'll need to retitle the subsection to something like "Regulation and parental controls." -Thibbs (talk) 00:20, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Question: Are the presets controlling how much time a child can play? If so, how much time for each preset or give the range. Also the way it is worded "Through the development of gaming consoles, parents are able to..." to me implies that parents are developing gaming consoles. I understand what you are trying to say, but think this needs a little rewording. Decepticon117 (talk) 20:16, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Research Methods

Undid an edit made by an IP address which removed what I felt was relevant and useful information. I also do not know why IP wanted it removed, perhaps I missed something? Decepticon117 (talk) 20:04, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

That's a troll. Check his edit history. I have a strong suspicion he's also the same editor as 123.16.127.172 who was vandalizing the article (falsifying the names of source authors) this morning. Don't worry about it. For such blatant vandalism just revert it. -Thibbs (talk) 00:33, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

BMJ study on games and violence

http://adc.bmj.com/content/early/2013/02/21/archdischild-2011-301508.full.pdf+html

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jordanshapiro/2013/11/15/study-says-gaming-has-no-negative-effect-on-kids-behavior/

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.168.142.77 (talk) 23:25, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.nowpublic.com/world/daniel-petric-halo-3-killer-gets-23-years-life-murder

  Triggered by \bnowpublic\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 19:32, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

 Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 06:13, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Major copy edit

Hello. What I have tried to do so far is to provide sections so that the article does not have redundancies of information. I have also removed non or poorly sourced information. The references now have a consistent style. The things still needing to do are to go over the page with a fine tooth comb for typos, read and ensure the sections contain all the correct material and also, check that issues brought up on the talk page have been adequately resolved. I will get to it as soon as I can. Regards to all, Myrtle G. Myrtlegroggins (talk) 12:04, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. I haven't agreed with everything (as I'm more of a "keep everything" editor), but I appreciate the time you put into it and I think it's healthy to trim down bloated articles even if I find it hard to do myself. The sources are still a bit of a mess and I'm not sure if I like the article's organization as it stands, but I'll have to look at it more deeply when I get some free time. Again thanks for the hard work, Myrtlegroggins. -Thibbs (talk) 13:39, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Thibbs, thanks ++ for your reply. I too would normally keep a lot of what I scaled back but sometimes until you do, it is hard to see how the organization should be. I also agree the organization can be improved (and then the material removed re-added in the correct place. Some information was repeated in the article). It's a big job, this one! Regards, Myrtle. Myrtlegroggins (talk) 21:56, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm confused about why you're removing all of the citation templates. As far as I understand, their use is generally considered to be best practice at Wikipedia. Has that changed? -Thibbs (talk) 12:52, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps I am doing the wrong thing - if so thank you very much for bringing it to my attention. My understanding was that either way is fine as long as all the information is present 'and' there is, more importantly, 'consistency' in the reference style through any one article. My reason for doing it is, as I copy edit, or are going through for a second or third time, I will make the references more concise in the edit page (easier to read) and check all the information against the actual links. It indicates to me that I have done that bit and the reference is the best it can be. If you would like to change back to the template, I do not mind in the least and in deference to yourself and others, I will not alter it again. Again, regards and happy editing, Myrtle

Well I'm not sure. I tend to make manual citations myself, actually, and I only use the templates when I'm trying to beautify the whole thing for submission as a Good Article or something like that. As I understand it the templates are easier for scripts and tools to extract useful information from so they seem more helpful to me, but I have also seen some controversy over their use in within the classical music articles where they have now been largely outlawed. I don't remember the rationale for that but I think it had to do with bulkiness. So I guess I'm not certain that they're universally approved. Anyway I may switch them to templates at a later time if I get some free time. Cheers. -Thibbs (talk) 14:06, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Thibbs. That is interesting. I should go and read some more about it. Last night, I realised I also change to the manual references because people tend to put the wrong or non-accurate information into the template. For instance, I came across one, where, for "author=", the person had written "AUTHOR". No problems if you decide to switch them. And you, Myrtle.Myrtlegroggins (talk) 21:47, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Another look

Hello, I took another look at the article and tried to increase the encyclopaedic tone and readability at some points. I think, in order to move forwards, there needs to be a consensus as to whether the scientific debate section should read as a long literature review (as it does now) or whether it should be summarised with the studies used as references. I tend to favour the latter at present but I suggest we take some time to consider other forms of organisation. Regards, Myrtle Myrtlegroggins (talk) 07:29, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I mostly liked the changes that you made to the current format, with the exception that I consider the FMRI section very important, and would have preferred if it was given greater room for the contents of the studies. As for the long quotes, if you can accurately summarise the contents, that would be fine as well. Best Wishes. David A (talk) 08:14, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, that's what I am not sure about - how much detail of individual studies (primary research) should be included in the text of the article. For example, one might say instead, "fMRI studies are advancing the understanding of the relationship between violent video games and violent behaviour. Changes have been identified in the ...lobes while subjects play violent video games. This has led to the hypothesis that ...etc" and then give the studies as references. David, would you mind if I sought an opinion from Wikiproject medicine? Regards, Myrtle G. Myrtlegroggins (talk) 08:43, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Not at all. I'm not a medical scholar after all. I simply consider research into how the brain genuinely objectively reacts to the stimuli to be among the most important issues on this page, and that it would be good to inform readers of the results. Personally, I think that if several dissenting research papers are present it is misleading to present a supposedly cohesive picture though. If people are informed about what different papers say, they will be more interested in checking out the links and reading for themselves. David A (talk) 14:46, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, David. I will make enquiry at the medicine project and see what they say. I think the article could be written so as to clearly explain the disparity between results and why this is so, without necessarily making it sound like a literature review which is a different thing to an encyclopaedia entry. Let's see what they say and reconsider things then? Regards, Myrtle GMyrtlegroggins (talk) 09:21, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi. I asked the question here and will wait opinions. Regards, Myrtle G Myrtlegroggins (talk) 09:43, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

No problem. I'm just concerned about if important references might disappear. When I get the time, I also plan to look through, and perhaps add, more FMRI papers. Best Wishes. David A (talk) 09:45, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Rest assured, I wouldn't want to 'disappear' any of the references. I feel the text can be written in a way to explain the findings, with the studies themselves used as appropriate references to those statements. Another thought I had was the MRI information might be better in the methods rather than the debate section. Anyway, nothing needed in a hurry - it is a good article as it stands. Regards, Myrtle G Myrtlegroggins (talk) 10:00, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Item of interest

• This interesting article that was posted to WT:VG shows that IBM's Watson computer is most likely among the readers of this Wikipedia article. Kind of cool. Brain the size of a planet yet he's reading our work. Congratulations to everyone who's contributed here. -Thibbs (talk) 10:15, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Amazing. David A (talk) 19:32, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Video games and health

Hello! I am here in response to Myrtlegroggins' request at WikiProject Medicine. In Video game controversies#Scientific debate there are health and science claims made, and in WikiProject Medicine we see claims of this sort all the time. Our Medical Manual of Style advises never to make claims about human health unless the information comes from a secondary source, like a review article. This means that if someone finds a source which makes a medical claim based on research, that should only be cited in a cultural and not medical context. If someone does a review of multiple primary research studies, then the results of that paper can be presented as a medical claim. Here are some examples of meta analyses (secondary source) which this article already cites.

• Sherry, JL (2001). "The effects of violent video games on aggression." (PDF). Human Communication Research. 27 (3): 409–431. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.2001.tb00787.x. ISSN 0360-3989.
• Ferguson, Christopher J.; Kilburn, John (2009). "The Public Health Risks of Media Violence: A Meta-Analytic Review" (PDF). The Journal of Pediatrics. 154 (5): 759–763. doi:10.1016/j.jpeds.2008.11.033. ISSN 0022-3476.

Here are some sources from which no medical conclusion may be drawn:

• Funk H. et al. "Aggression and psychopathology in adolescents with a preference for violent electronic games." Aggressive Behavior 2002 28(2) p134–144. doi 10.1002/ab.90015
• Gentile D. A. (ed.) and Anderson C. A. "Media violence and children. Violent video games: the newest media violence hazard." Praeger publishing, Westport, CT.
• Unnamed study. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2006 160(4) p348–352. doi 10.1001/archpedi.160.4.348.
• "Media violence." Committee on Public Education, AAP publications website. Accessed 1 August 2013.
• "Do video games influence violent behavior?" Michigan Youth Violence Prevention Center 24 August 2011. Accessed 1 August 2013.
• "Craig Anderson's collected research papers"
• Kutner L. and Olson C. "Grand theft childhood: the surprising truth about violent video games." 2008. ISBN 0-7432-9951-5
• Hillis S. "Video games don't create killers, new book says." Reuters 9 May 2008. Accessed 12 July 2011.
• Bensley L. and Van Eenwyk J. "Video games and real life aggression." Journal of Adolescent Health 2001 29.
• Griffiths M. "Video games and health." BMJ 2005 331.
• Ferguson C. "Video games and youth violence: a prospective analysis in adolescents." Journal of Youth and Adolescence.
• Williams I. "US teen violence study exonerates video games." IT Week. 6 March 2007. Accessed 10 December 2007.
• Anderson C. and Bushman B. "Media violence and the American public: scientific facts versus media misinformation." American Psychology June 2001 56(6) p477–489. Accessed 7 March 2014.

In the same way that no medical conclusion can be drawn from these sources, also no scientific conclusion can be drawn even from the peer reviewed research. For primary studies, peer review and publication just show that paper is worth considering and could lead to further research, but whenever there is controversy, it is best not to use these sources to make definitive claims.

I recommend using WP:CITEBUNDLE to combine multiple low-quality sources to source one or few statements summarizing them all just to show that this perspective exists culturally, but beyond that, stick to reporting the results of the secondary sources as the best that science has to offer. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:06, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Hmm. Thank you very much for your effort. However, I think that I'd prefer if we kept the page in the current format, as this way more information can be retained for readers to check through, and as Myrtle said above, it mostly seems like a good enough page. There are very few meta-analyses available on this topic after all. And it isn't truly a medical page, but a collection of research references. It would also become very hard to make further additions to the page if everything was summarised into a few sentences. Best Wishes. David A (talk) 14:32, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Blue Raspberry, thank you very much indeed for your guidance. This was my understanding as well, although I appreciate what David [waves to David] is saying. I think we can work this out over time. Regards with thanks again, Myrtle. Myrtlegroggins (talk) 14:57, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Sure, no rush. But if this ever goes to WP:GA review then sort this because the section is misleading. "Good enough" is something other than "good article". Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:07, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, of course. I understand. And, thanks again. Myrtle Myrtlegroggins (talk) 06:47, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

• I think it may be time to consider splitting this article. There is clearly enough source material to expand it to enormous proportions and it seems to me that recently the article has become more and more focused on video game violence and specifically on video game violence studies. I suggest a new article under the title "list of studies on video game violence" which would of course be linked to from this article. I think that would be a better format for the kind of "collection of research references" that David A and 97.100.165.246 have been working toward over the last few weeks. Then within this article we could pare down the medical claims to only those meeting the strictures of WP:MED as explained by Bluerasberry. Does this make any sense? -Thibbs (talk) 10:22, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

That might be acceptable, if we link to it at the start of the section. However, I think that other parts of the article, such as "Public debate", are more in need of a workthrough and summarisation to start with. David A (talk) 10:32, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Letting you know I'l be away on a work trip for the next week or so. Will contribute when I can. Are there any precedents for writing an article as a literature review? Will anyone keep it up to date? Just thoughts. Regards, Myrtle Myrtlegroggins (talk) 08:36, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Having watchlisted this article for the last 15 months, I can tell you that the article generally sees large and sporadic changes. For several months it may remain static and then some forum online will link to it in the course of an argument and the side against whom the evidence is offered will usually start editing the article to correct the record. It's kind of tiresome to tell the truth. I'm not sure who else is actively watching this article, but I can tell you that the very active editing we're seeing now (often multiple back and forth edits per day) has only taken place for the last 2.5 months. (since March). If Myrtlegroggins, David A, and 97.100.165.246 all stick around then a lit review style article will be kept up. Otherwise I think it's doubtful. -Thibbs (talk) 10:15, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello. Just to be clear, my interest is only to see the article well copy edited and conforming with Wiki standards. I have absolutely no interest in the topic whatsoever but I appreciate the people who do. I won't be doing any literature searches. I would suggest that the studies be cited in a sources section rather than explained study by study in the text. Regards, Myrtle G. Myrtlegroggins (talk) 22:40, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, as I mentioned above, I'm fine with that as long as we move the list of studies to another page, and link to it at the beginning of the section. David A (talk) 04:33, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Here is an article that might serve as a precedent and a guide to how a literature review of the scientific studies of this topic might look. What do you think? It would be no problem to link it to the top of the section. Myrtle Myrtlegroggins (talk) 01:53, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I think that would be fine. Could you please write the summary, and perhaps keep it updated by incorporating new additions? Thanks. David A (talk) 03:52, 18 May 2014 (UTC)